On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Paul King < [email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Stephen Paul King < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Jason, >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Jason Resch <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stephen Paul King < >>>>> [email protected]> 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 >>>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Stephen Paul King < >>>>>>> [email protected]> 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 <[email protected] >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Stephen Paul King < >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> 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 >>>>>>> [email protected]. >>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to >>>>>>> [email protected]. >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>>>> >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >>>>>> . >>>>>> 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 >>>>> [email protected]. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> 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 [email protected]. >>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>> 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 > > [email protected] > > 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
