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 > > <[email protected]<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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
