On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:46:55 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 2/28/2013 5:30 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
>
>
> On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:01:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>  On 2/28/2013 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>  
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>  On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>>  
>>> You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either. 
>>>
>>>
>>> You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know 
>>> about what ways John knows of having ways of knowing about what you can 
>>> know...either. :-)
>>>
>>> Brent
>>> blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no 
>>> testable consequences. 
>>>  
>>
>> Calling it blather doesn't change the fact that you can't make an 
>> omniscient claim against someone else's non-omniscience.
>>  
>>
>> But I can make an empirically informed one.
>>  
>
> That means that you claim to have empirical information about 
> consciousness beyond another person's information about their own 
> consciousness. 
>
>
> (a) I said I have empirical information. I didn't say it is beyond 
> somebody elses.
>
>  How can you claim to have that at the same time that you claim someone 
> else can't?
>  
>
> (b) It was you who claimed to know what John couldn't know.
>

No, I said this:

>> The computer can't tell if its audio or video no matter what. It can 
> only tell what application might be associated with opening that file.
>

>As there are zero empirical differences between those two things HOW THE 
HELL DO YOU KNOW?   

My statement is empirically correct. It does not look at any visual or 
audio qualities of a file to determine what kind of a file it is. Anyone 
who has worked with computers for long enough should be able to understand 
why this is indesputably true. Files have flags and pointers which identify 
their type, they are not looked at or listened to by the computer. Even 
speaking into a microphone yields nothing on the other side which is 
fundamentally different from what a camera would yield - voltage changes in 
microelectronics have no origination bias. This is the very thing that 
makes computers useful - they don't care what you do with them. They will 
treat data as data no matter what it is, and never need to reconstruct it 
into anything meaningful to us. These are some of the defining qualities of 
computation. The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not 
at all indicated from math or computation, and derives solely from sensory 
experiences of shapes. Can you dispute this?

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