Re: To John Drayton, on Intelligence

On 18 Apr 2006 23:57:21 -0700, brogers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

snip>

zoe wrote:

category 2 is needed to distinguish the characteristics found in
category 1. Category 3 is the test category.

I do not get your drift. How does category 2 (fundamental forces of
nature) "distinguish the characteristics found" in category 1? Both
things that people make (as well as the people that make the things
that people make) and other things are subject to the fundamental laws
of physics.

the characteristics in category 1 (start-stop commands that build on
each other, for instance) are distinguished as belonging only to
category 1 if the same characteristics are not present in category 2.
The question is not whether all things are subject to the fundamental
laws of physics (they are), but what are the characteristics seen in
the items in category 1 and what are the characteristics seen in the
laws of physics in category 2. If the characteristics are identical,
then there is no distinction, and this thought experiment fails. If
they are different, then the evidence will distinguish creative mental
activity from non-mental activity.

Category 1 consists of manufactured objects. Category 2 consists of
physical laws. They are not comparable at all. There are many
characteristics they do not share. You are comparing apples and purple.

you are making my point, Brogers. Items in category 2 must be
different from items in category 1. They cannot be similar. And the
distinction should indeed be as obvious as apples are different from
the color purple. This is exactly what I want, which is to be able to
point to characteristics in category 1 and say that those
characteristics are not present in category 2, and therefore, wherever
the category 1 characteristics are found, they cannot be a result of
the capabilities found in category 2.

<snip detour into freewill and questions about the minds behind
creative mental activity>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OBarr>Reality!
    ... Physics is a study of the measurable and the ... generates the same math but without requiring absolute motion. ... fact *how* it makes that distinction is illuminating. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: To John Drayton, on Intelligence
    ... that people make) and other things are subject to the fundamental laws ... laws of physics, but what are the characteristics seen in ... Category 1 consists of manufactured objects. ... <snip detour into freewill and questions about the minds behind ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Implausibility that we can be explained by evolution
    ... they couldn't be following the known laws of physics. ... Second, if ICPPMs exist, then your argument is dead. ... <snip Glenn's fantasies of driving KITT and nailing Bonnie Barstow> ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Implausibility that we can be explained by evolution
    ... The robot would simply be following the known laws of physics and the ... neurons/nodes/whatever, consciousness will result. ... <snip a whole bunch more feces flung from his cage by the new monkey ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Implausibility that we can be explained by evolution
    ... only coincidentally have the conscious experiences that our behaviour ... any mechanism following the known laws of physics was consciously ...
    (talk.origins)