On 9/14/2012 6:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi John Clark

The difference is that a computer has no intelligence, cannot
deal with qualia, and is not alive.
Dear Roger,

You are assuming ab initio that a computer has no capacity whatsoever of "reflecting upon" its computations and to possible be able to report on its meditation. You might say that you are intelligent exactly because you assume that you have this capacity.



My brain has all of these features in spades.

ibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."


----- Receiving the following content -----
From: John Clark
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-13, 13:15:54
Subject: Re: imaginary numbers in comp


On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:



I reject comp, because it cannot access feelings or qualities
And you have deduced this by using the "nothing but" fallacy: even the largest computer is 
"nothing but" a collection of on and off switches. Never mind that your brain is "nothing 
but" a collection of molecules rigorously obeying the laws of physics.

? 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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html


--
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