On 3/1/2013 3:09 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
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.
That's why I always point out that intelligence is relative to an environment. When you
talk about "seeing" or "listening" that implies an environment of photons or acoustic
waves carrying information about the environment. When you then switch to a computer that
has no photon or acoustic wave sensors and say it can't see or hear you have created a
strawman.
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?
Sure. Can you prove it?
Computers prove theorems in geometry. As Hilbert said geometry could as well be about
tables, chairs, and beer steins as points, lines, and intersections.
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.
