[Vt71fcAqt7]

>Not terribly interesting

>you have removed any semblance of moral consideration from the equation. And that, I think, few will accept

>what benefit is this article if it is simply one machine communicating to another

Are these arguments? What point are you making here?

>the experience each person has of living testifies against such a view. There is more to life, and to /our/ lives, than mere engineered material.

Why can't whatever experience of living you have be confined strictly within the bounds of materialism?

[pineaux]

What would suggest it is strictly within the bounds of materialism? There must be some observation that underpins your idea that it is within the bounds of materialism to claim it is the simplest and most logical explanation. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I think we should be open to other explanations.

[paulryanrogers]

You assert there is 'more' without evidence beyond subjective experience.

Even if we are open to other possibilities, many are unfalsifiable and therefore they cannot be proven. Unprovable theories have limited value. Certainly not enough to discount what can be observed when the physical brain develops and decays.

[pineaux]

Where did I assert there was more? I merely say that defaulting to materialism is not necessarily merited when you have so little evidence. I usually tend to take your stance, but nowadays I wish for more observations. Defaulting to materialism is a way of stopping creativity. We need more playfulness, is my claim. Its pure intuition, though, haven't done any research on it.

[Vt71fcAqt7]

I only questioned the statement that "the experience each person has of living testifies against" materialism. I didn't say any of the things you mention in your post.