Re: Which Singularity Don't You Want?

: "Dr. Dave" <dtate@xxxxxxx>
: You can cut down the tree, too, so the Smith&Wesson reply doesn't
: really distinguish.

So you are saying, if you can't convince Guido of anything by talking to him,
then there's no difference between Guido and a tree. Despite all the things
I can easily point to that distinguish them.

Basically, you are saying, you can indeed tell the difference between
Guido and the tree, but I won't let you call any of the distinguishing
factors "intentionality". Fine. Whatever. But you're using that to
try to justify saying there's NO WAY to define intentionality sensibly
based on those distinguishing factors. And backing this up by simply
syaing "no, I don't accept that" for any proposals.

In short, sure, it's not possible to do, becuase you've DEFINED it as
impossible to do. Not that there aren't perfectly reasonable ways
to distinguish quasi-intentional things form not, that actually map
well to the way the word "intentional" is used, and to the subjective
impressions people have when they intend things, but simply that you
have predifined "intentional" some other way, a way that's incompatible
with materialism/physicalism, and that's that.

My conclusion: this doesn't demonstrate any problem at all with
materialism/physicalism. It merely demonstrates an attachment
to a particular formal definition.

Again, bottom line, you're saying, if it's physical it isn't mental,
as an axiom. That's what your behavior is, even if you claim that's
not what you are doing. So what's the point arguing about it? If it's
an axiom, it's an axiom. If you want to talk about a system where it's
*not* an axiom, that's a different kettle of fish, but asking somebody
to explain their categorization (where it's not an axiom), and then shooting
them down by pointing out that it contradicts your axiom, is pointless.


Wayne Throop throopw@xxxxxxxxx http://sheol.org/throopw
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ONE
    ... >> I am saying that the axiom of regularity doesn't work ... >> is a single entity or emptyness, ... and that is exactly what I am saying! ... About a when it is nothingness then ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Why Regularity?
    ... set is a member of itself it will be either x or x'. ... By axiom of Pairing if x is a set, y is a set, so is ... You are saying big statements without giving any proof for what you are ... Also there is another strange statement of yours, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: ZFC means?
    ... >> There is no axiom of set theory that says that is a set. ... >> predicate then ... satisfying P is an element of S.)" ... >then you are saying that any subset of any set is a set. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Static Typing in Python
    ... > but ignore Guido van Rossum. ... I am saying that you should try using your brain. ... I am suggesting an interpretation of what he said, ... > Is this a resort to argument from authority. ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: ZFC means?
    ... > There is no axiom of set theory that says that is a set. ... respect to expressing a relation for program synthesis which you ... judge of those who misuse terminology!: "No, ... then you are saying that any subset of any set is a set. ...
    (sci.logic)