Re: [sl4] Re: goals of AI.

From: John K Clark (
Date: Tue Nov 24 2009 - 23:38:31 MST

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 "Matt Paul" <> said:
> I'm not talking about a soul.


> I'm speaking on components ofconsciousness
> that may not reside in a physical manifestation.

I see, so you're talking about a aspect of being alive that can not be
detected by the scientific method that is nevertheless of enormous
importance. And that differs from the medieval dogma of the soul
precisely how?

>I don't know if you see the distinction here

Nope, I don't see the distinction here, I don't even see a shade of

> It is experimentally provable that there is some sort of non-local
> aspect to our access to information.

Bell's inequality has been proven experimentally to be violated, and
that is a stunning fact, but what has that got to do with what we were
talking about? There is absolutely no evidence that meat computers make
use of this fact, but if they do I see no reason silicon computers
couldn't too.

> I take it you don't believe morphogenetic field theory

I can't imagine where you got that idea.

> even though experimentally it seems to be valid...

BULLSHIT! Rupert Sheldrake had that brain fart about 30 years ago but in
all that time his idea has not advanced one inch, not one nanometer, not
one Plank length. This doesn't need a multi billion dollar accelerator,
if it were true high School students could prove the existence of
morphogenetic fields in their science fair exhibits, but they haven't.
The scientists at CERN haven't demonstrated the existence of this thing
either, not even with their billion dollar budgets and boiling water
IQ's. Don't you find that a little bit strange if the thing actually

 John K Clark

  John K Clark
-- - Access all of your messages and folders
                          wherever you are

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:05 MDT