On Tuesday, October 23, 2012 10:15:15 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 22 Oct 2012, at 18:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, October 22, 2012 12:28:41 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> But that's what the brain does, simulate experience from the point of   
>> view of the owner or liver of the experience. According to some   
>> theory. You can't talk like if you knew that this is false. 
>>
>>
> This is the retrospective view of consciousness that takes experience for 
> granted. How can experience itself be simulated? 
>
>
> The question is senseless. An experience is lived. never simulated, 
> neither by a computer, nor by a brain, which eventually are object of 
> thought, describing compactly infinities of arithmetical relations. 
>

That's what I'm saying, experience can't be simulated.
 

>
>
>
> I can have an experience within which another experience is simulated, 
>
>
> Never. It does not make sense. 
>

Why not? I am sitting here at my desk while I am imagining I am in a coffee 
shop instead - or a talking bowling ball is eating a coffee shop, or 
whatever. I can simulate practically any experience I like by imagining it.
 

> You take my sentence above too much literally. Sorry, my fault. I wanted 
> to be short. I meant "simulate the context making the experience of the 
> person, "really living in Platonia" possible to manifest itself locally.
>

Oh, ok.
 

>
>
>
> but there is no ontological basis for the assumption that experience 
> itself - *all experience* can be somehow not really happening but instead 
> be a non-happening that defines itself *as if* it is happening. Somewhere, 
> on some level of description, something has to actually be happening. If 
> the brain simulates experience, what is it doing with all of those 
> neurotransmitters and cells? 
>
>
> It computes, so that the person can manifest itself relatively to its most 
> probable computation.
>

Why would that result in an experience?
 

>
>
>
>
> Why bother with a simulation or experience at all? Comp has no business 
> producing such things at all. If the world is computation, why pretend it 
> isn't - and how exactly is such a pretending possible.
>
>
> The world and reality is not computation. On the contrary it is almost the 
> complementary of computations. That is why we can test comp by doing the 
> math of that "anti-computation" and compare to physics. 
>

If they are not computation then how can computation refer to them?

Craig
 

>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> It's a fun theory, but it's really not a viable explanation for the 
> universe where we actually live.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
> -- 
> 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/-/NRKbvcFBg7QJ.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>

-- 
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/-/jk1TtRiPH9QJ.
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