On Jan 30, 12:47 pm, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 8:53 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > I just understand that intelligence is an evolution of emotion,
> There is simply no logical way that could be true.

I think that it's a medical fact. 

The Limbic system predates the Neocortex evolutionarily. There is no
reason to think that emotion emerged after intelligence.

> However important it may
> be to us Evolution can not see emotion or consciousness, Evolution can only
> see actions,

Evolution doesn't see anything. If you live somewhere that gets cold
and you die before you can reproduce then evolution has selected for
your neighbors in warmer climes. There is no action that would have
changed that outcome, unless you could have gotten to a warmer place.
If you happened to be someone who really disliked the cold, if it made
you so upset and cranky that it caused you to migrate sooner, well
then, evolution selected for emotion and consciousness related to cold

That's not what I'm talking about at all though. I'm talking about the
logic of what emotion is leading to thinking and not the other way
around. If you cannot feel emotion, you never will regardless of your
thought patterns. If you are emotional however, you can develop
thoughts. This is the natural course of development in human infancy.
Sensation first, then emotion, then communication.

> so either emotion and consciousness are a byproduct of
> intelligence or emotion and consciousness do not exist.

Which thoughtless fallacy should I choose? Oh right, I have no free
will anyhow so some reason will choose for me.

Emotion and consciousness are not a byproduct of intelligence. If they
were, then babies would be discussing theories in the womb instead of
crying and crapping all over themselves.

> Perhaps you will
> insist that emotion and consciousness will join the very long list of
> things that you say do not exist  (bits electrons information logic etc)
> but I am of the opinion that consciousness and emotion do in fact exist.

Perhaps you will join the very long list of people who have bothered
to notice how the evolution of the human brain and mind actually

> > > I also understand that electronic computers use semiconductors which I
> > know have not evolved into organisms and do not seem to be capable of what
> > I would call sensation.
> My arguments are based on logic, your argument is that computers just don't
> feel squishy enough for your taste.

What logic is your argument based on? That there's no difference
between life and death so there's no reason that a marionette can't
run for congress?

> > Logic plays a part but mainly it's [...]
> Not logical.
> > My house got struck by lightning right after I really figured out the
> > photon theory. I had left my computer on with a website on the biography of
> > Tesla on the screen while we saw a movie. True 
> > story.http://www.stationlink.com/lightning/IMG_1981.JPG
> Interesting, but I don't see the relevance.

You asked what influenced my theory. You don't see how Tesla relates
to lightning and electromagnetism?

> > > You don't deny free will, you just deny that it's possible to even
> > conceive of it in the first place. Ohh kayy...
> Fortunately I cannot conceive of something happening for a reason and not
> happening for a reason at the same time.

Actually, you have just defined the universe. That is exactly what the
cosmos is - things happening for a reason and not happening for a
reason at the same time.

> I say "fortunately" because there
> is a word to describe people who can conceive of such a contradiction,
> insane.

Is there anyone noteworthy in the history of human progress who has
not been called insane?

> > 'Computers' that are in use now have not even improved meaningfully in
> > the last 15 years. Is Windows 7, XP, 2000, really much better then Windows
> > 98?
> I don't know a lot about Windows 7 but I do know that my Macintosh is one
> hell of a lot better than my old steam powered Windows 98 boat anchor.

Mac has always been better than Windoze.

> And
> in 1998 the most elite AI researchers on the planet working with 30 million
> dollar supercomputers the size of a small cathedral could not do anything
> that came even close to what Siri can do on that $399 iPhone in your
> pocket, those poor 1998 guys weren't even in the same universe.

Hooray. Siri. Way better than electric lights or movies or cars or

> And it took Evolution 4 billion years to make human level intelligence, but
> humans have only been working on AI for about 50 years. So yes at that rate
> I think computers will be smarter than humans at EVERYTHING in 15 to 65
> years, and I'd be more surprised if it took longer than 65 years than if it
> took less than 15; but even if it took 10 or 100 times that long it would
> still be virtually instantaneous on the geological timescale that Evolution
> deals with. Oh well, 99% of the species that have ever existed are extinct
> and we are about to join their number, but at least we will leave behind a
> new and more advanced descendent species.

If you remember to look at this in 15 years, I think you're gonna be
pretty depressed. I have flannel shirts that are older than that. In
15 years, we are probably going to have Siri III: ExxonMobil Edition
and some new porn cooking channel on YouTube. That's if we're lucky
and not living in the ruins of post Peak-Oil dystopia. They will still
have almost found the Higgs in Switzerland, and we still won't know
whether milk, eggs, and red wine are really good for us or really bad
for us.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to