Re: "Intelligent" designer? Puh! Pathetic designer, more like.

Feb 11, 2008 2 Replies


> >>


>>> snipped-for-privacy@netzero.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sure, but slamming the biological systems is not helping
>>>> anything. I too eagerly await the time when I won't be a
>>>> prisoner of my DNA and can do whatever I want
>>>
>>> Ain't gonna happen.
>>
>> And you support this view via what reasoning?
>
> You'll be dead. The dead cannot do what they want.

From my reading of a7y...'s post he was talking about transferring the operation of his sentence from a biological based implementation to a nonbiological base.

He was not "talking" about that, he was fantasizing about it. It's common for people to have such psychotic fantasies.

Dave You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists. - Abbie Hoffman

[...]

Again other then your ad hominem attack on a7y's sanity support you have failed to support your view.

If the strong Church-Turing thesis is correct, that is that every device able to compute a function (including the universe itself) is able to be emulated by a Turing machine, then it follows that the human brains can be emulated by a computer.

On the other hand if the strong Church-Turning thesis doesn't hold and the human brain is a hypercomputer of some sort it will not be able to be emulated in this fashon. However if the human brain is a hypercomputer that directly implies that there exist explotable hypercomputation in the universe, and it therefor should be possable to use this to create thinking devices.

The only way it is possable for us not to be able to build mechanical devices that can think and reason equiverlent to ourselves is if the human brain can tap into some physical law that no other lump of mattor can access. Such a view is effectively a form of super-naturalism.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required