On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>> Everything simulated is physical ultimately, but the physical has no
>>> signs of being a simulation,
>> >> Maybe, but I'm not sure what sort of sign you're talking about and
>> some have said only half joking that Black Holes, particularly the
>> singularity at the center of them, is where God tried to divide by zero.
>> And others have said that the quantum nature of reality when things become
>> very small reminds them of getting too close to a video screen and seeing
>> the individual pixels
> > I was thinking more of the absence of some counterfactual such as
> someone emulating a computer which runs faster than the physical host
It would be easy to make a (electronic) computer animation of a Turing
Machine that runs faster than anything you could make with a real paper
tape. And in just a few days of running time computers can tell astronomers
what the Galaxy will look like in a billion years, but it will take the
Galaxy a billion years to figure out what it should look like in a billion
> >> Even today a computer could generate a high resolution 3D image of
>> Bryce Canyon where you couldn't be sure if you were looking at a video
>> screen or looking through a window.
> > Not talking about windows - I'm talking about full embodied presence. If
> you talk about windows and images, then you are only talking about visual
> sense, which is only one aspect of reality. Making something that is
> visually similar to something is easy if you take a photo and digitize it.
> It's not much of a simulation either, since the computer isn't generating
> the image, just copying it.
Almost 20 years ago I had a program on my home computer (coincidentally I
think it was even called "Bryce" after the Canyon), it used fractals to
randomly generate landscapes of beautiful lakes and towering mountains; it
wasn't quite of photographic quality but it was very good, like a fine
painting, and each time you hit the redraw button it would make a new one
and you could be sure you were the first human being to see that particular
image. I don't have a modern landscape program but I have no doubt they are
>> And if events prove you wrong will that change your worldview? No of
>> course it will not because a belief not based on logic can not be destroyed
>> by it nor will contradictory evidence change it in any way.
> > Why is that a question?
Because I'm interested if there is any possibility that new evidence would
change your views or are they set in concrete with a vow never to change
them one iota no matter what.
>> And thus using Weinbergian logic if changing X always changes Y and
>> changing Y always changes X that proves that X and Y have nothing to do
>> with each other.
> > It proves that we can infer they are correlated. If Rush Hour always
> happens around sunset, does that mean that we can make the Sun go down by
> causing a traffic jam?
By simple logic the answer has to be yes if the following conditions are
met. If whenever a traffic jam happens the sun goes down and whenever the
sun goes down a traffic jam happens and there has never been a single
recorded instance of this not happening then the sun going down and traffic
jams are inextricably linked together. And we know that whenever there is
a change in brain chemistry there is ALWAYS a change in consciousness and
whenever there is a change in consciousness there is ALWAYS a change in
brain chemistry, so consciousness and chemistry are also inextricably
> I am saying that chemicals and molecules already are consciousness
Saying that everything is conscious is equivalent to saying nothing is
conscious and the word becomes useless. Meaning needs contrast.
> > and that the effects that they cause and the causes which sometimes
> effect them, are human qualities of consciousness.
Computers are made of atoms and molecules just like humans are,
> You are only able to see your assumption that chemicals and molecules
> cause an effect which seems like consciousness.
So now I'm not conscious I just have something " which seems like
> > if I change what I decide then my brain will change.
If you change your mind, that is to say if your brain changes what it is
doing, then your brain chemistry changes. And if your brain chemistry
changes then you change your mind. Get it?
> > The brain doesn't always lead the mind - the mind can also lead and the
> brain will follow - they aren't different things.
The mind and the brain are very different things, one is a noun and the
other is what that noun does. The brain and the mind are as different as
"racing car" is different from "fast".
>> How do you explain that physics can control "I" ?
> > Easily. Physics is sense. Sub-personal, impersonal, personal, and
> super-personal. The personal range is the "I" territory and it is
> influenced by the other ranges, which are usually more influential.
I have no idea what any of that means.
> There are a lot of things which will be controlled by impersonal forces
> unless we choose to exert our personal influence.
Please give me experimental evidence of one chemical reaction in the brain
that is not controlled by a impersonal law of physics.
> A drug which affects the limbic system exposes you to different
> feelings, like tuning a radio exposes you to different stations.
But there are drugs that change the chemistry in your brain in such a way
that causes you to not only form tears in your eyes but to actually feel
sad, so it makes no sense to say emotion doesn't come from the brain. And
I don't understand what the hell the radio transmitter is in this loopy
analogy of yours.
> If you put a bank of guitar pedals between your radio and speaker, you
> can put in whatever distortion and chorus effects that you want. It doesn't
> effect the signal from the radio station though.
But in this analogy what comes out of the speaker is what counts because
that's your experience, and I still don't know what this mystical magical
radio station with the call letters KRAP is all about.
> you favor the social Darwinist for of validation in all areas.
BULLSHIT! I am NOT a social Darwinist and neither was Darwin, the idea that
we should look to Evolution to figure out how we should treat others is
imbecilic. Evolution has made some beautiful things but the process itself
is not beautiful, in fact its cruelty is astronomical, for every tiny
advance millions die horrible deaths. The religious correctly conclude that
if Evolution is true and God exists then He's a sadistic monster. They only
abandon logic when they pick the answer that is most comforting, Evolution
is wrong, rather than the correct conclusion that God is nonexistent or
> The Chinese Room will probably be considered one of the most famous
> encapsulations of a position in the history of Philosophy.
Yes, it superbly illustrates how cosmically stupid philosophers can be.
> > You have never looked as someone and felt some of what they were
> feeling? Do you recognize facial expressions or do you use a book to look
> them up?
As I said Evolution has determined that the ability to predict the behavior
of our fellow human beings is very important in getting our genes into the
next generation, so it made us good at determining the mood of people from
facial expressions, and for the same reason Evolution also made some people
(like scam artistes) good at projecting phony facial expressions indicating
emotions like friendliness when they don't feel friendly at all.
> > As an adult have you ever reexamined your worldview?
Yes. I once was religious but now I'm not. I was a liberal but now I'm a
libertarian. I once thought ET probably existed I now think he probably
does not. I once thought a computer that behaved exactly like me would not
be me but I now think it would. I once thought the Iraq war was a good idea
I now think it was not. I have always love to debate but I have no loyalty
to ideas; over the years it has been my practice that if I find that in a
debate my opponent's position is more easily defended than mine is then I
abandon my position and take my opponents as my own. Over time this tactic
makes debating much easier.
> > Jeopardy is not general reasoning.
Alex Trebek: This tool can unclog a toilet.
Watson: What is a plunger?
> Can Watson figure out how to unclog a toilet?
Watson can't unclog a toilet and neither can Stephen Hawking because both
lack usable hands.
>>> you could reverse the microphone and webcam inputs and it will not
>>> figure it out.
>> >> Then why does the computer display a "unrecognized format" error
>> message when they are plugged in wrong but not when they are connected
> > Because software is written to protect the interests of software
> producers, not consumers.
You have given a reason why you could reverse the microphone and webcam
input and a computer can tell the difference, and there is a reason you can
tell the difference too. Explaining why something is true does not make it
John K Clark
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.