facts of evolution

[eFestivals]

6 inches (or distance) is only comparible to food. It is the stimulas.

It isn't comparible to bitterness. Colour is.

how do we get to know of distance, taste or colour?

[worm]

It's all the self same thing - we only have experience.

[worm]

how do we get to know of distance, taste or colour?

[eFestivals]

Yes. And science doesn't measure it. It measures the physical properties in the exact way I described.

and does food have physical properties?

And is one of those physical properties a flavour?

Can a flavour sensor be calibrated?

Yes, yes, and yes. Physical properties that can be measured, no different to using a ruler to measure distance.

Until human experience is brought into it, what is measured (food or distance) is just some meaningless numbers. Once human experience is brought in, those numbers and what they relate to are related to experiences and what those experiences relate to.

There is no difference AT ALL at all logical levels.

[feral chile]

Can science tell you that an untasted thing will taste sweet when you do taste it? Yes.

[worm]

and does food have physical properties?

[dakyras]

the worm has the right of it.

[feral chile]

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

pretty please?

Edited February 2, 2009 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

The artificial intellegence has no experience. It can't taste. It can measure stimuli and respond or the differences between physical properties. No experience though.

Experience brings what to it? Only a like or dislike to what is tasted, and a way to categorise it no different to how you do the brightness of a light. What you taste is given you by the thing with the flavour.... or suddenly, does the thing not have its own properties after all? Your senses *only* sense.

Anyway, all this is a diversion, your way of avoiding what it was raised as an example of - independent evolution of body features.

The independent evolution of certain taste functions in man and apes was simply the first result in a google to find an example of independent rather than common evolution across species. You said the opposite (once-only evolution) was "obvious" - yet the very nature of evolution makes that far from obvious.

One of the main factors of evolution is the time the process is subject to. Think about it. :angry:

[eFestivals]

the worm has the right of it.

definitely not in the part this diversion was raised from. :angry:

[feral chile]

Experience brings what to it? Only a like or dislike to what is tasted, and a way to categorise it no different to how you do the brightness of a light. What you taste is given you by the thing with the flavour.... or suddenly, does the thing not have its own properties after all? Your senses *only* sense.

Anyway, all this is a diversion, your way of avoiding what it was raised as an example of - independent evolution of body features.

The independent evolution of certain taste functions in man and apes was simply the first result in a google to find an example of independent rather than common evolution across species. You said the opposite (once-only evolution) was "obvious" - yet the very nature of evolution makes that far from obvious.

One of the main factors of evolution is the time the process is subject to. Think about it. :angry:

[worm]

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

pretty please?

[feral chile]

I mentioned him way back.

[worm]

Experience brings what to it? Only a like or dislike to what is tasted

[worm]

definitely not in the part this diversion was raised from. :angry:

[eFestivals]

Now, as all animals evolved from one thing and all share eyes (in different forms) then it is safe to assume that the eyes evolved their various forms from one animal eye. It is what seperates us from plants.

incorrect. There are 'animals' (amoebas, etc) without eyes which are seperate to plants.

If you were to believe that eyes may have evolved independently from a sightless base organism then you'd have to believe that in each species eyes (so fundamentally similar) adapted within each individual in their own environment at a similar time. This is insanely against the odds. It's just a nonsense.

So yes, it was obvious.

Evolution itself is insanely against the odds. :angry:

And odds mean, whatever their length, the event is just as likely to happen on the first try as the last.

What has that got to do with anything that's been said?

because of divergence over time, and the time elapsed since any common features would have had to have evolved. We would have had to have evolved eyes at an extremely early stage in the evolutionary process, and we've gained a huge amount of different stuff since, as has every other divergent species.

I'm sure it's possible to put it into an equation, so will have a google.

[eFestivals]

didn't find an equation, but did find this

"Convergent evolution - the evolution of similar traits in unrelated lineages - is rife in nature, as illustrated by the examples below."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_examp...rgent_evolution

Notice use of the word 'rife' - which makes it far from uncommon. So not obviously the opposite. :angry:

[worm]

incorrect. There are 'animals' (amoebas, etc) without eyes which are seperate to plants..

[worm]

didn't find an equation, but did find this

"Convergent evolution - the evolution of similar traits in unrelated lineages - is rife in nature, as illustrated by the examples below."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_examp...rgent_evolution

Notice use of the word 'rife' - which makes it far from uncommon. So not obviously the opposite. :angry:

Edited February 2, 2009 by worm

[Rufus Gwertigan]

But it has the pre-requisists for developing the eye. I said this at the beginning.

[sadwitch]

Does anyone else immediately stop bothering to read once Worm and Neil start up?

[worm]

What are these pre-requisites?

Edited February 2, 2009 by worm

[Px.]

Does anyone else immediately stop bothering to read once Worm and Neil start up?

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Well, without being a genetic biologist, I would say a brain, a central nervous system, a system of blood circulation, a tectum, a cortex, an arrangement of synapses, specific hormones, neuro-transmitters an optical lobe and so on.....

Or, a gene that has the potential to develop these things. You could say that that gene could be found within all life being that everything came from the same base gene. However, as the strands of evolution broke off at one point into, say, plants and animals then the possible strands that would relate the two genes has been eliminated the further away from each succesful species you get. The missing link between plant and animal has become extinct, so to speak.

[eFestivals]

But it has the pre-requisists for developing the eye. I said this at the beginning.

You mean it's an evolutionary being. That's all.

Also, when I said it dependes upon what we are calling something, this also depends upon what we call animals. If we found that eyes (light capturing etc) as we know them are different across the species we'd have to re-evaluate the concept of an animal.

prove that eyes are light capturing. You can't. It's just experience.

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

Eh?

That's what odds are set in relation to.

Odds mean, whatever their length, the event is just as likely to happen on the first try as the last.

I know

You know everything .... . except when you don't. Like here. Like instincts. Like sense. Like science. Like genius. Like odds. Like the criminal justice system. Like when you wing it ... like nearly every time.

When once-only evolution was discovered just 15 years ago, it was a surprise (and not obvious) to the experts in the field. But to you it was obvious.

I guess that makes you a genius by your definition of genius...... Or, alternatively, it makes you too stupid to realise how stupid you actually are. I'll let you decide which of these applies.

Edited February 3, 2009 by eFestivals