On 3/1/2013 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:32:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in what order, they are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.Repeated assertions aren't evidence. It's interesting because my assertion is rooted in the same understanding, but you are applying a double standard. I say that repeated mechanical assertions aren't anything other than that. You say that they aren't evidence...but how do you know?For one thing because you contradict them yourself. You just posted, in reply to Bruno, "I don't know that all machines cannot think" Then you turn around and assert,"they are always going to be empty mindless mechanisms."It's not a contradiction, it's an assertion that as far as we know they are always going to be empty mindless mechanisms. I don't know that to be the case for all possible machines executed in all possible ways... a fusion of biological and inorganic material could strike a thinking balance
You keep overlooking that atoms are not 'organic', yet a fusion of them forms your brain.
- the point though is to understand that the principle of mechanism (which is functions of forms) is the perpendicular axis from sensitivity to those forms and functions.
The point to understand it that calling mechanism and sensitivity "perpendicular axes" is just something you made up.
This is what I keep trying to say - things which have a lot of consciousness are the least possible things to control externally. By definition, the more robotic something is, the less alive it is, and that is not trivial or coincidental. If you understand why that symmetry is meaningful,
That's not a symmetry - you shouldn't use big words if you don't know what they mean.
then you will have no problem being confident
Yes, I noticed that ignorance begets confidence.
that although life uses mechanisms, it is not, in itself a mechanism at all. It's not just the boundary between living and non-living (which I would not rule out being more of an anthropic or biopic boundary), but all qualitative boundaries, between physics and chemistry, biology and zoology, anthropology and psychology, etc may not have purely quantitative bridges.
Qualitative is what you haven't been able to quantify yet. At one time "many" and "big" were just qualities.
Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
