> > This would appear to assume that self-awareness equates to being human
> > in homo sapien?); I don't see that as the being the case. I certainly
> > believe the infinite time/memory device is required; maybe a Linux
> > cluster running on some g5s?
> [JM]: We did not settle the self-awareness puzzle. I believe thath HUMAN
> self-awareness is homo sapientist, as we know it (do we indeed?). I don't
> argue your Linux, just show me. In non-conditional terms. No 'maybe'.
> What I started out with was the mind > brain inequality. Brain as the
> bio-machine-component in the human complexity of a 'more' (consider
> Aristotle's - Aris-Total).
Can't argue with that. Fortunately, "prove" was your word not mine. This
being a discussion list I was acting accordingly. (I tend towards a
Popperian view of "proof" in any case, and don't expend the energy) By the
way, are you by any chance from Missouri?
Obviously, I once again should have followed my own advice and stood pat a
couple of posts back where I pointed to the futility of these circular
"head of a pin" debates (no, not pin-head debates). It's seems it's that old
"human 'consciousness' as a special case" vs same as pattern along a
continuum (with discrete underlying structure?). I just happen to view this
as a difference of degree, not of kind. I can't prove it; you can't
disprove; there it is. So, again, I'll let things take their own course and
if in some universe a "me" survives long enough to behold the birth of our
inheritor (a good bet given sufficient # of possible worlds), and if that
universe also happens to be one where we co-exist, I'll get back to you. (If
I already have done so in that universe, and you already graciously
conceded, then apologies up front and kindly disregard this message..)