Recent content by fromderinside

RE: "not even" NS Red Rider. No one intimated it is. The difference between the reality of an evolved being and simple physical reality is organization which you actually pointed to in your post. As for laws of function those would be similar to laws of logic which come from the mind of...

Evolution is reality relative to you in the world which is driven by where you are and what are your genetics. I'm pretty sure we're saying the same thing but you are hiding behind the guise of 'physics of realty' which requires translation from particular to some general notion of reality. Not...

Since I'm evolved rather than directly driven by physics I have to understand the relation between the two. One exists in reality. That's physics. What and how one operates is determined by what reality evolution left for us. A spiny lobster's brain permits reaction to inputs whereas humans...

Amazing how you jump to false conclusions based on your logic, rather than realty based analysis. That one 'can' predict does not fall to one 'does' predict. Let me 'splain. Logic demands one does predict whilst reality determines the prediction of which one 'can' is relative to one, not...

There you go.... again. Humans are real therefore they exist in reality. I'm thunderstruck. Humans are evolved therefore they exist evolutionarily. Reality and evolution are two different causes. Resolve that and you'll find where humans live. Oh, wait. Reality and evolution impose...

Last first. Indirect detection can never be valid. It can only be relatively valid if one specifies to what or whom it is objectively relatively valid. All I can say is I know Bayes. Bayes is a friend of mine Bayes it the primary one to whom I refer whenever there are relative statements...

Everything you specify is in reference to the individual rather than in reference to reality.

My 'behavior is designed' is the part evolution plays in resulting sensory systems that is driven by survival rather than objectivity. Its more about which photons and what frequencies. But it is also about physics which is limited by what evolution can provide and whether what evolution...

But, me (I can't write this because it reads sexist in current context) ..etty, we fallen over that piece of language with 'response'. So quit complaining with long dead pigs drawn across logical pathways. ... and we don't make predictions we guess and express. Funny though we guess about...

No. Its cause and consequence most of what humans do is consequence. We mentally reconstruct making ourselves the center of the play. Our main brain function is producing rationales.

Normally It's some one in place to encourages fast runners notices that a running individual ran pretty fast. What the runner did was choose to accept the advice and run with a team or as a sponsored individual. Most of the time races implicitly choose runners who qualify or meet criteria and...

OK. So the human doesn't flip from responding to causing. We agree. As for the matter of the brain it depends on what matter of the brain to which you refer. There is sensory matter that takes in inputs, it's responding. There is motor matter that drives muscles, and the like, it's causing...

Where in the causal chain of inputs does the human flip from responding to causing? Rocks are passive and humans aren't because you say they have language caused by the brain which you think changes how things behave. Is that it? Clearly you don't understand that humans, language and mental...

I'm asking you because you are attributing your beliefs in contrast to your beliefs about rocks. Why doesn't the rock hitting a particular formation chose which way to go, since it can, depending on what part of the formation it strikes precipitated by say, wind variations, go in many different...

Searle testifies to the uselessness of arguing for or having to defend against for such as 'will'. Nice.