On Feb 25, 6:32 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 24, 8:22 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 23, 10:24 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to