#JaronLanier makes a convincing argument that computers are not objectively real, instead, they can only be recognized by a conscious observer, at a particular speed, within a particular cultural context. To paraphrase #KenWilber, they are depths that must be interpreted. Mind officially blown. Check it out:
"I think ultimately an honest zombie will have to accept that any particular observation of computation is a non-confirmable human interpretation of events that can be more objectively described in other ways."
That said, Wilber set an Indiana Jones worth of discursive booby traps for his critics here, even describing some of them in the text:
I've read one rejoinder that blunders into every one of them. One example, Wilber predicts a phrase he uses in jest will be quoted out of context as proof of what a dick he is, totally ignoring the point he made in that section, and so it is. The way he plays these critics like an orquestra, and their total blindness to it, is hilarious.
The methods Wilber used in that post, explained in more detail in a follow-up:
... also explain - a decade before the fact - essentially how a narcissistic TV celebrity became President of the USA:
"... the aim of polemic is to propagate a message through a particular population that otherwise wouldn’t lift a finger to help it. But they can’t stop talking about it, and thus up go the sales and out goes the message ... "
"Especially the more rage and indignation it arouses, the more it activates the shadow elements of those who get their feathers ruffled and have their buttons pushed. The polemical message is like a virus that propagates through the shadow elements of those who despise it."
@strypey Isn't this Berkely v. Hume all over again?