Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>>> it can't prevent the machine from being intentionally derailed by 
>>> someone else, and it doesn't have any way to predict what the final, 
>>> post hock, resolution of all the steps are going to be.
>>
>> Presumedly it does, or we wouldn't be saying it's the thing making the 
>> decision.
>>
> If not for the fact that you can map the decisions process pretty well, 
> if not exactly, and there isn't any evidence of some "trigger" event.. 

Now you're talking about science. That's exactly *not* the point.

We're not arguing whether such a supernatural bit exists or not. We're 
speculating on what it "means" to people if it exists or not, regardless of 
the truth of the proposition.

It's like Larry Niven talking about all the cool things that would happen 
with society if cheap instant teleportation was available, and then you're 
complaining "but physics says you can't do that."

> Nor does there seem to be any feasible reason you need such a thing at 
> all.

Sure there is.

> See, the problem here is, people looking for supernatural 
> explanations are trying to find "souls", pretty much by definition. 

Sort of, I suppose.


> This contradicts everything we know, and 
> learned, and predict, about brains, minds, thinking, and how/why any of 
> it works.

Well, that's why I described it as supernatural, rather than just "neither 
deterministic nor random." :-)

> Its an unnecessary addition, and it contradicts "existing" simple 
> examples that we *have* replicated.

You're arguing that it doesn't exist, but that isn't the point of the 
discussion.

>> Why? By definition, you can't discount the supernatural, *especially* 
>> in something you don't understand the details for.
>>
> I would argue that, in fact, we have a clear enough picture at this 
> point that the odds of the supernatural being involve is... slim to 
> none.

I would disagree that it's possible to know such a thing, by definition of 
the word "supernatural."  By definition, research into the supernatural will 
never show you the existence of the supernatural. Otherwise, it would be 
natural.

> Answered in the other part, about ridiculous directions. But, in 
> reality, at this point, it simply doesn't rise above "hypothesis". 

Sure. But we're discussing the consequences of what the hypothesis being 
true or false would be, not whether it's true or false.

We're arguing over whether Luke Skywalker *would* have done X, and how the 
future of the Empire would have changed had he done so.  The fact that it's 
all fictional doesn't detract from the discussion.

> Before you suggest the supernatural as a 
> plausible explanation for *anything* 

Show me where I did that.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message