Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA08532 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Tue, 17 Apr 2001 20:10:50 +0100 From: <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:13:28 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: analog computing = useless hypothesis Message-ID: <3ADC4F88.14592.E2F35@localhost> In-reply-to: <026001c0c766$a664f640$6c5d2a42@jrmolloy> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
On 17 Apr 2001, at 10:48, J. R. Molloy wrote:
> From: "Robin Faichney" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > You've admitted that analog computers do exist.
> Wrong. I haven't admitted any such thing.
> Look closely enough at any so-called "analog" computer, and you'll see
> that it operates via digital means.
Oh, come on, now...just because you use your fingers to operate
your slide rule does not qualify the device as digital. The infinite
regress pseudoargument sucks on dry ice, also; it is a way of
claiming that NOTHING is analog, but then how do the two
correlatively opposing terms (digital, analog) derive their meaning,
since you claim that there are no oppositional referents from which
such linguistic comparisons/contrasts could be drawn? You'd
think better of this fatally flawed assertion (complete with
irrefuteable slide-rule counterexample), J.R., if you really put your
mind to it, but I guess you can't, since you claim that mind is just
another useless hypothesis, without letting us know what in the
hell is supposed to hypothesize in its stead.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 17 2001 - 20:13:56 BST