On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Paul King <
stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:

> Hi Jason,
>
>   Could be... convalescing from the flu.... I will try to reply...
>
>
>
Thanks Stephen. I hope you feel better soon.



> On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Stephen,
>>
>> Did my message below slip past you?  I noticed you hadn't replied to it
>> yet.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Stephen Paul King <
>>> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Jason,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stephen Paul King <
>>>>> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Jason,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   You seem to be ignoring the role of the transitory that is involved
>>>>>> in the discussion here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not ignoring it, but showing it is unnecessary to suppose it is
>>>>> fundamental rather than emergent.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How, exactly, can it be emergent? Emergence, AFAIK, always requires
>>>> some process to occur to being the emergent property. Change thus cannot be
>>>> emergent.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The appearance (or illusion) of change is emergent.
>>>
>>
>
> This looks like an evasion. When the "its an illusion" answer doesn't
> work, try "its emergent" or some combination of the two. Come on.
>
>
>
Up above I said it was emergent and you said change cannot be emergent, so
I clarified that even if change cannot be emergent, then the illusion of
change (that is, the first person belief in a change which is not
fundamentally real) can be emergent.



>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Maybe it is out minds that focus so much on the invariant, misses the
>>>> obvious.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact is that we are asking questions about things we are trying
>>>>>> to understand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right, that is good.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>  Merely stating that this is that ignores the point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't that how explanations work?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Where doth change emerge if it does not exist at all?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It emerges in our minds, just like colors, sounds, emotions, etc.
>>>>>  There is a condition known as akinetopsia in which its suffers lose the
>>>>> ability to experience time (at least as we do). They experience the world
>>>>> as a series of static snapshots, without conception of time or motion. One
>>>>> woman expressed her trouble with crossing the street, and pouring a cup of
>>>>> tea, since she couldn't tell which cars were moving or stopped, and when
>>>>> pouring tea it seemed frozen like a glacier.  You might consider this as
>>>>> some evidence that we owe our perception of change to some extra layer of
>>>>> processing done by our brain.
>>>>>
>>>>
> All of that is true but requires at least some 1p that perceives the
> change. I am suggesting that 1p and change go together, can't have one
> without the other.
>

Okay, and I can agree with this in some respects.  If the first person view
is the view of a computation, then the computation has an ordered sequence
of states.  Although Bruno has also claimed to have had a conscious
experience without time.  Maybe this is the result of some computation
stuck in a loop? I'd be interested in hearing his own thoughts on it.



>
>
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Pushing the question back into the mind is a dodge.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You could say that about a lot of things, it doesn't mean it is a dodge
>>> though.
>>>
>>>
>>>>  Where does that which drives the emergence obtain?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> From a number of things, the idea that our brain is a computation, the
>>> idea from thermodynamics that makes access to future information possible,
>>> the idea that the brain evolved to predict the future, the thought
>>> experiments that show assuming past moments must disappear is necessarily
>>> unnecessary to explain our conscious experience of change, etc.
>>>
>>
>
> All thought experiments involve an entity that is imagining them. Don't
> they get factored into the argument? My main argument is that the god's eye
> point of view is an idea that need to be rubbished once and for all. A lot
> of problems vanish if we dispense with it. No global time, no global
> truths, no absolute space, etc.
>

I disagree, I think the God's eye view reveals many of our first person
ideas to be illusions: the idea of a moving time, the idea of a collapsing
wave function, the idea of a single universe, the idea of owning a single
body, etc., are all tricks played on us by our ego.


>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>   This is my problem with Platonia, it has no explanation for the
>>>>>> appearance of change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It can, if we don't require it to be fundamental and are willing to
>>>>> look for explanations of it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please explain. All I get from the commentaries on Plato (I never
>>>> learned to read Greek, sorry) is that "change is an illusion". Nevermind
>>>> the persistence of that "illusion"! I have explained several times that it
>>>> is a piece of cake to show how one can get the appearance of staticness
>>>> from a domain of ceaseless change, just look for automorphisms, fixed
>>>> point, etc.
>>>>   The explanation coming the other direction is obfuscation and
>>>> misdirection...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you think a computer can be conscious?
>>>
>>
>
> Trick question?
>

No.


> Are you a computer?
>

I believe my consciousness is instantiated by some computation.


> Are you conscious?
>
>
Yes.


>
>
>>
>>> If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within the
>>> computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time
>>> universes instead of a moving-present universe?
>>>
>>
> No, both have problems. Consciousness cannot be a passive phenomena. It is
> at least an activity.
>

Consciousness, like computation, is an active process, yes.


> The "block-time universe" cannot contain conscious beings unless
> consciousness is passive.
>

I disagree, I think an active process can be embedded in a higher
dimensional structure.


> The moving present universe requires something equivalent to a string of
> husks that a consciousness uses to experience a moment, but there are many
> other serious problems with the idea.
>
>
>
>
>>  If so, how/what would cause the states of the evolving computer program
>>> to take a different course in the block universe vs. the moving present
>>> universe?  If you see no reason the computations should diverge, then you
>>> must agree the states reached by the computer program are the same, and
>>> since they are the same the conscious program could not behave any
>>> differently.  This includes any realization that it is in a block-time vs.
>>> a moving-present universe.
>>>
>>
> I reject both block-time and moving-present universes as problematic. Got
> any alternatives?
>

There is possibilism, which contains elements of both block-time and a
moving-present universe, but if you wait long enough it gives you a
block-time anyway...

Do you have any alternative you are satisfied with?


>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Your problem with platonia is as much a problem with special
>>>>> relativity, because special relativity requires a four-dimensional
>>>>> existence, in which all "nows" are equally real.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, it does not. There is no coordinate system that can be defined that
>>>> can have all planes of simultaneity mapped to it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Different parts of an object can exist in different times (not a single
>>> instant) for two different observers in the same place.  How can an older
>>> version of this object exist simultaneously with a younger version of this
>>> object, unless the object is a four-dimensional and exists in all its ages?
>>>  SR proves that the present cannot be infinitely thin, and actually can be
>>> made as spread out is as needed (given high enough speeds and large enough
>>> distances).
>>>
>>>
>>>> Conformally and faithfully. Nope. That is the real point of SR, there
>>>> is no absolute space nor time.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's not how Einstein understood it.
>>>
>>>
>>>> SR does not freeze time, it merely gives us a map and compass to
>>>> navigate our local regions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is incompatible not only with an objective present, but also the idea
>>> that objects only exist at one instant of time. Imagine a device with two
>>> clocks separated by a pole.  One person standing still between the clocks
>>> says the clocks are synchronized.  Someone running to the left (and right
>>> next to the person standing still) will say the clock on the left runs
>>> ahead of the clock on the right, while a third person, running towards the
>>> right, will say the left clock runs behind the clock on the right.
>>>
>>> So simultaneously, and in the same positions, you have the left-most
>>> clock read 12:00, 12:01, and 11:59 for each of the three observers, who
>>> each happen to be in the same place and at the same time.  How can the
>>> future state of the clocks exist together with the past state of the clock,
>>> if the present is only one instant?  In this example, the "present" which
>>> contains all that exists would have to be at least 2 minutes long to
>>> explain this situation, but then we can make the pole even longer, and the
>>> discrepancy of simultaneously existing clock states even greater..
>>>
>>>
>>>>   Additionally, the arguments that try to use SR and GR assume that the
>>>> H.U.P. doesn't exist. Pfft, can you do better?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> H.U.P? Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? I don't see the relevance of it
>>> to these relativistic thought experiments.
>>>
>>
> It is known that position and momentum data of objects cannot be
> simultaneously defined, even for relativistic cases. Thought experiments
> that ignore basic known facts don't interest me.
>
>
Then nothing could interest you, since there are always facts we are not
aware of (unless you believe we have all the facts already).

Jason


>
>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jason
>>>>>
>>>>>  We can point at this or that (figuratively speaking) as an
>>>>>> explanation, but the finger that points does not vanish upon alighting on
>>>>>> the answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Jason Resch 
>>>>>> <jasonre...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Stephen Paul King <
>>>>>>> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Jason,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   So what is turning the "knob" on the values of y (or x)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing, the whole graph exists at once, but y varies as x varies.
>>>>>>>  Why does x=1,y=9 have to be destroyed to make room for x=2,y=11?  What
>>>>>>> does destroying the previous state add to x=2,y=11 that wasn't there 
>>>>>>> before?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now consider we aren't dealing with a simple line, but an equation
>>>>>>> tracing the interactions of all the particle interactions in your brain.
>>>>>>>  If x=1 corresponds to your consciousness in time 1, and x=2 
>>>>>>> corresponds to
>>>>>>> your consciousness in time 2, then how would destroying the x=1 state
>>>>>>> change your conscious state for x=2?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Stephen Paul King <
>>>>>>>>> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dear Brent,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>    I have a persisting question. How is is that we can get away
>>>>>>>>>> with using verbs (implying actions) when we are describing timeless
>>>>>>>>>> entities?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  In the same way we can say that y increases as x increases, in
>>>>>>>>> the graph of y = 2x + 7
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jason
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  --
>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in
>>>>>>> the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kindest Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stephen Paul King
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Senior Researcher
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>>>>>>
>>>>>> stephe...@provensecure.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  http://www.provensecure.us/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the
>>>>>> use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
>>>>>> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
>>>>>> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
>>>>>> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
>>>>>> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
>>>>>> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
>>>>>> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
>>>>>> immediately.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  --
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>>>>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe
>>>>> .
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Kindest Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Stephen Paul King
>>>>
>>>> Senior Researcher
>>>>
>>>> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>>>>
>>>> stephe...@provensecure.com
>>>>
>>>>  http://www.provensecure.us/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use
>>>> of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
>>>> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
>>>> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
>>>> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
>>>> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
>>>> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
>>>> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
>>>> immediately.”
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Kindest Regards,
>
> Stephen Paul King
>
> Senior Researcher
>
> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>
> stephe...@provensecure.com
>
>  http://www.provensecure.us/
>
>
> “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
> the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
> immediately.”
>

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to