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. :-)
>>> 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
> (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?
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.