On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 2:07:26 AM UTC-4, Dennis Ochei wrote: > > Craig, > I've been trying to stay focused studying the past few days (medical exam > D: ), but now im procrastinating.... > > So which of the following are you advancing > > No implementation of rules could ever perfectly exemplify (or at least to > such a degree that no human could every tell it was a mere implementation > of rules and not "the real thing") the behavior of: > > 1) an electron > 2) an atom > 3) a molecule > 4) a macro-molecule > 5) an organelle > 6) a cell > 7) a sponge > 8) a nematode > 9) a fruit fly > 10) a frog > 11) a dog > 12) a rhesus macaque > 13) a human > > ? > > I am advancing the idea that that there is a formula. We can say that the numbers on your list, 1-13, can correspond to what I call the pathetic constant (p). The higher the number, the more likely that we, as humans will attribute feelings and/or the expectation that the public phenomena is associated with a private experience which is worthy of our consideration. If we misattribute a high p value (i.e. human feelings) to a very low p phenomenon then we are committing the pathetic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathetic_fallacy).