Carleas wrote
Violence prone out of necessity(then) versus violence prone out of unnecessary “frustration”(now)
I really don’t need to read that book to understand that it is not an accurate portrayal of modern human psychology and is only guesstimates of past eras of behaviors. This type of blindness resembles the political blindness regarding corruption and manipulation of modern USA mentalities by and large during this election cycle; it is written so it is so.
How do you simulate Consistency without being consistent?
That is your presumption. And I am trying to explain why you are wrong about that presumption. It has to do with the complexity issue that your simple minded examples do not address. They cannot simply change a mind about this or that issue and leave it.
JSS wrote
“Memory” modifications.
Attano: Sorry about my usage, I guess I will always be a hybrid product, of semantic duplicity, having not the good fortune of English being my mother tongue.
Neither have I , yet, the capacity to paraphrase. But will try to try again the basic argument against the proposition that perceptual logic is impossible. I was going to say something like contradiction in terms, but in fact it is not.
To admit to such, is to set up a linguistic priority.
To say : logical language is conceivably different then to say the language of logic, right?
Now immediately an objection can be raised as to what either of them mean, so as to establish for certain the resemblance or difference. That there are resemblances between them is apparently of no doubt, but are there identifiable elements depend more on a vastly deeper logical depth.
Why? Because identification comes between differentiation. This seems paradoxical, and if I propose a paradox in deciding this, it is, because of the examination’s own problem with this:
In the very beginning, identification involves the abstraction of basic characteristics, but is this process more of a logical methodology vis: of abstraction of common qualities between objects, literally , primarily looking at the different characteristics, rather then perceiving whole objects -consisting of lack of certain qualities. This makes a difference, because the latter (of becoming cogniscent of wholes, is different constructing the parts first.)
Is a construction of wholes pre requisite, in which case there would not appear to be any a-priori logical process going on, but merely a haphazard learning experience based on acceptance, or rejection of characteristics, which would over time fit, certain evolving modeling, as you seem to propose.
But maybe not, maybe there is some pre-existing formative capacity, in the acquisition of language themselves.
The languages need not be a literal language, it may be the route taken by pictorial representation, but even then, do the pictures constructed on basis of some meaning flow-trend?-related to such emotional events as danger=the animals represented as synmolic of danger.
Can these questions ever satisfactorily answered?
The implication of this is that it is impossible to decide between a logical language, or, a language of some kind of logic. Do the most disconnected images have a basic perhaps hidden underlying connection in the sequence of elements within it?
If so, Then it would not be possible to rule out a hidden logical connection, of the supposed conscious or unconscious elements.
In the basic choices which deal with survival in some aspect, such connections have been lost, rejected on some basis or another, and recapturing them would prove impossible apart from a connotative, rather then a denotative process. In other words, we have ceased to think in pictures. But that should not deny the possibility for that kind of thinking.
So a perceptual logic is similar to a logic of perception, and my point is, that such a difference at a certain stage creates an identity between them.
The Kantian ‘should’, is such an emotive element, begging the logical hiddenness of such an equality between them. From this point on,the rejection becomes preponderant, suggesting the overwhelming need for a verification of perceptual connections in terms of established logical linkages.
The later rejection of pre existing logical linkages produced what has come to be variant but compelling trends which modern philosophy has effected on logic.
Attano: Hoping this is an improvement on the preceding.
The “Simulation Hypothesis” is not provable and not disprovable. You can also believe what, for example, Plato already said (something like: You are living in the wrong world, the real world is the ideal world).
How do you demonstrate consistency without being consistent? The answer should be a paradoxical either/or, because, that is the implication. But this is incorrect, because the spectrum of totally inconsistent toward totally consistent do not sever at any point, and although one need not to read into it, the total difference in meaning, but it is also unnecessary to inquire as to it’s level, because that brings with it the differential/relative aspects of it’s argument. It minimizes or maximizes the purported argument it’s self.
JSS,
An individual memory can’t be altered and historical evidence too?
Arminius : It is a stage of identifiable certainty that the so called proof is searching for, for probable certainty, where the proof is secondary of finding differing simulations, for there never is only one.
Facets guys.
And …?
And the idea of multiple universes makes mute the long ago abandoned idea that the earth is the center of the universe.
Therefore the idea that simulations of simulations are functional interdependent entities, where looking for a model of these simulations is hopeless.
What does that say about ‘reality’?
That there is only a functional reality consisting of various simulations. But since there is no real real realities, what remains are regional, reuficatuons of other inter simulated chains of being.
Define ‘real’ jerkey? This is not about all or nothing.
Right. It is beyond that. Before Kepler, reality was the real. Then after that everything changed. You just have to go to any museum to see what reality has changed into. Artists have it better perceptually using only the logic of the brush and the pallet.
This is why serious artists no longer concern themselves with the reality of the past, unless they are still ultra realists making money on those who are nostalgic of an unrecoverable past.
Wikipedia
Whose reason? 
Why can’t science realize that we’re in a game in a game in a game, but that doesn’t discount any games significance? It’s all real.
Scientists prefer safety and that makes them stupid, closed off, and small minded.
Apparently you do. The violence of the past wasn’t out of necessity. Children were executed for petty crimes. People were tortured to death, not to get information, just to inflict suffering. Violence and pain were sources of entertainment: where modern sports involve some violence, injuries are avoided, and death is rare and tragic; in the past, suffering, injury, and death were the whole point.
A major shift in the development towards humanity has been an expanding sphere of concern, and a distaste for suffering in anyone. Modernity is incredibly cushy, peaceful, caring. It might not seem that way, but consider that your daily experiences aren’t a representative sample: they’re skewed by what information is repeated, and they don’t include much if anything of the level and nature of violence in the past.
Again, I recommend the book, it was a challenging and perspective expanding read.
I mean, I’m presuming we’re talking about a simulation. And I’m using as an analogy for the relationship between the Simulators and the simulation our own relationship between ourselves and computer simulations we make (and that’s what Bostrom’s paper is about). So if you mean that I’m presuming that, then yes: we’re talking about the Simulation Hypothesis, I’m presuming a simulation.
Let’s put what appears to be your claim into our world: If we were to run a simulated world on a computer, are you saying it would be impossible in principle for us to influence the processes within that simulation? We can edit the memory, the processors, every piece of the hardware and software, and we can do this while the simulation is paused. Are you saying that the simulation can nonetheless detect our changes? Why?
We certainly can make a program that can’t detect our changes, right? I can edit Microsoft Word so it things I typed something I didn’t, and Microsoft Word will have no idea. So why would we assume that, even if it were possible to make a simulation that would be impossible to deceive (which is dubious), that our simulation would be that kind?
It seems as though, like Mongoose, you’re assuming a transcendent soul that could somehow escape the confines of the very circuits of which it is composed.
No “real real realities”? … What are you talking about? Are you talking about your subjectivistic idealism again?
How I see it is, there are 3 forces, barbarism, civilism, and roboticism (nunnism, the opposite of sexbotism).
Fact is fact of the matter is in modern times these forces are completely out of whack and that is why people hate modernity.
Barbarism - Punching people in the face or pushing assholes is denied. Yet meaningless wars are fought overseas and lots of meaningless deaths in third world countries. It is a total imbalance, on one side we have extreme atrophy of barbarism and on the other side we have an extreme excess. Such an imbalance can never lead to happiness.
Civilism - We are presented a contrast, happy ukelele music while people talk about beef steaks and butchered animals. In the guise of civilization, Freedom of speech is censored and denied, which is Ironic because the only freedom of speech that is denied is any freedom of speech which contributes to Enlightenment and progressive civilization. Therefore Civilism is actually used to destroy Civilization from within.
Nunnism - Zero love zero sympathy creatures obsessed with rules and regs. Harsh punishments for medium and low crimes. Pleasure and happiness is highly regulated (anti-sex, anti-drugs) and there is outrage when the slaves do not obey the system.
Arminius, no I am not. Reality, is, by definition only a set of descriptions which have general reified meaning utility. That is how an extreme representation can hold the conceptual certainty within a common sense social consensus.
It has nothing to do with other nominal meanings having to do with the stability and durability of natural representations , such as Nature. The conceptual social reifications are the human reality, which influence and change reality as we know it. Positivism is that, which has reduced meaning to include all perceptions to conform to the changes brought about by human knowledge, whereupon it (perceptions), conversely , include totally all meaning. Here positivism , or meaning has replaced ontology as a logical system.
This was a political act, manifested at a time when Hegel-Marx became antithetical to use the word loosely, anthithetical to the views of empire, that predicated upon western Christian-Protestant values of laissez-faire Capitalism.
A lot of modern philosophy consists of revision due to political changes, and this kind of political change defines the reality we live under.
Science has even changed what a Nature consisted of, it has become less stable, predictable, more prone to decay. Our views of general Reality, has lost it’s presumed fixed, protected and immobile view of it, as much as we try to hold on to it, as our conscience bothers us, nevertheless that we should, y efforts to conserve those values of reality that we cherish.
The Natural setting will always remain what it is, it is the artifacts that we manufacture to augment that reality which are becoming more natural. In Your own long forum about machines overcoming men, it is suggested that this process, if not held in check, will totally destroy the real real, the natural natural, because with exponential human growth, it is conceivable that we will loose much of what we still can realize as naturally real.
In this sense, it makes more sense to talk of this trend, moving away from Nature, then it is to remember Rousseau’s back to nature. The fact is Hobbes’ social contract has proven to be much more accurate.