barrington interview

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 10 Oct 2014, 15:24 · from 2014-October.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: danldo at gmail.com (Dan'l Danehy-Oakes)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 08:24:55 -0700
Subject: (urth) barrington interview
In-Reply-To: <BLU175-W26F3EEA1B4662953A189ACFA10 at phx.gbl>
References: <BLU175-W26F3EEA1B4662953A189ACFA10 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <CAJ8=rtiCxWNNqiXi9gOoDosQMam-H7w1_C0sEnabaM053O1RWQ at mail.gmail.com>

Lee: No, not a human brain. A human *soul*.

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>  "Is suggesting a car can't spontaneously become a nuclear fusion device
> an example
>  of "Genetic Fallacy"?"
>
>
> >Thomas Bitterman: No, but claiming that a brain cannot work purely in the
> realm of
>
> >symbolic logic and reason because it is the product of millions of years
> of evolution on
>
> >Earth is.
>
>
> I truly don't understand the difference. A gasoline power car cannot turn
> itself into a
>
> nuclear powered device but a human brain can turn itself into a cosmically
> universal
>
> logic machine unrestricted by its origins in an animal skull on planet
> earth?
>
>
> Is the argument that the human brain is an independent, self-constructed
> device which can
>
> completely supersede and separate from its own biological design and
> construction?
>
>
> Or that the human brain is the product of Special Creation, endowed by God
> and made
>
> in His image, thus possessing a measure of His universality?
>
>
> Other?
>
>
> >Rick Norwood: I am not saying that mathematics can solve everything, just
> that what it solves is
>
> >solved once and for all. There are no four-sided triangles.
>
>
> I just don't see how that statement is justified without access to "all"
> there is in the universe.
>
>
> Perhaps my difficulty would be resolved if the statement was restated to:
>
>
> "Math is universal to everything within foreseeable human experience."
>
>
> THAT I could agree with.
>
>
> (Unless I saw this movie ;- )
> http://www.oldfutures.com/Images/foursidedtriangle.jpg)
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>



-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20141010/7a51633c/attachment-0001.htm>

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net