On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:30:12 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
> While computers are causal, perception is not causal. 
> Nothing that living things do is causal. They have an
> uncaused first or governing cause called the self. 
> Thus life does not have to be causal and isn't.
>

I don't see it as being so cut and dried. What about a virus? Is that a 
living thing? How about a crystal? I see more of a step-like spectrum from 
physical to chemical to organic to biological to zoological and 
anthropological. Living things seem like they do some causal things to me? 
They seek food when their bodies run low. They grow hair when and where 
their genes cause it to grow.

I agree that perception is not causal, although the elaboration of 
perception from one individual or species to another can be causal. When we 
say life, I think that we just mean phenomena which we can relate to and 
identify with - and that capacity to identify or disidentify is there for a 
reason. I think though that the reason is not absolute but relative. All 
living organisms could disappear from the cosmos forever and the universe 
would still be full of memory, pattern, and experience...just on scales of 
time and space that are very unfamiliar to us.

 
> Monads operate in such a fashion. They are not 
> causal except if that is desired or needed.
>  
> Huge difference. 
>  
>

Did Leibniz think that non-living things were not composed of monads?

Here is my look at Monadology if you are interested: 
http://multisenserealism.com/2012/07/14/notes-on-monadology/

Craig
 

>  
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net <javascript:>
> 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:* Craig Weinberg <javascript:> 
> *Receiver:* everything-list <javascript:> 
> *Time:* 2012-08-31, 08:12:21
> *Subject:* Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
>
>  
>
> On Friday, August 31, 2012 6:08:05 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>>
>>
>>  On 31 Aug 2012, at 11:07, Roger Clough wrote:
>>
>>  Hi Bruno Marchal 
>>  
>> The burden of proof, IMHO lies on those who claim that
>> computers are alive and conscious. What evidence is there for that ?
>>
>>
>> The causal nature of all observable brains components. (empirical 
>> evidence)
>>
>>
>>
> What about the biological nature of all observable brain components? Much 
> more compelling since it is a change in the biological status of the brain 
> as a whole living organ which marks the difference between life and death, 
> not the presence or absence of logic circuits.
>
> Craig
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/M49PjD4y4QwJ.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/rypjXKjozuYJ.
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