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
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
you are applying a double standard. I say that repeated mechanical
aren't anything other than that. You say that they aren't
do you know?
For one thing because you contradict them yourself. You just posted,
to Bruno, "I don't know that all machines cannot think" Then you turn
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
going to be empty mindless mechanisms. I don't know that to be the case for
possible machines executed in all possible ways... a fusion of biological
inorganic material could strike a thinking balance
You keep overlooking that atoms are not 'organic', yet a fusion of them
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
So experience preceded brains. And what was it experience OF?
It's a collaboration from top down eternal influences and bottom up trial and
- the point though is to understand that the principle of mechanism (which
functions of forms) is the perpendicular axis from sensitivity to those
The point to understand it that calling mechanism and sensitivity
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
the least possible things to control externally. By definition, the more
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
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.
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.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.