On 9/17/2012 5:41 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
On 9/17/2012 1:20 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Stephen - the Matrix video is a faithful interpretation of comp, but
Craig's story is not, unless he includes the crucial narrative - that
of the simulated Craig eating the simulated meal. I expect Craig to
say that the simulated Craig, the one making the yummy noises, is a
zombie, and has no actual experience or inner narrative. He is
entitled of course to that position. He is just saying no to the
doctor.

Terren
Dear Terren,

     You are completely missing his point. He is highlighting the fact that
there is a difference that makes a difference between the case of "of the
simulated Craig eating the simulated meal" and "of the "real" Craig eating
the "real" meal". There has to be a "grundlagen" level at which there is not
a "simulation", there has to be a "real thing" that the simulations are some
deformed copy of. I have postulated, following an idea from Stephen
Woolfram, that a physical system (in its evolution) in the "real word" *is*
the best possible "simulation" and thus it is literally the "real thing"
that all images that we might have of it in our minds are mere simulations.
     Craig is diving deep into this idea and looking at it "from the inside"
and reporting to us his observations.
Craig is just asserting that comp is false. The Matrix video only
makes sense if you assume comp. The fact that you called that video
the "matrix version of Craig's story" was confusing to me because the
two rest on different assumptions. The movie shows us the character
eating and enjoying the simulated steak. In Craig's story he has no
experience of it.

If you assume comp then there is no "primary real" version of anything
(by the movie graph argument). Real is only phenomenological, like a
dream. You can never know, not even in principle, whether you are the
"real" version, it doesn't even make sense to ask the question. Below
the substitution level, there are an infinite ocean of universal
machines that instantiate your current state.

Terren

Hi Terren,

"Comp is false" is too strong. He is explaining how comp is "incomplete". The movie graph argument is flawed.

--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html


--
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