Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
- From: Inez <savagemouse123@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:18:42 -0700 (PDT)
On Apr 4, 1:37 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 20:38:18 -0700, Sonofagunzel wrote:
Given up on the rest of us?
Shhhh.... you're supposed to be desperately avoiding.... something.
Maybe implications. Yes, I'm sure that's right. How can you be
desperately avoiding implications if you keep demanding your objections
be answered. It's very gauche.
Unfortunately for me, the implications only are a danger to people of
the correct level of technology. You have to be able to explain a
robot in general terms "according to the laws of physics," but not
know enough about robot functions to actually be able to look at the
mechanism and see if it's got an FPP producing part.
Not being wise in the ways of robots, I put on my implication dodging
shoes for nothing.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
- From: dhacat
- Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
- References:
- Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
- From: Nic
- Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
- From: someone2
- Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
- From: Nic
- Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
- From: Nic
- Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
- From: someone2
- Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
- From: Nic
- Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
- From: someone2
- Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
- From: Nic
- Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
- From: someone2
- Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
- From: Sonofagunzel
- Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
- From: Garamond Lethe
- Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
- Prev by Date: Re: Commentary: Religion in the classroom not detrimental
- Next by Date: Re: The state of education in the USA.
- Previous by thread: Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
- Next by thread: Re: Problem for physicalist evolutionists
- Index(es):
Loading