muflax/muflax65ngodyewp.onion
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/fmap/muflax65ngodyewp.onion synced 2024-06-18 09:16:48 +02:00
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

typos

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
muflax 2010-08-13 10:28:49 +02:00
parent b08ded2890
commit 51d4bdee58
1 changed files with 4 additions and 4 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

8
src/reflections/con_exp.pdc
View file

@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ couldn't do so, therefore we can safely dismiss the argument. I'm going to
address the plausibility next, but first something about the argument itself.
If you are the prisoner of a powerful trickster, then you *can not tell* what
tools they have available. You don't know anything about their universe. They
tools they have available. You don't know anything about their universe. The
main idea of running a convincing simulation is exactly that you do not give the
victim any external reference! You do not get to assume that "yesterday was
real", but "today looks different, maybe I was kidnapped by mad neurologists?".
@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ infinite. You have no way of knowing how many resources they have because, by
definition, you can not see their universe. You can estimate a lower bound, but
that's about it. You can not even tell if *any* property of your simulation is
like the world the trickster is in. They can impose any logic, any amount of
resources (provided they have more) they want. Want to run the simulation as a
resources they want (provided they have more). Want to run the simulation as a
finite world? No problem. Impose fake concreteness, enforcing quantization of
any property? Makes the source code a whole lot easier! Let information travel
only at a limited speed to simplify the calculations? Sure. Because you don't
@ -133,9 +133,9 @@ difference is that Dennett seems to me so completely inexperienced about the
topic of consciousness. As far as I can tell, he never took any drugs, never
meditated, never learned any spiritual teaching or anything like this. How could
anyone *not* do this? I would never trust a chemist that never tried to build a
bomb, nor would I ever trust an engineer that didn't took apart a complex
bomb, nor would I ever trust an engineer that didn't take apart a complex
machine (like their microwave or car engine) for fun (and to see if they could
put it back together again). Those would be the most natural first impulses for
put it back together again). Those would be the most natural first impulse for
anyone remotely interested in the fields (and not just doing it for the profit),
and they would be valuable first insights and opportunities to learn essential
skills (like, "don't get burned" for all three fields I mentioned). For example,