On Feb 14, 9:47 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 9:58 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > You seem to be runnign off a theory of concept-formation
> > whereby concepts are only ever recongnitions of percerived
> > realities.
> Not perceived realities, but ontological possibilities. We can't
> imagine a square circle, not because we haven't seen one, but because
> the two figures are mutually exclusive. The most basic requirement of
> any pattern we can recognize or conceive is to discern the difference
> between it's presence and it's absence. We cannot know finite without
> there being the possibility of in-finite. We cannot know determinism
> without there being the possibility of in-determinism. Light without
> dark, sanity without insanity, etc. Without a foreground, there can be
> no background (and vice versa).

But what you *were* saying was that our ability to conceive
was dependent on what *actually* existed.

> >That does not remotely do justice to human thought and
> > language. Language is combinatorial, it allows you to stick a
> > pair of wings on a horse.
> Of course. Provided that wings and horses are conceivable in that
> combination in the first place. It does not allow you to stick wings
> on irony. You can put them together in the trivial sense,
> syntactically, but there's no semantic referent.

How does that help your other claims?

> > >Whenever someone resorts to saying 'Nope' or 'No,
> > > it isn't' I know that they have nothing to support their opinion
> > or they haven;t got the energy to explain the bleedin' obvious.
> Then why bother saying anything?

Why let a denial of the bleedin' obvious pass?

> > > Ok, so what is an intelligent machine's word for a non-machine?
> > "Non machine", if it speaks English.
> What does it think it means by that though?

What we mean if it speaks English.

> > > Since the thread is named 'The free will function', I was thinking we
> > > were talking about that. I would say that indeterminism is a pseudo-
> > > position because it simultaneously assumes an omniscient voyeur and an
> > > arbitrary subject for orientation.
> > I can't imagine why you would think that.
> Because it makes sense?

To whom?

> > > Does putting a billion gears and levers together in an arrangement
> > > make them less dumb?
> > Why not?
> Because then intelligence becomes a magical power that appears
> inexplicably.

I don't see why. If you can have teeny opinions as a zygote,
then levers can have a teeny bit of intelligence.

> > I am physically determined to fall under the influence of gravity, but
> > no one mandated it.
> It's mandated by the laws of physics, if you want to get that
> technical on the meaning of mandatory. The main thing is that it's not
> within your power to refuse,

Unlike things that are compulsory. i can refuse them, but I have
to bear the consequences.

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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to