On Feb 14, 9:47 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 14, 9:58 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > You seem to be runnign off a theory of concept-formation > > whereby concepts are only ever recongnitions of percerived > > realities. > > Not perceived realities, but ontological possibilities. We can't > imagine a square circle, not because we haven't seen one, but because > the two figures are mutually exclusive. The most basic requirement of > any pattern we can recognize or conceive is to discern the difference > between it's presence and it's absence. We cannot know finite without > there being the possibility of in-finite. We cannot know determinism > without there being the possibility of in-determinism. Light without > dark, sanity without insanity, etc. Without a foreground, there can be > no background (and vice versa). But what you *were* saying was that our ability to conceive was dependent on what *actually* existed. > >That does not remotely do justice to human thought and > > language. Language is combinatorial, it allows you to stick a > > pair of wings on a horse. > > Of course. Provided that wings and horses are conceivable in that > combination in the first place. It does not allow you to stick wings > on irony. You can put them together in the trivial sense, > syntactically, but there's no semantic referent. How does that help your other claims? > > >Whenever someone resorts to saying 'Nope' or 'No, > > > it isn't' I know that they have nothing to support their opinion > > > or they haven;t got the energy to explain the bleedin' obvious. > > Then why bother saying anything? Why let a denial of the bleedin' obvious pass? > > > Ok, so what is an intelligent machine's word for a non-machine? > > > "Non machine", if it speaks English. > > What does it think it means by that though? What we mean if it speaks English. > > > Since the thread is named 'The free will function', I was thinking we > > > were talking about that. I would say that indeterminism is a pseudo- > > > position because it simultaneously assumes an omniscient voyeur and an > > > arbitrary subject for orientation. > > > I can't imagine why you would think that. > > Because it makes sense? To whom? > > > Does putting a billion gears and levers together in an arrangement > > > make them less dumb? > > > Why not? > > Because then intelligence becomes a magical power that appears > inexplicably. I don't see why. If you can have teeny opinions as a zygote, then levers can have a teeny bit of intelligence. > > > I am physically determined to fall under the influence of gravity, but > > no one mandated it. > > It's mandated by the laws of physics, if you want to get that > technical on the meaning of mandatory. The main thing is that it's not > within your power to refuse, Unlike things that are compulsory. i can refuse them, but I have to bear the consequences. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
