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 
> simulations?
> 

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 
without attributes...

> > 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.
> 
> Sean.

ok.