This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
Is the air dance of a bee that communicates to other bees the directions to a good source of pollen an original or derived intentionality?
And how can we tell whether or not such signalling systems have been intelligently designed, by using purely naturalistic methods? Vallicella says that computers are not fully materialistic.I rest my case.I wonder if Victor agrees with me and with Vallicella that computers are purely physical objects, but not fully materialistic.
Couldn't Vallicella use the same arguments that he uses with respect to magnetic north with respect to bee dances as well?
I don’t think so. A bee will change its dance in accordance to what it has learned about where this pollen is located. It will communicate that information to other bees so that they can find the pollen. And they in turn can pass that information along to other bees. There is no need for a human to read intentionality into their actions like we do with compasses or thermostats.Is it possible to communicate without intentionality?
I made a big blunder interpreting what the Maverick Philosopher wrote and somebody has corrected me athttp://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2501895
Microsoft OfficeOffice 2010Microsoft Office 2010Office 2010 keyOffice 2010 downloadOffice 2010 ProfessionalMicrosoft outlookOutlook 2010Windows 7Microsoft outlook 2010
Post a Comment