hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (02/24/85)
===================================================================== > 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
ptc@cybvax0.UUCP (Peter Crames) (02/25/85)
> > 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?!) Are you suggesting that a video game has free will? If not, then it must be ultimately dependent on a programmer, who "dwells within" the video game via his program. > > 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.) By the "laws of cause and effect", I am referring to the physical-chemical laws that act upon matter, such as gravity, etc. I also suspect that there are deeper psychological laws, like the one that you mentioned. > > 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 ... > When reading or thinking about something, you "hear" an inner "voice" inside your brain. I am not referring to an audible voice, which you would hear when someone is talking to you. > > 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... > > Keebler My basic assumption is that my body (including brain) is a machine that needs an external force exerted upon it in order for it to move. I can not prove this assumption. Alternatively, you make the assumption that you can cause your own body to move, and your conclusions are a result of that assumption. Peter Crames ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!ptc