On 18 July 2013 23:20, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I did use the term "rational" perhaps inappropriately. I meant that >> some aesthetic choices have evolutionary utility and others not. >> Nevertheless, all aesthetic choices must be determined by the physics >> of our brain, unless they are determined by something else, such as an >> immaterial soul. >> > > If aesthetic choices were determined by physics of our brain then pure sugar > would look magical and gold would look like dirt. Aesthetics are not > determined. Or they would both look like mosaics of neurochemical bonds. I > say 'look', but of course if aesthetics were driven by physics alone, > nothing could 'look' like anything, no more than the positions of the beads > of an abacus can smell like something. > > The universe is an aesthetic agenda. Existence is that which seeks to feel > better, be more. Biology speeds it up in a microcosmic recapitulation is > all, and human beings represent an even more radical experiment in what I > call solitrophy.
Craig, If a dog started talking in full English sentences without manipulation by an outside force the explanation must be in the physics of its body. I don't think this statement is either clever or controversial. And if the physics of the dog's body is computable then it should be possible to make an artificial dog controlled by a computer that talks in full English sentences just like the real dog. I don't think that statement is either clever or controversial either. It can be seen to be true in the absence of any understanding of dog physiology. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.