On 2/22/2013 6:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2013 7:45:58 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/22/2013 3:06 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, February 22, 2013 4:54:05 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com>
>> What to you think with, your elbow?
> my point was that you have a double standard about which brain
activities represent nothing but evolutionary driven illusions
Illusions? Evolutionary drive is what made you the man you are today.
interpreting a 1D signal from the eye as 3D space is as valid a
as any other, and apparently Evolution has determined that particular
interpretation gets the most genes into the next generation. Thus you
at 3D visualization because your ancestors were good at it too. You
come from a
long line of winners, most animals never manage to reproduce but every
one of your ancestors did.
A successful evolutionary outcome doesn't have anything to do with the
the content of a signal. If someone has a delusion that their ancestors are
turnip people and it causes them to plant turnips and survive a famine, that
doesn't mean that their belief is not a delusion. There seems to be this
your positions which fanatically exaggerates the importance of winning, and
winning justifies whatever distortions of the truth are required
On the contrary, John is saying that evolution must align perception at
roughly with reality because misalignment is likely to go badly - like when
turnip people keep planting turnips because their ancestor said so even
turnip beetle keeps decimating their crops.
It doesn't matter. As long as the turnip people survive to reproduce while everyone else
in their niche die of hunger, then they are the heirs of that niche forever. If the next
selection event is a turnip beetle, it will be some members of the turnip clan who liked
to supplement their turnips with barley who survive - not someone from outside the clan
(because they are all dead). Again it makes no difference at all whether the barley
people know about crop rotation or soil aeration, nutrition, biology, etc. All that
matters is that they had the barley when the turnips went south. If they have it because
they believe that Odin commands it, then that will be the adaptation which is passed on
to the next selection event.
Yes, it makes no difference why you believe a useful thing, but if you believe things for
reasons unrelated to reality then it is unlikely they will be useful. I is astounding
that you would argue against such an obvious proposition. I can only conclude you are
either a troll or brain damaged.
The suggestion that "evolution must align perception at least roughly with reality" is
interesting because it directly contradicts the model of qualia as a solipsistic
You just made that up - it doesn't follow from anything, either logical or empirical -
it's just blather.
This is supposed to be the reason why we don't perceive 'reality' as it is -
probabilistic quantum computations.
Who says computations are reality (besides Bruno)?
The relation between "reality", "computation", and "perception" here are misconceived
because only two of the three make sense together any way you slice it. If you have
computation and reality, there is no point of perception.
Before you can make that into an interesing argument you would have to show that
everything must "have a point", whatever that means...something like aligning with reality?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.