Tom Caylor writes:
> > I agree (with the proviso that I suppose that by "machine" you talk
> > about the old pregodelian conception of (non universal) machine.
> > We don't know what universal machine are capable of, and I don't see
> > why a present "God" would abandon them. I hope you can harbor some
> > doubt about the proposition that machine are stupid, lack subjective
> > phenomenality, etc.
> > Bruno
> > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
> I don't want to commit my future to a machine.
It's an interesting turn of phrase in the current discussion: did you really
to say "I don't want to" or "I don't think it is the case, independently of
Anyway, I don't see how you could deny you are a machine any more than you
could deny a car is a machine. You are made up of tiny little components all
together smoothly, and if something breaks, you break. God could have made us
like a potato animated by an immaterial soul, or left out the solid part
instead he made every part function in accordance with the basically very well
chemistry of a handful of elements. It's amazing that these chemical reactions
give rise to
walking, talking humans, but then I'm still pretty impressed that my car can
take me to places
in quiet comfort while thousands of explosions are occurring in the engine.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at