If your internal simulation of reality is not consistent with the 
essentials of reality you cannot function or exist. That depends on 
consistency with the LOGIC of reality, NOT how it is represented internally 
by the qualia you mention (which are also covered extensively in my book). 
I made that distinction clear but apparently it didn't register...


On Monday, January 13, 2014 3:55:40 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
> On 14 January 2014 07:16, Edgar L. Owen < <javascript:>>wrote:
>> Terren,
>> I just explained how it is possible to tell if your particular simulation 
>> is accurate or not. The fact of your continued existence. If it didn't 
>> accurately model the logic of external reality you wouldn't be here. The 
>> 'Matrix' scenario that you can't distinguish between all possible 
>> simulations is adolescent irrational sci fi BS. And if you recall, even in 
>> the Matrix they COULD tell which was real and which wasn't.
>> If your simulation was seriously inaccurate you wouldn't be here to tell 
>> me I couldn't tell....
> You are confusing accuracy with fitness for purpose. Mental simulations 
> evolved to help organisms survive in a given environment. Parrots can see 
> 23 colours, pigeons can see 75 frames per second, sharks can detect the 
> magnetic fields of muscles moving, owls can spot a rodent a mile away, dogs 
> can detect individual molecules of scent. Humans are deaf, dumb and blind 
> compared to what's available out there. How are our tiny optical and 
> acoustic windows, for example, "accurate" when they miss out so much 
> information...? Not to mention the multiple ways our visual cortex can be 
> fooled (e.g. by optical illusions - shapes that are uncommon in nature) ?

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
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to