On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > To paraphrase Carl, 'First, you have to invent the universe.' >
You want to know why there is something rather than nothing and Science can't provide a good answer to that, but depending on exactly what you mean by "nothing" it can give some pretty good half answers, and at least it can explain why there is a lot rather than very little. Religion can't even give half answers, not to anything. > > If you smuggle in teleology into your metaphysics a priori, then you > have already given evolution the power to behave sensibly. > I'm not doing any smuggling, I'm openly saying that a high school kid can make a robot that behaves sensibly with just a few transistors. > This is begging the question since what you are supposed to be proving is > how teleological systems can come out of mathematical probability alone. > I can't do that and never claimed I could, and you can't do it either. I'm saying that conscious systems must be a byproduct of intelligent systems because otherwise Evolution would have no reason to produce them and they would not exist on this planet, and yet we know with certainty that they do; or rather I know with certainty that one does. In mathematics there is something called a "existence proof" or "non-constructive proof", in it you don't provide an example but you do prove that a object with certain properties must exist; I can't say how intelligence makes consciousness but I have a existence proof that it does. > Without smuggling teleology in the first place, there is nothing to > mutate. Huh? Of course there is something to mutate, genes, and genes are not in the teleology business, they are not interested in "purpose" because genes are not intelligent and only intelligence can get into the teleology business, but genes are still interested in causes. > Nothing can make sense or define itself, > Two hydrogen atoms don't need to define themselves nor do they need to make sense out of things to get together and form a molecule. > Does your universe come with toy robots built in? Do toy robots appear by > themselves from quantum foam? > No. > > Everything is not only aware, Why is everything aware, why isn't everything not aware. > > everything is awareness. > Robots are something so robots are aware too, but that's not very interesting because if "everything is awareness" then awareness is not very interesting. You might as well say everything is klogknee. > We are talking about how inert matter or abstract probability becomes > it's exact opposite - living, sentient agents. > Yes, in other words we are talking about Evolution. > You seem to have no way to grasp the difference between the menu and the > meal. There is no such thing as a robot snail. > I've heard it all before, in that analogy and a million like it you keep insisting that a intelligent human can only play the role of the meal and a intelligent computer can only play the role of the menu, but your Fart Philosophy has not provided a single reason to convince me that is in fact true. > before anything can have an evolutionary consequence, there already has > to be something making sense of something by itself > Why? RNA can't make sense out of anything but some RNA chains can reproduce faster than others, and that gives them a Evolutionary advantage. 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.
