On Saturday, February 15, 2014 10:40:17 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 16 February 2014 01:41, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]<javascript:>> > wrote: > > To extend your metaphor, in my view, since the characters in a drama can > > build an LCD screen as part of the show, but an LCD screen can't build a > > show as part of its function, it makes more sense that the drama is > > fundamental and that from an absolute perspective, it is the pixels > which > > are the epiphenomenal show. The reason why it is reversed for us locally > is > > that our show is nested several times within other shows which are both > > larger and smaller in scope and slower and faster in frequency. The most > > 'other' of these shows is the one which appears most mechanical, as it > > includes the fastest, slowest, largest, and smallest experiences > relative to > > our own - the polar opposite of our own native scope, which is by > definition > > middle-range from our perspective. > > As per my answer to David, the movie has meaning only to a conscious > entity. If a computer is a conscious entity it will create meaning for > itself, as humans do. You don't think a computer could do this but > that's just prejudice. >
It's not prejudice, it's clarity. It's not that I think that a computer could not create meaning, it's that I understand why computation is meaningless by definition. > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
