RE: Hypostases (was: Natural Order & Belief)

From: Stathis Papaioannou <>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 20:33:57 +1100

Tom Caylor writes:
> > I agree (with the proviso that I suppose that by "machine" you talk
> > about the old pregodelian conception of (non universal) machine.
> > We don't know what universal machine are capable of, and I don't see
> > why a present "God" would abandon them. I hope you can harbor some
> > doubt about the proposition that machine are stupid, lack subjective
> > phenomenality, etc.
> >
> > Bruno
> >
> >
> >
> I don't want to commit my future to a machine.
> Tom
It's an interesting turn of phrase in the current discussion: did you really mean
to say "I don't want to" or "I don't think it is the case, independently of what I
Anyway, I don't see how you could deny you are a machine any more than you
could deny a car is a machine. You are made up of tiny little components all working
together smoothly, and if something breaks, you break. God could have made us solid
like a potato animated by an immaterial soul, or left out the solid part altogether, but
instead he made every part function in accordance with the basically very well understood
chemistry of a handful of elements. It's amazing that these chemical reactions give rise to
walking, talking humans, but then I'm still pretty impressed that my car can take me to places
in quiet comfort while thousands of explosions are occurring in the engine.
Stathis Papaioannou
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Mon Dec 04 2006 - 04:34:15 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST