Just an Evo robot

Well, let's give it a try. I kinda thought that was where you were heading.This reminds me of many an evening back when I was a lad. We argued these very same issues and even convinced ourselves that they were important. But it is amazing what is important to you when your 15 or so. It's fun returning to them and looking at the issues from a different perspective. Unfortunately, nobody knows.Frankly, the brain is likely the place and tool of thought. Thought, knowledge, memories and the mechanics involved are wondrous but beyond my poor understanding. I am a simple, poorly educated individual. While a view into the mind of many might show an orderly fileroom, with cabinets and indexing, row upon row, a similar glimpse into my mind would more likely show Fibber Mcgee's closet or even a Dagwood sandwich.Perhaps you can help me.If there is a GOD, is GOD aware?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The distinction WAS artifical in the sense that Von Neumann TOOK a biological notion and THOUGHT "memory" up from it by logic BUT THIS MAN HAD ALREADY DECIDED HOW to THINK about Cantor's work AND TOLD Feynman not to worry about the implications at war etc etc but that is the selection of one man in a large field which need not be artifical (ie hardwar vs software) should IN FACT (we dont know as of yet) equivalent sophistication NOT apply to the instructional chemistry of instructed mixtures contraindicate Wolfram's assertion of universality (irreduciblility (double reverse from the physico-chemical biology(this is a difficult point to grasp)) AND you still talking about the needed brain idea not programmable. I can think of one (speculattively) in the context of Gould's conceptual analysis but that is sans fact. The issue is if covalent and non-covalent bodings (strength vs which is the first to form) do not in THOUGHT seperate any computer science soft vs hard BY YOUR ANALOGY TO TISSUE reactions. The thought is available but the facts are not here. I could take Dennet's ideas on and stick with Gladyshev on Penrose while still not accepting the statements you are supporting. It is an easy thing to say that the brain is a bunch of matter bouncing algorthimically but it is a harder sentence to write that the brain and computers do not share even proximate CAUSALITY (except perhaps AFTER "I think therefore I am...") but at once we leave empiricism and have opinion sensu less stricto.

Hi Mr Jack, Which part of message 33 do you find unsatisfactory ?As for message 19, like Jar, I do not see any reason to assume that only humans are dual - or even only the "higher" mammals. Also I know of no reason to assume that a non-material component of our being would have needed to evolve exactly as our bodies did (the relevance of this being that the "mind" could be a junction of the physical brain and the "spirit".From discussion similar to those described by Jar I learned that there are many differences in which people (other than materialists) percieve, or believe in, non-material aspects of our being, and an afterlife. Therefore, arguing against a concept such as property dualism can appear to someone unfamiliar with the terms like a strawman argument.The only point that I'd maintain is that concerning both monism, and dualism - of all kinds - is that the Theory of Evolution cannot be used to rule them out, because it doesn't even address the area.