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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
