On Monday, January 21, 2013 6:42:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 1/21/2013 3:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>
>
>
> On Monday, January 21, 2013 5:38:32 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>  On 1/21/2013 2:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, January 21, 2013 4:59:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>  On 1/21/2013 11:05 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: 
>>>
>>> Materialism fails since it cannot explain how it is possible for 
>>> material things to have representations of things, intensionality, such as 
>>> numbers.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's something evolution explains.
>>>  
>>
>> Evolution can be used to retrospectively judge that it would be 
>> convenient if there were such things as representations, but it offers no 
>> such thing as a physical ontology of it. Evolution can also 'explain' why 
>> we have teleportation, time travel, and telepathy in the same way.
>>  
>>
>> If you want a causal explanation then I recommend you study computer 
>> science and learn how a computer can have representations of cities and 
>> faces.
>>  
>
> I have taught computer classes professionally actually. I'm certified MCSE 
> and CCEA and have been using computers on a daily basis since 1981. 
> Computers have no representations. It is us who use pixels to represent 
> images or transistors to represent bits of information, 
>
>
> ...and images (in computers) represent objects.
>

Images only represent objects to us. Nothing represents anything to a 
computer, any more than mousetrap snapping shut represents an intention to 
kill mice.
 

>
>  not a computer. A computer wouldn't know the difference between a city 
> and a face if it scanned every image of a face and a city in existence.
>  
>
> Then how does one manage to negotiate the surface of Mars and another to 
> drive through the streets of Los Angeles.
>

You associate the images with Mars or Los Angeles, not the computer. You 
could rename both to 'images of Fred's scalp' and it won't care. Computers 
are useful to us because they are stupider than any person ever could be. 
They will work on the same futile functions unquestioningly forever. They 
work for free as long as the physical substrate allows it. 

Craig
 

>
> Brent
>
>  
> I recommend you study semiotics and learn how symbols and subjects relate. 
>  
>
> When it comes to semiotics, I'm a pragmatist.  The meaning of a symbol is 
> how it effects the perceiver.  I think it's amusing that what is taken as 
> serious academic philosophy in France is done in the U.S. as marketing 
> research.
>
> Brent
>
>
>  
> Craig
>
>
>   
>> Brent
>>  
> -- 
> 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/-/49pVJoVghBIJ.
> 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.
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2638/6034 - Release Date: 01/15/13
>
>
>  

-- 
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/-/XHBsGIp9CT4J.
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