Hi everything-list
The current paradigm for understanding the brain and mind
and their relationship appears to be bottom-up theories
and calculations, that is, starting with the body and
hoping to reach I'm not sure what.
Eventually in these theories one reaches a state of complexity
that
On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 11:56:59 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
1) I understand and respect your argument here 100%.
2) I think that I have a better explanation
The better explanation is the
Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com Wrote:
Mother Nature (Evolution) is a slow and stupid tinkerer, it had over 3
billion years to work on the problem but it couldn't even come up with a
macroscopic part that could rotate in 360 degrees!
First of all, 360 degrees rotation is present in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ3Z-Y99wW0
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
When you say Random mutation can wire together a small number of cells
such that if there is a sudden change in the light levels in the
environment, like a shadow covering it, a snail will retreat into its
shell, you
On Thursday, October 4, 2012 3:18:51 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
When you say Random mutation can wire together a small number of cells
such that if there is a sudden change in the light levels in the
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi everything-list
The current paradigm for understanding the brain and mind
and their relationship appears to be bottom-up theories
and calculations, that is, starting with the body and
hoping to reach I'm not sure
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 11:56:59 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
1) I understand and respect your argument here 100%.
2) I think that I
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 07:51:37AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi everything-list
The current paradigm for understanding the brain and mind
and their relationship appears to be bottom-up theories
and
On Thursday, October 4, 2012 6:55:47 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 11:56:59 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Craig Weinberg
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 09:01:14AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
Yes, so a human can jump directly from the tangled mess of DOS to a clean
streamlined operating system like LINUX, but Evolution can only add even
more tangled bells and whistles to DOS.
John K Clark
Actually, one could argue
On 10/4/2012 6:52 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 09:01:14AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
Yes, so a human can jump directly from the tangled mess of DOS to a clean
streamlined operating system like LINUX, but Evolution can only add even
more tangled bells and whistles to DOS.
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 07:02:59PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/4/2012 6:52 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Both are examples of evolutionary design than revolutionary design, as
it were. Another example is the design of x86_64 processors by
Intel. It is debatable whether anything _really_ complex
On 10/4/2012 7:31 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 07:02:59PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/4/2012 6:52 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Both are examples of evolutionary design than revolutionary design, as
it were. Another example is the design of x86_64 processors by
Intel. It
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 07:48:01PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
If it is crucially different, then that difference ought to be
measurable. Got any ideas?
Sure, the ratio of the number of new designs built that didn't work
compared to those that did. It's a difference of process. It
doesn't have
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
Yes, so a human can jump directly from the tangled mess of DOS to a clean
streamlined operating system like LINUX, but Evolution can only add even
more tangled bells and whistles to DOS.
John K Clark
Actually,
On 10/4/2012 8:54 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 07:48:01PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
If it is crucially different, then that difference ought to be
measurable. Got any ideas?
Sure, the ratio of the number of new designs built that didn't work
compared to those that did.
On 10/4/2012 9:24 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Yes, so a human can jump directly from the tangled mess of DOS to a
clean
streamlined operating system like LINUX, but Evolution
18 matches
Mail list logo
