See my previous post, I'm also answering them in the order that I read them
(otherwise I'll never get back to them).
If your model is adequate, then it should allow you to implement a replica of
it is that you're modelling such that the replica behaves the same as the
close enough to the original. Now, you're not going to say that a model might
to behave like a human scientist but actually be a zombie, are you?
> Ooops...I forgot the 'quantum level' issue in the paramecium discussion.
> No. I would disagree. Quantum mechanics is just another "law of
> appearances" - how the world appears when we look. The universe is not
> made of quantum mechanics. It is made of 'something'. That 'something' is
> behaving quantum mechanicially.
> The model is a bunch of 'something' doing a 'model-dance' in a computer.
> It does not do what the 'something' does in a paramecium. Hence whatever
> is lost by changing the dance from the 'something dance' (quantum
> mechanical or whatever) to the 'model-dance' will be lost to the model
> I would hold that what is lost is the faculty for experience. The
> paramecium includes all levels of the organisation of reality. No matter
> how deep your model goes go you throw away whatever is underneath your
> bottom layer of abstraction and then assume that does not matter. Big
> mistake, IMO. Fixable, but not by modelling.
> Does that make sense?
> Colin Hales
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at