The Perfect Counterfeit Reality
Immortalist
Imagime that a superscientist invents machine--we shall call it a
"braino," - that enables him to produce hallucianations in certain subjects
. The machine operates by influencing the brain of a subject who wears a
special cap, called a "braino cap." when the braino cap is placed on a
subject's head, the operator of the braino can affect his brain so as to
produce any hallucination in the subject that the operator wishes. The
braino is a hallucination-producing machine. The hallucinations produced by
it may be as incomplete, systematic, and coherent as the operator of the
branio desires to make them.
The present argument starts from the premise that the braino is a logical
possibility, and consequently that there should be hallucinations that are
coherent, complete, and systematic in every way. From the premise of logical
possibility, we conclude that we in fact have no way of telling whether or
not we are hallucinating.
If the braino is a logical possibility, then how can we tell that
hallucinations are not in fact so hard to detect? On the contrary, we may
suffer hallucinations that we cannot detect. If it is logically possible
that hallucinations should be coherent, complete, and systematic in every
way, then there is no way of detecting at any moment that we are not
suffering from a hallucionation.
How we can tell that we are not hallucinating. The braino argument is
intended to establish that we can never tell this, even if we can sometimes
tell that we are hallucinating. Consider some perceptual belief that you
would maintain does not from hallucinations. what experiences guarantee
this? Indeed, what experiences provide you with any evidence of it?
Notice that whatever experience you indicate, the braino argument will be
quite sufficient to prove that such an experience is no guarantee against
hallucianation. All we need do is imagine that you have, unknown to
yourself, the braino cap on your head. the operator of the braino is
producing the very experiences you claim guarantee that you are not
hallucinating.
Imagine that all people are controlled by the braino and that the machine is
run by some evil being, Dr. Know, who plots to keep us completely in error
through hallucinations. Dr. Know does not wish to be detected, so he
supplies hallucinations that are coherent, complete, and systematic. Indeed,
the hallucinations he produced in us are a PERFECT COUNTERFEIT OF REALITY.
Our experiences fulfill our expectations and contain no more surprises than
we would expect from reality. But is it not reality we experience; our
perceptual beliefs about the world are quite mistaken, for the source of our
experiences is a mere machine, the braino, which creates hallutionations. In
such a predicament we might have just the sort of perceptual beliefs we now
have, based on experiences exactly similar to those we now have. But our
perceptual beliefs would be altogether false.
The imagined situation is exactly similar to ours with respect to the
reasons or evidence we would have for our perceptual beliefs. Experience is
virtually the same in both cases. Consequently, if we lack knowledge in one
situation, we must surely lack it in the other. Obviously, we lack knowledge
when we are controlled by the braino, for then our perceptual beliefs are
false. Hence, we also lack knowledge in our present situation. More
precisely, our perceptual beliefs fail to constitute knowledge in either
case.
We believe that we are not controlled by such a machine, and if we are
fortunate in this belief, then no doubt many of our perceptual beliefs are
true. It is, however, good fortune and not good evidence that we should
thank for correctness of these beliefs.
We are just lucky if there is no Dr. Know controlling us with a braino; and
from that good fortune may result the further good fortune that most of our
perceptual beliefs are true. it is just a matter of luck, however, and
nothing epistemologically more glorious than that.
If a belief is true as a result of luck, then it is a lucky guess--not
knowledge.
Adapted from Keith Lehrer
http://www-philosophy.ucdavis.edu/phi102/lecmenu.htm
Consider Cypher's speech to Agent Smith:
Cypher: You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put it
in my mouth, The Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious.
After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss.
Neo: This isn't real...
Morpheus: What is "real"? How do you define "real"? If you're talking about
what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then
"real" is simply electrical signals intepreted by your brain...
[Turns on TV] This is the world that you know. The world as it was at the
end of the 20th century. It exists now only as part of a neural interactive
simulation that we call "The Matrix." You've been living in a dream world,
Neo.
[TV switches to desolate world in the future] This is the world as it exists
today...
Mike Varney
"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:umje75b...@corp.supernews.com...
<SNIP>
Yo... Dork... take it else where.
Adam Marczyk
I can think of a good way. (Actually, I read this in a book long ago, but for
the sake of argument let's just say I thought of it myself.) If you worry that
your world is a hallucination, carry around a book of limericks, and if you ever
find yourself experiencing doubt, turn to a page you've never read. In real
life, and certainly in hallucinations, it is impossible to instantly create a
perfect limerick.
One would imagine the same technique works equally well with sonnets, haikus,
quatrains, or just about any poem or prose style that rhymes or otherwise has a
complex set of rules.
[snip]
--
a.a. #2001
"Blasphemy is a victimless crime."
Director, EAC Black Monolith Division - "My God, it's full of stars"
Operative: EAC Electronic Warfare Division
EAC Subversive Fiction Division
http://www.ebonmusings.org ICQ: 8777843 PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
Joe Mama
"Mike Varney" <var...@collorado.edu> wrote in message
news:akcdps$k6c$1...@peabody.colorado.edu...
Huh?
>
Immortalist
"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@hotmailNOTexcite.com> wrote in message
news:umjfo4o...@corp.supernews.com...
Ya it is an old one.
Can you be 100% certain that you are not in a shared hallucination with this
method? How would you show that?
naked ape
SNIP
When I slipped into my parallel universes as a manic-depressive, and dreamt
with my eyes wide open, the line between the two realities was
imperceptible. There were times when I thought the rest of the world had
gone crazy, but near the end of my last episode, when I was bound up in a
straightjacket and thrown into a locked padded room, I began to question
what I knew to be true. ..
Ape:)
--
"All we see or seem is but a dream within a dream."
Edgar Allen Poe
naked ape
"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@hotmailNOTexcite.com> wrote in message
news:umjfo4o...@corp.supernews.com...
> > How we can tell that we are not hallucinating. The braino argument is
> > intended to establish that we can never tell this, even if we can
sometimes
> > tell that we are hallucinating. Consider some perceptual belief that you
> > would maintain does not from hallucinations. what experiences guarantee
> > this? Indeed, what experiences provide you with any evidence of it?
>
> I can think of a good way. (Actually, I read this in a book long ago, but
for
> the sake of argument let's just say I thought of it myself.) If you worry
that
> your world is a hallucination, carry around a book of limericks, and if
you ever
> find yourself experiencing doubt, turn to a page you've never read. In
real
> life, and certainly in hallucinations, it is impossible to instantly
create a
> perfect limerick.
I don't think that would always work. Hallucinations can be intertwined with
the objective reality. The book of limericks could actually exist in both
worlds. ..
Ape;)
SNIP
Immortalist
"naked ape" <naked...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:akcfgq$1hgbgo$1...@ID-10187.news.dfncis.de...
Morpheus: Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real.
What if you were unable to wake from that dream. How would you know the
difference between the dream world and the real world?
Neo: This can't be...
Morpheus: Be what? Be real?
>
Denis Loubet
>
> Imagime that a superscientist invents machine--we shall call it a
> "braino," - that enables him to produce hallucianations in certain
subjects
> . The machine operates by influencing the brain of a subject who wears a
> special cap, called a "braino cap." when the braino cap is placed on a
> subject's head, the operator of the braino can affect his brain so as to
> produce any hallucination in the subject that the operator wishes. The
> braino is a hallucination-producing machine. The hallucinations produced
by
> it may be as incomplete, systematic, and coherent as the operator of the
> branio desires to make them.
Ok...
> The present argument starts from the premise that the braino is a logical
> possibility, and consequently that there should be hallucinations that are
> coherent, complete, and systematic in every way. From the premise of
logical
> possibility, we conclude that we in fact have no way of telling whether or
> not we are hallucinating.
Ok...
> If the braino is a logical possibility, then how can we tell that
> hallucinations are not in fact so hard to detect? On the contrary, we may
> suffer hallucinations that we cannot detect. If it is logically possible
> that hallucinations should be coherent, complete, and systematic in every
> way, then there is no way of detecting at any moment that we are not
> suffering from a hallucionation.
Ok...
> How we can tell that we are not hallucinating.
> The braino argument is
> intended to establish that we can never tell this, even if we can
sometimes
> tell that we are hallucinating. Consider some perceptual belief that you
> would maintain does not from hallucinations. what experiences guarantee
> this? Indeed, what experiences provide you with any evidence of it?
None.
> Notice that whatever experience you indicate, the braino argument will be
> quite sufficient to prove that such an experience is no guarantee against
> hallucianation. All we need do is imagine that you have, unknown to
> yourself, the braino cap on your head. the operator of the braino is
> producing the very experiences you claim guarantee that you are not
> hallucinating.
Ok...
> Imagine that all people are controlled by the braino and that the machine
is
> run by some evil being, Dr. Know, who plots to keep us completely in error
> through hallucinations.
What other people? I can't be sure there ARE other people since my
perception of them could be just another hallucination.
> Dr. Know does not wish to be detected, so he
> supplies hallucinations that are coherent, complete, and systematic.
Indeed,
> the hallucinations he produced in us are a PERFECT COUNTERFEIT OF REALITY.
What reality? Given the braino machine, I can't be sure there is one, can
you?
> Our experiences fulfill our expectations and contain no more surprises
than
> we would expect from reality.
Ok...
> But is it not reality we experience; our
> perceptual beliefs about the world are quite mistaken, for the source of
our
> experiences is a mere machine, the braino, which creates hallutionations.
In
> such a predicament we might have just the sort of perceptual beliefs we
now
> have, based on experiences exactly similar to those we now have. But our
> perceptual beliefs would be altogether false.
False compared to what? You can't claim them to be false compared to the
reality that Dr. Know experiences, because he could be under the influence
of a meta-braino machine himself.
> The imagined situation is exactly similar to ours with respect to the
> reasons or evidence we would have for our perceptual beliefs. Experience
is
> virtually the same in both cases. Consequently, if we lack knowledge in
one
> situation, we must surely lack it in the other.
Where did this "lack of knowledge" thing come from? Even if I am
hallucinating everything I experience, there are consistencies in the
hallucinations, and thus I can have knowledge of those consistencies.
Knowledge is the identification of consistencies.
> Obviously, we lack knowledge
> when we are controlled by the braino, for then our perceptual beliefs are
> false.
Negative. We can have knowledge of the consistencies that the braino
presents to us.
> Hence, we also lack knowledge in our present situation.
Granted. We lack knowledge of the braino.
> More
> precisely, our perceptual beliefs fail to constitute knowledge in either
> case.
Simply false. I can be said to have knowledge of the Star Wars universe, yet
it is not "real". Internal consistency is all that's necessary for
knowledge.
> We believe that we are not controlled by such a machine, and if we are
> fortunate in this belief, then no doubt many of our perceptual beliefs are
> true.
Negative. I accept the possibility that I am controlled by such a machine,
but it simply doesn't matter if I am or not. The illusion that I am not
hallucinating is so complete that I might as well treat what I experience as
reality for all practical purposes.
> It is, however, good fortune and not good evidence that we should
> thank for correctness of these beliefs.
This is irrelevant, and you're making the unwarrented assumption that you
are not being influenced by the braino.
> We are just lucky if there is no Dr. Know controlling us with a braino;
Lucky compared to what?
> and
> from that good fortune may result the further good fortune that most of
our
> perceptual beliefs are true.
If I am under the influence of the braino, and it is all I will ever know,
then that is my reality. There is no guanantee that the "real" reality is
any better, is there? I may be more fortunate to be under the influence of
the braino than not. How would I know?
> it is just a matter of luck, however, and
> nothing epistemologically more glorious than that.
What does luck have to do with anything? The braino would constitute an
deliberate act.
> If a belief is true as a result of luck, then it is a lucky guess--not
> knowledge.
That is true.
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Ash
> Dr. Know & the Braino Helmet
<snip>
If this is an artificial hallucination, then it is pretty darn good.
I wonder when truncation errors will become apparent, and what happens
during an overflow.
Talking about reality, have you ever watched Lain?
--
Ash
aa#2058
I think, there for I am.
Sverker Johansson
>
> Dr. Know & the Braino Helmet
>
> Imagime that a superscientist invents machine--we shall call it a
> "braino," - that enables him to produce hallucianations in certain subjects
> . The machine operates by influencing the brain of a subject who wears a
> special cap, called a "braino cap." when the braino cap is placed on a
> subject's head, the operator of the braino can affect his brain so as to
> produce any hallucination in the subject that the operator wishes. The
> braino is a hallucination-producing machine. The hallucinations produced by
> it may be as incomplete, systematic, and coherent as the operator of the
> branio desires to make them.
>
> The present argument starts from the premise that the braino is a logical
> possibility, and consequently that there should be hallucinations that are
> coherent, complete, and systematic in every way. From the premise of logical
> possibility, we conclude that we in fact have no way of telling whether or
> not we are hallucinating.
[snip]
There is ample evidence that _some_ people have hallucinations
that they cannot tell from reality. The braino operator
produces in them the hallucination of hearing a god.
But this braino isn't perfect -- some of us can tell it's
just hallucinations.
--
Best regards, HLK, Physics
Sverker Johansson U of Jonkoping
----------------------------------------------
Definitions:
Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so
overwhelming that even the ICR can't deny it.
Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond
reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.
Tom Potter
"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:umje75b...@corp.supernews.com...
> Dr. Know & the Braino Helmet
>
> Imagime that a superscientist invents machine--we shall call it a
> "braino," - that enables him to produce hallucianations in certain
subjects
> . The machine operates by influencing the brain of a subject who wears a
> special cap, called a "braino cap." when the braino cap is placed on a
> subject's head, the operator of the braino can affect his brain so as to
> produce any hallucination in the subject that the operator wishes. The
> braino is a hallucination-producing machine. The hallucinations produced
by
> it may be as incomplete, systematic, and coherent as the operator of the
> branio desires to make them.
>
> How we can tell that we are not hallucinating. The braino argument is
> intended to establish that we can never tell this, even if we can
sometimes
> tell that we are hallucinating. Consider some perceptual belief that you
> would maintain does not from hallucinations. what experiences guarantee
> this? Indeed, what experiences provide you with any evidence of it?
The brain grades the reality of sensory input,
by crosscorrelating the input against all the stuff
that is stored in ones brain.
It correlates first against the hardwiring of the
autonomic nervous system,
then against intense pleasure and pain stimulations
in the past, and then scans through all the other data,
when it finds the time, as in sleep or contemplation.
If a machine provided new sensory input, it would be no
different from sensing something unusual with your normal senses.
Your brain would accept the input as reality,
or trivialize the input as artifact,
depending upon how well it correlated with the data
stored in your brain.
One man's reality can be another man's hallucination,
depending upon how past sensory input correlated with
pleasure and pain.
The machine wouldn't work too well,
if it depended upon the stored data,
and if the subject was reprogrammed by
stimulating the pain and pleasure centers of the brain,
along with the new input, it would take a long time.
--
Tom Potter http://home.earthlink.net/~tdp
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
JC
working on Matrix 4, or whatever number is the next in question.
My 3 cents,
-JC
"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> kirjoitti viestissä
news:umje75b...@corp.supernews.com...
Dirk Bruere
>
> Imagime that a superscientist invents machine--we shall call it a
> "braino," - that enables him to produce hallucianations in certain
subjects
> . The machine operates by influencing the brain of a subject who wears a
> special cap, called a "braino cap." when the braino cap is placed on a
> subject's head, the operator of the braino can affect his brain so as to
> produce any hallucination in the subject that the operator wishes. The
> braino is a hallucination-producing machine. The hallucinations produced
by
> it may be as incomplete, systematic, and coherent as the operator of the
> branio desires to make them.
>
> The present argument starts from the premise that the braino is a logical
> possibility, and consequently that there should be hallucinations that are
> coherent, complete, and systematic in every way. From the premise of
logical
> possibility, we conclude that we in fact have no way of telling whether or
> not we are hallucinating.
Real some REAL philosophy.
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online.html
Dirk
Sir Frederick
putative gods can deal in infinities as we deal in
finites. Thus "memory" is no constraint.
----------------------------------------------------------
Review: 'Simone' points out own flaw
By Scott R. Burnell
UPI Science News
From the Science & Technology Desk
Published 8/25/2002 1:42 PM
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20020824-051349-7490r
WASHINGTON, Aug. 25 (UPI) -- How nice that a movie focusing on fraud so readily admits its own
fakery.
The central premise in Andrew Niccol's "Simone" is that some mad genius creates a computer program
capable of simulating perfectly the image of a human being, but Niccol readily admits how
impossible this is in one critical scene.
As Al Pacino's character attempts to orchestrate a "live" interview for his digital creation,
Simone's image starts to fall apart. The unknowing talk show host chalks up the pixilation and
dropouts to satellite interference, but the truth flashes on Pacino's control monitor:
"Insufficient Memory."
Therein lies the truth about why virtual actors lie far in our future. Simulating the complexities
of a complete human being's interaction with the real world is probably beyond the storage and
processing capabilities of today's supercomputers, never mind the piddling workstations Pacino has
under his movie-studio bench.
But, you say, what about animation such as last year's "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within?" Doesn't
the level of photo-realism exhibited by some of those characters imply you could use Hollywood's
existing special-effects magic to drop them into a live-action scene with no one the wiser?
To be blunt, no. Comparing those concepts to what's depicted in "Simone" truly is a case of apples
and oranges. It all boils down to numbers and how quickly you can manipulate them.
To create a truly accurate digital still image of a person, the computer would have to assign a
fixed amount of computer space for every cell of skin, hair, eyes and so on visible to the
"camera." Each cell would have to have its own levels of light reflectivity, plasticity and all the
other characteristics of living tissue.
When creating digital action, today's computer animators get around this by assigning average
values for skin, cloth or other surfaces in order to ease the computing load, but such tricks in a
live movie would leave the virtual actor far short of a realistic, 3-dimensional-looking image.
The problem grows many times more complex when motion and interaction, such as speech, are
involved. For the face alone, the billions or even trillions of bytes assigned to the surface image
would have to be linked by equations to the dozens of muscles responsible for expression and
movement. Even in "Final Fantasy," the characters' speech did not match their facial motions
precisely.
Separate and less-predictable equations would have to come into play to account for random
activity, such as hair blowing in the wind. All the digital actor's movements then would have to be
synchronized with whatever else is going on.
The fastest general-purpose computers today -- using hundreds or thousands of processors running in
parallel -- run several trillion calculations per second while modeling the behavior of nuclear
explosions and other situations for the U.S. government. A custom-built Japanese system, designed
to simulate the Earth's global climate, handles about 35 trillion operations per second. But even
these speed demons could not mimic the real-time actions of a human being.
Why? The connections between computer storage devices and processors are not yet up to the task of
shuttling the necessary amount of data.
The more information you have to manipulate, the longer it takes a single system to work on it.
This is the rationale behind distributed computing, where thousands or even millions of household
PCs get a tiny sliver of enormous problems such as interpreting radio signals from space or
determining how chemical compounds might interact with the body's proteins.
When you get right down to it, the human brain is the only system capable of handling the stunning
amount of information and calculations necessary to act human. Even then, it only needs to "act" to
project unreality, such as theater or film, to an audience.
Copyright © 2002 United Press International
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcn...@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
*************************
Phrase of the week :
"If you can't say something nice,
say something surrealistic." - Zippy
:-))))Snort!)
*************************
Dirk Bruere
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@ILOVESPAMfuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:3D6A38E4...@ILOVESPAMfuzzysys.com...
>
> Therein lies the truth about why virtual actors lie far in our future.
Simulating the complexities
> of a complete human being's interaction with the real world is probably
beyond the storage and
> processing capabilities of today's supercomputers, never mind the piddling
workstations Pacino has
> under his movie-studio bench.
Actors get paid to follow a script.
Virtual actors will soon be able to do what most action movie actors can do,
with the exception of spending money and mouthing off in real life.
> But, you say, what about animation such as last year's "Final Fantasy: The
Spirits Within?" Doesn't
> the level of photo-realism exhibited by some of those characters imply you
could use Hollywood's
> existing special-effects magic to drop them into a live-action scene with
no one the wiser?
>
> To be blunt, no. Comparing those concepts to what's depicted in "Simone"
truly is a case of apples
> and oranges. It all boils down to numbers and how quickly you can
manipulate them.
'Simone' is a scripted plot - it too is a movie, not real life.
Virtual actors will not be required to give interviews, merely be cheaper to
employ than vanity driven humans.
> To create a truly accurate digital still image of a person, the computer
would have to assign a
> fixed amount of computer space for every cell of skin, hair, eyes and so
on visible to the
> "camera." Each cell would have to have its own levels of light
reflectivity, plasticity and all the
> other characteristics of living tissue.
No. Only to the limits of resolution of the screen, in 2D.
> When creating digital action, today's computer animators get around this
by assigning average
> values for skin, cloth or other surfaces in order to ease the computing
load, but such tricks in a
> live movie would leave the virtual actor far short of a realistic,
3-dimensional-looking image.
>
> The problem grows many times more complex when motion and interaction,
such as speech, are
> involved. For the face alone, the billions or even trillions of bytes
assigned to the surface image
> would have to be linked by equations to the dozens of muscles responsible
for expression and
> movement. Even in "Final Fantasy," the characters' speech did not match
their facial motions
> precisely.
Ever seen Marlon Brando? His lip-synch is unreal.
Maybe you want the full range of facial expressions of Schwarzenegger in T2?
> Separate and less-predictable equations would have to come into play to
account for random
> activity, such as hair blowing in the wind. All the digital actor's
movements then would have to be
> synchronized with whatever else is going on.
>
> The fastest general-purpose computers today -- using hundreds or thousands
of processors running in
> parallel -- run several trillion calculations per second while modeling
the behavior of nuclear
> explosions and other situations for the U.S. government. A custom-built
Japanese system, designed
> to simulate the Earth's global climate, handles about 35 trillion
operations per second. But even
> these speed demons could not mimic the real-time actions of a human being.
And a top of the range Geforce card performs in excess of 1 trillion
operations per second.
Custom h/w will always outperform general puropose compuers by orders of
magnitude.
> Why? The connections between computer storage devices and processors are
not yet up to the task of
> shuttling the necessary amount of data.
>
> The more information you have to manipulate, the longer it takes a single
system to work on it.
> This is the rationale behind distributed computing, where thousands or
even millions of household
> PCs get a tiny sliver of enormous problems such as interpreting radio
signals from space or
> determining how chemical compounds might interact with the body's
proteins.
>
> When you get right down to it, the human brain is the only system capable
of handling the stunning
> amount of information and calculations necessary to act human. Even then,
it only needs to "act" to
> project unreality, such as theater or film, to an audience.
Which is why the full processing power of a brain is not needed.
Dirk
Immortalist
"Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote in message
news:xula9.111148$eK6.3...@twister.austin.rr.com...
It is reasonable to hold a belief that we are not in the braino and that we
are in this world as it appears, while maintaining that this belief could be
mistaken, it continues to be reliable. This belief is just not completely
justified certain knowledge.
> > Notice that whatever experience you indicate, the braino argument will
be
> > quite sufficient to prove that such an experience is no guarantee
against
> > hallucianation. All we need do is imagine that you have, unknown to
> > yourself, the braino cap on your head. the operator of the braino is
> > producing the very experiences you claim guarantee that you are not
> > hallucinating.
>
> Ok...
>
> > Imagine that all people are controlled by the braino and that the
machine
> is
> > run by some evil being, Dr. Know, who plots to keep us completely in
error
> > through hallucinations.
>
> What other people? I can't be sure there ARE other people since my
> perception of them could be just another hallucination.
>
The belief that there are other people could be mistaken, but it could be
true. It is reasonable to go with the assumption that there are other people
in the world even though there is no known way yet to eliminate the
possibility that this belief is in error.
> > Dr. Know does not wish to be detected, so he
> > supplies hallucinations that are coherent, complete, and systematic.
> Indeed,
> > the hallucinations he produced in us are a PERFECT COUNTERFEIT OF
REALITY.
>
> What reality? Given the braino machine, I can't be sure there is one, can
> you?
>
As we proceed to move around in this world we go with the assumption that
there is reality even though we could be mistaken, it is better to believe
this when we appear to be crossing the road than not to believe it.
> > Our experiences fulfill our expectations and contain no more surprises
> than
> > we would expect from reality.
>
> Ok...
>
> > But is it not reality we experience; our
> > perceptual beliefs about the world are quite mistaken, for the source of
> our
> > experiences is a mere machine, the braino, which creates
hallutionations.
> In
> > such a predicament we might have just the sort of perceptual beliefs we
> now
> > have, based on experiences exactly similar to those we now have. But our
> > perceptual beliefs would be altogether false.
>
> False compared to what? You can't claim them to be false compared to the
> reality that Dr. Know experiences, because he could be under the influence
> of a meta-braino machine himself.
>
Because we have not found a way to make the belief that we either are or are
not in the braino certain knowledge, we have reasons to doubt whichever we
appear to be in.
> > The imagined situation is exactly similar to ours with respect to the
> > reasons or evidence we would have for our perceptual beliefs. Experience
> is
> > virtually the same in both cases. Consequently, if we lack knowledge in
> one
> > situation, we must surely lack it in the other.
>
> Where did this "lack of knowledge" thing come from? Even if I am
> hallucinating everything I experience, there are consistencies in the
> hallucinations, and thus I can have knowledge of those consistencies.
>
But is it completely justified knowledge that has no chance of being in
error or no possibility of being mistaken? If not then we only have partial
knowledge that could be mistaken.
> Knowledge is the identification of consistencies.
>
> > Obviously, we lack knowledge
> > when we are controlled by the braino, for then our perceptual beliefs
are
> > false.
>
> Negative. We can have knowledge of the consistencies that the braino
> presents to us.
>
If we are in the braino and at the same time believe we are not and believe
we are in the real world, then we have false beliefs. We can have some
knowledge about consistencies but the statement refers to beliefs about
reality.
> > Hence, we also lack knowledge in our present situation.
>
> Granted. We lack knowledge of the braino.
>
and we lack completely justified knowledge about the real world.
> > More
> > precisely, our perceptual beliefs fail to constitute knowledge in either
> > case.
>
> Simply false. I can be said to have knowledge of the Star Wars universe,
yet
> it is not "real". Internal consistency is all that's necessary for
> knowledge.
>
The lack of completely justified knowledge he was referring to was knowledge
about whether we are in the real world or in the braino, and that it is
possible to concieve of the star wars universe in either.
> > We believe that we are not controlled by such a machine, and if we are
> > fortunate in this belief, then no doubt many of our perceptual beliefs
are
> > true.
>
> Negative. I accept the possibility that I am controlled by such a machine,
> but it simply doesn't matter if I am or not. The illusion that I am not
> hallucinating is so complete that I might as well treat what I experience
as
> reality for all practical purposes.
>
Then you concede that beliefs about the real world may or may not constitue
completely justified knowledge with no chance of error?
> > It is, however, good fortune and not good evidence that we should
> > thank for correctness of these beliefs.
>
> This is irrelevant, and you're making the unwarrented assumption that you
> are not being influenced by the braino.
>
This notes a preference based upon a belief which could be mistaken but
which is reliable that; we go with the belief that we are in the real world
and not the braino, still acknowledging that we could be mistaken.
> > We are just lucky if there is no Dr. Know controlling us with a braino;
>
> Lucky compared to what?
>
Compared the the possibility for error of our beliefs that we have not
learned yet to get rid of, making our beliefs possibly errored.
> > and
> > from that good fortune may result the further good fortune that most of
> our
> > perceptual beliefs are true.
>
> If I am under the influence of the braino, and it is all I will ever know,
> then that is my reality. There is no guanantee that the "real" reality is
> any better, is there? I may be more fortunate to be under the influence of
> the braino than not. How would I know?
>
Only referring to those times that you are having beliefs about reality.
> > it is just a matter of luck, however, and
> > nothing epistemologically more glorious than that.
>
> What does luck have to do with anything? The braino would constitute an
> deliberate act.
>
If we cannot find a way to eliminate the possibility that we have on the cap
then there is a probability that it is either true or false. Hence it
becomes a lottery or the possibility of having certain knowledge is just
that: a probability that at some times we might be right and at others times
wrong. Take a guess?
Immortalist
"Ash" <20...@balaldidadida.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2002.08.26...@balaldidadida.com...
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2002 22:13:41 +0000, Immortalist wrote:
>
> > Dr. Know & the Braino Helmet
> <snip>
>
> If this is an artificial hallucination, then it is pretty darn good.
> I wonder when truncation errors will become apparent, and what happens
> during an overflow.
>
But more importantly, if we can't tell for sure if we are in the real world,
how are we to deal with the chance that our beliefs might be mistaken about
reality and we have no way to be certain?
> Talking about reality, have you ever watched Lain?
>
The story follows Lain, a shy, adolescent school girl. After receiving an
email from a classmate who committed suicide a few days earlier, Lain begins
to examine the world, society, god, self, technology, and how these concepts
fit together. The fact that such an email could easily be faked is
irrelevant, but instead we focus on how Lain's perspective changes as she
learns to deal with life. This 13-part series, spanning 4 DVDs, is the best
aspects of American Beauty, The Sixth Sense, 2001, and (to a lesser degree)
The Matrix rolled into one subtle and beautiful story.
That sounds interesting...
http://animeworld.com/reviews/lain.html
Immortalist
"Sverker Johansson" <l...@hlk.no.hj.spam.se> wrote in message
news:3D6A1EB3...@hlk.no.hj.spam.se...
Since we can't rule out the small probability that our beliefs about reality
could be mistaken, this gives emperical evidence for the slight possibility
that god exists?
Immortalist
"Dirk Bruere" <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:akdair$1h6sjm$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de...
Has Chalmers recently learned of a way to eliminate the possibility that any
belief we have could be mistaken? Or are you saying that Chalmers looks down
on logical possibilities and thought experiments? (Zombies?)
> Dirk
>
>
Dirk Bruere
Your thought experiment yields nothing as far as I can see.
In fact, all that needs to be manipulated is 'belief'.
You have someone believing that the moon is made of cheese, it does not
matter what evidence, tests or proofs you propose - they will go on
believing.
Dirk
Andrew Plotkin
> Dr. Know & the Braino Helmet
Please do not crosspost replies in this thread. The poster is
crossposting only to stir up irritation across the newsgroups.
If you really have to reply, please continue the discussion in a
single newsgroup. Thanks.
Followups reduced.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Immortalist
But if we admit that our beliefs are based upon probabilities of truthe and
not certainty of truth, are not some beliefs much more reasonable to believe
than others, based upon competing evidences?
> Dirk
>
>
>
>
Uncle Al
>
> Dr. Know & the Braino Helmet
>
> Imagime that a superscientist invents machine--we shall call it a
> "braino," - that enables him to produce hallucianations in certain subjects
The Media. Big deal. MK ULTRA couldn't do with drugs and brutal
electroshock what Brittany Spears does by wiggling her fat butt.
> . The machine operates by influencing the brain of a subject who wears a
> special cap, called a "braino cap." when the braino cap is placed on a
> subject's head, the operator of the braino can affect his brain so as to
> produce any hallucination in the subject that the operator wishes. The
> braino is a hallucination-producing machine. The hallucinations produced by
> it may be as incomplete, systematic, and coherent as the operator of the
> branio desires to make them.
I hope you don't entertain delusions of novel authorship.
> The present argument starts from the premise that the braino is a logical
> possibility, and consequently that there should be hallucinations that are
> coherent, complete, and systematic in every way. From the premise of logical
> possibility, we conclude that we in fact have no way of telling whether or
> not we are hallucinating.
Wrong. This argument is as old as philosophy, and about as
valueless. Objective reality is the disinterested aribiter of
personal reality. Those who choose gods over empiricism end up with
their pimply selves squatting in mud puddles demanding their "rights"
(appetites) from the sleek good-smelling folks who own all the
infrastructure.
> If the braino is a logical possibility, then how can we tell that
> hallucinations are not in fact so hard to detect?
"The Matrix." Ho hum. Collective disinformation could not be
self-consistently maintained in real time for fundamental reasons.
Neither the USSR nor Communist China could control reality in small
fact.
> On the contrary, we may
> suffer hallucinations that we cannot detect. If it is logically possible
> that hallucinations should be coherent, complete, and systematic in every
> way, then there is no way of detecting at any moment that we are not
> suffering from a hallucionation.
"The Matrix," and you are wrong.
[snip]
Prolix, too.
How is it that prophets always appear after the fact? Where were you
bloviating minstrels of post mortem escrow the day before Princess
Diana put her stable of psychics out of work? The day before 09
September 2001? The day before a stockmarket crash (pick one)? The
day before a lottery drawing?
Any systematic falsification of objective reality would suffer bugs,
time lag, and hackers. As our burgeoning analytical techniques march
ever rightward of the decimal point, your argument evolves from a thin
wisp of hot air to a stale fart.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Sir Frederick
By Ed Susman
UPI Science News
From the Science & Technology Desk
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20020825-111801-2480r
CHICAGO, Aug. 25 (UPI) -- Painless magnetic waves pulsed across the brain appear to relieve
depression as well as the more traumatic and standard electro-convulsive shock therapy, researchers
said at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association.
Called repetitive trans-cranial magnetic stimulation, the experimental procedure, which consists of
a series of 20 treatments over a 2-to-4-week period, dramatically improves the condition of people
with severe depression, said Sheila Dowd, associate professor of psychiatry at the University of
Illinois at Chicago.
"We are really excited by these results," Dowd told United Press International. "I have to admit
that we were somewhat skeptical that this procedure would work. We do not know the mechanism of
action -- why it works -- but then we really don't know why electro-convulsive therapy works
either."
Dowd and colleagues enrolled 26 patients in the study, randomly assigning them either to the
magnetic therapy or ECT. "Most of the patients had been through electro-convulsive therapy before,"
Dowd said, adding that after the procedure, the patients said almost universally they preferred
RTMS.
In the treatment, an electrical current passes through a metal coil applied to the scalp to produce
fluctuating magnetic pulses. The pulses affect nerve cells in the brain in the area under the coil
and possibly in other areas. Dowd said when the device was used as a probe by neurologists, some
patients reported an elevation in mood -- hence the research to evaluate the machine as a treatment
for depression. At least two companies manufacture RTMS devices.
The only side effects with the magnetic treatment were a few reports of minor headaches and some
redness where the electrode-like coils were placed against the skull. The 15 patients given RTMS
therapy did not lose consciousness during the procedure. In the full treatment course, 10,000 to
20,000 magnetic pulses are employed at the rate of 10 pulses a second. Patients received 20 pulses
lasting 5-seconds each and 30 seconds apart in each treatment session.
In ECT -- often depicted in movies as a violent and uncomfortable procedure -- patients tend to
suffer memory loss, the procedure requires hospitalization and the shock therapy is associated with
social stigma.
"These people in the study need dramatic treatments," Tony Young, associate professor and chairman
of the department of psychology at Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, told UPI. "Electro-convulsive
therapy saves lives but can cause damage." Young said he would like to see further, larger studies
that can replicate the effectiveness of the magnetic stimulation treatment.
In the study, Dowd said the depression scores on the Hamilton scale -- a standard measure of
depression -- decreased by 55 percent in the patients receiving magnetic stimulation and by 64
percent for those receiving electro-convulsive therapy. Because the numbers of patients were small,
Dowd said the differences in her preliminary study are not statistically different.
"This may be an alternative to electro-convulsive therapy," Dennis Warner, a behavior analyst at
the River Street School, Windsor, Conn., told UPI. "These are preliminary results so it is really
too early to tell how effective this will be, but it is something that we will want to watch
develop."
Dowd noted magnetic stimulation differs considerably from magnet therapy. In magnet therapy,
magnets are placed at wound sites or near injured joints and are supposed to promote healing. Few
positive clinical studies have been produced in support of the therapy. But RTMS has been approved
as treatment in Canada and other countries, she said.
Dowd's study was sponsored by grants from the university and from the National Institutes of
Health-funded General Clinical Research Center, also at the university.
Dirk Bruere
>
> > > > > possibility, we conclude that we in fact have no way of telling
> > whether
> > > or
> > > > > not we are hallucinating.
> > > >
> > > > Real some REAL philosophy.
> > > > http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/online.html
> >
> > > Has Chalmers recently learned of a way to eliminate the possibility
that
> > any
> > > belief we have could be mistaken? Or are you saying that Chalmers
looks
> > down
> > > on logical possibilities and thought experiments? (Zombies?)
> >
> > Your thought experiment yields nothing as far as I can see.
> > In fact, all that needs to be manipulated is 'belief'.
> >
> > You have someone believing that the moon is made of cheese, it does not
> > matter what evidence, tests or proofs you propose - they will go on
> > believing.
> >
>
> But if we admit that our beliefs are based upon probabilities of truthe
and
> not certainty of truth, are not some beliefs much more reasonable to
believe
> than others, based upon competing evidences?
Yes, but that has no bearing on your thought expt.
One might equally claim that only beliefs that lead to a successful
propagation of genes are 'the most true'. It depends on how we select our
criteria for judging things.
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@ILOVESPAMfuzzysys.com> wrote in message
> Magnetic stimulation relieves depression
> By Ed Susman
> UPI Science News
> From the Science & Technology Desk
> Published 8/25/2002 12:41 PM
> http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20020825-111801-2480r
Every new gross technique is applied to the brain with claims for
effectiveness from its inventors.
See the early material on lobotomies and how amazingly effective they were.
Or see 'suggestion' and 'placebo' for even more powerful effects.
Dirk
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
would you ever know the true reality?
--
:::::::::::: Crossposters of the world unite ::::::::::::::
"Ash" <20...@balaldidadida.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2002.08.26...@balaldidadida.com...
Dirk Bruere
"_/_/_/_/_/_/_/" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ake1is$7ni$1...@news.chatlink.com...
> Here's the kicker: If you're born into something like this, how on
earth
> would you ever know the true reality?
The only thing one could be certain of that transcends every simulation
would be mathematics and logic.
Dirk
John Jones
would be real to the person no matter how they were forced upon him/her. It
would merely make things difficult for that person if the brain manipulator
had his way. But you don't need a machine to do that. Politics does the same
thing.
JJ
Dirk Bruere
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3D6A93CD...@hate.spam.net...
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/ wrote:
> >
> > Here's the kicker: If you're born into something like this, how on
earth
> > would you ever know the true reality?
>
> reality would trivially show discontinuities at the top and bottom
> ends. Computation cannot keep up with evolution of states. There
> would be detectable noise.
Not given the fallible human memory.
That which is not observed would not have to be simulated in detail. The
tree falling in the forest with nobody to hear it need not make a sound.
Dirk
Uncle Al
>
> Here's the kicker: If you're born into something like this, how on earth
> would you ever know the true reality?
Why don't you twirps give up "The Matrix?" The scale size of physical
reality would trivially show discontinuities at the top and bottom
ends. Computation cannot keep up with evolution of states. There
would be detectable noise.
--
Andrew Plotkin
> Perhaps we could break the simulation by increasing the energy
> requirements
Please do not crosspost replied in this thread. Reduce your newsgroups
lists and continue the discussion in one place.
Thanks. Followups reduced to rec.arts.sf.written.
Therion Ware
+0100, "Dirk Bruere" <art...@kbnet.co.uk> brought the total lines of
text written about "Re: The Perfect Counterfeit Reality" to 21. I
decided to observe the following about them:
Perhaps we could break the simulation by increasing the energy
requirements, say by colonising other solar systems, bouncing lasers
off planets in other solar systems adn so on. Sci-Fi writer Ian Baxter
has written extensively about this, and it's an entertaining read.
Of course if we did break it, would we like what we found?
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
There is no EAC, so delete it from the email, if you want to communicate.
Dirk Bruere
"Therion Ware" <tw...@video2cd.eac.com.eac> wrote in message
news:v85lmu0khpqv1qfq4...@4ax.com...
> >> Why don't you twirps give up "The Matrix?" The scale size of physical
> >> reality would trivially show discontinuities at the top and bottom
> >> ends. Computation cannot keep up with evolution of states. There
> >> would be detectable noise.
> >
> >Not given the fallible human memory.
> >That which is not observed would not have to be simulated in detail. The
> >tree falling in the forest with nobody to hear it need not make a sound.
>
> Perhaps we could break the simulation by increasing the energy
> requirements, say by colonising other solar systems, bouncing lasers
> off planets in other solar systems adn so on. Sci-Fi writer Ian Baxter
> has written extensively about this, and it's an entertaining read.
>
It depends on the level of simulation.
The finest grained would be at the Planck scale.
Next most plausible is the atomic/molecular scale.
The 'Matrix' is a far higher level of simulation that is geared solely to
fooling the human senses. It is the only one whose computing requirements do
not scale as our physical presence spreads.
Dirk
Immortalist
It seems that once we agree that we haven't found a way to remove the chance
that we might be mistaken about our our beliefs, that we would then use the
strongest evidences we can find and test them to build up a record of trials
and errors. Is there another criterian? Theories about genes and propogation
would emerge from either strong or weak evidence.
>
>
Sir Frederick
Don't need politics. Nature is enough. The natural, qualia rich, perceptual field
is a persistent hallucination. It is part of the human condition, and
as "real" as matter.
naked ape
earth
> would you ever know the true reality?
Hey, maybe the religion one is born into is the Braino Helmet, the
conterfeit reality, after all, our environment does have a major role in
programing our onboard computers. .. Ape;)
Immortalist
> Immortalist wrote:
> >
> > Dr. Know & the Braino Helmet
> >
> > Imagime that a superscientist invents machine--we shall call it a
> > "braino," - that enables him to produce hallucianations in certain
subjects
>
> The Media. Big deal. MK ULTRA couldn't do with drugs and brutal
> electroshock what Brittany Spears does by wiggling her fat butt.
>
Mr Ultra as a possibility was designed specifically for those who would like
to believe that completely justified knowledge is more than just a
probability.
> > . The machine operates by influencing the brain of a subject who wears a
> > special cap, called a "braino cap." when the braino cap is placed on a
> > subject's head, the operator of the braino can affect his brain so as to
> > produce any hallucination in the subject that the operator wishes. The
> > braino is a hallucination-producing machine. The hallucinations produced
by
> > it may be as incomplete, systematic, and coherent as the operator of the
> > branio desires to make them.
>
> I hope you don't entertain delusions of novel authorship.
>
I stated that the post was borrowed from an famous ultra epistemologist.
> > The present argument starts from the premise that the braino is a
logical
> > possibility, and consequently that there should be hallucinations that
are
> > coherent, complete, and systematic in every way. From the premise of
logical
> > possibility, we conclude that we in fact have no way of telling whether
or
> > not we are hallucinating.
>
> Wrong. This argument is as old as philosophy, and about as
> valueless. Objective reality is the disinterested aribiter of
> personal reality. Those who choose gods over empiricism end up with
> their pimply selves squatting in mud puddles demanding their "rights"
> (appetites) from the sleek good-smelling folks who own all the
> infrastructure.
>
Because the argument is as old as the evolution of language and culture
doesn't disqualify it. The argument does not suggest either empiricism or
gods. Just claims that certain knowledge is a probability not a certainty.
> > If the braino is a logical possibility, then how can we tell that
> > hallucinations are not in fact so hard to detect?
>
> "The Matrix." Ho hum. Collective disinformation could not be
> self-consistently maintained in real time for fundamental reasons.
> Neither the USSR nor Communist China could control reality in small
> fact.
>
How would you show that the belief that "Collective disinformation could
not be self-consistently maintained in real time for fundamental reasons,"
is certain knowledge and completely justified with no chance for error?
Historical data about the USSR and China does not eliminate the possibility
completely since these could be part of the information fed into the
illusion.
> > On the contrary, we may
> > suffer hallucinations that we cannot detect. If it is logically possible
> > that hallucinations should be coherent, complete, and systematic in
every
> > way, then there is no way of detecting at any moment that we are not
> > suffering from a hallucionation.
>
> "The Matrix," and you are wrong.
>
On the contrary, we may suffer hallucinations that we cannot detect since
they are technologically superior to what we have now. If it is logically
possible that hallucinations should be coherent, complete, and systematic in
every way, then there is no way of detecting at any moment that we are not
suffering from a hallucionation.
> [snip]
>
> Prolix, too.
>
> How is it that prophets always appear after the fact? Where were you
> bloviating minstrels of post mortem escrow the day before Princess
> Diana put her stable of psychics out of work? The day before 09
> September 2001? The day before a stockmarket crash (pick one)? The
> day before a lottery drawing?
>
Assuming other unrelated identities. Immortalist is a relatively new
identity and soon I will change again.
> Any systematic falsification of objective reality would suffer bugs,
> time lag, and hackers. As our burgeoning analytical techniques march
> ever rightward of the decimal point, your argument evolves from a thin
> wisp of hot air to a stale fart.
>
If by any you mean all, how would you show that belief could not be
mistaken? You have examples, are you claiming that these cover all the
possibilities in reference to falsification?
As our burgeoning analytical techniques march ever rightward of the decimal
point, our arguments evolve from a thin wisp of hot air to a stale fart. But
all it takes to make the certainty of completely justified knowledge into
knowledge that could be mistaken is a stale fart. In the lottery we cannot
know what the next number will be and when we say that something has the
probability of a fart, the next time we display the reference case of the
probability that time might be the fart.
I choose empiricism as the best known method of gathering evidence and
confirming what the world is, but the wisp if a tiny fart like probability
makes me believe that it could be mistaken.
Immortalist
Ya, like the old story line where a guy bumps his head and everything comes
back to him, better right?
>
>
Immortalist
"John Jones" <burgerb...@supanet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ake2uk$k75$1...@chilli.nntp.netline.net.uk...
If they were percieved as real could the person also believe that they are
completely justified?
>
>
Therion Ware
decided to observe the following about them:
>
>"Therion Ware" <tw...@video2cd.eac.com.eac> wrote in message
>news:v85lmu0khpqv1qfq4...@4ax.com...
>> >> Why don't you twirps give up "The Matrix?" The scale size of physical
>> >> reality would trivially show discontinuities at the top and bottom
>> >> ends. Computation cannot keep up with evolution of states. There
>> >> would be detectable noise.
>> >
>> >Not given the fallible human memory.
>> >That which is not observed would not have to be simulated in detail. The
>> >tree falling in the forest with nobody to hear it need not make a sound.
>>
>> Perhaps we could break the simulation by increasing the energy
>> requirements, say by colonising other solar systems, bouncing lasers
>> off planets in other solar systems adn so on. Sci-Fi writer Ian Baxter
and that should have been Stephen Baxter...
>> has written extensively about this, and it's an entertaining read.
>>
>
>It depends on the level of simulation.
Well, not so much the level as the nature of the simulation. If we're
"brains in a bottle" then I imagine the computational requirements
would be considerably less than if the universe is a projection.
>The finest grained would be at the Planck scale.
>Next most plausible is the atomic/molecular scale.
>The 'Matrix' is a far higher level of simulation that is geared solely to
>fooling the human senses. It is the only one whose computing requirements do
>not scale as our physical presence spreads.
--
Immortalist
"naked ape" <naked...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ake7f0$1i0dra$1...@ID-10187.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "_/_/_/_/_/_/_/" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:ake1is$7ni$1...@news.chatlink.com...
> > Here's the kicker: If you're born into something like this, how on
> earth
> > would you ever know the true reality?
>
> Hey, maybe the religion one is born into is the Braino Helmet, the
> conterfeit reality, after all, our environment does have a major role in
> programing our onboard computers. .. Ape;)
>
Ape! I wanna print that and hang it on the wall. I believe that the religion
is one of the models of the world we build up in our brain. But I believe
that the models in our brains that we manipulate and use to navigate around
in the world, is the counterfeit reality of reality. A deficient duplication
of reality. Perhaps one day we will learn enough to make the counterfeit the
relality instead of an touchy feely illusion.
> > --
> > :::::::::::: Crossposters of the world unite for we use less memory to
story body text on servers ::::::::::::::
Sir Frederick
Perceiving as real has nothing to do with justification.
The "reality" we in common perceive and are part of is
not "justified". IMO "reality" is absurd, including me and thee.
Whatever the putative gods are up to, from my point of view their
acts (reality) and they are absurd, this until shown otherwise.
Immortalist
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@ILOVESPAMfuzzysys.com> wrote in message
> Immortalist wrote:
> >
> > "John Jones" <burgerb...@supanet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:ake2uk$k75$1...@chilli.nntp.netline.net.uk...
> > > The images perceived would not be a hallucination. The images
perceived
> > > would be real to the person no matter how they were forced upon
him/her.
> > It
> > > would merely make things difficult for that person if the brain
> > manipulator
> > > had his way. But you don't need a machine to do that. Politics does
the
> > same
> > > thing.
> > >
> > > JJ
> >
> > If they were percieved as real could the person also believe that they
are
> > completely justified?
> >
> > >
> > >
>
> Perceiving as real has nothing to do with justification.
> The "reality" we in common perceive and are part of is
> not "justified". IMO "reality" is absurd, including me and thee.
> Whatever the putative gods are up to, from my point of view their
> acts (reality) and they are absurd, this until shown otherwise.
> --
Then you are saying that it is not yet possible to remove all chance for
error from the belief that we can know anything for certain without any
chance for being mistaken?
John Jones
field
is a persistent hallucination. It is part of the human condition, and
as "real" as matter.
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America<
JJ
Thats cheating.
And 'hallucination' is presumptious. And its not being alive that is the
problem (how did we ever come to equate experience, life, consciousness as a
'thing', or qualia?), but being messed around with, by brain manipulation or
by politics.
I can't imagine what conceives experience, or 'qualia' (god help us), as a
hallucination or part of a condition.
I wrote a short essay on functionalism. Original. Tore it to shreds. Killed
it stone dead. Not a wriggle out of it.
Sir Frederick
pragmatically correct on occasion.
The classical statement is that not only is the situation strange,
but also the situation is stranger than we can imagine.
In the meanwhile we have our stories to comfort us.
Our sensory driven perceptual field is only a comforting story,
a mistaken story. There is no better available. Error in the very
basis. Keep on truckin'.
--
David Lindauer
Adam Marczyk wrote:
> Immortalist <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:umje75b...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Dr. Know & the Braino Helmet
> >
> > Imagime that a superscientist invents machine--we shall call it a
> > "braino," - that enables him to produce hallucianations in certain subjects
> > . The machine operates by influencing the brain of a subject who wears a
> > special cap, called a "braino cap." when the braino cap is placed on a
> > subject's head, the operator of the braino can affect his brain so as to
> > produce any hallucination in the subject that the operator wishes. The
> > braino is a hallucination-producing machine. The hallucinations produced by
> > it may be as incomplete, systematic, and coherent as the operator of the
> > branio desires to make them.
> >
> > The present argument starts from the premise that the braino is a logical
> > possibility, and consequently that there should be hallucinations that are
> > coherent, complete, and systematic in every way. From the premise of logical
> > possibility, we conclude that we in fact have no way of telling whether or
> > not we are hallucinating.
> >
> > If the braino is a logical possibility, then how can we tell that
> > hallucinations are not in fact so hard to detect? On the contrary, we may
> > suffer hallucinations that we cannot detect. If it is logically possible
> > that hallucinations should be coherent, complete, and systematic in every
> > way, then there is no way of detecting at any moment that we are not
> > suffering from a hallucionation.
> >
> > How we can tell that we are not hallucinating. The braino argument is
> > intended to establish that we can never tell this, even if we can sometimes
> > tell that we are hallucinating. Consider some perceptual belief that you
> > would maintain does not from hallucinations. what experiences guarantee
> > this? Indeed, what experiences provide you with any evidence of it?
>
> I can think of a good way. (Actually, I read this in a book long ago, but for
> the sake of argument let's just say I thought of it myself.) If you worry that
> your world is a hallucination, carry around a book of limericks, and if you ever
> find yourself experiencing doubt, turn to a page you've never read. In real
> life, and certainly in hallucinations, it is impossible to instantly create a
> perfect limerick.
>
sorry, won't wash. What if one of the properties of the braino is to slow you down
so you don't operate in real time, and the operator has hours or days to decide how
to fulfill your request in such a way as not to violate your other expectations?
David
>
> One would imagine the same technique works equally well with sonnets, haikus,
> quatrains, or just about any poem or prose style that rhymes or otherwise has a
> complex set of rules.
>
> [snip]
>
> --
> a.a. #2001
> "Blasphemy is a victimless crime."
> Director, EAC Black Monolith Division - "My God, it's full of stars"
> Operative: EAC Electronic Warfare Division
> EAC Subversive Fiction Division
>
> http://www.ebonmusings.org ICQ: 8777843 PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
David Lindauer
naked ape wrote:
> "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:umje75b...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Dr. Know & the Braino Helmet
>
> SNIP
>
> When I slipped into my parallel universes as a manic-depressive, and dreamt
> with my eyes wide open, the line between the two realities was
> imperceptible. There were times when I thought the rest of the world had
> gone crazy, but near the end of my last episode, when I was bound up in a
> straightjacket and thrown into a locked padded room, I began to question
> what I knew to be true. ..
>
it is always easier to believe others than yourself...
>
> Ape:)
> --
> "All we see or seem is but a dream within a dream."
> Edgar Allen Poe
MarkK
Autistic people with enhanced abilities were shown to have them
because the parts of the brain filtering irrelevant information were
underdeveloped, hence they are actually swamped with irrelevant
trivia.
It was shown that disrupting the functions of those areas in "normal"
people with magnetic fields, increased their mathematical ability.
At nuclear power stations some workers operating in extremely strong
magnetic fields actually passed out. There is no doubt that magnetic
fields do have an effect on brain function, whether it is beneficial,
I suspect, is pretty much a matter of chance.
Mark K.
Uncle Al
The falling tree is obsolete. LIGO detects 2 Hz jitter from felled
tress hitting moist ground. Given its two arms, it can triangulate.
A falling tree does indeed make a sound even if there is nobody there
to hear it fall. Philosophy as practiced by 99+% of "philosophers" is
crap.
David Lindauer
Sverker Johansson wrote:
> Immortalist wrote:
> >
> > Dr. Know & the Braino Helmet
> >
> > Imagime that a superscientist invents machine--we shall call it a
> > "braino," - that enables him to produce hallucianations in certain subjects
> > . The machine operates by influencing the brain of a subject who wears a
> > special cap, called a "braino cap." when the braino cap is placed on a
> > subject's head, the operator of the braino can affect his brain so as to
> > produce any hallucination in the subject that the operator wishes. The
> > braino is a hallucination-producing machine. The hallucinations produced by
> > it may be as incomplete, systematic, and coherent as the operator of the
> > branio desires to make them.
> >
> > The present argument starts from the premise that the braino is a logical
> > possibility, and consequently that there should be hallucinations that are
> > coherent, complete, and systematic in every way. From the premise of logical
> > possibility, we conclude that we in fact have no way of telling whether or
> > not we are hallucinating.
>
> [snip]
>
> There is ample evidence that _some_ people have hallucinations
> that they cannot tell from reality. The braino operator
> produces in them the hallucination of hearing a god.
> But this braino isn't perfect -- some of us can tell it's
> just hallucinations.
>
how do you know that the braino hooked up to your head isn't preventing you from
seeing some true reality they can see? The only thing you have to go on is that a
bunch of others (who may or may not have brainos) tell you they agree with what
you are predisposed to believe.
David
>
> --
> Best regards, HLK, Physics
> Sverker Johansson U of Jonkoping
> ----------------------------------------------
> Definitions:
> Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so
> overwhelming that even the ICR can't deny it.
> Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond
> reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.
David Lindauer
Uncle Al wrote:
> Immortalist wrote:
> >
> > Dr. Know & the Braino Helmet
> >
> > Imagime that a superscientist invents machine--we shall call it a
> > "braino," - that enables him to produce hallucianations in certain subjects
>
> The Media. Big deal. MK ULTRA couldn't do with drugs and brutal
> electroshock what Brittany Spears does by wiggling her fat butt.
>
> > . The machine operates by influencing the brain of a subject who wears a
> > special cap, called a "braino cap." when the braino cap is placed on a
> > subject's head, the operator of the braino can affect his brain so as to
> > produce any hallucination in the subject that the operator wishes. The
> > braino is a hallucination-producing machine. The hallucinations produced by
> > it may be as incomplete, systematic, and coherent as the operator of the
> > branio desires to make them.
>
> I hope you don't entertain delusions of novel authorship.
>
> > The present argument starts from the premise that the braino is a logical
> > possibility, and consequently that there should be hallucinations that are
> > coherent, complete, and systematic in every way. From the premise of logical
> > possibility, we conclude that we in fact have no way of telling whether or
> > not we are hallucinating.
>
> Wrong. This argument is as old as philosophy, and about as
> valueless. Objective reality is the disinterested aribiter of
> personal reality. Those who choose gods over empiricism end up with
> their pimply selves squatting in mud puddles demanding their "rights"
> (appetites) from the sleek good-smelling folks who own all the
> infrastructure.
>
after all these years, people are STILL too blind to see anything?
David
>
> > If the braino is a logical possibility, then how can we tell that
> > hallucinations are not in fact so hard to detect?
>
> "The Matrix." Ho hum. Collective disinformation could not be
> self-consistently maintained in real time for fundamental reasons.
> Neither the USSR nor Communist China could control reality in small
> fact.
>
> > On the contrary, we may
> > suffer hallucinations that we cannot detect. If it is logically possible
> > that hallucinations should be coherent, complete, and systematic in every
> > way, then there is no way of detecting at any moment that we are not
> > suffering from a hallucionation.
>
> "The Matrix," and you are wrong.
>
> [snip]
>
> Prolix, too.
>
> How is it that prophets always appear after the fact? Where were you
> bloviating minstrels of post mortem escrow the day before Princess
> Diana put her stable of psychics out of work? The day before 09
> September 2001? The day before a stockmarket crash (pick one)? The
> day before a lottery drawing?
>
> Any systematic falsification of objective reality would suffer bugs,
> time lag, and hackers. As our burgeoning analytical techniques march
> ever rightward of the decimal point, your argument evolves from a thin
> wisp of hot air to a stale fart.
>
Dirk Bruere
> Dirk Bruere wrote:
> >
> > "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> > news:3D6A93CD...@hate.spam.net...
> > > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here's the kicker: If you're born into something like this, how
on
> > earth
> > > > would you ever know the true reality?
> > >
> > > Why don't you twirps give up "The Matrix?" The scale size of physical
> > > reality would trivially show discontinuities at the top and bottom
> > > ends. Computation cannot keep up with evolution of states. There
> > > would be detectable noise.
> >
> > Not given the fallible human memory.
> > That which is not observed would not have to be simulated in detail. The
> > tree falling in the forest with nobody to hear it need not make a sound.
>
> The falling tree is obsolete. LIGO detects 2 Hz jitter from felled
> tress hitting moist ground. Given its two arms, it can triangulate.
> A falling tree does indeed make a sound even if there is nobody there
> to hear it fall. Philosophy as practiced by 99+% of "philosophers" is
> crap.
So what?
LIGO is simulated in its gross details, and so is its output.
Dirk
Uncle Al
LIGO is up and running. It hears the trees from Oregon logging
operations. Gravitation runs are done at night.
Dirk Bruere
>
> LIGO is up and running. It hears the trees from Oregon logging
> operations. Gravitation runs are done at night.
So what are they waiting for, a supernova?
Dirk
Matthew Mitchell
>
> Imagime that a superscientist invents machine--we shall call it a
> "braino," - that enables him to produce hallucianations in certain
subjects
> special cap, called a "braino cap." when the braino cap is placed on a
> subject's head, the operator of the braino can affect his brain so as to
> produce any hallucination in the subject that the operator wishes. The
> braino is a hallucination-producing machine. The hallucinations produced
by
> it may be as incomplete, systematic, and coherent as the operator of the
> branio desires to make them.
>
> possibility, and consequently that there should be hallucinations that are
> coherent, complete, and systematic in every way.
Why do hallucinations have to be coherent, complete, and systematic? What
is meant by these terms?
From the premise of logical
> possibility, we conclude that we in fact have no way of telling whether or
> not we are hallucinating.
>
> If the braino is a logical possibility, then how can we tell that
> hallucinations are not in fact so hard to detect? On the contrary, we may
> suffer hallucinations that we cannot detect. If it is logically possible
> that hallucinations should be coherent, complete, and systematic in every
> way, then there is no way of detecting at any moment that we are not
> suffering from a hallucionation.
>
> How we can tell that we are not hallucinating. The braino argument is
> intended to establish that we can never tell this, even if we can
sometimes
> tell that we are hallucinating. Consider some perceptual belief that you
> would maintain does not from hallucinations. what experiences guarantee
> this? Indeed, what experiences provide you with any evidence of it?
>
> Notice that whatever experience you indicate, the braino argument will be
> quite sufficient to prove that such an experience is no guarantee against
> hallucianation. All we need do is imagine that you have, unknown to
> yourself, the braino cap on your head. the operator of the braino is
> producing the very experiences you claim guarantee that you are not
> hallucinating.
>
> Imagine that all people are controlled by the braino and that the machine
is
> run by some evil being, Dr. Know, who plots to keep us completely in error
> through hallucinations. Dr. Know does not wish to be detected, so he
> supplies hallucinations that are coherent, complete, and systematic.
Indeed,
> the hallucinations he produced in us are a PERFECT COUNTERFEIT OF REALITY.
>
> Our experiences fulfill our expectations and contain no more surprises
than
> we would expect from reality. But is it not reality we experience; our
> perceptual beliefs about the world are quite mistaken, for the source of
our
> experiences is a mere machine, the braino, which creates hallutionations.
In
> such a predicament we might have just the sort of perceptual beliefs we
now
> have, based on experiences exactly similar to those we now have. But our
> perceptual beliefs would be altogether false.
>
> The imagined situation is exactly similar to ours with respect to the
> reasons or evidence we would have for our perceptual beliefs. Experience
is
> virtually the same in both cases. Consequently, if we lack knowledge in
one
> situation, we must surely lack it in the other. Obviously, we lack
knowledge
> when we are controlled by the braino, for then our perceptual beliefs are
> false. Hence, we also lack knowledge in our present situation. More
> precisely, our perceptual beliefs fail to constitute knowledge in either
> case.
>
> We believe that we are not controlled by such a machine, and if we are
> fortunate in this belief, then no doubt many of our perceptual beliefs are
> true. It is, however, good fortune and not good evidence that we should
> thank for correctness of these beliefs.
>
> We are just lucky if there is no Dr. Know controlling us with a braino;
and
> from that good fortune may result the further good fortune that most of
our
> perceptual beliefs are true. it is just a matter of luck, however, and
> nothing epistemologically more glorious than that.
>
> If a belief is true as a result of luck, then it is a lucky guess--not
> knowledge.
>
> Adapted from Keith Lehrer
> http://www-philosophy.ucdavis.edu/phi102/lecmenu.htm
>
> Consider Cypher's speech to Agent Smith:
> Cypher: You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put
it
> in my mouth, The Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and
delicious.
> After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss.
>
> Neo: This isn't real...
> Morpheus: What is "real"? How do you define "real"? If you're talking
about
> what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then
> "real" is simply electrical signals intepreted by your brain...
> [Turns on TV] This is the world that you know. The world as it was at the
> end of the 20th century. It exists now only as part of a neural
interactive
> simulation that we call "The Matrix." You've been living in a dream world,
> Neo.
> [TV switches to desolate world in the future] This is the world as it
exists
> today...
>
>
Immortalist
"Matthew Mitchell" <matt.j....@knology.net> wrote in message
news:umlmsjq...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:umje75b...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Dr. Know & the Braino Helmet
> >
> > Imagime that a superscientist invents machine--we shall call it a
> > "braino," - that enables him to produce hallucianations in certain
> subjects
> > . The machine operates by influencing the brain of a subject who wears a
> > special cap, called a "braino cap." when the braino cap is placed on a
> > subject's head, the operator of the braino can affect his brain so as to
> > produce any hallucination in the subject that the operator wishes. The
> > braino is a hallucination-producing machine. The hallucinations produced
> by
> > it may be as incomplete, systematic, and coherent as the operator of the
> > branio desires to make them.
> >
> > The present argument starts from the premise that the braino is a
logical
> > possibility, and consequently that there should be hallucinations that
are
> > coherent, complete, and systematic in every way.
>
> Why do hallucinations have to be coherent, complete, and systematic? What
> is meant by these terms?
>
The operator of the braino can affect his brain so as to produce any
hallucination in the subject that the operator wishes. The hallucinations
have to be coherent, complete, and systematic, as a control factor in order
to establish that we can never tell that we are not hallucinating, even if
pb125
> The falling tree is obsolete. LIGO detects 2 Hz jitter from felled
> tress hitting moist ground. Given its two arms, it can triangulate.
> A falling tree does indeed make a sound even if there is nobody there
> to hear it fall. Philosophy as practiced by 99+% of "philosophers" is
> crap.
LIGO is hearing the tree falling! The quesion is not one that can be
answered phjysicaly, and is I expect only designed to make you think.
Sir Frederick
>
> The falling tree is obsolete. LIGO detects 2 Hz jitter from felled
> tress hitting moist ground. Given its two arms, it can triangulate.
> A falling tree does indeed make a sound even if there is nobody there
> to hear it fall. Philosophy as practiced by 99+% of "philosophers" is
> crap.
>
With "nobody" there, a falling tree does produce various wave
phenomena (vibrations) but the subjective qualia (sound), not at all.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/ wrote:
> >
> > Here's the kicker: If you're born into something like this, how on
earth
> > would you ever know the true reality?
>
> Why don't you twirps give up "The Matrix?" The scale size of physical
> reality would trivially show discontinuities at the top and bottom
> ends. Computation cannot keep up with evolution of states. There
> would be detectable noise.
You fail to consider that the parameters that are set up in this 'reality'
would
be 'set' up by whoever is operating the 'program', in the first place.
Check into Digital Physics. It's lookin more and more like this 'physical
reality' is digital........
........hell more like "digital reality".
---
It's people like "Uncle Al" who prove beyond a shadow of a doubt
THAT.........stupidity is a alive and well on Usenet.
Sir Frederick
>
> "Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
> news:3D6A93CD...@hate.spam.net...
> > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/ wrote:
> > >
> > > Here's the kicker: If you're born into something like this, how on
> earth
> > > would you ever know the true reality?
> >
> > Why don't you twirps give up "The Matrix?" The scale size of physical
> > reality would trivially show discontinuities at the top and bottom
> > ends. Computation cannot keep up with evolution of states. There
> > would be detectable noise.
>
> You fail to consider that the parameters that are set up in this 'reality'
> would
> be 'set' up by whoever is operating the 'program', in the first place.
>
> Check into Digital Physics. It's lookin more and more like this 'physical
> reality' is digital........
> ........hell more like "digital reality".
The descriptive phrase on the media of reality is "hyper holodeck".
(Would some genius please state the "Principles of Information".)
>
> ---
> It's people like "Uncle Al" who prove beyond a shadow of a doubt
> THAT.........stupidity is a alive and well on Usenet.
>
What are the differences between "constrained" and "stupidity"?
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcn...@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
*************************
Phrase of the week :
"If you can't say something nice,
say something surrealistic." - Zippy
"Anything that makes your mother cry is fun."
-- P.J. O'Rourke
:-))))Snort!)
*************************
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@ILOVESPAMfuzzysys.com> wrote in message
> Uncle Al wrote:
> >
>
> > The falling tree is obsolete. LIGO detects 2 Hz jitter from felled
> > tress hitting moist ground. Given its two arms, it can triangulate.
> > A falling tree does indeed make a sound even if there is nobody there
> > to hear it fall. Philosophy as practiced by 99+% of "philosophers" is
> > crap.
> >
>
> With "nobody" there, a falling tree does produce various wave
> phenomena (vibrations) but the subjective qualia (sound), not at all.
With 'nobody' there, how you gonna prove this?
You need 'somebody' to take the measurements.
--
They found this out 50 years ago in Quantum Physics with subatomic
measurements and the famous "Observer Effect", why is the GP (general
public) still in the dark I wonder, after 50 years?
Sir Frederick
>
> "Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@ILOVESPAMfuzzysys.com> wrote in message
> news:3D6BA101...@ILOVESPAMfuzzysys.com...
> > Uncle Al wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > The falling tree is obsolete. LIGO detects 2 Hz jitter from felled
> > > tress hitting moist ground. Given its two arms, it can triangulate.
> > > A falling tree does indeed make a sound even if there is nobody there
> > > to hear it fall. Philosophy as practiced by 99+% of "philosophers" is
> > > crap.
> > >
> >
> > With "nobody" there, a falling tree does produce various wave
> > phenomena (vibrations) but the subjective qualia (sound), not at all.
>
> With 'nobody' there, how you gonna prove this?
> You need 'somebody' to take the measurements.
>
> --
> They found this out 50 years ago in Quantum Physics with subatomic
> measurements and the famous "Observer Effect", why is the GP (general
> public) still in the dark I wonder, after 50 years?
>
The "observing" context need not be a folk lore addicted "consciousness",
a local pebble is good enough.
Other than that, please prove that "you" are, at the moment I doubt it.
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcn...@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
*************************
Phrase of the week :
"If you can't say something nice,
say something surrealistic." - Zippy
Dirk Bruere
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@ILOVESPAMfuzzysys.com> wrote in message
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/ wrote:
> >
> > "Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@ILOVESPAMfuzzysys.com> wrote in message
> > news:3D6BA101...@ILOVESPAMfuzzysys.com...
> > > Uncle Al wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > The falling tree is obsolete. LIGO detects 2 Hz jitter from felled
> > > > tress hitting moist ground. Given its two arms, it can triangulate.
> > > > A falling tree does indeed make a sound even if there is nobody
there
> > > > to hear it fall. Philosophy as practiced by 99+% of "philosophers"
is
> > > > crap.
> > > >
> > >
> > > With "nobody" there, a falling tree does produce various wave
> > > phenomena (vibrations) but the subjective qualia (sound), not at all.
> >
> > With 'nobody' there, how you gonna prove this?
> > You need 'somebody' to take the measurements.
> >
> > --
> > They found this out 50 years ago in Quantum Physics with subatomic
> > measurements and the famous "Observer Effect", why is the GP (general
> > public) still in the dark I wonder, after 50 years?
> >
>
> The "observing" context need not be a folk lore addicted "consciousness",
> a local pebble is good enough.
That does not solve anything, given the implications of the Delayed Choice
expt in QM
Dirk
Denis Loubet
>
> "Denis Loubet" <dlo...@io.com> wrote in message
> news:xula9.111148$eK6.3...@twister.austin.rr.com...
> >
> > "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:umje75b...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > Dr. Know & the Braino Helmet
> > >
> > > Imagime that a superscientist invents machine--we shall call it a
> > > "braino," - that enables him to produce hallucianations in certain
> > subjects
> > > . The machine operates by influencing the brain of a subject who wears
a
> > > special cap, called a "braino cap." when the braino cap is placed on a
> > > subject's head, the operator of the braino can affect his brain so as
to
> > > produce any hallucination in the subject that the operator wishes. The
> > > braino is a hallucination-producing machine. The hallucinations
produced
> > by
> > > it may be as incomplete, systematic, and coherent as the operator of
the
> > > branio desires to make them.
(snip)
> > > The imagined situation is exactly similar to ours with respect to the
> > > reasons or evidence we would have for our perceptual beliefs.
Experience
> > is
> > > virtually the same in both cases. Consequently, if we lack knowledge
in
> > one
> > > situation, we must surely lack it in the other.
> >
> > Where did this "lack of knowledge" thing come from? Even if I am
> > hallucinating everything I experience, there are consistencies in the
> > hallucinations, and thus I can have knowledge of those consistencies.
> >
>
> But is it completely justified knowledge that has no chance of being in
> error or no possibility of being mistaken?
If it's consistent, I can be as certain of it as anything else. I can claim
that Luke Skywalker uses the Force with the same certainty that the chair
I'm sitting in exists.
> If not then we only have partial
> knowledge that could be mistaken.
Technically, all knowledge suffers from this malady. How would your braino
machine change that?
> > Knowledge is the identification of consistencies.
> >
> > > Obviously, we lack knowledge
> > > when we are controlled by the braino, for then our perceptual beliefs
> are
> > > false.
> >
> > Negative. We can have knowledge of the consistencies that the braino
> > presents to us.
> >
>
> If we are in the braino and at the same time believe we are not and
believe
> we are in the real world, then we have false beliefs. We can have some
> knowledge about consistencies but the statement refers to beliefs about
> reality.
Then SAY beliefs about reality. Knowledge doesn't care about reality.
> > > Hence, we also lack knowledge in our present situation.
> >
> > Granted. We lack knowledge of the braino.
> >
>
> and we lack completely justified knowledge about the real world.
If the braino is all I can know, then I don't care about the real world. The
real world would be irrelevant to me.
> > > More
> > > precisely, our perceptual beliefs fail to constitute knowledge in
either
> > > case.
> >
> > Simply false. I can be said to have knowledge of the Star Wars universe,
> yet
> > it is not "real". Internal consistency is all that's necessary for
> > knowledge.
> >
>
> The lack of completely justified knowledge he was referring to was
knowledge
> about whether we are in the real world or in the braino, and that it is
> possible to concieve of the star wars universe in either.
>
> > > We believe that we are not controlled by such a machine, and if we are
> > > fortunate in this belief, then no doubt many of our perceptual beliefs
> are
> > > true.
> >
> > Negative. I accept the possibility that I am controlled by such a
machine,
> > but it simply doesn't matter if I am or not. The illusion that I am not
> > hallucinating is so complete that I might as well treat what I
experience
> as
> > reality for all practical purposes.
> >
>
> Then you concede that beliefs about the real world may or may not
constitue
> completely justified knowledge with no chance of error?
Huh? All knowledge is open to doubt. That's a given.
If I live in the "real world" then I have knowledge of the real world. If I
live in the braino world, I have knowledge of the braino world. Whichever
one I am in, the other is irrelevant.
> > > It is, however, good fortune and not good evidence that we should
> > > thank for correctness of these beliefs.
> >
> > This is irrelevant, and you're making the unwarrented assumption that
you
> > are not being influenced by the braino.
> >
>
> This notes a preference based upon a belief which could be mistaken but
> which is reliable that; we go with the belief that we are in the real
world
> and not the braino, still acknowledging that we could be mistaken.
>
> > > We are just lucky if there is no Dr. Know controlling us with a
braino;
> >
> > Lucky compared to what?
> >
>
> Compared the the possibility for error of our beliefs that we have not
> learned yet to get rid of, making our beliefs possibly errored.
No, the beliefs can be perfectly valid within the braino.
> > > and
> > > from that good fortune may result the further good fortune that most
of
> > our
> > > perceptual beliefs are true.
> >
> > If I am under the influence of the braino, and it is all I will ever
know,
> > then that is my reality. There is no guanantee that the "real" reality
is
> > any better, is there? I may be more fortunate to be under the influence
of
> > the braino than not. How would I know?
> >
>
> Only referring to those times that you are having beliefs about reality.
Whether I am in the braino or not is irrelevant to my beliefs concerning
reality.
> > > it is just a matter of luck, however, and
> > > nothing epistemologically more glorious than that.
> >
> > What does luck have to do with anything? The braino would constitute an
> > deliberate act.
> >
>
> If we cannot find a way to eliminate the possibility that we have on the
cap
> then there is a probability that it is either true or false.
But it's irrelevant either way.
> Hence it
> becomes a lottery or the possibility of having certain knowledge is just
> that: a probability that at some times we might be right and at others
times
> wrong.
That's what we ALWAYS do. The braino makes no difference to that state of
affairs.
> Take a guess?
That's one way. A bad way. ;-)
> > > If a belief is true as a result of luck, then it is a lucky guess--not
> > > knowledge.
> >
> > That is true.
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Sir Frederick
The situation as couched and constrained may not be "solvable".
Dirk Bruere
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@ILOVESPAMfuzzysys.com> wrote in message
> The situation as couched and constrained may not be "solvable".
True.
The regress of observers not only has to terminate with a conscious observer
but it has to be far more specific. It has to terminate with *me*.
Dirk
Immortalist
It seems upon the available evidence that it would be more reasonable to
believe that the chair exists than that Luke uses the Force, because their
is more support for that belief. If we find out that we have not yet learned
how to find completely justified knowledge that has no chance for error, is
not a sufficient reason for claiming that all evidence is on the same
grounds. Some beliefs are more evidencial than others.
> > If not then we only have partial
> > knowledge that could be mistaken.
>
> Technically, all knowledge suffers from this malady. How would your braino
> machine change that?
>
> > > Knowledge is the identification of consistencies.
> > >
> > > > Obviously, we lack knowledge
> > > > when we are controlled by the braino, for then our perceptual
beliefs
> > are
> > > > false.
> > >
> > > Negative. We can have knowledge of the consistencies that the braino
> > > presents to us.
> > >
> >
> > If we are in the braino and at the same time believe we are not and
> believe
> > we are in the real world, then we have false beliefs. We can have some
> > knowledge about consistencies but the statement refers to beliefs about
> > reality.
>
> Then SAY beliefs about reality. Knowledge doesn't care about reality.
>
Knowledge grows in strength when the beliefs it is made of correspond to
events in the percieved world.
> > > > Hence, we also lack knowledge in our present situation.
> > >
> > > Granted. We lack knowledge of the braino.
> > >
> >
> > and we lack completely justified knowledge about the real world.
>
> If the braino is all I can know, then I don't care about the real world.
The
> real world would be irrelevant to me.
>
and we will continue to lack completely justified knowledge in either case.
There is a probability that you could be mistaken about that, since we may
discover something different tommorrow and also the given requires some sort
of justification.
> If I live in the "real world" then I have knowledge of the real world. If
I
> live in the braino world, I have knowledge of the braino world. Whichever
> one I am in, the other is irrelevant.
>
> > > > It is, however, good fortune and not good evidence that we should
> > > > thank for correctness of these beliefs.
> > >
> > > This is irrelevant, and you're making the unwarrented assumption that
> you
> > > are not being influenced by the braino.
> > >
> >
> > This notes a preference based upon a belief which could be mistaken but
> > which is reliable that; we go with the belief that we are in the real
> world
> > and not the braino, still acknowledging that we could be mistaken.
> >
> > > > We are just lucky if there is no Dr. Know controlling us with a
> braino;
> > >
> > > Lucky compared to what?
> > >
> >
> > Compared the the possibility for error of our beliefs that we have not
> > learned yet to get rid of, making our beliefs possibly errored.
>
> No, the beliefs can be perfectly valid within the braino.
>
When you say perfectly valid do you mean completely justified knowledge with
all probability for error removed?
> > > > and
> > > > from that good fortune may result the further good fortune that most
> of
> > > our
> > > > perceptual beliefs are true.
> > >
> > > If I am under the influence of the braino, and it is all I will ever
> know,
> > > then that is my reality. There is no guanantee that the "real" reality
> is
> > > any better, is there? I may be more fortunate to be under the
influence
> of
> > > the braino than not. How would I know?
> > >
> >
> > Only referring to those times that you are having beliefs about reality.
>
> Whether I am in the braino or not is irrelevant to my beliefs concerning
> reality.
>
Then you are accepting that there is a probability that completely justified
knowledge is not possible?
> > > > it is just a matter of luck, however, and
> > > > nothing epistemologically more glorious than that.
> > >
> > > What does luck have to do with anything? The braino would constitute
an
> > > deliberate act.
> > >
> >
> > If we cannot find a way to eliminate the possibility that we have on the
> cap
> > then there is a probability that it is either true or false.
>
> But it's irrelevant either way.
>
How can it be irrelevant if you make a claim about it? Or are you continuing
to say that completely justified knowledge has not been found yet.
> > Hence it
> > becomes a lottery or the possibility of having certain knowledge is just
> > that: a probability that at some times we might be right and at others
> times
> > wrong.
>
> That's what we ALWAYS do. The braino makes no difference to that state of
> affairs.
>
The braino fits in the class of beliefs about "the state of affairs."
> > Take a guess?
>
> That's one way. A bad way. ;-)
>
A bad way? Then if your life depended upon it would you choose chair beliefs
that were opposed to Luke beliefs if one option would save and the other
harm while not knowling which but only going on the reasonable evidence
about these beliefs?
Immortalist
"_/_/_/_/_/_/_/" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:akga6k$ljg$1...@news.chatlink.com...
>
> "Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@ILOVESPAMfuzzysys.com> wrote in message
> news:3D6BA101...@ILOVESPAMfuzzysys.com...
> > Uncle Al wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > The falling tree is obsolete. LIGO detects 2 Hz jitter from felled
> > > tress hitting moist ground. Given its two arms, it can triangulate.
> > > A falling tree does indeed make a sound even if there is nobody there
> > > to hear it fall. Philosophy as practiced by 99+% of "philosophers" is
> > > crap.
> > >
> >
> > With "nobody" there, a falling tree does produce various wave
> > phenomena (vibrations) but the subjective qualia (sound), not at all.
>
> With 'nobody' there, how you gonna prove this?
> You need 'somebody' to take the measurements.
>
With evidences that we have about sound waves and trees it is more
reasonable to believe that the tree falls than it is to believe that it
doesn't. Unless you can produce more persuasive evidence that fits into the
overall contextual evidentiary supports we have accumulated, we will go with
the notion that these kinds of sequential events proceed whether humans are
present or not.
> --
> They found this out 50 years ago in Quantum Physics with subatomic
> measurements and the famous "Observer Effect", why is the GP (general
> public) still in the dark I wonder, after 50 years?
>
Can you give a step by step description of how the observer effect
influences macro entities like entire trees with nothing but the presence of
a human nervous system being present?
Sir Frederick
And "you" certainly deserve the quotes.
On another topic IMO "consciousness" as a magical brain manifest is not extent.
What we experience is a "consciousness qualia", a subjective model based
representation of complex brain activation. This similar to the sensory
based model representation "red qualia". Neither "red" nor "consciousness"
manifest except as referred through qualia.
Dirk Bruere
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@ILOVESPAMfuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:3D6BCCCC...@ILOVESPAMfuzzysys.com...
> >
> > True.
> > The regress of observers not only has to terminate with a conscious
observer
> > but it has to be far more specific. It has to terminate with *me*.
> >
> > Dirk
>
> And "you" certainly deserve the quotes.
>
> On another topic IMO "consciousness" as a magical brain manifest is not
extent.
> What we experience is a "consciousness qualia", a subjective model based
> representation of complex brain activation. This similar to the sensory
> based model representation "red qualia". Neither "red" nor "consciousness"
> manifest except as referred through qualia.
That too has its problems.
'Red qualia' is correlated to red light, what is 'consciousness qualia'
correlated with?
Apart from that most attempts to get rid of consciousness seem merely to
rename it.
Dirk
Maleki
<Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in
<3D6A5F3D...@hate.spam.net> that:
>How is it that prophets always appear after the fact?
In Old Testament they appear before the fact, but are
always only quoted after the fact :)
Maleki
<mmcn...@ILOVESPAMfuzzysys.com> wrote in
<3D6A60AB...@ILOVESPAMfuzzysys.com> that:
>Magnetic stimulation relieves depression
>By Ed Susman
>UPI Science News
>From the Science & Technology Desk
>Published 8/25/2002 12:41 PM
>http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20020825-111801-2480r
>
>
>CHICAGO, Aug. 25 (UPI) -- Painless magnetic waves pulsed across the brain appear to relieve
>depression as well as the more traumatic and standard electro-convulsive shock therapy, researchers
>said at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association.
>
>Called repetitive trans-cranial magnetic stimulation, the experimental procedure, which consists of
>a series of 20 treatments over a 2-to-4-week period, dramatically improves the condition of people
>with severe depression, said Sheila Dowd, associate professor of psychiatry at the University of
>Illinois at Chicago.
>
>"We are really excited by these results," Dowd told United Press International. "I have to admit
>that we were somewhat skeptical that this procedure would work. We do not know the mechanism of
>action -- why it works -- but then we really don't know why electro-convulsive therapy works
>either."
>
>Dowd and colleagues enrolled 26 patients in the study, randomly assigning them either to the
>magnetic therapy or ECT. "Most of the patients had been through electro-convulsive therapy before,"
>Dowd said, adding that after the procedure, the patients said almost universally they preferred
>RTMS.
>
>In the treatment, an electrical current passes through a metal coil applied to the scalp to produce
>fluctuating magnetic pulses. The pulses affect nerve cells in the brain in the area under the coil
>and possibly in other areas. Dowd said when the device was used as a probe by neurologists, some
>patients reported an elevation in mood -- hence the research to evaluate the machine as a treatment
>for depression. At least two companies manufacture RTMS devices.
>
>The only side effects with the magnetic treatment were a few reports of minor headaches and some
>redness where the electrode-like coils were placed against the skull. The 15 patients given RTMS
>therapy did not lose consciousness during the procedure. In the full treatment course, 10,000 to
>20,000 magnetic pulses are employed at the rate of 10 pulses a second. Patients received 20 pulses
>lasting 5-seconds each and 30 seconds apart in each treatment session.
>
>In ECT -- often depicted in movies as a violent and uncomfortable procedure -- patients tend to
>suffer memory loss, the procedure requires hospitalization and the shock therapy is associated with
>social stigma.
>
>"These people in the study need dramatic treatments," Tony Young, associate professor and chairman
>of the department of psychology at Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, told UPI. "Electro-convulsive
>therapy saves lives but can cause damage." Young said he would like to see further, larger studies
>that can replicate the effectiveness of the magnetic stimulation treatment.
>
>In the study, Dowd said the depression scores on the Hamilton scale -- a standard measure of
>depression -- decreased by 55 percent in the patients receiving magnetic stimulation and by 64
>percent for those receiving electro-convulsive therapy. Because the numbers of patients were small,
>Dowd said the differences in her preliminary study are not statistically different.
>
>"This may be an alternative to electro-convulsive therapy," Dennis Warner, a behavior analyst at
>the River Street School, Windsor, Conn., told UPI. "These are preliminary results so it is really
>too early to tell how effective this will be, but it is something that we will want to watch
>develop."
>
>Dowd noted magnetic stimulation differs considerably from magnet therapy. In magnet therapy,
>magnets are placed at wound sites or near injured joints and are supposed to promote healing. Few
>positive clinical studies have been produced in support of the therapy. But RTMS has been approved
>as treatment in Canada and other countries, she said.
>
>Dowd's study was sponsored by grants from the university and from the National Institutes of
>Health-funded General Clinical Research Center, also at the university.
>
Who was the author (Dickens?..) who slept much better
when aligned with the Earth's magnetic field lines?
Perhaps the same effect.
Sir Frederick
>
> Who was the author (Dickens?..) who slept much better
> when aligned with the Earth's magnetic field lines?
> Perhaps the same effect.
Not the same at all,
as static magnetic fields are not what is discussed in the article.
Sir Frederick
Sorry, "red" light has no attributive color, it does have photon energy
that correlates with the subjective experience in humans called "red".
In a different species it may correlate with something else.
If there is a subjective symbolic reference it may be called a quale
(singular of qualia)
Just as there is no "red" out there, there is no "consciousness" in there.
The "consciousness qualia" may correlate with certain brain precesses.
Don't ask me what are qualia, they are as mysterious as matter.
Dirk Bruere
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@ILOVESPAMfuzzysys.com> wrote in message
> > > On another topic IMO "consciousness" as a magical brain manifest is
not
> > extent.
> > > What we experience is a "consciousness qualia", a subjective model
based
> > > representation of complex brain activation. This similar to the
sensory
> > > based model representation "red qualia". Neither "red" nor
"consciousness"
> > > manifest except as referred through qualia.
> >
> > That too has its problems.
> > 'Red qualia' is correlated to red light, what is 'consciousness qualia'
> > correlated with?
> > Apart from that most attempts to get rid of consciousness seem merely to
> > rename it.
> >
> > Dirk
>
> Sorry, "red" light has no attributive color, it does have photon energy
> that correlates with the subjective experience in humans called "red".
> In a different species it may correlate with something else.
> If there is a subjective symbolic reference it may be called a quale
> (singular of qualia)
> Just as there is no "red" out there, there is no "consciousness" in there.
> The "consciousness qualia" may correlate with certain brain precesses.
>
> Don't ask me what are qualia, they are as mysterious as matter.
See? You have simply renamed the mystery.
Dirk
Sir Frederick
Yes, and moved a little more into the forest.
naked ape
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3D6AB6F6...@hate.spam.net...
SNIP
> The falling tree is obsolete. LIGO detects 2 Hz jitter from felled
> tress hitting moist ground. Given its two arms, it can triangulate.
> A falling tree does indeed make a sound even if there is nobody there
> to hear it fall. Philosophy as practiced by 99+% of "philosophers" is
> crap.
Would the tree falling make a sound for you if you weren't there to hear it?
Ape;)
R
<art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"_/_/_/_/_/_/_/" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:ake1is$7ni$1...@news.chatlink.com...
>> Here's the kicker: If you're born into something like this, how on
>earth
>> would you ever know the true reality?
>
>The only thing one could be certain of that transcends every simulation
>would be mathematics and logic.
Why? If you programmed a computer universe in which one added to
one always appeared to come out as three, vitural beings prgrammed to
live in that universe would never guess that, in "real" reality, one
plus one equals two. There is nothing sacred or certain about logic
or mathematics when we are discussing the possibility that our senses
may be useless at perceiving actual reality and that we are being
decieved.
R.M.
naked ape
"R" <m...@there.com> wrote in message
news:clkomukh2p3to0s7c...@4ax.com...
I'd say that at some fundamental level, a counterfeit reality would have to
make sense. If it didn't, I'd think it would unravel in a nanosecond. ..
Ape;)
R
wrote:
>_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ wrote:
>>
>> Here's the kicker: If you're born into something like this, how on earth
>> would you ever know the true reality?
>
>Why don't you twirps give up "The Matrix?" The scale size of physical
>reality would trivially show discontinuities at the top and bottom
>ends. Computation cannot keep up with evolution of states. There
>would be detectable noise.
What basis do you have to believe this? If you are willing to
ponder the possibility that all of your reality is a simulation and
that all of your faculties are being deceived, you must accept that
you know nothing at all about the "reality" hosting the simulation.
There is, after all, no need for the counterfeit reality to resemble
the host reality, any more than there's a need for "Pac Man" to
represent the laws governing this world. If Pac Man were sentient,
what do you suppose his senses could tell him about the world of his
creators? Your assertion assumes that you know something about the
host reality, namely, that in the host reality it is impossible to
properly render an entire world in detail. How can you know this?
R.M.
Dirk Bruere
Yet number theory, for example, must be the same in any universe given the
same axioms.
All you are saying is that the axioms on which the reality is based may
change, which is quite reasonable. We can still explore 'what if'
mathematical realities which may include the 'real' one.
Again, another example may be that the 'real' universe is not discrete as
ours seems to be (quantum mech). We can explore that mathematically even
though we cannot get at it from this one.
Dirk
R
wrote:
>The falling tree is obsolete. LIGO detects 2 Hz jitter from felled
>tress hitting moist ground. Given its two arms, it can triangulate.
>A falling tree does indeed make a sound even if there is nobody there
>to hear it fall. Philosophy as practiced by 99+% of "philosophers" is
>crap.
You're missing the point of the question. If the tree's vibration
is detected and that detection is observed by a human, then someone
was around to hear it fall. Or are you just being difficult?
R.M.
R
>I'd say that at some fundamental level, a counterfeit reality would have to
>make sense. If it didn't, I'd think it would unravel in a nanosecond. ..
>Ape;)
But "makes sense" is a fairly loaded word, isn't it? It assumes
that we have certain abilities, such as the ability to discern from a
real universe and a false universe. We certainly know when things
seem ajar in this universe, and we can think of situations in which
any person can expect to be confused. (Say, for example, if all the
laws of logic were reversed or eliminated.) But this does not mean
that we are neccesarily capable of discerning a false universe from a
real universe, nor does it mean that whatever it is that's creating
this conjectured "false reality" is not capable of altering both us
and the parameters of the reality in any way whatsoever and still have
the illusion remain entierly "believed".
You can't just assume free will here, either; if all reality is a
deception, then "conciousness" could just as easily be a deception.
Perhaps this universe seems "normal" to us because we were created to
find this universe to seem "normal".
R.M.
R
<art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> Why? If you programmed a computer universe in which one added to
>> one always appeared to come out as three, vitural beings prgrammed to
>> live in that universe would never guess that, in "real" reality, one
>> plus one equals two. There is nothing sacred or certain about logic
>> or mathematics when we are discussing the possibility that our senses
>> may be useless at perceiving actual reality and that we are being
>> decieved.
>
>Yet number theory, for example, must be the same in any universe given the
>same axioms.
Why? How can we assume anything, even logic or fundemental
principals of mathematics, of an external reality that is simulating
our "reality"? On what basis can we claim to be able to observe the
higher reality? We have arrived at number theory just as we have
arrived at all other logical conclusions -- by thought and by
observation of the universe. Mathematicians do not make number theory
up; it exists universally. But if even things that exist universally
are counterfeit simulations, how can we be sure that those
fundementals are "real" fundementals and will hold true in the parent
reality?
R.M.
naked ape
Is it possible to create a counterfeit person to experience a counterfeit
reality?
If not, it wouldn't take long for someone subjectively experiencing a bogus
reality to see inconsistencies. Unless you've altered the person, 2 plus 2
always equals 4. .. Ape;)
>
> R.M.
Mark Fergerson
>
> Dr. Know & the Braino Helmet
>
> Imagime that a superscientist invents machine--we shall call it a
> "braino," - that enables him to produce hallucianations in certain subjects
> . The machine operates by influencing the brain of a subject who wears a
> special cap, called a "braino cap." when the braino cap is placed on a
> subject's head, the operator of the braino can affect his brain so as to
> produce any hallucination in the subject that the operator wishes. The
> braino is a hallucination-producing machine. The hallucinations produced by
> it may be as incomplete, systematic, and coherent as the operator of the
> branio desires to make them.
Uncle Al already busted you for
plagiarizing _The Matrix_ (itself a
near-plagiarization of _Entoverse_,
itself a - well, you get the recursive
idea).
> The present argument starts from the premise that the braino is a logical
> possibility, and consequently that there should be hallucinations that are
> coherent, complete, and systematic in every way. From the premise of logical
> possibility, we conclude that we in fact have no way of telling whether or
> not we are hallucinating.
Smoke a joint, drop some acid, etc.
The flaws (scan lines, refresh lag,
etc.) jump right out at you.
Mark L. Fergerson
Aleksandr Timofeev
> > > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Here's the kicker: If you're born into something like this, how on
> earth
> > > > would you ever know the true reality?
> > >
> > > reality would trivially show discontinuities at the top and bottom
> > > ends. Computation cannot keep up with evolution of states. There
> > > would be detectable noise.
> >
> > That which is not observed would not have to be simulated in detail. The
> > tree falling in the forest with nobody to hear it need not make a sound.
>
> The falling tree is obsolete. LIGO detects 2 Hz jitter from felled
> tress hitting moist ground. Given its two arms, it can triangulate.
Dear Uncle Al, I give the solemn oath to you, that LIGO never will
find out a chimera of gravitational waves predicted by GR.
> A falling tree does indeed make a sound even if there is nobody there
> to hear it fall. Philosophy as practiced by 99+% of "philosophers" is
> crap.
This physical " "Philosophy" as practiced by 99+% of "Physical defect
philosophers" is crap."
how...@brazee.net
appears to be relatively small with an emulated sky making it appear to be
large - implying that their universe was a copy like the ones they created.
He didn't much explore the psychological implications of the masters
discovering they were in a counterfeit reality.
how...@brazee.net
On 27-Aug-2002, R <m...@there.com> wrote:
> You're missing the point of the question. If the tree's vibration
> is detected and that detection is observed by a human, then someone
> was around to hear it fall. Or are you just being difficult?
Still, philosophers have created a definition of "sound" to make this
question work. People more oriented to physics think that is silly and
doesn't accomplish anything.
R
It's a thought experiment designed to show the inherant uncertanties
in what we know about our existence and the limits of what we can
learn, with certainty, through observation. The "tree falling in the
woods" falls in the range of metaphysics, something that science, by
definition, can not get at.
R.M.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@ILOVESPAMfuzzysys.com> wrote in message
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/ wrote:
> >
> > "Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@ILOVESPAMfuzzysys.com> wrote in message
> > > Uncle Al wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > The falling tree is obsolete. LIGO detects 2 Hz jitter from felled
> > > > tress hitting moist ground. Given its two arms, it can triangulate.
there
> > > > to hear it fall. Philosophy as practiced by 99+% of "philosophers"
is
> > > > crap.
> > > >
> > >
> > > phenomena (vibrations) but the subjective qualia (sound), not at all.
> >
> > With 'nobody' there, how you gonna prove this?
> > You need 'somebody' to take the measurements.
> >
> > --
> > They found this out 50 years ago in Quantum Physics with subatomic
> > measurements and the famous "Observer Effect", why is the GP (general
> > public) still in the dark I wonder, after 50 years?
> >
>
> The "observing" context need not be a folk lore addicted "consciousness",
> a local pebble is good enough.
Not good enough. A "local pebble" is not part of the human race,
and therefore cannot communicate back and forth in order to discern about
this particular experiment.
> Other than that, please prove that "you" are, at the moment I doubt it.
Well you'd have to use "relative to the situation" instruments, and those
being
other humans..........including yourself.
Immortalist
"naked ape" <naked...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:akhqil$1g19si$1...@ID-10187.news.dfncis.de...
If we cannot eliminate all probability that a counterfeit person could be
created to experience a counterfeit reality then it could eith be true or
false without knowing for certain which.
> If not, it wouldn't take long for someone subjectively experiencing a
bogus
> reality to see inconsistencies. Unless you've altered the person, 2 plus 2
> always equals 4. .. Ape;)
> >
Even if not it might still be possible to change everything including
beliefs about analytical propositions like 2+2=4. In the movie Total Recall,
Douglas Quaid has had his neurons changed in such a way that he believes he
is a different person, memories and personal history included. He knowing
about this technology made a video tape of himself before the change telling
himself who he really was and what his mission was. It is not a far step
from this to change the entire nature of the world so that 2+2 always equals
something other than 4 in that world.
> > R.M.
>
>
Immortalist
"Dirk Bruere" <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:akhknt$1jb1jp$1...@ID-120108.news.dfncis.de...
Like in the matrix where the illusion takes place in the future but makes
the people believe they are in the past before science developed enough to
concieve of an AI sufficient to duplicate the world they are in, a past
world like ours, the counterfiet reality could alter the stage that science
is at in discovery.
> Dirk
>
>
>
>
Immortalist
"Mark Fergerson" <mferg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3D6C800F...@cox.net...
> Immortalist wrote:
> >
> > Dr. Know & the Braino Helmet
> >
> > Imagime that a superscientist invents machine--we shall call it a
> > "braino," - that enables him to produce hallucianations in certain
subjects
> > . The machine operates by influencing the brain of a subject who wears a
> > special cap, called a "braino cap." when the braino cap is placed on a
> > subject's head, the operator of the braino can affect his brain so as to
> > produce any hallucination in the subject that the operator wishes. The
> > braino is a hallucination-producing machine. The hallucinations produced
by
> > it may be as incomplete, systematic, and coherent as the operator of the
> > branio desires to make them.
>
> Uncle Al already busted you for
> plagiarizing _The Matrix_ (itself a
> near-plagiarization of _Entoverse_,
> itself a - well, you get the recursive
> idea).
>
Can you show that this is certain knowledge that eliminates all probability
for error?
> > The present argument starts from the premise that the braino is a
logical
> > possibility, and consequently that there should be hallucinations that
are
> > coherent, complete, and systematic in every way. From the premise of
logical
> > possibility, we conclude that we in fact have no way of telling whether
or
> > not we are hallucinating.
>
> Smoke a joint, drop some acid, etc.
> The flaws (scan lines, refresh lag,
> etc.) jump right out at you.
>
You mean if you stress out the illusion maker you see the illusion.
> Mark L. Fergerson
naked ape
"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:umptpbd...@corp.supernews.com...
Easy for you to say.)) Ape;)
>
> > > R.M.
> >
> >
>
>
Miller
> Dr. Know & the Braino Helmet
>
> Imagime that a superscientist invents machine--we shall call it a
> "braino," - that enables him to produce hallucianations in certain
subjects
> . The machine operates by influencing the brain of a subject who wears a
> special cap, called a "braino cap." when the braino cap is placed on a
> subject's head, the operator of the braino can affect his brain so as to
> produce any hallucination in the subject that the operator wishes. The
> braino is a hallucination-producing machine. The hallucinations produced
by
> it may be as incomplete, systematic, and coherent as the operator of the
> branio desires to make them.
>
> possibility, and consequently that there should be hallucinations that are
> coherent, complete, and systematic in every way. From the premise of
logical
> possibility, we conclude that we in fact have no way of telling whether or
> not we are hallucinating.
>
> hallucinations are not in fact so hard to detect? On the contrary, we may
> suffer hallucinations that we cannot detect. If it is logically possible
> that hallucinations should be coherent, complete, and systematic in every
> way, then there is no way of detecting at any moment that we are not
> suffering from a hallucionation.
>
> How we can tell that we are not hallucinating. The braino argument is
> intended to establish that we can never tell this, even if we can
sometimes
> tell that we are hallucinating. Consider some perceptual belief that you
> would maintain does not from hallucinations. what experiences guarantee
> this? Indeed, what experiences provide you with any evidence of it?
>
> Notice that whatever experience you indicate, the braino argument will be
> quite sufficient to prove that such an experience is no guarantee against
> hallucianation. All we need do is imagine that you have, unknown to
> yourself, the braino cap on your head. the operator of the braino is
> producing the very experiences you claim guarantee that you are not
> hallucinating.
>
> Imagine that all people are controlled by the braino and that the machine
is
> run by some evil being, Dr. Know, who plots to keep us completely in error
> through hallucinations. Dr. Know does not wish to be detected, so he
> supplies hallucinations that are coherent, complete, and systematic.
Indeed,
> the hallucinations he produced in us are a PERFECT COUNTERFEIT OF REALITY.
>
> Our experiences fulfill our expectations and contain no more surprises
than
> we would expect from reality. But is it not reality we experience; our
> perceptual beliefs about the world are quite mistaken, for the source of
our
> experiences is a mere machine, the braino, which creates hallutionations.
In
> such a predicament we might have just the sort of perceptual beliefs we
now
> have, based on experiences exactly similar to those we now have. But our
> perceptual beliefs would be altogether false.
>
> The imagined situation is exactly similar to ours with respect to the
> reasons or evidence we would have for our perceptual beliefs. Experience
is
> virtually the same in both cases. Consequently, if we lack knowledge in
one
> situation, we must surely lack it in the other. Obviously, we lack
knowledge
> when we are controlled by the braino, for then our perceptual beliefs are
> false. Hence, we also lack knowledge in our present situation. More
> precisely, our perceptual beliefs fail to constitute knowledge in either
> case.
>
> We believe that we are not controlled by such a machine, and if we are
> fortunate in this belief, then no doubt many of our perceptual beliefs are
> true. It is, however, good fortune and not good evidence that we should
> thank for correctness of these beliefs.
>
> We are just lucky if there is no Dr. Know controlling us with a braino;
and
> from that good fortune may result the further good fortune that most of
our
> perceptual beliefs are true. it is just a matter of luck, however, and
> nothing epistemologically more glorious than that.
>
> If a belief is true as a result of luck, then it is a lucky guess--not
> knowledge.
>
> Adapted from Keith Lehrer
> http://www-philosophy.ucdavis.edu/phi102/lecmenu.htm
>
> Consider Cypher's speech to Agent Smith:
> Cypher: You know, I know this steak doesn't exist. I know that when I put
it
> in my mouth, The Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and
delicious.
> After nine years, you know what I realize? Ignorance is bliss.
>
> Neo: This isn't real...
> Morpheus: What is "real"? How do you define "real"? If you're talking
about
> what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can taste and see, then
> "real" is simply electrical signals intepreted by your brain...
> [Turns on TV] This is the world that you know. The world as it was at the
> end of the 20th century. It exists now only as part of a neural
interactive
> simulation that we call "The Matrix." You've been living in a dream world,
> Neo.
> [TV switches to desolate world in the future] This is the world as it
exists
> today...
>
I really wasn't all that impressed with The Matrix on any philisophical
level. It seemed so superficial. It was a great thriller though.
Scott
David Johnston
> > > >The only thing one could be certain of that transcends every simulation
> > > >would be mathematics and logic.
> > >
> > > Why? If you programmed a computer universe in which one added to
> > > one always appeared to come out as three,
You can't do that. One and one is always two. At best, all you could do is
change the name of two to three or destroy people's ability to count at all.
Immortalist
"David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:3D6CFE...@telusplanet.net...
Since our ability to count objects and label them and hold them and move
them into groups is based upon sensory perception, there is a probability
that they could be in error since logically possible conditions can be
imagined where the same counting and labelling would be false.
Besides, you are making the claim that you can eliminate all chance for
error that this math proposition could be mistaken, by appealing to the use
of the math proposition itself as a circular justification.
At this time it is not possible to show with complete justification that it
is always true that 2+2=4 since there is a small chance that it could in
some instances result in another sum. This small chance has not been removed
yet.
It is a logical possibility that we are all suffering from some sort of
shared hallucination. This doesn't seem very likey but since we can't remove
the small possibility that this is the case, we do have a reason to believe
that the math proposition could be mistaken or could be true. Since we dont
know which alternative can be completely justified they are just both
probabilities at this time in history.
I accept this math proposition that one and one is true, as the most
reasonable way to proceed but I will not yet claim to have removed all
chance for this math proposition being in error, and do not know if it is
always true.
You claim that one and one is two is always true. But this belief is like
others in that we have not yet found a way to remove all chance for error. A
particular time that you display this knowledge could be during that part of
the ratio of probability when it is not possible while at other times it
could be during that part of the ratio of probability when it is possible.
How do we show when it is doing either of these possibilities when we don't
yet know how to show that any belief constitutes completely justified
knowledge with no chance for error?
>