On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:

> > the point is that name calling is not a logical argument and that it
> derails the discussion.

Yes, but I'm surprised you think that's name calling. I'd be insulted if
somebody called me a vitalist but I don't see why you should be.

> > if you continue with your false accusations and ad hominem horseshit,
> the I'm not going to bother with you.

What a tragedy that would be.

> I would say that the qualitative bump from single cell to animal is even
> more significant than the bump from molecule to cell, or atom to molecule.

And I would say that the only difference between a bunch of hydrogen carbon
and oxygen atoms, amino acids, proteins, cells, and Craig Weinberg, is the
position of the atoms.

> Vitalism would be that there are some substances which are used by
> biological organisms and others that are not.

Like how computers can never be conscious regardless of what sort of
brilliant behavior they display because they are lacking in something
vital.  In other words vitalism.

> > vitalism would be that living cells are composed of life-giving
> molecules which are fundamentally different from non life-giving molecules.

Like how cells are fundamentally different from computer chips because
cells have something vital the chips lack. In other words vitalism.

> I'm not saying that at all.


> Clearly you believe that there is nothing that a ham sandwich has that a
> bag of sand lacks.

To turn a bag of sand into a ham sandwich you'd need 2 things, information
on where the protons and neutrons should go and energy to get the job done.
And come to think of it you might not even need much energy, the silicon
nucleus in sand has more energy than the carbon and hydrogen nucleus in the
ham sandwich.

> They [computers] are good at doing boring repetitive shit that we can't
> stand doing.

Things we can't stand doing, like playing the games of checkers, chess,
poker and Jeopardy!

> > The point is that no amount of GoL transitions strung together will ever
> become anything other than what it is - recursively enumerated digits.
> There is nothing to generate any qualities other than that in the machine
> or the program - any patterns which we project on this data; 'gliders',
> 'cells', whatever, are nothing but simulacra

So the gliders in the Game Of Life are just simulacra but the
neurotransmitter chemicals in the brain (which serve the same purpose) are
not simulacra because the chemicals have something vital that the gliders
lack. In other words vitalism.

>> The opposite of  "automatic way" is random way.
> > That is your completely unsupported prejudice.

A prejudice that all men of learning have had since the days of Aristotle,
that  X is Y or X is not Y.  The only reason you would challenge this
fundamental axiom of logic is because that is the only way you can get your
looney ideas to work.  If you abandon logic you can get any idea to work.

> The legal system of [...]

I'm talking about logic, what on earth does the law have to do with logic?
Do you expect to learn how the universe operates from lawyers?

  John K Clark

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