On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:02:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > 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? >
Is it not the kinds of atoms which are included in a molecule that we classify as organic and inorganic? Is this the best that you can do? Ad-hominem nitpicking? > > > 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). > You accuse me of contradiction and confusion, but I have none. My ideas are all 100% consistent as far as I can tell. Your misunderstanding and impatience only validates that for me. > > 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? > Feelings. Sensations. Images. Participation in movement. > > 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. > What it is *to you* is not *what it is*. You should read semiotics. Word Salad has a very clear signature. For example: *“It was shockingly not of the best quality I have known all such evildoers coming out of doors with the best of intentions!” *If you read others who explore the kinds of issues that I do, like Deleuze or Foucault, you will find that my writing style is not very dissimilar, and certainly not similar to word salad. You are never going to prove anything to be by trying to criticize my writing style. It really has no impact on me at all - and it is in fact exactly what my model expects. I have plenty of people who are appreciative of my writing, and it's really only certain kinds of thinkers who have this intolerant reaction to it. I guess enjoy your intolerance! Craig * * > > > >> >> 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 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.