facts of evolution

[t8yman]

please, please can someone read Searle so I can talk about it?

pretty please?

[krisskross]

I just read searle, I took this as granted anyway. Am I missing something key here? A computer is always 1s and 0s, there is no emotion, no mood, no perception, just 1s and 0s.

[worm]

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]

So you are saying that all animals possess this?? Even amoeba??

[eFestivals]

The reality is that we experience the emotion. We are not the emotion.

sentient emotions, separate to the self. Now there's stupidity of the highest order.

[worm]

Animals eyes *ARE* different across species. This is why once-only evolution of eyes is not obvious.

[worm]

sentient emotions, separate to the self. Now there's stupidity of the highest order.

[eFestivals]

The eye itself is not (the sensory bodily function). They have adapted from one eye. Clearly.

Clearly *now*, yes, because it's been proven as the case.

Before 1994, when it hadn't been proven, it was very VERY far from obvious for the experts in the field.

I guess you're wasted as a poor writer, and you really should have gone into genetics, what with your genius inner-vision that's outsmarting all the experts continually.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

No, I'm saying that they need them to have an animal eye.

[worm]

But if we accept your argument that everything evolves from one organism, an amoeba must possess the genetic material that could mutate to form the gene to develop the eye.

[worm]

Clearly *now*, yes, because it's been proven as the case.

[feral chile]

I just read searle, I took this as granted anyway. Am I missing something key here? A computer is always 1s and 0s, there is no emotion, no mood, no perception, just 1s and 0s.

[eFestivals]

It was obvious anyway.

No it wasn't. It was obvious to anyone who knew a thing or two about theory. Evolutionary theory in particular. It would have been a monumental shift in how we saw evolution (perhaps even nulling the theory of a single evolutionary organism) if it turned out not to be the case.

But then, you don't give credence to theory do you.

Yeah, so obvious that when the experts in the field of evolutionary theory discovered the once-only evolution of the eye they were surprised.

I guess your outstanding ability above those with expert knowledge simply demonstrates your own infallible genius in any and all subjects which you know f**k all about. I bow down to the master of the world.

[worm]

Yeah, so obvious that when the experts in the field of evolutionary theory discovered the once-only evolution of the eye they were surprised.

Edited February 3, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

They obviously weren't one organism theorists.

Who were surprised anyway? The BBC spokesman on the tele who had a vested interest in sensationalising a subject???

a learned professor who has little interest in undermining his status as a learned professor funnily enough.

He shouldn't have bothered with those years of study, and peer review to reach that level. He should have just spent a few minutes in your company and had genius rub off on him.

[worm]

a learned professor who has little interest in undermining his status as a learned professor funnily enough.

[eFestivals]

Rather than an unlearned professor?

Rather than an ignoramus that thinks he knows about a subject but in reality knows f**k all. You.

Edited February 3, 2009 by eFestivals

[worm]

Rather than an ignoramus that thinks he knows about a subject but in reality knows f**k all. You.

[eFestivals]

Well, give me some credit. I clearly knew when a 'learned' professor (as if there's any other kind ) didn't.

Monkeys can can do guesses too, and they get them right occasionally too. There's no skill in the ignorance that has them getting them right by guessing.

[worm]

Monkeys can can do guesses too, and they get them right occasionally too. There's no skill in the ignorance that has them getting them right by guessing.

Edited February 3, 2009 by worm

[eFestivals]

No, but it was right nonetheless.

the answer was right. The rationale wasn't.

[worm]

the answer was right. The rationale wasn't.

[feral chile]

so...let me just get this straight. Having agreed that you're both right, you're now arguing whether culty was right in the right way and for the right reason?

you two remind me of philosophy lecturers.

Edited February 3, 2009 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

The hypothesis still stands. A hypothesis that you yourself agreed with earlier (single species evolution).

of course the hypothosis stands.

Just not anything about your basis for it.

You might as well be saying that humans are descended from the moon, it would be as accurate.

[worm]

of course the hypothosis stands.

Just not anything about your basis for it.

Edited February 3, 2009 by worm