On Thursday, March 14, 2013 11:38:10 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
> >> There is no other logical conclusion to make given the FACT that if 
>>> your brain chemistry changes your emotions change, AND if your emotions 
>>> change your brain chemistry changes. 
>>>
>>
>> > So if I type comments on my computer and I see your answers on my 
>> computer, then there is no other logical conclusion to make than that you 
>> live in my computer.
>>
>
> In this lame analogy of yours what is the counterpart of my typing into 
> the computer, who the hell is typing into my brain?
>

John K Clark, who else? An experience which began at a certain place and 
time in history. When you die, you will be identified primarily by a name 
and two dates. That information is as close as you can get to a 'body' in 
public space. That is the footprint of your personal share of eternity.
 

>
> >> Evolution most certainly did do it 
>>>
>>
>> >Because Evolution is God?
>>
>
> They say there is no such thing as a stupid question. They're wrong. 
>

Ah, another nervous tic is born I see. It doesn't satisfy the intent of my 
question though. You claim to know what evolution does and does not do, but 
evolution has only ever been implicated in the morphological structure of 
biological species.
 

>
> >>and given the fact that Evolution can only see behavior and not 
>>> consciousness the only logical conclusion to make is that consciousness 
>>> must be the byproduct of something that Evolution can see, and intelligence 
>>> seems to be the best bet.   
>>>
>>
>> > Except that intelligence could not benefit in any way by consciousness.
>>
>
> Therefore, as I just said, consciousness MUST be the byproduct of 
> something that Evolution CAN see, and as I also just said Evolution CAN see 
> intelligence. 
>

But consciousness can't be a byproduct of anything because it would be 
completely unexplainable and superfluous no matter what you try to attach 
it to. It is completely implausible in every way.


> >>> I can tell if it has video or audio qualities because I experience 
>>>> them directly with human perception. 
>>>
>>>  
>>> >> Baloney. If "IT HAS ZERO TO DO with video or audio qualities" then 
>>> neither you nor anybody or anything can tell if it is audio or video 
>>> because it is neither. IT HAS ZERO AUDIO OR VIDEO QUALITIES! 
>>>
>>
>> > The file has no audio or video qualities, but certainly hearing music 
>> has audio qualities and seeing a video has video qualities. The point is 
>> that the computer can neither see or hear,
>>
>
> You can't hear or see a computer file, all you can do is see or listen to 
> the computers interpretation of that file.
>

Well, I could theoretically look at the HD platter with an electron 
microscope.
 

> People must have collectively concluded that the computers interpretation 
> is pretty damn good or information processing wouldn't be a multitrillion 
> dollar industry. 
>

There you go back to the 'whoever is winning must be right and superior'. 
What does the popularity of porn and gossip have to do with the capacity of 
computers to think and feel?

Craig
 

>
>  John k Clark
>
>

-- 
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