Categories are differences that make a difference by grouping the differences that don’t make a difference. A cat is different from a dog. A cat is in...
No good resources spring to mind. I don't think this is a well-explored question. But the answer seems obvious enough. Soundness is based on a mechani...
But what I am challenging would be that presumption that "the physical world" is the ground - the thing-in-itself to be truthfully represented by a br...
I agree with SX. We don’t see the physical world as such. We just seek its informative differences. So there is already the further thing of a self th...
Some refreshing positivity here. :) I agree that existence constantly strikes me as a marvel. The universe feels so alive when you can see it through ...
But how do we experience time? I mean I understand the neuroscience of it. But I'm not getting how you think we experience it in any pre-theoretical s...
Statistics always expresses patterns. And really, there are only two statistical patterns ruling nature. Either Gaussian - the single-scale bell curve...
Physics would have its own version in the holographic and lightcone structure of the Universe. It takes time to arrive at a state of coherence across ...
I missed this. Chance would also evolve in character as part of the growth of Cosmic regularity. So in the beginning, chance has some really wild and ...
Time develops. And its character is thermodynamic. So time is not a background dimension but a measure of a sum of changes. In the beginning, there is...
That gets it. It is the atomism of the event that is the sign. Flashes of actuality that then weave the collective history. So we do want to search fo...
The 'I' and the 'world' are just further signs in a grand linguistic play of signs. But pan-semiosis would be an actual model of ontology and not mere...
This is a difficult area now. We would have to distinguish between two stories - the fairly uncontroversial and scientific bio-semiotic one, and the r...
Yep. Peirce speaks to me as a scientist. I could never get into the German idealist and naturphilosphie tradition even though it gets oh so close to t...
Have you come across semiotics as a sharper way to make sense of this - being as an Umwelt or sign relation? What we are looking for is a process meta...
I agree with this but would also point out how it still doesn't break with the reductionist presumption that this fact is a bug rather than a feature ...
Without doubt clarity is basic. Unless you view philosophy as some branch of light entertainment, then it is about critical thinking applied to life a...
I explained in this post how biology - life and mind - is founded on the regulation of instability. Biology depends on molecules that are always on th...
According to mainstream science, we ain’t a simulation either. We were talking about Musk’s claim which involves “enormous probabilistic resources”. T...
Sure. Nature produced bacteria, bunny rabbits, the human brain. This stuff just developed and evolved without much fuss at all. Therefore - in princip...
Sure. Just simulating one mind in its own solipsistic world of experience is the easy thing to imagine. I was asking about the architecture of a simul...
What I keep pointing out is the in principle difference that biology depends on material instability while computation depends on material stability. ...
I see the problem as being not just a difference in scale but one of kind. If you only had to simulate a single mind, then you don't even need a world...
If you can't say anything to bridge this explanatory gap then you can't claim anything "in principle" here. That's pretty straightforward. I'm not den...
Getting back to the OP, the interesting thing is this idea of a simulation that would somehow be all our consciousnesses, plus the world we think we s...
Love it. A computer can be programmed to operate a light switch. Therefore a conscious computer is possible. So how is it that neural firing would "lo...
That’s like saying the eye is like a camera. It might get the conversation started, then you get serious. Take for instance the evidence from sensory ...
Sure. You can build a Turing machine out of anything. Even meat, or string and tin cans. So long as it is eternally stable and entropically unlimited....
Again, first show that “running a simulation” is something a biocomputer could even do. Then we are still left with the basic point that a simulation ...
You made some marks appear on my screen - 2, 100, 1,000,000. And so the party started. Numbers stand for acts of counting. Some set of marks to be scr...
Computation does rely on being able to produce a frictionless world. But yes. My point is that that is in the end a thermodynamic fiction. There is al...
Yeah. If we are talking about neural network architectures, then we are starting to talk about legitimate attempts to follow the path of biological re...
If life and mind are defined by information that has material consequences, then be suspicious of all claims that talk about plays of information with...
Standard semiotics. Rosen’s modelling relation in a nutshell. The concept is the the theory, the generality, and what it has to produce is the act of ...
This claim of multirealisabilty has in fact been deeply challenged by research into the biophysics of life over the past decade. Everything biological...
Sure. That would be one of the things in demand of support to constitute an argument. Where is it plausible that any amount of computational simulatio...
Again, the claim being made is too confused for QM to be an actual issue. But if the laws of physics are taken as a constraint on the realisation of c...
Which argument are you finding so impressive then - that we are most likely all the figments of a simulation, or that if this were the case, then the ...
But are you claiming those observers/participants to be themselves physically real or computationally simulated? You are failing to flesh out the crit...
Indistinguishable to who? Are you and me going to be actual real witnesses to this shared simulation, or are we simulations of those witnesses and thu...
I think if you understood biology as well as you understood tech, then you would realise how much more amazing the biology still is. So this is 99% bu...
OK. But how would a nation state have legitimacy unless it claims to speak for the people who constitute it? So being a democracy would seem perfectly...
Comments