On Thursday, October 16, 2014 2:08:29 AM UTC-4, Tim Wescott wrote:> > > > > It could explain one thing... I have considered that I am the only true > > consciousness in the universe. I have no way to prove that everyone > > else is not just an automaton of some sort and actually has no > > consciousness.Solipsism. big fat hairy deeel.> > If I were part of a simulation it would explain that. > > The entire simulation is from the perspective of one being.... me. > > Otherwise my consciousness would not exist and I know *my* consciousness > > exists, I am feeling it. > > > > Or perhaps none of us are conscious, but just think we are. >Daniel Dennett has been saying that for decades. he says we're all just automatons that think we have consciousness. more sophism. big deel. r b-j
Online · Live + on demand
February 9-11, 2027
Price goes up Nov 1: register now to lock in today's rate
Register Now →
Stolen from another group
Started by ●October 15, 2014
Reply by ●October 16, 20142014-10-16
Reply by ●October 16, 20142014-10-16
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:25:51 -0700, robert bristow-johnson wrote:> On Thursday, October 16, 2014 2:08:29 AM UTC-4, Tim Wescott wrote: >> >> >> > It could explain one thing... I have considered that I am the only >> > true consciousness in the universe. I have no way to prove that >> > everyone else is not just an automaton of some sort and actually has >> > no consciousness. > > Solipsism. big fat hairy deeel. > >> > If I were part of a simulation it would explain that. >> > The entire simulation is from the perspective of one being.... me. >> > Otherwise my consciousness would not exist and I know *my* >> > consciousness exists, I am feeling it. >> >> >> >> Or perhaps none of us are conscious, but just think we are. >> >> > Daniel Dennett has been saying that for decades. he says we're all just > automatons that think we have consciousness. more sophism. big deel.It's only sophism if someone else says it. If _I_ say it, it really is wise. -- www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by ●October 16, 20142014-10-16
On Thursday, October 16, 2014 11:20:23 AM UTC-4, robert bristow-johnson wrote:> On Thursday, October 16, 2014 12:09:00 AM UTC-4, gyans...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I think the argument goes something like - the sampling rate for this universe simulation is 2c and that creates a Nyquist frequency of c. Of course c is a velocity and not a frequency but I see where he's coming from. > > > > > > i don't see where he's coming from. if he said the sampling period of reality is the Planck Time (so Nyquist would be about 10^43 Hz - actually i would suggest normalizing 4*pi*G to 1 rather than just G), *then* i would see where he might be coming from. > >BTW, a really good site to go to (there used to be a PBS program of the same name) is Closer To Truth http://www.closertotruth.com/ . has lotsa heavyweights weighing in on the "Big Questions". the tagline used to be "Cosmos, Consciousness, God" but since Robert Lawrence Kuhn has changed "God" to "Meaning". that disappointed me, but i still think that the series was very good (can't find it on the air anymore) and that the website is good. some of the contributors i consider present-day prophets of sorts. r b-j
Reply by ●October 16, 20142014-10-16
On Thursday, October 16, 2014 11:41:45 AM UTC-4, Tim Wescott wrote:> On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:25:51 -0700, robert bristow-johnson wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, October 16, 2014 2:08:29 AM UTC-4, Tim Wescott wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> > It could explain one thing... I have considered that I am the only > > >> > true consciousness in the universe. I have no way to prove that > > >> > everyone else is not just an automaton of some sort and actually has > > >> > no consciousness. > > > > > > Solipsism. big fat hairy deeel. > > > > > >> > If I were part of a simulation it would explain that. > > >> > The entire simulation is from the perspective of one being.... me. > > >> > Otherwise my consciousness would not exist and I know *my* > > >> > consciousness exists, I am feeling it. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Or perhaps none of us are conscious, but just think we are. > > >> > > >> > > > Daniel Dennett has been saying that for decades. he says we're all just > > > automatons that think we have consciousness. more sophism. big deel. > > > > It's only sophism if someone else says it. If _I_ say it, it really is > > wise. > > > > -- > > www.wescottdesign.comits seems a lot of reality is quantized according to quantum physics. so we can determine the number of bits used in the universe simulation and the sampling rate... Mark
Reply by ●October 16, 20142014-10-16
On 10/16/2014 11:25 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:> On Thursday, October 16, 2014 2:08:29 AM UTC-4, Tim Wescott wrote: >> >>> >>> It could explain one thing... I have considered that I am the only true >>> consciousness in the universe. I have no way to prove that everyone >>> else is not just an automaton of some sort and actually has no >>> consciousness. > > Solipsism. big fat hairy deeel. > >>> If I were part of a simulation it would explain that. >>> The entire simulation is from the perspective of one being.... me. >>> Otherwise my consciousness would not exist and I know *my* consciousness >>> exists, I am feeling it. >> >> >> >> Or perhaps none of us are conscious, but just think we are. >> > > Daniel Dennett has been saying that for decades. he says we're all just automatons that think we have consciousness. more sophism. big deel.I think this is a self contradiction. If I "think", I am conscious. -- Rick
Reply by ●October 16, 20142014-10-16
On 10/16/2014 11:49 AM, makolber@yahoo.com wrote:> On Thursday, October 16, 2014 11:41:45 AM UTC-4, Tim Wescott wrote: >> On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 08:25:51 -0700, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Thursday, October 16, 2014 2:08:29 AM UTC-4, Tim Wescott wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> It could explain one thing... I have considered that I am the only >> >>>>> true consciousness in the universe. I have no way to prove that >> >>>>> everyone else is not just an automaton of some sort and actually has >> >>>>> no consciousness. >> >>> >> >>> Solipsism. big fat hairy deeel. >> >>> >> >>>>> If I were part of a simulation it would explain that. >> >>>>> The entire simulation is from the perspective of one being.... me. >> >>>>> Otherwise my consciousness would not exist and I know *my* >> >>>>> consciousness exists, I am feeling it. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Or perhaps none of us are conscious, but just think we are. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> Daniel Dennett has been saying that for decades. he says we're all just >> >>> automatons that think we have consciousness. more sophism. big deel. >> >> >> >> It's only sophism if someone else says it. If _I_ say it, it really is >> >> wise. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> www.wescottdesign.com > > its seems a lot of reality is quantized according to quantum physics. > so we can determine the number of bits used in the universe simulation and the sampling rate...The universe may be quantized physically, but no one has ever demonstrated that time is quantized. -- Rick
Reply by ●October 16, 20142014-10-16
On 10/16/2014 11:49 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:> On Thursday, October 16, 2014 11:20:23 AM UTC-4, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >> On Thursday, October 16, 2014 12:09:00 AM UTC-4, gyans...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> I think the argument goes something like - the sampling rate for this universe simulation is 2c and that creates a Nyquist frequency of c. Of course c is a velocity and not a frequency but I see where he's coming from. >> >> >> >> >> >> i don't see where he's coming from. if he said the sampling period of reality is the Planck Time (so Nyquist would be about 10^43 Hz - actually i would suggest normalizing 4*pi*G to 1 rather than just G), *then* i would see where he might be coming from. >> >> > > BTW, a really good site to go to (there used to be a PBS program of the same name) is Closer To Truth http://www.closertotruth.com/ . has lotsa heavyweights weighing in on the "Big Questions". the tagline used to be "Cosmos, Consciousness, God" but since Robert Lawrence Kuhn has changed "God" to "Meaning". that disappointed me, but i still think that the series was very good (can't find it on the air anymore) and that the website is good. some of the contributors i consider present-day prophets of sorts.I watched a bunch of those. Some were interesting, but not only were there never real answers, I'm not sure the questions were even real. I did like the scene or two where they would show him arriving somewhere in his 1990's era Porsche. I think the series is a bit old. Reality does change with the times you know. One point of view I don't recall hearing is that most of the questions are invalid, category errors if you will. -- Rick
Reply by ●October 16, 20142014-10-16
On Thursday, October 16, 2014 12:12:29 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote:> > I watched a bunch of those. Some were interesting, but not only were > there never real answers, I'm not sure the questions were even real. >any question asked is real. could still be a ruse or "invalid".> > I did like the scene or two where they would show him arriving somewhere > in his 1990's era Porsche.Kuhn might be a "materialist" in more than one sense of the word.> I think the series is a bit old. Reality > does change with the times you know.yeah, sometimes the speed of light changes with the times.> > One point of view I don't recall hearing is that most of the questions > are invalid, category errors if you will.the question might not be answered as such. but, perhaps the interviewee thought otherwise. i dunno. r b-j
Reply by ●October 16, 20142014-10-16
On Thursday, October 16, 2014 12:06:04 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote:> On 10/16/2014 11:25 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: > > > On Thursday, October 16, 2014 2:08:29 AM UTC-4, Tim Wescott wrote: > > >> > > >>> > > >>> It could explain one thing... I have considered that I am the only true > > >>> consciousness in the universe. I have no way to prove that everyone > > >>> else is not just an automaton of some sort and actually has no > > >>> consciousness. > > > > > > Solipsism. big fat hairy deeel. > > > > > >>> If I were part of a simulation it would explain that. > > >>> The entire simulation is from the perspective of one being.... me. > > >>> Otherwise my consciousness would not exist and I know *my* consciousness > > >>> exists, I am feeling it. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Or perhaps none of us are conscious, but just think we are. > > >> > > > > > > Daniel Dennett has been saying that for decades. he says we're all just automatons that think we have consciousness. more sophism. big deel. > > > > I think this is a self contradiction. If I "think", I am conscious. >Descartes would agree with you, i think. ...> The universe may be quantized physically, but no one has ever > demonstrated that time is quantized.nor will they ever demonstrate such if the quantum of time is the Planck time. r b-j
Reply by ●October 16, 20142014-10-16
On 10/16/2014 2:44 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:> On Thursday, October 16, 2014 12:06:04 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: >> On 10/16/2014 11:25 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >> >>> Daniel Dennett has been saying that for decades. he says we're all just automatons that think we have consciousness. more sophism. big deel. >> >> >> >> I think this is a self contradiction. If I "think", I am conscious. >> > > Descartes would agree with you, i think. > > .... >> The universe may be quantized physically, but no one has ever >> demonstrated that time is quantized. > > nor will they ever demonstrate such if the quantum of time is the Planck time.If it can't be verified by experiment, then it has no impact on anything and is a pointless theory. -- Rick
