Philosophical Question - Amiguing

[gertsy]

+1

I couldn't have put it better myself. Plus, as a side note, there's more detail in those grooves than any digital audio format.

Yes, including resonance and noise. But detail none the less. Most of us cloth eared gits (over 25) cant hear above 15Khz anyway.  Which has benefits 'cos we cant hear the high pitched squeal of our 1084s.
But analogue certainly provides a different sound timbre.

On topic: perhaps we just don't like to see something that gave us so much interest and pleasure go the way of the Dodo.  So perhaps its more psychological than philosophical....

[gertsy]

Well let us just say that human beings aren't quite the purely rational, utility-maximising beings certain Enlightenment philosophers and modern economists would like.

Also anyone who doesn't like the Amiga has no soul.

The "enlightened",philosophers and to a lesser extent modern economists are the archetypal example as to why human beings aren't rational. Evidential historians / archaeologists the exception. Those that deal in absolutes are always wrong.

Amiga's are fun.

[gertsy]

The evolution of feathers is well theorised and has evidence both in fossils and real life.  But don't let that get in the way of fiction. Scientific or theological. But sparking debate from a false premise is a common undertaking of scientists and theologians alike. Just like AORG threads. No need for insults.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassowary

This is back on topic because I have an ACAR mag with a student project on the Cassowary done on the Amiga, or was it a web site review?..     See what I did there.  

Magazines and their generated commercial and social desire are another reason the Amiga is imprinted on the psyche of those around at the time.  No "real" internet back then.

[gertsy]

This planet already has enough tugs.
We squabble over collections of components wrapped up in circuits sending staccato pulses of electricity around.
What chance is there in amicability around land and political power.
And religion, please let's not even go there.

[gertsy]

I would suggest looking at what happens when the body, or more specifically the information stored in the brain is damaged... If the person is more than just the information stored in the brain, the I would suggest that the damage or loss of information would have no effect upon the person.

I know from experience that if there is degradation in the information stored in the brain, then we have a stark and often upsetting change in the "person" I once knew. This has a profound effect upon how I view what makes a person, a person!

To those around them yes, upsettingly so, but It's a bit of a catch 22 or vicious circle. A brain injured or degrading individual may have perfect reason, consciously to themselves, but the outward manifestations of their disease may result in gobbledegook speech or noises that result in feedback frustration to the individual. Wouldn't that cause you to shutdown, go crazy or hit out!
We guess or hope that people in those situations are vegetables. Unfeeling incognisant. The alternate is unthinkable but unfortunately probably closer to the truth, when you examine the enlightenment of discoveries of bad CP sufferers or stroke victims. Everything is okay intellectually on the inside but the interfaces are scrambled. Input and output. Determining intelligence and sentience is impossible as our measures are based on inputs and outputs.

As long as we think, we are. We are not just the inputs and outputs of a moment in time. We are what we are on the inside and what we have done, achieved, become. We need to be mindful of what those individuals are to themselves and not just to those around them in the current state.

This thread has become very depressing now.  Mia culpa!


Amigas don't think. They are what the

[gertsy]

At a fundamental level it's chemical releases caused by pattern matching.
 
Ideas that feel right match patterns that trigger chemicals that hit the pleasure sensors.
 
If you want to know how the brain works then there is plenty of information from the scientific community, not so much from the religious community.

Hmm. Sounds like at a fundamental level you're quoting religion to me or at best hypothesis.  Certainly not science fact.