On Friday, September 28, 2012 12:03:09 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote: > > On 9/27/2012 9:01 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:56:58 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: >> >> On 9/27/2012 8:28 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:05:20 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: >>> >>> On 9/27/2012 7:40 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>> >>> The perfect actor might believe it or he might just be acting. Acting >>>> is top-down replacement, not bottom-up replacement. Bottom-up >>>> replacement would involve replacing a part of your brain so that you >>>> didn't notice any difference and no-one else noticed any difference. >>>> >>> >>> Acting is an augmentation, not a replacement. It's a skill set. It >>> involves a capacity to embody social expectations so that one's audience >>> doesn't notice any difference. It's the same exact result from the third >>> person view. An actor is a zombie being operated by a person. >>> >>> >>> The idea is to replace parts so that there is no behavior difference >>> *under any circumstance* - acting, as you've conceived it, is limited to a >>> particular situation. >>> >> >> If you understand my thought experiment than you would realize that this >> is the same thing. Just as a zombie arbitrarily asserts "no behavior >> difference *under any circumstance*", my acting service does exactly the >> same thing. It is a high technology simulation-prediction which augments >> rather than replaces the existing nervous system. My concept of acting is >> *specifically unlimited* and applies to all possible situations forever. >> That's what makes it a thought experiment. >> >> >> Then I would say it's not distinct from 'being'. It is no longer a >> choice, "I'm going to act." motivated by some particular situation. >> > > You would be wrong. Acting is like any other capacity or skill. You can > always choose not to act, but in this example, if you choose to, then > nobody can tell the difference. You can exhibit the behaviors of a zombie > at your discretion. > > > If you can choose then ex hypothesi there is a circumstance in which you > would choose not to act. >
That's up to the actor. They may choose to stay on auto-pilot forever. It's up to them. Craig > > Brent > -- 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/-/16jz4pMg4cMJ. 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.
