2012/5/30 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>
> On May 29, 3:02 am, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You always put that level confusion on the table. You could expect to
> > dinner in a virtual paris if you were in a virtual world. If you want an
> > computational AI to interact with you, it must be able to control real
> > world appendices that permits it to *interact* or likewise if it was in a
> > virtual world, you should use a interface with this virtual world for you
> > to interact.
> > You can't expect level to be mixed without an interface and I don't see
> > problem with that.
> Why not? In a virtual world you could mix levels without an interface.
No you can't, if in your virtual world, you made a real computer simulator,
what runs in the simulator cannot escape in the upper virtual world unless
you've made an interface to it.
If not you aren't really doing multi level simulation (simulation in a
simulation)... but a single level one where you made it look like multi
Example: if you run a virtual machine (like virtual box) and you virtualize
an OS and inside that one you run a virtual box that run another os inside
it, the second level cannot go to the first level (as the first level can't
reach the host) unless an interface between them exists.
You could have a virtual world where your avatar has dinner in a
> virtual virtual Paris on his virtual computer and in a virtual Paris
> at the same time. You could have a virtual factory where virtual
> virtual drawings of robots make root level virtual cars.
> There is something more than level which makes the difference between
> real and virtual. Level itself is an abstraction. Virtual worlds
> aren't really worlds at all. They are nothing but sophisticated
> stories using pictures instead of words. Characters in stories don't
> really think or feel.
> It's confusing because what we know of reality is in our mind, and so
> is what we know of a virtual reality, so it is easy to conflate the
> two and imagine that reality is nothing more than we think it is. We
> reduce them both to seem like phenomenological peers, but they aren't.
> If you look at a mirror in another mirror, they may look the same but
> one of them is an actual piece of glass. You can't break the reflected
> mirror. It's not a matter of level, it is a matter of mistaking a
> purely visual-semantic text for a concrete multi-sense presentation
> that is rooted in a single historical context that goes back to the
> beginning of time.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at