XPost: alt.philosophy, alt.atheism, talk.atheism   
   From: dont@home.com   
      
   Joseph H wrote:   
      
   > Ah, I see. Once again I begin a thread with a fairly ineresting   
   > premise: that human beings use belief as a surrogate for knowledge. And   
   > again the anoraks take over with a riveting discussion about Brownian   
   > motion and the end of the Cartesian mind-body split. Fascinating, I'm   
   > sure- but not really addressing my central proposition which is that   
   > belief has served its time and its purpose and that it's time we moved   
   > onto knowledge as the source and the basis of our meaning.   
   > But carry on, guys. Fight to the death, like rutting stags!   
      
   Ye shall know them by their deeds...   
      
   This ploy of obstipation is old. The thread gets bunged up by   
   the old forms, so dragged out, that no one, now or in the future,   
   will bother with reading its content. It will just be too daunting.   
   I recall a text book example where the thread, "what is belief",   
   which set upon with much the same effect.   
      
   There again it could just be a combination of the cross-post and   
   your attractive title, which forces this obstruction on the ideas   
   we could be exploring.   
      
   Someone really ought to devise a new script for our illusionists.   
      
   > ralph wrote:   
   >   
   >>In message , Immortalist   
   >> writes   
   >>   
   >>>"Joseph H"  wrote in message   
   >>>news:1142535744.239403.100460@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...   
   >>>   
   >>>Immortalist wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>"ralph"  wrote in message   
   >>>>news:AY2fG0BxBGGEFwai@eddlewood.demon.co.uk...   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>In message , Immortalist   
   >>>>> writes   
   >>>>>   
   >>>   
   >>>--Unbelieveable! How do you know so much?   
   >>>--Read it, folks, and weep - and   
   >>>--cheer - that one small head can know so much!   
   >>>   
   >>>Thank you, but bookworms just know shit, good habit thats all. Nothing   
   >>>special.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>Well, I must first congratulate Joseph on coaxing out a coherent   
   >>response which I signally failed to achieve.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>Do you think that the examples show a range of activities that would be   
   >>>short and long of the brownian motion example and could be used to tighten   
   >>>the definitions we are seeking?   
   >>   
   >>Do these follow? I am always keen to know the subject of a discussion.   
   >>   
   >>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   
   >>>INFORMATION AND LIFE   
   >>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   
   >>>(1)   
   >>>A universal computer is indeed   
   >>>universal and can emulate any process.   
   >>   
   >>It is also, at least at present, no more than a hypothesis.   
   >>   
   >>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   
   >>>(2)   
   >>>The essence of life is a process.   
   >>   
   >>The essence of life is its ability to reproduce itself.   
   >>   
   >>I must digress here to admit that I have not read "Autopoiesis and   
   >>Cognition". I was, however, at school with the late lamented Stafford   
   >>Beer, who wrote the preface to it. He told me that he had read it   
   >>several times, and still did not understand it. I took that as a hint.   
   >>   
   >>Stafford was interested in the concept of the autopoietic society - that   
   >>is to say, humans as the smallest entities. You wrote:   
   >>   
   >>They interact with the environment through a continual exchange of   
   >>energy and matter. But this interaction does not determine their   
   >>organization -- they are self organizing.   
   >>   
   >>An autopoietic network is not a set of relations among static components   
   >>(like for example the pattern of organization of a crystal), but a set   
   >>of relations among processes of production of components. If these   
   >>processes stop, so does the entire organization. In other words,   
   >>autopoietic networks must continually regenerate themselves to maintain   
   >>their organization."   
   >>   
   >>So far, so good. But you continue:   
   >>   
   >>"In the emerging theory of living systems the process of life -- the   
   >>continual embodiment of an autopoietic pattern of organization in a   
   >>dissipative structure -- is identified with cognition, the process of   
   >>knowing. This implies a radically new concept of mind, which is perhaps   
   >>the most revolutionary and most exciting aspect of this theory, as it   
   >>promises finally to overcome the Cartesian division between mind and   
   >>matter."   
   >>   
   >>Now, this was all a long time ago - I'm not sure how long? I have heard   
   >>no mention of it since: has their been any fulfillment of this promise?   
   >>   
   >>"According to the theory of living systems, mind is not a thing but a   
   >>process -- the very process of life. In other words, the organizing   
   >>activity of living systems, at all levels of life, is mental activity.   
   >>   
   >>The interactions of a living organism -- plant, animal, or human -o with   
   >>its environment are cognitive, or mental interactions. Thus life and   
   >>cognition become inseparably connected. Mind -- or, more accurately,   
   >>mental process -- is immanent in matter at all levels of life."   
   >>   
   >>This is clearly the most contentious of your (or M&V's) assertions.   
   >>Cognition, and mental interactions, need something in which to take   
   >>place. We call this something "neurons", and would assert that no   
   >>neurons, no mental activity.   
   >>   
   >>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   
   >>>(3)   
   >>>There exist criteria by which we   
   >>>are able to distinguish living   
   >>   
   >>>from non-living things.   
   >>   
   >>So far, most people would consider the difference to be the ability to   
   >>reproduce.   
   >>   
   >>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   
   >>>   
   >>>Interlude A:   
   >>>Accepting (1), (2), and (3) implies   
   >>>the possibility of life in a computer.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>But (1) is circular. If you can develop a computer which can emulate a   
   >>human being, then you have the possibility of human life in a computer.   
   >>This does not depend on (2) or I3), but neither does it take the   
   >>argument further.   
   >>   
   >>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   
   >>>LIFE AND REALITY   
   >>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   
   >>>(4)   
   >>>If somebody manages to develop life in   
   >>>a computer environment, which satisfies (3),   
   >>>it follows from (2) that these life-forms   
   >>>are just as much alive as you and I.   
   >>   
   >>By definition - but still no advance.   
   >>   
   >>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   
   >>>(5)   
   >>>Such an artificial organism must perceive a   
   >>>reality (R2), which for itself is just as real   
   >>>as our "real" reality (R1) is for us.   
   >>   
   >>Might, not must. Perception comes a long way after life - it took us   
   >>around 4 billion years (depending where you start).   
   >>   
   >>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   
   >>>(6)   
   >>   
   >>>From (5) we conclude that (R1) and (R2) has the   
   >>   
   >>>same ontological status. Although (R2) in a material   
   >>>way is embedded in (R1), (R2) is independent of (R1).   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>What do you mean by R2 being embedded in R1?   
   >>   
   >>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   
   >>>REALITY AND PHYSICS   
   >>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   
   >>>   
   >>>(7)   
   >>>If (R1) and (R2) have the same ontological status   
   >>>it might be possible to learn something about the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)