Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-gandalf!hua
From: hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: To Peter Crames
Message-ID: <215@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 24-Feb-85 02:50:03 EST
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-g.215
Posted: Sun Feb 24 02:50:03 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Feb-85 07:05:01 EST
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 58

=====================================================================
> I don't believe that a machine can be programmed to function
> independently.  Every machine is dependent on its programmer.

I hope you did not mean that literally!  A video game, for example
is quite independent of its programmer.  (You didn't really expect
a programmer sitting in the machine manipulating it, did you?!)

> The brain does not look like any machine that man builds, and it
> certainly is not simple.  But the brain is still a machine.  It is
> made up of the same chemical elements as everything else in the
> universe, and it is subject to the same laws of cause and effect.

Perhaps you would like to define the ... scratch that ...
I DEMAND that you define the laws of cause and effect which you
appeal to here.  I don't see how any laws of cause and effect that
I know support your argument.  (I hope that you are not refering
to pseudo-laws like, loving beings are caused by loving beings.
There is no such law.)

> I also don't believe that the brain is unpredictable.  Just because
> the brain is too complex for us to predict, does not mean that it is
> not predictable if you had enough information about its structure.

Certainly!  If you read my comments carefully, you would have known
that I expressed the same opinion on its predictability.  If one can
gather all the important data, we can certainly predict its behavior.

> My substitutions go to the root of mystical thought, and are difficult
> to explain in everyday language.  What I am saying is that you are
> not the source of your thoughts and actions.  The silent inner "voice"

  ... what inner voice?!  if a voice is silent, how can you hear it?!  I
      have yet to hear a voice (much less a silent one) when I think ...

> that you "hear" when thinking is not caused by you -- it is caused by God,
> as a result of the First Cause or Big Bang.  Since God is the source of 
> your thoughts, what you normally call "I" is actually God.  The Biblical 
> statement "Be still, and know that I am God" (Psalms 46:10) sums up what 
> I am trying to say.

Once again, I must insist that you do not make such grand assertions for
which you do not provide a single bit of proof.  You assume God; you
assume that there is some entity, "you", that is not the source of its
behavior; you assume that God is the only such source; you assume the
existence of a First Cause; you assume God is the First Cause; etc...

In short, you have made a very poorly supported statement.

Please try again ...

(If you feel that an argument is possible without some proof--thatis,
you can use faith on some items, such as God--don't bother arguing.
You cannot expect to convince someone without proof.  I have seen some
statements supporting faith over proof.  I find that to be an insult
to the mind.)
=====================================================================
Keebler