> > This would appear to assume that self-awareness equates to being human (as > > in homo sapien?); I don't see that as the being the case. I certainly > don't > > believe the infinite time/memory device is required; maybe a Linux Beowulf > > 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..) Till then Cheers