On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 10:03:16AM +1000, Colin Hales wrote: > > Russel > > I gave a counter example, that of biological evolution. Either you > should demonstrate why you think biological evolution is uncreative, or > why it is conscious. > > Colin > You have proven my point again. It is not a counterexample at all. These > two "either-or" options are rife with assumption and innappropriately > contra-posed. The biggest? = Define the context/semantics of 'creative'. > Options: > > #1 The biosphere is a massive localised collection of molecular ratchet > motors pumped infinitesimal increment by infinitesimal increment against > the 2nd law of thermodynamics upon the arrival of each photon from the > sun. If the novelty (new levels nested organisational complexity) > expressed in that collection/process can be called an act of > creativity...fine...so what? I could call it an act of 'gronkativity' and > it would not alter the facts of the matter. I don't even have to mention > the word consciousness.
... I'm sorry, but you worked yourself up into an incomprehensible rant. Is evolution creative in your view or not? If it is, then there is little point debating definitions, as we're in agreement. If not, then we clearly use the word creative in different senses, and perhaps defintion debates have some utility. Cheers ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
