Hi William R. Buckley 

IMHO, stemming from the absence of self from materialistic philosophy,
the materialistic view of life is essentially causal, similar
to the billiard ball example. 

This is nonsense. Life is not causal and is not deterministic
any more than Congress is causal.  Life is more accurately
described as an infinite  set of representative governments,
(monads), each with a local representative and a constitution
it is expected to obey.  And plans and desires for the future.

So IMHO evolution is not random, it is self-guided and goal-directed.
 

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/31/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: William R. Buckley 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-30, 16:27:53
Subject: RE: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


Bruno:

I rather take issue with the notion that the living cell is not controlled by 
the genome.  As biosemioticians (like Marcello Barbieri) teach us, there 
are a number of codes used in biological context, and each has a governing or 
controlling function within the corresponding context.  The genome 
is clearly at the top of this hierarchy, with Natural Selection and mutational 
variation being higher-level controls on genome.

Readability I think is well understood in terms of interactions between classes 
of molecules – ATP generation for one is rather well understood 
these days.

Programmers (well experienced professionals) are especially sensitive to 
context issues.

wrb

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:12 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:





On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:


Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form – i.e. 
DNA).
It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can say 
that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars.

To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of unexplained 
control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What makes anything 
readable to anything?

Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and 
multiplication, ...





Sense is irreducible. 

>From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too.




No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the power 
to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense within 
itself as causally efficacious motive.

This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws by 
invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not explain 
anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find sense there, but 
in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be frank.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



-- 
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.

-- 
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