On Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:50:27 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 2/23/2013 5:33 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Bobbing and weaving, you change the subject to computers. Where did I > mention computers? If you can't answer my point you just go off on a > tangent and repeat your mantra: "If it's a computer it can't be aware." >
I bring up the example of a computer because it should be an extremely obvious one. I guess you are serious then that you think that a computer can tell whether an mp3 is supposed to be music or graphics. That would be nice if Windows programmers had taken advantage of this sensitivity to avoid that obnoxious modal box asking which program you want to use to open an unrecognized file. > > > 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. > > > You seem to think that because an event has a description in evolutionary > terms as well as physical terms that it is contradictory. You don't even > know what "mutually exclusive means". > No, I think that the position that evolutionary selection pressures favor a tight correspondence between reality and subjectivity, then they cannot favor the opposite loose correspondence or non-correspondence between reality and subjectivity for other functions. If it helps to think that a tiger is where it physically is, then it must help to think that feelings are neurotransmitters within our body. You can't pick and choose which parts of consciousness you like and say that they must have evolved that way while other parts that you don't like need not reflect reality at all. That's what mutually exclusive means in this context. Neither position can be held without contradicting the other. > 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? > > > I don't know. I only know that some models of the world seem to work > better than others. Your "sensory/motor" seems to be one of those "God did > it" theories that explains everything and predicts nothing. > Whether or not a model works better has nothing to do with how that modeling is experienced. It makes no difference whether an mp3 is rendered optically or acoustically, the modeling is identical as far as the computer is concerned. Craig > Brent > > > >> >> 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'. > > > I didn't deny, it just wonder what it means? what's "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. > > > And I can say what's the point of having momentum if you already have mass > and velocity? > > Brent > > > 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-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2639/6123 - Release Date: 02/22/13 > > > -- 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.
