On Feb 25, 6:32 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 24, 8:22 am, 1Z <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 10:24 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > You are > > > > > thinking that because you know it's a simulation it means that the > > > > > observers within are subject to truths outside of the simulation > > > > > I don't know what you mean by "subject to". They may well not > > > > be able to arrive at the actual facts beyond the simulation at all. > > > > Which is why they can't call them actual facts. To them, the > > > simulation is the only facts. They do not exist outside of the > > > simulation. > > > But they are wrong about all that, or there is no sense > > to the claim that they are sims ITFP > > They are right about that. If I am a sim running on a computer > somewhere, it doesn't matter to me at all where that is because I can > never get our of this sim here to get to the world of the computer out > there.
That certain things don'tn matter to you doesn't change any facts. > I am not a sim to myself of course, but if someone can pause > the program, put horns on my head and start it again, it is because to > them, I am a simulation. > > > > > > > But that is an observation that *depends* on truth having a > > > > transcendent and objective nature. If truth is just what seems > > > > to you to be true, then they have the truth, as does every lunatic. > > > > You could make a simulation where the simulation changes to fit the > > > delusions of a lunatic. You could even make them all lunatics and make > > > their consciousness completely solipsistic. > > > So? > > To in that simulated universe, lunacy would be truth. Luncacy might be believed. Not the same thing. > > > > I recommend using publically accessble language > > > > to enhance communication, not to discover new > > > > facts. > > > > I would rather enhance the content of the communication than the form. > > > If the form renders the content inaccessible, what's the point? > > > > > > Because comp hasn't been around long enough to have traditions. > > > > > That doesn't answer the question. You are proceding as if the meaning > > > > of > > > > a word *always* changes in different contexts. > > > > It does > > > Says who? > > Why do you think it doesn't? Don't shift the burden. You are making the extraordinary claim. > Do you mean the same thing today when you > talk about having 'fun' as you did when you were in third grade? I am not disputing that some meanings change in some contexts. > > > > > It;s true outside the game as well. Whatever you are trying > > > > to say. it is a poor analogy. You might try asking if you are > > > > really the top hat in Monopoly, or Throngar the Invincible in > > > > D&D > > > > Those make the same point as well. Is it true that you are the top hat > > > in Monopoly? If not then Monopoly is not a very strong simulation - > > > which it isn't. A full immersion virtual D&D campaign? That would be a > > > stronger simulation and you could not so easily say that you aren't > > > Throngar. Especially if you played him for a living...and changed your > > > name legally...and got plastic surgery. At what point do you become > > > Throngar? > > > If there is any meaning to the word "simulation", then it is never > > actual. > > That's simplistic. The whole point of a simulation is that is is as if > it were actual in some sense. A flight simulator provides an actual > experience that can seem like flying an actual plane. If you are on a > plane where the pilot dies, do you ask the guy who has logged 10000 > hours on flight simulators to fly the plane or do you say they have no > actual experience? That's irrelevant. > > The problem we keep running into is that you assume something... > > simulations exist...and then refuse to follow throught the > > consequences. > > No, you just aren't getting the overall concept of relativism. I understand it, but don;t agree with it. > Comp > claims that computation is all that is required for consciousness. > This is what opens up a nonsense thesis about simulations having > relative reality. I understand that is not the way it works. > Consciousness is not emulable, only extendible. There is no simulation > of red. Red is only red. Who we are is like that. Us-ness. > > > > > > Are you 1Z? Figurative is the word to focus on. Subjectivity > > > is figurative. Meaning, perception, sensation...all figurative. > > > Literal is the antithesis that is objectivity. > > > > But not actually supernatural at all, if he is a geek with BO and > > > > dandruff. > > > > That is the point you are missing. > > > > But the simulated beings can never access that information about their > > > creator, so how can it be true for them? > > > It can be true because it is true. > > Without some way to sense it or it's true that means nothing to us. It means something to non-relativists > > You have already assumed > > soemthing like that when you made the initial assumption > > that the simulation is a simulation. It may not be *knowable* > > to them, but that doesn't change the *meaning* of truth. > > The meaning of truth anticipate MWI. The two concepts may be mutually > exclusive. > If you can argue that they are > > > > There's all the difference in the world > > > > between "independent of specific hardware" > > > > and "independent of any hardware" > > > > Yes. Neither of them indicate materialism within simulation though. > > > So what? > > > If you assume the need for physical hardware at the > > > > bottom of the stack, then consc. is not non-physical. > > > > It is relative to the inside of the simulation. Pac-Man's universe is > > > non-physical (though it has physical themes). > > > So what? That's still all illusion and delusion. if the > > sim is running on silicon, what does it matter that > > it seems not to be from the inside? > > From the perspective of what is running on the inside, it is the > silicon that is an illusion and delusion. Or it would be if they had > any way to contact that reality. And they are still wrong > > > > If you meant "there is no such thing as finally authoritative > > > > definition, > > > > you should have said so. If you meant there are too many > > > > definitions, not zero definitions, you should have said so. > > > > What I said is that I don't believe in definitions at all. > > > But when asked to defend that claim, you switch > > to a different claim--that you don't believe in final, > > authoritative definitions. > > How is that a different claim? The difference made by the tems "final" and "authoritative". > > > > >A legal > > > > > dictionary? A theological dictionary? Language doesn't come from > > > > > dictionaries. > > > > > No. dictionaries reflect the shared meaning that communication > > > > depends on. > > > > They reflect the meaning, they don't provide the meaning. > > > So? > > So they are an optional convenience. So? If a dictionary conveniently tells us what the general and accepted meanign of a word is, we can use that to exclude arguments based on gerrymandered meanings. > > > > You offer idiosyncratic meaning sinstead of using the > > > > accepted > > > > ones, woth the consequence that ohther people don;t unnderstand you. > > > > You seem to understand me. Are you not people? > > > I actually don't understand a lot of what you say at all. > > You understood that. > > i dare say I'd understand you if you asked me to pass the salt. But I don;'t understand your *philosophy*. > > > > > It's not that simple. We can communicate very successfully in all > > > > > kinds of non-verbal ways. > > > > > How do we use non verbal communication on Usenet? > > > > You said 'communication breaks down', not 'communication on Usenet > > > breaks down'. > > > Do you believe you have communicated your philosophy successfully in > > this group? > > I have communicated it as successfully as most people could. That;s a pretty hollow claim. Since no one has grasped it, no one can say how easy it is to communicate it. >Tesla > would be getting the same response. The problem is that you assume I'm > trying to communicate this in a way that everyone can understand. If > that were the case, I would not say that Bruno has succeeded much > better than I have, at least not with me. I however understand that > not everyone thinks and communicates in the same way, and that isn't a > problem with them. i don't believe you have communicated your philoosphy to anyone. > > > > It has no bearing on the importance of (relatively) shared > > > > and stable meanings for communication. Neologisms > > > > can be shared and stable. > > > > How do they become shared and stable? > > > People can offer definitions of neologisms, and other people > > can refer to those definitions to make sure they are all > > on the same page. > > It will never get that far here because there is only going to be > nitpicking about my style of writing rather than my ideas. I don't see why you assume you are unable to follow communicative methods that others able to employ. > Can it be > any simpler than this? > > http://s33light.org/post/18249322025 > > > > > > > >I don't believe in > > > > > that. > > > > > I don't believe I said it. > > > > What do you think defines a word? > > > Use and definitions. > > Whose definitions? Any special dictionary from any particular time? No. > Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
