On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Well, if it's not the laws of physics then it's something supernatural,
>> isn't it?
> Not unless you assume that physics is complete. To me, if we have no idea
> how anything detects anything then we haven't completely understood physics.
> I assume that nothing can be supernatural. There is nothing that is not
> nature. This conversation is nature.

There is no assumption that our knowledge of physics is complete; in
fact if there were that assumption there would be no point in being a
physicist, would there? As a matter of fact I believe that the basic
physics of the brain has been understood for a long time and I
challenge you to point out one thing that has been discovered in
neuroscience which would surprise a chemist from the middle of last
century. But that is not relevant to this discussion. The question is
whether the physics of the brain, known or unknown, is computable. If
it is, then in theory a computer could be just as intelligent as a
human. If it isn't, then a computer would always have some deficit
compared to a human. Maybe it would never be able to play the violin,
cut your hair or write a book as well as a human. This is apparently
what you think, but you have not presented any evidence for this
non-computable physics. It's just an assumption you make.

Stathis Papaioannou

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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to