It is my solid opinion that vision is required, just like your solid
opinion that vision is not required
This is not an opinion matter. I point to the *FACT* of numerous
blind-from-birth individuals who are intelligent without vision. You have
no counter-examples or proof whatsoever. Do you also feel that gravity is a
matter of opinion?
Arguing between this is purely religious, inefficacious, unnecessary and
counter-productive.
Only from your side. Science looks at facts. I have the irrefutable fact
of intelligent blind people. You have nothing -- so you decide that it is
an opinion thing. Tell me how my position is not cold, hard science. You
are the one whose position is wholly faith with no facts to point to.
----- Original Message -----
From: "a" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] The Grounding of Maths
Mark Waser wrote:
You have shown me *ZERO* evidence that vision is required for
intelligence and blind from birth individuals provide virtually proof
positive that vision is not necessary for intelligence. How can you
continue to argue the converse?
It is my solid opinion that vision is required, just like your solid
opinion that vision is not required. I believe that intelligence requires
pattern matching, so visual pattern matching and spatial pattern matching
are the same. Arguing between this is purely religious, inefficacious,
unnecessary and counter-productive.
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=53203786-a1116b
