I think that comp is almost true, except for when applied to consciousness 
itself, in which case it is exactly false. I wasn't asserting it so much as 
I was illustrating exactly why that is the case. Does anyone have any 
common sense analogy or story which makes sense of comp as a generator of 
consciousness?

Craig

On Monday, September 17, 2012 6:37:39 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> On 9/17/2012 5:41 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: 
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Stephen P. King 
> > <step...@charter.net<javascript:>> 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/SNzEvkmgMbwJ.
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