On Jul 23, 7:06 pm, 1Z <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jul 23, 5:52 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jul 23, 11:06 am, 1Z <[email protected]> wrote:
> There are robust counterexamples to that. I can relace an iron key > with a brasskey. The material > isn't important in that case. You need to argue points, not just > announce them. It's not that the material isn't important, it's that the nature of a standard lock is going to be functionally matched by any material which has certain common characteristics. A digital simulation of a key is not going to open the lock. A key made of wet cheerios is not going to work. Likewise neither an iron or brass key is going to work if they aren't cut to the right pattern. Both parameters are important. The question with human consciousness is where the substitution level is. Intuitively the idea of silicon as a polite material with microcosmic molecular behaviors more exposed to the macrocosm than other substances seems to work. A cell seems more the product of spunky, hydrophile materials which might be more capable of self- sustaining 'feeling'. I can only argue points with other people, because I'm in agreement with myself. It sounds like I'm announcing, but I'm really asking 'Is there any particular reason why this isn't true?' It seems redundant to keep saying 'this is something I'm thinking about and it's just an opinion' since I figure that's what informal conversations on the internet are for. -- 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.
