facts of evolution

[eFestivals]

...no they don't.

Heard of the missing link?

erm ..... that's millions (if not billions) of years down the chain from what I'm talking about. It was in something I read yesterday, which I now can't find to show you.

[nightcrawler13]

erm ..... that's millions (if not billions) of years down the chain from what I'm talking about. It was in something I read yesterday, which I now can't find to show you.

[eFestivals]

Of course it isn't unlikely. We are life.

I was coming back on your similar claim about eyes. If my comment is laughable then your is more so. Twat.

You've said that. I don't buy it. And neither do you. You believe that things happen outside of your own experience. There is no proof. Yet you still think that it's obvious.

Exactly the same thing here. It's obvious that eyes came from a species that developed an ability to see, which is reflected throughout the animal kingdom.

everything about things outside of our own experience is confirmed by our belief in our own existence. We can operate no other way.

Vastly different is your hunch, for which there is no confirmation via a belief in your own existence. None at all. Zilch.

All you have is a hunch. And there's proven facts which indicate that hunch as wrong - it's certainly not absolute.

So not "exactly the same" at all. Not even remotely similar.

[worm]

I was coming back on your similar claim about eyes. If my comment is laughable then your is more so. Twat.

[worm]

Vastly different is your hunch, for which there is no confirmation via a belief in your own existence. None at all. Zilch.

Edited February 3, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

No it isn't.

then please, show your true belief in your total idiocy and throw yourself under a bus. If you're right, it won't matter a jot.

[eFestivals]

There is a hypothesis that we formed from the same creature. The same creature that all animals formed from. I believe that this primitive animal had the capacity to have eyes. It clearly f**king did as all other animals evolved eyes from it.

for the eyes, yes - we now know that's true.

But we also know it's not true of other evolved things, even if we came from the same creature originally. And so your obvious hypothesis is no such thing.

[worm]

But we also know it's not true of other evolved things, even if we came from the same creature originally. And so your obvious hypothesis is no such thing.

[worm]

then please, show your true belief in your total idiocy and throw yourself under a bus. If you're right, it won't matter a jot.

Edited February 3, 2009 by worm

[feral chile]

emotion is just built up from nerve impulses, so in effect 0s and 1s. Obviously lots more complicated and confusing. But yes, i dont think there'll be strong AI ever.

If you really want to get baffled read 'an emperor's new mind'

[worm]

Can you have consciousness without subjectivity?

[feral chile]

Jung & Freud certainly seemed to think so.

As for the rest. All it would need would be self consciousness; experience. That's all we are. The experience of being human. Or the experience of the human condition. We're nothing else. If the body dies, then what have we to experience?

Edited February 4, 2009 by feral chile

[worm]

so... are you saying that you have to be human to be accepted as an experiencing being?

Edited February 4, 2009 by worm

[feral chile]

No. Just sentient.

It's more likely that we'll turn into robots, then them turn into us. Something I'm vigilant of because it happens an awful lot.

Yeah, if they have experience.

That's the beauty of great sci-fi.

I love watching films based upon this concept. I watched Alien Ressurection at the weekend purely because of this. My instinct was always, 'bastards, mistreating her and dehumanising her' whilst seeing her all upset. Then I realised, it's all mimickry - programme. None of it is experience at all. It's pure response to stimuli, even if adaptive. But then, according to Wittgenstein, this is how we learn to experience. Through the response of others. Anyway.............

[worm]

They did the same in Star Trek when Data had to prove he was sentient.

PICARD: Commander Maddox, it is your contention that Data is not a sentient being and therefore not entitled to those rights reserved for all other life-forms in this Federation?

MADDOX: Data is not sentient, no.

PICARD: Why, Commander?

MADDOX: Because Data is a piece of outstanding engineering and programming.

PICARD: What is required for sentience?

MADDOX: Intelligence, self awareness, consciousness.

PICARD: Do you know what sentience is, Commander?

MADDOX: Of course.

PICARD: Excellent. Then you can enlighten the rest of us. Prove to this court that I'm sentient.

And that sums up the dilemma.

[feral chile]

Blade Runner?

[worm]

Good call. Forgot about Bladerunner. There's a nice shade of ambiguity running through that film.

Edited February 4, 2009 by worm

[pinback]

That's the beauty of great sci-fi.

I love watching films based upon this concept. I watched Alien Ressurection at the weekend purely because of this. My instinct was always, 'bastards, mistreating her and dehumanising her' whilst seeing her all upset. Then I realised, it's all mimickry - programme. None of it is experience at all.

[eFestivals]

What would that prove about Descartes exactly?

Dear me!

nothing about Descartes. Who is he again? What did he say that has any value or true meaning? I really don't care.

But your decision on whether to or not shows where your belief really is with "I think therefore I am" away from the meaningless words of any philosophical drivellings - and this fact for all people shows that they're only ever drivellings.

Edited February 5, 2009 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

For the nth time, LIKE WHAT?

Give me an example.

you've had links to lists of them - you know, the facts that you don't need to know because you think your moronic fantasies are where it's at.

[eFestivals]

It's more likely that we'll turn into robots, then them turn into us. Something I'm vigilant of because it happens an awful lot.

Shame you're not vigilant enough to avoid sucking up meaningless shite and thinking it has everything when it has nothing.

If you want to reply, start your reply with an answer to this question; if you don't, the fact that you know it's all meaningless drivel is clear.

Which philosophy is 100% correct?

[worm]

Shame you're not vigilant enough to avoid sucking up meaningless shite and thinking it has everything when it has nothing.

[worm]

you've had links to lists of them - you know, the facts that you don't need to know because you think your moronic fantasies are where it's at.

[worm]

nothing about Descartes. Who is he again? What did he say that has any value or true meaning? I really don't care.

But your decision on whether to or not shows where your belief really is with "I think therefore I am" away from the meaningless words of any philosophical drivellings - and this fact for all people shows that they're only ever drivellings.

[worm]

Jesus man, I hope you didn't just suggest that Alien Resurrection is 'great sci-fi'.