On Feb 27, 10:11 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 10:50 pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> That would be true if I were aware of the fact but didn't care, but in
> this case there is no possibility of my ever being aware of it. Facts
> outside of our own universe can't be considered as facts to us unless
> they impact us in some way.

But you are already doing that. You are putting forward "it's
all a simulation" as a fact that is just true and not necessarily
knowable to us possible sims.

That may be intended as some sort of reductio ad absurdum
of the simulation hypothesis. I don't know if it is. That is
one of the many things that aren't clear.

>If all of humanity died off and you are an
> ant crawling on a microwave oven, the 'fact' that it 'is' a microwave
> oven is not relevant.

That doens't mean it isn't a fact. You are
supposing it is in order to set up the scenario.

It is consistent to say "it is an objective, absolute facts
that there are objective, absolute facts".

It is not consistent to say "there are no objective
facts, everything is just true to of for a subject"
and offfer in support of that just such an objective fact.


>The world has lost the capacity to define that
> object in that way, and it now is a hard flat surface for ants to
> crawl on.
>
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> Not if you take comp and simulation seriously. I don't, so I agree,
> truth is more than local simulation, but comp does not agree. Any
> fantasy which can be rendered arithmetically could be a valid universe
> to live in under comp.

But Comp/SH doesn't have the implication that
the nature of truth itself keeps changing.
You can state Comp/SH by saying "it is an
objective fact that most subjective perceptions
are of simulated worlds, and most subjects hold
fasle beliefs". You are importing your
own subjectivist epistemology into Comp/SH.
It is not native to it. If you want to critique Comp,
you need to show there is something wrong
with *it's* claim, not yours!

> > > > > > 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.
>
> I'm not making an extraordinary claim, I'm pointing out that
> perception cannot be reproduced

What has pecerption to do with it? We were discussing meaning.

>precisely since is is context
> dependent. If it were not the case, it would be possible to say the
> same word over and over forever and never grow tired of doing that.

Boredom does not indicate shifts of meaning.

> Every moment of our lives has unique semantic content exclusive to us.

That does not mean that individual words are always changing meaning.
You
can have constantly changing  compounds of stable elements.

> "No man ever steps in the same river twice". - Heraclitus
>
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> Why would any meanings be immune from that?

Becuase a certain level of stability is a prerequisite for
communication.

> > > > > > 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.
>
> Why? You said simulation is never actual, and I give you an example of
> how simulation can have consequences as if it were actual.

Note the "as if". That's like saying there is no differnce
between being realistic and being real.

> > > > 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.
>
> Fair enough. It's pretty old school though. It would be tough for me
> to try to understand much of anything through an absolutist framework.

As explained above, absolutism is consistent in
a way that relativism isn't.

> Like how do you explain this without 
> relativism:http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html


The squares A and B are the same shade of gray: that is an absolute
fact.
They seem different: that is illusion.
What's the problem?

> > > 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
>
> I can't argue with that. What do non-relativists say about that
> checkerboard? Do the squares appear to be the same color or a
> different color?


They say they appear differnt, and that that is a false perception.
I have no idea where you are going with this. Are you saying
A and B are really the same shade just becuase they seem
to be? Then where is the illusiion?

> > > > 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
>
> In one MWI you have unicorns, in another you don't. What is the truth
> about unicorns?

They don't exist *here*. THe discoverof black
swans means "all swans are white" is no
longer true. It doens't mean "true" suiddenly
means something different.


> > > > > > 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
>
> Wrong to who?

Just wrong. I don't have to answer the "to whom" question. English
allows us say things are true or false without that qualification.

> > > > > > 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".
>
> It's kind of like getting a haircut. It is not necessary to your hair
> to cut it, but it is a common and useful practice to do so. Your
> position seems to me like saying that you can't have hair unless a
> barber cuts it, or that when they cut it, it stays that way and never
> grows. I'm saying that the barber's haircut is only better than my own
> in terms of thoroughness and professionalism, not because he confers
> any special blessing of hair definition.


?????

>
> > > > > > >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.
>
> We can if we are interested in finding shortcuts to exclude arguments.

Sounds good to me.

> That's for people who are interested in winning arguments rather than
> understanding the truth.

People can't even communicate without a common basis
of meaning.

BTW, do you think it is true of any theory that it must
can can only be communicated by changing the accepted
meanings of words.

> > > > > > 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*.
>
> That's understandable if you exclude relativism from the start

That's a category conclusion. I do understand relativism, I
don't think it is true. However I don't understand the rest
of your philosophy. "not understand" and "not accept"
just are not the same thing.

> That's
> a pretty fundamental principle in any realistic model of the cosmos.or
> consciousness.

What? Are you saying any realsit model must be relativisitic?

> > > > > > > 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.
>
> I think that some people have grasped it.


Such as?

> > >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.
>
> You would be wrong. I'm working with a neuroscientist who agrees with
> my model of perception. I was accepted to present at the TSC
> Conference in April, not everyone who applied was. We'll see in April
> if anyone shows up who gets it. Why would you think that you have a
> right to an opinion about who I have communicated with?

My opinion is based on evidence.

> > > > > > 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.
>
> I speak English. That is the only method I need employ.

You really think speaking English is a sufficient
criterion of making sense? You think no English
speaker has ever emitted goggledegook?
Have you heard of Edward Lear and Lewis
Carrol? Do you think "colourless green
ideas sleep uneasily" makes sense?

> > > 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.
>
> Just "the" definition?

No. Just one that is good enough for practical purposes.

-- 
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