On Feb 29, 4:56 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 27, 10:11 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. Yes, the fact of it being a simulation is not true for the observers being simulated under comp. The reality that you simulate is their actual reality. > > 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. Yes, it is. My point is that MWI is no less wishful thinking than Creationism. > > >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. It's not a fact to anyone who is alive. If you add the idea that only insects and plants will ever live anywhere, then it has no meaning to say it is 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. I don't offer an objective fact, I offer a naturalistic scenario to point out that 'facts' are experiential invariance and nothing more. > > >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. What is a simulation if not a matrix of internally consistent propositions that can be changed? > 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! No, because Comp has no capacity to understand what is wrong with its claim. Comp is inherently circular and can only prove itself regardless of any absurdities that arise from it in the real world. Comp exists in its own theoretical bubble which realism cannot penetrate. It is up to us living human beings to seize the reigns of sentience directly and not be seduced by this one narrow tradition of logical puzzle solving into forsaking the myriad of other channels of sense we have access to. Comp is like a black and white TV demanding that color be proved on its terms. > > > > > > > > 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. Perception is the context of meaning. Texts cannot exist without a context, so they are two aspects of a whole. > > >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. Why not? If you have reason to say the word, and then you no longer have reason to say the word, then the word has changed meaning relative to your purpose for saying it. > > > 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. It doesn't mean that they aren't always changing meaning either. Is there any etymology in the history of language which is completely stable? If there were, we would all still be speaking some Indo- European root language now. > > > "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. The stability is precisely in the relativity and flexibility. > > > > > > > > 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. In comp there is no difference. > > > > > > 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. You know what they say about consistency... > > > 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. No. Even the gray is illusion. If you look at your monitor with a magnifying glass you will see this: http://cdn.humansinvent.com.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/LCD-close-up-featured.jpg Absolute fact is a religious theory. In reality, there are only different inertial frames of perception and experience. > They seem different: that is illusion. > What's the problem? Everything you have ever seen or known is an 'illusion'. > > > > > 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. The gray is false too. And the RGB pixels are false as well as they are only colorless sources of photological stimulation for your retinal cells. The photological stimulation too is only what our instruments can measure. None of these levels are false. > 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? There is no illusion, there is a demonstration of how image works. A and B are both the same shade and different shades depending on their context. That is the actual reality. This is how the entire universe actually works. > > > > > > 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. If the truth can change when you find a black swan, then what does any truth really mean other than it's falsehood has not been discovered yet? > > > > > > > > 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. That is because English assumes a natural person in the common frame of our human world. Without a 'two whom', the boundary between true and false disappears like the difference between the square A and B. > > > > > > > > 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. > > ????? I'm saying it's not necessary to revere definitions in any way. You can use words in whatever way you like to get your point across. > > > > > > > > > > >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. People already have a common basis of meaning. It's been called 'human nature' or 'the Psychic Unity of Mankind' in anthropology. > > 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. All new theories contain new concepts, many of those generate new vocabulary. It's not a matter of having to invent new words to be able to have new thoughts, it's just that it helps. That is the point of language, to help us communicate, not the other way around. I'm American. We make up all kinds of words all the time. > > > > > > > > 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. I don't think it is possible to understand my ideas if you don't accept relativism. It's like expecting to understand a bread recipe if you don't believe in flour. > > > 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? Only if it has a chance of being valid. > > > > > > > > > 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? On this board only Stephen gets enough of it as far as I know, because I talk to him outside of this board. But I have several people who regularly reblog me, loyal readers, favorable comments, as well as some people who I've had long exchanges about 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. > > > 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. Like what? You see that I talk to people here, so you think that is evidence that I don't talk to anyone else? > > > > > > > > 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? All semiotic texts make different kinds of sense on different levels. No truths translate equally well into all forms of text. Some of Lewis Carroll's made up words (like 'chortle') have become standard English. Of course Shakespeare is responsible for a lot of words in English as well. Nonsense words make sense if you use them in a way that makes sense, just as the same grey square can be dark or light grey depending on the context. > > > > > 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. Practical for whom? ;) 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.
