On 13 Oct 2012, at 17:55, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Keep in mind that I use the compatibilist definition of free
will, which is the (machine) ability to exploits its self-
indetermination (with indetermination in the Turing sense,
On 13 Oct 2012, at 17:55, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Keep in mind that I use the compatibilist definition of free
will, which is the (machine) ability to exploits its self-
indetermination (with indetermination in the Turing sense,
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
And lets not forget those who insist that in order to qualify as free
will the conscious choice must not be done for a reason AND it must not
not be done for a reason.
Why? They are inconsistent
Very inconsistent!
On 12 Oct 2012, at 22:36, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Keep in mind that I use the compatibilist definition of free will,
which is the (machine) ability to exploits its self-indetermination
(with indetermination in the Turing sense, (not in
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Keep in mind that I use the compatibilist definition of free will,
which is the (machine) ability to exploits its self-indetermination (with
indetermination in the Turing sense, (not in the comp first person sense,
nor the quantum
On 11 Oct 2012, at 16:20, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 10 Oct 2012, at 13:31, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I think that consciousness, intelligence and some measure of free
will are
necessary and inseparable parts of life
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Keep in mind that I use the compatibilist definition of free will, which
is the (machine) ability to exploits its self-indetermination (with
indetermination in the Turing sense, (not in the comp first person sense,
nor the quantum
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
So you see no reason to draw a legal distinction between a banker to
takes money from his bank to support a more lavish life style and one who
does it to keep a bank robber from shooting him?
No.
John K Clark
--
You received this
On 10/12/2012 1:39 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
So you see no reason to draw a legal distinction between a banker to
takes money
from his bank to support a more lavish life style and one who does it to
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 10 Oct 2012, at 13:31, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I think that consciousness, intelligence and some measure of free will are
necessary and inseparable parts of life itself.
is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: John Clark
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-11, 10:20:11
Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012? Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Oct 2012, at 13:31, Roger
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Free Will-- You need enough freedom
My difficulty with the free will noise is not the will part, you want
to do some things and don't want to do others and that's clear, my
difficulty is with the free part; and all you're saying
On 10/11/2012 10:14 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net
wrote:
Free Will-- You need enough freedom
My difficulty with the free will noise is not the will part, you want to do some
things and don't want to do others
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 1:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It's [free will] a simple enough concept
I think that's true, although I may be using a somewhat different meaning
of the word simple than you are.
that it is used in law courts
True.
a venue not noted for
On 10/11/2012 1:14 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 1:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It's [free will] a simple enough concept
I think that's true, although I may be using a somewhat different meaning of the word
simple than you are.
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-09, 13:07:29
Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On 10/9/2012 7:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Oct 2012, at 19:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/8/2012 8:42 AM, John Clark wrote:
2
Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/10/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-09, 10:17:35
Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On 08 Oct 2012, at 19
Hi Roger Clough
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/10/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Roger Clough
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-10, 07:31:58
Subject: Re: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I have no trouble at all saying that zero computers are conscious and
that all living people have had conscious experiences.
Fine say what you want, but I'll never be able to prove you right and I'll
never be able to prove you
Hi Craig, and other
As I am in very buzy period, which can last some time, I will be short
and focus on the main disagreements. Or I will take more time for
some posts, or I will break my spelling mistakes' number record.
On 09 Oct 2012, at 17:24, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday,
On 09 Oct 2012, at 19:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/9/2012 7:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Oct 2012, at 19:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/8/2012 8:42 AM, John Clark wrote:
2) Intelligent behavior is NOT associated with subjective
experience, in which case there is no reason for Evolution
will--intelligence
I agree with this.
Bruno
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/10/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-09, 10:17:35
Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought
Hi Bruno Marchal
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/9/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-08, 10:19:35
Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
Hi
Time: 2012-10-08, 14:23:18
Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On Monday, October 8, 2012 1:35:31 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012 8:42 AM, John Clark wrote:
2) Intelligent behavior is NOT associated with subjective experience, in which
case there is no reason for Evolution
Hi Craig Weinberg
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/9/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-08, 14:25:15
Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
Hi Craig Weinberg
They can only disagree about experiences that are spoken.
--
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
10/9/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-08, 16:25:20
Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On Monday, October 8, 2012 3:38:42 PM UTC-4
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no assumption that our knowledge of physics is complete; in
fact if there were that assumption there would be no point in being a
physicist, would there? As a matter of fact I believe that the basic
physics
Hi meekerdb
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/9/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-08, 17:18:59
Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On 10/8/2012
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 6:38:24 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
They can only disagree about experiences that are spoken.
You mean they can only verbally disagree. It is pretty clear that they can
disagree about their taste in things without having spoken about them.
On 08 Oct 2012, at 19:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/8/2012 8:42 AM, John Clark wrote:
2) Intelligent behavior is NOT associated with subjective
experience, in which case there is no reason for Evolution to
produce consciousness and I have no explanation for why I am here,
and I have reason
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, which computers do you think have conscious experiences? Windows
laptops? Deep Blue? Cable TV boxes?
How the hell should I know if computers have conscious experiences? How the
hell should I know if people have conscious
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 10:17:41 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Consciousness is when you bet in your consistency, or in a reality, to
help yourself.
Consciousness precedes language, but follows perception and sensation.
Nice. It can be tricky because perception and sensation can
: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On Monday, October 8, 2012 1:35:31 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012 8:42 AM, John Clark wrote:
2) Intelligent behavior is NOT associated with subjective
experience, in which case there is no reason for Evolution to
produce consciousness and I have
On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 11:21:59 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, which computers do you think have conscious experiences? Windows
laptops? Deep Blue? Cable TV boxes?
How the hell should I know if computers have conscious
2012/10/7 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Saturday, October 6, 2012 1:56:33 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm openly saying that a high school kid can make a robot that
behaves sensibly with just a few
On 08/10/2012, at 3:07 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely not. We know no such thing. Quite the opposite, we know with
relative certainty that what we understand of physics provides no possibility
of anything other than more physics. There is no hint of any kind
: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On 07 Oct 2012, at 14:17, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi John Clark
Unless computers can deal with inextended objects such as
mind and experience, they cannot be conscious.
Consciousness is direct experience, computers can only deal in
descriptions
: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
Roger,
If human consciousness comes from attached monads, as I think you have claimed,
then why could not these monads attach to sufficiently complex computers
as well.
Richard
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi John Clark
Unless
-
From: Stathis Papaioannou
Receiver: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Time: 2012-10-08, 03:14:29
Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On 08/10/2012, at 3:07 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Absolutely not. We know no such thing. Quite the opposite, we know with
relative certainty
10/8/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
Receiver: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Time: 2012-10-08, 03:14:29
Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On 08/10/2012, at 3:07 AM, Craig
On Monday, October 8, 2012 3:06:42 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2012/10/7 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:
On Saturday, October 6, 2012 1:56:33 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm openly saying that
On Monday, October 8, 2012 3:14:36 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On 08/10/2012, at 3:07 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Absolutely not. We know no such thing. Quite the opposite, we know with
relative certainty that what we understand of physics provides no
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
We know with absolute certainty that the laws of physics in this
universe allow for the creation of consciousness, we may not know how they
do it but we know for a fact that it can be done.
Absolutely not. We know no such thing.
: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-07, 11:06:17
Subject: Re: Can computers be conscious ? Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
Roger,
If human consciousness comes from attached monads, as I think you have
claimed,
then why could not these monads attach to sufficiently complex computers
as well
On Monday, October 8, 2012 11:42:02 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
We know with absolute certainty that the laws of physics in this
universe allow for the creation of consciousness, we may not know how they
do it but we know for
On 10/8/2012 8:42 AM, John Clark wrote:
2) Intelligent behavior is NOT associated with subjective experience, in which case
there is no reason for Evolution to produce consciousness and I have no explanation for
why I am here, and I have reason to believe that I am the only conscious being in
On 10/8/2012 10:24 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
So the more stimulation you get through your senses of the outside
environment the
less conscious you become. Huh?
Stimulation that you get thorough your senses of the outside environment does not
control you.
How could you possibly
On Monday, October 8, 2012 1:35:31 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012 8:42 AM, John Clark wrote:
2) Intelligent behavior is NOT associated with subjective experience, in
which case there is no reason for Evolution to produce consciousness and I
have no explanation for why I am here,
On Monday, October 8, 2012 2:19:56 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012 10:24 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
So the more stimulation you get through your senses of the outside
environment the less conscious you become. Huh?
Stimulation that you get thorough your senses of the outside
On 10/8/2012 11:25 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 8, 2012 2:19:56 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012 10:24 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
So the more stimulation you get through your senses of the outside
environment
the less conscious you become. Huh?
On Monday, October 8, 2012 3:38:42 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012 11:25 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 8, 2012 2:19:56 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012 10:24 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
So the more stimulation you get through your senses of the outside
On 10/8/2012 1:25 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 8, 2012 3:38:42 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012 11:25 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 8, 2012 2:19:56 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012 10:24 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
So the
On Monday, October 8, 2012 4:57:08 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012 1:25 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 8, 2012 3:38:42 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012 11:25 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 8, 2012 2:19:56 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012
On 10/8/2012 2:10 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 8, 2012 4:57:08 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012 1:25 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 8, 2012 3:38:42 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012 11:25 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday,
On Monday, October 8, 2012 5:19:03 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012 2:10 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 8, 2012 4:57:08 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012 1:25 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 8, 2012 3:38:42 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2012
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, if it's not the laws of physics then it's something supernatural,
isn't it?
Not unless you assume that physics is complete. To me, if we have no idea
how anything detects anything then we haven't completely
On Monday, October 8, 2012 5:51:56 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Well, if it's not the laws of physics then it's something supernatural,
isn't it?
Not unless you assume that physics is complete.
, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: John Clark
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-06, 13:56:30
Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
?I'm openly saying that a high
, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: John Clark
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-06, 13:56:30
Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
?I'm openly saying that a high school kid can
- Receiving the following content -
From: John Clark
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-06, 13:56:30
Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
?I'm openly saying that a high school kid can make a robot that behaves
On Saturday, October 6, 2012 1:56:33 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I'm openly saying that a high school kid can make a robot that behaves
sensibly with just a few transistors.
Only because he
On 05 Oct 2012, at 18:58, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
To paraphrase Carl, 'First, you have to invent the universe.'
You want to know why there is something rather than nothing and
Science can't provide a good answer to that, but
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm openly saying that a high school kid can make a robot that behaves
sensibly with just a few transistors.
Only because he lives in a universe in which the possibility of
teleology is fully supported from the
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
To paraphrase Carl, 'First, you have to invent the universe.'
You want to know why there is something rather than nothing and Science
can't provide a good answer to that, but depending on exactly what you mean
by nothing it can
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you saying that Darwin has an explanation for the origin of order?
Yes, mutation and natural selection.
No. Natural selection is a type of order. Mutation describes a deviation
from an established order which
On Friday, October 5, 2012 12:58:14 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
To paraphrase Carl, 'First, you have to invent the universe.'
You want to know why there is something rather than nothing and Science
can't provide a
On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 11:56:59 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
1) I understand and respect your argument here 100%.
2) I think that I have a better explanation
The better explanation is the
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
When you say Random mutation can wire together a small number of cells
such that if there is a sudden change in the light levels in the
environment, like a shadow covering it, a snail will retreat into its
shell, you
On Thursday, October 4, 2012 3:18:51 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
When you say Random mutation can wire together a small number of cells
such that if there is a sudden change in the light levels in the
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 11:56:59 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
1) I understand and respect your argument here 100%.
2) I think that I
On Thursday, October 4, 2012 6:55:47 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 11:56:59 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Craig Weinberg
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
how can reason be completely different from evolution if reason itself
is a consequence of nothing but evolution.
Random mutation can wire together a small number of cells such that if
there is a sudden change in the
On 02 Oct 2012, at 19:48, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Any meta-molecular system is going to be complex compared to a
molecular system,
That's what meta means, and a very big thing is larger than a big
thing.
Once a theory is
On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 12:35:11 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
how can reason be completely different from evolution if reason itself
is a consequence of nothing but evolution.
Random mutation can wire
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
1) I understand and respect your argument here 100%.
2) I think that I have a better explanation
The better explanation is the simpler one. Your explanation adds
extra, unnecessary and unsupported by any evidence
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't understand the question because I'm not clear on what these
differences refers to.
The differences between evolutionary nature (teleonomy) and rational
design (teleology) that we are talking about.
For God's sake!
On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 1:48:39 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
I don't understand the question because I'm not clear on what these
differences refers to.
The differences between evolutionary nature (teleonomy)
On 01 Oct 2012, at 01:56, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/30/2012 7:47 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
wrote:
On 9/30/2012 5:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Craig Weinberg
On 01 Oct 2012, at 02:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/30/2012 4:28 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You aren't seeing my point that if human designers are nothing but
evolved systems, then they must have the same limitations as
evolution itself, unless you can explain why they wouldn't.
More
On 10/1/2012 4:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The whole *is* very often more than the parts. Non Löbian entities can
create/emulate the Löbian entities. That is why we can take a very
simple whole as ontology, be it a tiny arithmetic without induction
axioms, or a differential equation (like
: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-30, 19:56:20
Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On 9/30/2012 7:47 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/30/2012 5:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Craig Weinberg
On Sunday, September 30, 2012 8:02:55 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/30/2012 4:28 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You aren't seeing my point that if human designers are nothing but evolved
systems, then they must have the same limitations as evolution itself,
unless you can explain why they
Thought Experiment
On 9/30/2012 8:07 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/30/2012 4:56 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/30/2012 7:47 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/30/2012 5:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
The difference is Evolution doesn't understand the concept of one step
backward 2 steps forward for one thing, I went into considerable more
detail about this in my last post and also gave you 4 more reasons how and
On Monday, October 1, 2012 1:52:29 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
The difference is Evolution doesn't understand the concept of one step
backward 2 steps forward for one thing, I went into considerable
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Organisms can utilize inorganic minerals, sure. Salt would be a better
example as we can actually eat it in its pure form and we actually need to
eat it. But that's completely different than a living cell made of
the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-29, 11:49:19
Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On Friday, September 28, 2012 11:36:36 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Craig
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Only life evolves, and steel claws, being made of steel, are not alive,
at least in the ordinary sense (Leibniz believed that everything in
the universe is alive). So what you propose couldn't happen.
Sea shells are
On Sunday, September 30, 2012 10:55:34 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Roger Clough
rcl...@verizon.netjavascript:
wrote:
Only life evolves, and steel claws, being made of steel, are not alive,
at least in the ordinary sense (Leibniz believed that
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
It's not enough to assert that evolutionary designs (teleonomy) and
rational designs (teleology) are different, I am asking you to explain how
it is possible for them to be different
The difference is Evolution
On 9/30/2012 5:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Organisms can utilize inorganic minerals, sure. Salt would be a better
example as we can actually eat it in its pure form and we actually need to
eat it. But that's
On 9/30/2012 8:39 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Only life evolves, and steel claws, being made of steel, are not alive,
at least in the ordinary sense (Leibniz believed that everything in
the universe is alive). So what you propose couldn't happen.
The unstated assumption here is that organism
On Sunday, September 30, 2012 1:43:16 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
It's not enough to assert that evolutionary designs (teleonomy) and
rational designs (teleology) are different, I am asking you
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/30/2012 5:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
Organisms can utilize inorganic minerals, sure. Salt would be a better
example as we
On 9/30/2012 7:47 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/30/2012 5:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
wrote:
Organisms can utilize inorganic
On 9/30/2012 4:28 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You aren't seeing my point that if human designers are nothing but evolved systems, then
they must have the same limitations as evolution itself, unless you can explain why they
wouldn't.
More nothing buttery. If people are just atoms they must
On 9/30/2012 4:56 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/30/2012 7:47 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/30/2012 5:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On 9/30/2012 8:07 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/30/2012 4:56 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/30/2012 7:47 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Stephen P. King
stephe...@charter.net wrote:
On 9/30/2012 5:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM,
On 9/30/2012 5:29 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
So I am asking you. Why make that distinction? What is the difference that makes a
difference?
The difference is that human designers have in mind some goal for their design, they
can start from a clean sheet or modify and existing design, they
1 - 100 of 206 matches
Mail list logo
