Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: More Atheistic Wishful Thinking Message-ID: <1432@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Wed, 28-Aug-85 23:24:46 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1432 Posted: Wed Aug 28 23:24:46 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 31-Aug-85 06:39:06 EDT References: <1379@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1598@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 73 In article <1598@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >>>I note that an interesting consequence of Charley's view is that man is >>>nothing more than an assemblage of chemicals. (Maybe some good has come >>>from Rosen's and my postings!) As an analogy one could consider a stack >>>of coins, say, and have some klutz knock them over. The stack is rebuilt, >>>but the question is whether or not it is the "same" stack, in the same >>>sense as that for a similar one that existed all the while. >> Wishful thinking: it's like saying that a robot chess player is "just a >> bunch of ICs". The huge volume of stories concerning the transmission >> of minds from one body to another indicates that people do not really >> believe that a mind is a bunch of chemicals any more than they believe >> that a chess program is a bunch of ICs (or take the reduction to an even >> more absurd level, a bunch of electrical charges). >I wasn't aware that science fiction stories of varying quality can now >join the Bible on the list of "books that tell the truth about the universe". >What people do or do not want to "really believe" is irrelevant. This >huge volume of stories is fictional, Charles. But you've missed the whole >point. Most people I know DO think a chess playing program is "just a >bunch of circuits", and thus unable to "think" (or whatever), while on >the other hand claiming "But WE aren't just a bunch of chemicals and stuff; >We're human!!! We're different!!!" Do you know what hexasyllabical word >describes that? (Hint: it's not "hexasyllabical", and it begins with >"anthropo-" and ends with "-centrism" ...) Bullshit, Rich. Utter bullshit. A chess playing robot with an accounting program in it doesn't play chess, does it? A brain-dead human doesn't think, does it? A dog is obviously unlike a human isn't it? To say that men are "just chemicals" is nothing more than a cop-out. Whether or not transmission of minds around is possible is quite irrelevant; the fact that people will talk about it, even in the realm of fiction, indicates that it can be conceptualized. If we're just chemicals, then obviously a dead person is qualitatively identical to the same person alive. After all, we can just ignore all that organization, those memories and thoughts, the consciousness, the emotions-- none of them are chemicals, so they must not matter. >> The pejorative phrasing clearly indicates that >> Padraig would rather have us overlook the absolute importance of the >> ORGANIZATION of those chemicals. >I didn't see any pejorative that intimated that at all. On the contrary. Obviously Rich is the only person in America who doesn't view the phrase "just a " as a pejorative statement. >> The fact that people can talk seriously >> about transferring people's minds (and one assumes, the essential person) >> into computers indicates that, not only can in fact say that a person is >> NOT just chemicals, but even that the essential nature of a person is >> immaterial-- since it is information, and not matter or energy. >Seriously? Oh, I agree that many of those stories are serious in the sense >that they are speculatively scientific and not wishful thinking fantasy, >but they are far from "serious" in the sense of being thought of as a >serious implementation possibility based on what happens in the story. >Furthermore, most of the stories I've come across are NOT serious, but >merely a wishywashy fantasy with little bearing on reality and even less >rigorous basis behind the modeling in the story. It makes for fun reading >(if you're into it), but not a viable description of reality. I see. Communications satellites are not real, since they were described in SF. This whole argument is tantemount to saying that one can play chess by keeping track of the number of pieces on each side, totally ignoring their positions. If Rich and Padraig are going to persist in this folly, then I shall (once again) drop out. Their views would then seem to be immune to reality. Charley Wingate