On Friday, March 1, 2013 7:47:14 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  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.
>

I don't overlook that at all. If there were no important difference among 
atoms though, we would be able to eat sand and photosynthesize. I don't 
assume that atoms built the brain, I think that human experience built 
human brains out of living cells, using specific substances. It's a 
collaboration from top down eternal influences and bottom up trial and 
error.
 

>
>  - 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.
>

Every scientific discovery is made up by someone. Is that your only 
contribution to the topic - ad hominem sour grapes? 


>
>  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.
>

If you don't understand that it is symmetry, then you don't understand what 
I am talking about, which you just made clear above.


>  then you will have no problem being confident 
>
>
> Yes, I noticed that ignorance begets confidence.
>

I have never heard you say anything which was not expressed with 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.
>

No. Quantity is a quality of counting. Many and big are still qualities, 
counting just makes them impersonal and precise.

Craig


> 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.


Reply via email to