copy yourself ?
ziakjan at host.sk
Wed May 28 21:24:28 UTC 2003
On Wed, 28 May 2003 20:59:55 +0000, Sean Charles wrote
> > i think you will agree that a wooden door is not a computation object.
> Unless the hole it fills is an abstract problem: "what can be used to
> cover me up". Abstract yes, but nonetheless a problem of sorts. David
> Deutsch reckons 'we' are nothing more then a solution to the problem of
> our environment if I understand him correctly. Can't remember the book but
> I do remember getting the trots in Gozo and the book was a good read for
> three days between the room and karzi. Shit happens. And not always when
> you are on the karzi.
> > if i write write a letter to somebody on paper with ink, i will have no
> > success to push it through closed door...
> I would use the letter box myself. A purpose built opening in the door,
> call it a mail interface if you like, specifically designed to allow
> letters to be pushed through closed doors avoiding personal injury.
so somebody has written that "i cannot push a paper letter through a metal
write" and you criticize me for the analogy with the door...
> > ... so what is your objection against believing in seeing true objects on
> > a
> > computer screen. (of course, i do not say that all objects should be
> > considered as real objects)
> Are objects on a computer screen *true*, in what sense are they true? True
true in the sense that i interpret them as being true. i can choose what
interpretation i will use, and have chosen to consider them true, just true
> > i think you have misused human language and concentrated on the word
> > "longer"
> And you haven't misused human language in these posts at all then?
> > in the above sentence. that longitude forms something like a connection
> > between the breathing and the typing in your sentence. the result: a
> > complete
> > nonsense.
> To be honest and fair jan, IMVHFO, your entire series of posts is becoming
> a nonsense, indeed a PITA. I get the feeling you are in fact a Squeak
> based Turing Test simulation and we have to guess if you are an
> intelligent human being or not.
hmm...you are also responsible for what the tread contains so...
> I think that only the qualified philosophers amongst us should continue
> this debate as the level of pseudo-babble and BS is sapping the network, I
> can hear it groaning under the weight of all of those multiple posts you
> keep sending out. Personally, and seconding Colin, I am no longer going to
> post on this topic. If I don't read your post's then you don't exist... ;-
> Have a nice.....whatever.
More information about the Squeak-dev