Re: analog computing = useless hypothesis

Date: Tue Apr 17 2001 - 20:13:28 BST

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "AC/DC"

    Received: by id UAA08532 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Tue, 17 Apr 2001 20:10:50 +0100
    From: <>
    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)
    Precedence: bulk

    On 17 Apr 2001, at 10:48, J. R. Molloy wrote:

    > From: "Robin Faichney" <>
    > > 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