On Jul 23, 7:06 pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 5:52 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 23, 11:06 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to