On 3/1/2013 4:57 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



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.

Do you just write the first thing that comes into your head? Did you not stop to reflect that the difference between organic and inorganic applies to *molecules*, not atoms?


I don't assume that atoms built the brain,

I know. You assume things like mechanism is perpendicular sensitivity but yes-and-no don't make yellow (although in quodlibet logic it does).

I think that human experience built human brains out of living cells, using specific substances.

So experience preceded brains.  And what was it experience OF?

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?

What's ad hominem about calling word salad what it is.




    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.

That's the first thing you've written that I can fully agree with.

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