I meant the question of using the experience of a present moment (built from an illusory construction) as evidence of a fundamental "p-time". You haven't answered that - how you could logically make that move. It's not arrogance, because I challenged you to answer that one question and you have ignored/dismissed it.
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > Terren, > > Where have you been? I did answer this question. You create a biological > robot by putting together the exact parts that constitute a human being > down to the last cell and molecule. The result will be a conscious human > being unless you believe in some nonsensical concept of soul or ghost in > the machine that has to be added in addition. > > As to other varieties of robots don't you understand you need to define > what you mean by consciousness before you can answer the question? Every > robot is conscious if you define the results of its computations as > consciousness, and not otherwise... > > And what arrogance to assume that because I didn't answer some question "I > don't have an answer", especially since I did answer and you apparently > didn't read the answer. > > Neither case gives me much confidence in your ability to think logically... > > Edgar > > > On Monday, January 13, 2014 9:15:37 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: > >> Edgar, >> >> The Matrix style simulation is a very special case and it's description >> in which a biological being has its sensory data shunted by a virtual >> interface is beside the point. >> >> Probably a better example is the "uploading" scenario, where the doctor >> doesn't restore your mind in a physical body, but scans your brain/body >> into a simulation. at which point you wake up in the simulation. If the >> simulation is rich enough you might not know the difference. >> >> I noticed you did not answer my question, which tells me you do not have >> an answer. >> >> T >> >> The point >> On Jan 13, 2014 7:10 PM, "Edgar L. Owen" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Terren, >>> >>> No, it's not that simple as I thought I had explained. You have to >>> consider not just what is happening in the simulated being's 'mind' or >>> simulation but the whole context of the simulation. I'll try again. Even if >>> a simulated world is entirely convincing in the short term it still MUST >>> exist in the actual reality, and if it is not in accordance with the actual >>> logic of that actual reality it will quickly or eventually fail. The real >>> being must exist somewhere else and be receiving nutrients etc. in a real >>> actual reality with which it is in logical synch with. >>> >>> Thus you can't have just any old arbitrary fake simulation running or >>> the simulated being will quickly die in the real actual reality in which it >>> MUST have an actual existence. So there will always be a way to tell if the >>> reality you live in is simulated or not. If you actually exist then at >>> least the basics must be in accord with actual reality. >>> >>> Of course, as you suggest, there are many non-essential ways a >>> simulation can be wrong and the subject still function, but no essential >>> ones. No matter how simulated an internal reality is it still must exist in >>> a real actual reality and this will always eventually give a false >>> simulation away when it is tested against actual reality by the test of >>> whether it is consistent with the continued existence and functioning of >>> the subject. >>> >>> Edgar >>> >>> On Monday, January 13, 2014 2:48:25 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: >>>> >>>> Edgar, >>>> >>>> A simulation can be utterly precise and impossible to distinguish from >>>> sensory data, in principle. You seem to be ignoring that by your own theory >>>> it is possible to simulate the logic of external reality precisely, as that >>>> is what you are positing happens at a fundamental level. >>>> >>>> I am asking why does a single computational reality need to be >>>> fundamental? How could you tell in principle if the universe was being >>>> computed through Ontological Energy (whatever that means in a formal >>>> sense), vs being a simulation run by an alien in a different universe? >>>> >>>> The Church Turing thesis proves that you cannot tell the difference. >>>> And because there are provably infinite different simulations that could >>>> emulate your consciousness, assuming comp (yes, doctor), by the UDA all of >>>> them must contribute to your experience of reality, making it uncomputable. >>>> >>>> You can stick your head in the sand and say it doesn't apply, but that >>>> is not an argument. Until you start addressing questions head on, rather >>>> than ignoring them or dismissing them insultingly (e.g. adolescent sci-fi), >>>> nobody here is going to take you all that seriously. And if you don't care >>>> about being taken seriously, then why are you here? >>>> >>>> Answer this question head-on and you won't lose me: >>>> >>>> How do you justify the move of using the phenomenal experience of the >>>> present moment as "obvious" direct evidence of P-time, when you also state >>>> that our phenomenal experience is an illusory construction of "external >>>> reality", whatever that is? >>>> >>>> If you can answer that question without mere hand waving, then you >>>> probably also have a valid rebuttal to those who are arguing against your >>>> dismissal of block time. So it would be worth your while to answer it... >>>> two birds, one stone. I await your answer. >>>> >>>> Hoping for the best... >>>> Terren >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> 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.... >>>>> >>>>> Edgar >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, January 13, 2014 12:58:13 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Edgar, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Terren, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Don't tell me what's in my theory. There are NO infinity of logical >>>>>>> realities being computed. There is no Platonia.... >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If what you're positing is a fundamental computational reality, then >>>>>> there's nothing in principle that can select a single computational >>>>>> reality >>>>>> over any other. All you appear to be doing is making that an assumption >>>>>> of >>>>>> your theory, but it doesn't really buy you anything and it contradicts >>>>>> computer science. Sounds exactly like the argument over P-Time and Block >>>>>> time... what a coincidence! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> You seem to be referencing Bruno's comp. There is NO 'Platonia' in >>>>>>> my theory. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Right, and because Platonia is logically implied given (what appear >>>>>> to be) your assumptions, it signifies that your theory is inconsistent. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> There is enormous evidence and theoretical justification for Present >>>>>>> moment P-time. It's the most fundamental obvious observation of our >>>>>>> existence. Just pull your head out of your books and look around for >>>>>>> goodness sakes. Are you alive? If so you are alive in the present >>>>>>> moment... >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But you have pointed out that every observation we can make is based >>>>>> on a constructed illusion. How do you go from the time we experience in >>>>>> the >>>>>> constructed illusion of our experience, to the actual time of the >>>>>> universe? >>>>>> You have yet to justify that move. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> No two observers compute the same retinal sky. Everyone's simulation >>>>>>> of reality is different. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Agreed. But there are an infinity of possible programs that compute >>>>>> your retinal sky in this moment such that it would be impossible for you >>>>>> to >>>>>> distinguish between them, from the inside. That fact has nothing to do >>>>>> with >>>>>> my retinal sky, or anyone else's. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> There is absolute certain evidence for "real, actual reality". >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Evidence for reality only makes sense within a given theory. All we >>>>>> have are models. What we are all doing here is a search for "the best" >>>>>> model. Even if we think we have it, we can still never know what reality >>>>>> really is. IOW there is no such thing as "absolute certain evidence" for >>>>>> anything. You're engaging in dogma, as if there is only one possible >>>>>> model. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Something has to be real because we exist, and what we exist in is >>>>>>> reality. Whatever that is is the "real, actual reality". Anyone who >>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>> think reality actually exists is brain dead.... >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You seem to be saying that our existence is a fact that refutes the >>>>>> possibility that we are, as Bruno describes it, "the numbers' dreams". >>>>>> And >>>>>> while that *is* counter-intuitive, it's not a logical impossibility - on >>>>>> the contrary, if you say yes to the doctor, it must be the case, unless >>>>>> there is a flaw with the UDA. >>>>>> >>>>>> Terren >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Edgar >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Edgar >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Monday, January 13, 2014 12:17:03 PM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Edgar, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Terren, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is no "infinity of simulations". We are talking about actual >>>>>>>>> reality rather than sci fi fantasy here, or at least we should be. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Given that your knowledge of reality necessarily comes from your >>>>>>>> own mental simulation of it, it's not clear how you can be so sure >>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>> what "actual reality" is. I understand you have a theory, but that's >>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>> any of us have. We can rule theories out when contradicted by >>>>>>>> evidence, but >>>>>>>> you haven't provided that, unless you count various hand-waving >>>>>>>> statements. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Every biological organism has one and only one internal mental >>>>>>>>> simulation of its external reality environment. This whole system, >>>>>>>>> external >>>>>>>>> world simulated by the minds of multiple biological observers, >>>>>>>>> actually >>>>>>>>> consists only of computational information flows in the presence and >>>>>>>>> logical space of reality. Everything, including ourselves, is >>>>>>>>> analogous to >>>>>>>>> running, interacting software programs. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I agree with that. However in the logical, computational space you >>>>>>>> anchor your theory in (something referred to on this list sometimes as >>>>>>>> Platonia), there are an infinity of such "logical realities" that go >>>>>>>> through your current computational state. From your first-person >>>>>>>> perspective you cannot predict which of the infinite continuations you >>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>> inhabit in the next moment. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The apparent physicality of reality in the minds of biological >>>>>>>>> organisms is an evolutionary adaptation to make reality seem more >>>>>>>>> meaningful and easier to function within. This physicality is not >>>>>>>>> real, >>>>>>>>> it's an internal mental illusion. I devote the entire Part IV of my >>>>>>>>> book >>>>>>>>> dissecting this illusion and explaining how it works. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, I agree, and this is an important insight. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The book also explains in detail how once we identify and >>>>>>>>> subtract everything mind adds to reality we arrive at what reality >>>>>>>>> actually >>>>>>>>> is, pure information computationally evolving in the logical space of >>>>>>>>> reality I call ontological energy. When we peel back all the various >>>>>>>>> layers >>>>>>>>> of physicality that mind adds to external reality its remaining purely >>>>>>>>> abstract information structure is clearly revealed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Personally, I think your theory fails because it insists on a >>>>>>>> single, fundamental computational universe, running in "P-time", for >>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>> there is no evidence or theoretical justification (none that you have >>>>>>>> provided, anyway). I know you point relentlessly to our everyday >>>>>>>> experience >>>>>>>> of present-moments, but using introspection as evidence is problematic >>>>>>>> precisely because as you have pointed out, our subjective reality is >>>>>>>> based >>>>>>>> on an illusion constructed in the mind. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Going from Ontological Energy to Platonia is the same move as going >>>>>>>> from P-Time to Block Time. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We all live in a world that is actually almost entirely a >>>>>>>>> construct of our mental simulations of an external information >>>>>>>>> reality. >>>>>>>>> Thus when we look out into the world we are mostly looking into the >>>>>>>>> structures of our own minds. We live inside our minds under what I >>>>>>>>> call the >>>>>>>>> 'retinal sky'. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Retinal sky is a good term. Imagine how many different kinds of >>>>>>>> programs could compute the same retinal sky for any given moment. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Just as robots function within environments they simulate >>>>>>>>> internally with computations, so do all biological organisms including >>>>>>>>> ourselves. We do no 'see' the real actual world, we compute internal >>>>>>>>> models >>>>>>>>> of it and live within those. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Right, and this is why it is so unclear as to how you can be so >>>>>>>> certain about what constitutes the "real actual world". Do you have >>>>>>>> access >>>>>>>> to some kind of oracle? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is only these internal biological simulations that there is any >>>>>>>>> evidence for. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Again, if you could only turn such statements inward on your own >>>>>>>> theories, I think it would be much easier for your ideas to gain >>>>>>>> traction. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is no evidence of any 'matrix' type simulations. That's just >>>>>>>>> adolescent sci fi unless there is some actual evidence. Again I went >>>>>>>>> through that sci fi phase back in the 1960's in a short story i wrote >>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>> the same theme titled "The Livies". Let's stick to evidence based >>>>>>>>> reality >>>>>>>>> rather than sci fi... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> By your own admission above there is no evidence for the "real, >>>>>>>> actual reality" you've articulated either. It all looks like sci-fi to >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> naive realist. If we dismissed theories on the basis of weirdness, we >>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>> have tossed QM out the window a century ago. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Terren >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Edgar >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 10, 2014 1:05:29 AM UTC-5, Terren Suydam wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Edgar, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That begs the question. You start by assuming reality is >>>>>>>>>> computed, and then conclude that because reality exists, reality >>>>>>>>>> must be >>>>>>>>>> computed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Again I will point out that except for one key difference, your >>>>>>>>>> ideas and Bruno's are actually pretty similar. The difference of >>>>>>>>>> course >>>>>>>>>> being that the UDA entails that there are an infinity of computed >>>>>>>>>> realities. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Let me approach this from a different direction. Given that you >>>>>>>>>> agree that you could be digitally replaced and not notice the >>>>>>>>>> difference, >>>>>>>>>> this also entails that you could be placed into a simulation, where >>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>> simulated brain is functionally identical to your real brain or the >>>>>>>>>> prosthetic brain that could replace it with you noticing. So a >>>>>>>>>> simulation >>>>>>>>>> of you embedded in a simulated world is also conscious - this is >>>>>>>>>> more or >>>>>>>>>> less what your theory of consciousness says. The next step is to see >>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>> there are an infinity of possible simulations that contain your >>>>>>>>>> current >>>>>>>>>> brain state, and thus your consciousness, in this moment (or any >>>>>>>>>> given >>>>>>>>>> moment). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you're still with me we can go back to the UDA, which in so >>>>>>>>>> many words says that all of these infinite simulations exist in >>>>>>>>>> Platonia, >>>>>>>>>> traced by the Universal Dovetailer (a rather simple program) - and >>>>>>>>>> your >>>>>>>>>> moment by moment reality is a view from the inside of the infinity of >>>>>>>>>> simulations that contain you. Indeed, physics and the physical world >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> general represent a stable measure on the kinds of worlds that could >>>>>>>>>> support your consciousness. But because the infinity of simulations >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> necessarily what renders the physical world, it is not computable. >>>>>>>>>> That is >>>>>>>>>> the contradiction entailed by a computational universe such as you >>>>>>>>>> elaborate in your theory. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Your objection about human math and reality math, I believe, is >>>>>>>>>> an attempt to refute step 8 of the UDA - that is usually the most >>>>>>>>>> problematic step for people who don't agree with the UDA. It would >>>>>>>>>> be very >>>>>>>>>> interesting if you could identify a flaw in the UDA, supported by >>>>>>>>>> arguments >>>>>>>>>> rather than simple assertion, as you have done to this point. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Terren >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:34 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Liz, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, that's not the only way to falsify it. One merely needs to >>>>>>>>>>> show it doesn't properly describe reality as I've just done. If you >>>>>>>>>>> even >>>>>>>>>>> assume a computational universe in the first place you have to >>>>>>>>>>> assume (you >>>>>>>>>>> are assuming) that it computes reality. The fact that reality >>>>>>>>>>> exists is >>>>>>>>>>> conclusive proof. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Edgar >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 9, 2014 8:53:18 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10 January 2014 14:22, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Liz, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't agree with that at all. As I've said on a number >>>>>>>>>>>>> of occasions, reality is obviously computed because it exists. >>>>>>>>>>>>> What more >>>>>>>>>>>>> convincing proof could there be? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> One that explains why that has to be so would be a good start. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If Bruno's comp claims reality is non-computable it's pure >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense that is conclusively falsified by the very existence of >>>>>>>>>>>>> reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The point is that certain assumptions lead to certain >>>>>>>>>>>> conclusions. If the conclusions invalidate the assumptions, then >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> correct response is to throw out the original assumptions as >>>>>>>>>>>> invalid. Bruno >>>>>>>>>>>> starts from the assumption that consciousness is a form of >>>>>>>>>>>> computation and >>>>>>>>>>>> draws certain inferences. This isn't what comp "claims" it's what >>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> argument shows, given the assumptions. The only way to falsify it >>>>>>>>>>>> is to >>>>>>>>>>>> show that one of the assumptions is wrong, or that there is a flaw >>>>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning that leads to the conclusions. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
