On Friday, February 22, 2013 10:44:59 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  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>wrote:
>>>
>>>   >> 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. 
>>> And interpreting a 1D signal from the eye as 3D space is as valid a 
>>> interpretation as any other, and apparently Evolution has determined that 
>>> particular interpretation gets the most genes into the next generation. 
>>> Thus you are good 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 single one of your ancestors did.  
>>>  
>>
>> A successful evolutionary outcome doesn't have anything to do with the 
>> veracity of the content of a signal. If someone has a delusion that their 
>> ancestors are sacred 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 theme with your positions which fanatically 
>> exaggerates the importance of winning, and how winning justifies whatever 
>> distortions of the truth are required
>>
>>
>> On the contrary, John is saying that evolution must align perception at 
>> least roughly with reality because misalignment is likely to go badly - 
>> like when the turnip people keep planting turnips because their ancestor 
>> said so even though the 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 more upset you become, the more I know that the flaws in your argument 
have been exposed. What you are arguing is that a computer has to know 
whether an mp3 file is sound or graphics before it can analyze the pattern 
of the data.  It isn't true. Everything that can be done with data and 
translated into a physical action is independent of any experiential 
format. We know this for a fact - its the whole basis of computation: the 
universality of data processing. Every sense is reduced to an a-signifying 
binary code which allows us to add on whatever significance and format it 
in whatever sense modality we prefer to get it in. The computer has no 
sensory awareness of the significance we apply to its programs at all. If 
they did, we would simply be able to hook up a microscope and look at the 
area of the DRAM chips which correspond to video instructions and use that 
as our screen. But that doesn't work, because there is no place in a 
computer or in a brain where such a homuncular screen exists.


>  
> 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 simulation. 
>
>
> You just made that up - it doesn't follow from anything, either logical or 
> empirical - it's just blather.
>

That's an interesting reaction. I imagine something like an exorcism is 
taking place for you. It follows the classic pattern: 

 "You just made that up" = It can't be true!

"it doesn't follow from anything, either logical or empirical" = the only 
possibility is that you are insane!

"it's just blather." = ad hominem ego defenses kick in, neutralizing the 
threat to your mental status quo.

What I said is rather simple and direct, both logical and empirical. I 
didn't make anything up, it's a simple observation that you are arguing 
both sides of the debate if you say on one hand that conscious content is 
evolutionarily driven to map closely with reality, and on the other to say 
that love is just pheromones and oxytocin playing with you. They are 
mutually exclusive positions. Wouldn't evolution push us toward feeling 
love as neurotransmitters being secreted if that's what the reality is? 
Wouldn't we avoid oxytocin producing situations because it could distract 
us from the more evolutionarily important agenda of seeking the fittest 
mates? Where is this blather you speak of?


>  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)?
>

What do you say reality is?
 

>
>  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?
>

In order to have that argument, you would have to define having 'an 
interesting argument' without smuggling in the denied premise of 'having a 
point'. If you can say that there's a point to having an interesting 
argument, then I can say that there is no point to having perception if you 
already have computation of data which perception supposedly corresponds to.

Craig
 

>
> Brent
>
>  

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to