On 3/7/2013 5:54 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 5:21:48 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 3/7/2013 12:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> If you have ever worked with Terminal Servers, RDP, Citrix
> or the like (and that's what I have been doing professionally every
> day for the last 14 years), you will understand the idea of a Thin
> Client architecture. Thin clients are as old as computing, and
> you remember as I do, devices like acoustic couplers where you can
> attach a telephone handset to a telephone cradle, so that the mouth
> ends of the handset and the earpiece ends could squeal to each
> In this way, you could, with nothing but a keyboard and a
> your telephone to allow you access to a mainframe computer at some
> The relevance here is that the client end is thin
> passes nothing but keystrokes and printer instructions back and
> as acoustic codes.
> This is what an mp3 file does as well. It passes nothing but binary
> instructions that can be used by an audio device to vibrate.
> person's ear there to be vibrated, this entire event is
> linear processes where one physical record is converted into
> physical record. Nothing is encoded or decoded, experienced or
> appreciated. There is no sound.
> Think about those old plastic headphones in elementary school that
> just had hollow plastic tubes as connectors - a system like that
> generates sound from the start, and the headphones are simply
> for our ears. That's a different thing from an electronic device
> produces sound only in the earbuds.
> All of these discussions about semiotics, free will, consciousness,
> AI...all come down to understanding the Thin Client. The Thin
> is Searle's Chinese Room in actual fact. You can log into a massive
> server from some mobile device and use it like a glove, but that
> doesn't mean that the glove is intelligent. We know that we can
> transmit only mouseclicks and keystrokes across the pipe and
> works without having to have some sophisticated computing
> (i.e. qualia) get communicated. The Thin Client exposes Comp as
> misguided because it shows that instructions can indeed exist as
> purely instrumental forms and require none of the semantic
> which we enjoy. No matter how much you use the thin client, it
> needs to get any thicker. It's just a glove and a window.
Excellent post! You have nailed computational immaterialism
it really hurts. Computations cannot see, per the Turing
any hardward at all. This is their view of computational
But here in the thing, it is the reason why they have a 'body
For a Platonistic Machine, there is no hardware or physical world at
all. So, why do I have the persistent illusion that I am in a body
interacting with another computation via its body?
The physical delusion is the thin client, to use your words and
Right, if we were just logging into accounts in Platonia, where does a
body illusion come in handy?
It is handy for one mind to talk to another...
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.