On 11 Feb 2015, at 05:37, Samiya Illias wrote:
On 11-Feb-2015, at 6:40 am, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 Alberto G. Corona <[email protected]> wrote:
> I can´t even enumerate the number of ways in which that article
is wrong.
I stopped reading after the following parochial imbecility "I don't
see Christ's redemption limited to human beings".
> First of all, any intelligent robot MUST have a religion in order
to act in any way.
Yet another example of somebody in love with the English word
"religion" but not with the meaning behind it.
> But I think that a robot with such level of intelligence will
never be possible
So you think that random mutation and natural selection can produce
a intelligent being but a intelligent designer can't. Why?
I am so happy to read this comment of yours. I hope someday you'll
come to reason that even we have been produced by an intelligent
designer.
Would you conclude from this that we are machine? I am thinking to
some creationists who argue that animals are sort of machines, and
this to give evidence for "intelligent design"
My first problem with "intelligent design" is that, as an explanation,
it assumes more than it explain. Where would an intelligent designer
comes from?
Then, if you look at the Mandelbrot set, you can see many complex
structures, and this illustrates that very complex structures can
arise from very simple principle. Of course we know that this is
already the case in arithmetic where all possible machine already
exist together with all their possible execution (which is why I
suggest to explain this to you (hope my last post was not to much
wishes-breaking!).
So God does not need to create machines, it is enough to create 0 and
the successors and told them to add and multiply. This leads to all
machines + all computations, making the creationist argument non valid.
A remaining possible role for a God would be in a selection process.
But a selection is done automatically (by the FPI or
consciousness) ... in case the relative measure on computations,
provided by computer science, fits well with the measure inferred from
nature (given today by QM, this makes computationalism testable). Here
Quantum Mechanics illustrates indeed that apparently, those measure
fits well, as far as we can say today.
Bruno
Samiya
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to everything-
[email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
