During the late 70's when I was at McGill, I attended a public talk given by Feynman on quantum physics. After the talk, and in answer to a question posed from a member of the audience, Feynman said something along the lines of :" I have here in my pocket a prescription from my doctor that forbids me to answer questions from or get into discussions with philosophers" or something like that. After spending the last couple of days reading all the links on the outrageous proposition that rocks, rainstorms or plates of spaghetti implement the mind, I now understand Feynman's sentiment. What a waste of mental energy. A line of discussion as equally fruitless as solipsism. I am in full agreement with Richard Loosemore on this one. Eric B. Ramsay
Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 20/02/2008, Richard Loosemore wrote: > I am aware of some of those other sources for the idea: nevertheless, > they are all nonsense for the same reason. I especially single out > Searle: his writings on this subject are virtually worthless. I have > argued with Searle to his face, and I have talked with others > (Hofstadter, for example) who have also done so, and the consensus among > these people is that his arguments are built on confusion. Just to be clear, this is *not* the same as Searle's Chinese Room argument, which only he seems to find convincing. -- Stathis Papaioannou ------------------------------------------- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?&; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
