On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Jan 19, 11:33 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> > On 17 Jan 2012, at 21:20, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> I really don't find it a controversial statement.
> mechanical [muh-kan-i-kuhl]
> Part of Speech: adjective
> Definition: done by machine; machinelike
> Synonyms: automated, automatic, cold, cursory, *emotionless*, fixed,
> habitual, impersonal, instinctive, involuntary, laborsaving,
> *lifeless*, machine-driven, matter-of-fact, monotonous, perfunctory,
> programmed, routine, *spiritless*, standardized, stereotyped,
> unchanging, **unconscious, unfeeling, unthinking**, useful
> Antonyms: by hand, **conscious, feeling**, manual
> This is not evidence that machines are incapable of feeling but it
> indicates broad commonsense support for my interpretation. Of course
> popularity does not mean truth, but it does mean that I don't have to
> accept accusations of some sort of fanciful eccentricity peculiar to
> myself alone. My interpretation is conservative, yours is radically
> experimental and completely unproven. How can you act as if it were
> the other way around? It's dishonest.
Our language is littered with ideas which have long been shown to be
false. For example, we still say that the "sun sets". The word mechanical
originated with the ancient Greeks. Would you consider them an authority
on what machines are capable of?
Also, regarding your statement that yours is the majority or conventional
opinion, I disagree. The most widely held view among those versed in the
subject is that the human body is mechanical (as opposed to governed by
spirits or otherwise non-physical influences).
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
For more options, visit this group at