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 [email protected]<javascript:> > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] <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 [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.
