On Feb 2, 4:33 pm, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Do you have any examples of an intelligent organism which evolved without
> > emotion?
> Intelligence is not possible without emotion,
That's what I'm saying. Are you suddenly switching to my argument?
> but emotion is possible
> without intelligence.
> And I was surprised you asked me for a example of a
> emotional organism with or without intelligence, how in the world could I
> do that? You refuse to accept behavior as evidence for emotion or even for
> intelligence, so I can't tell if anyone or anything is emotional or
> intelligent in the entire universe except for me.
But you can tell if something seems like it is.
> > > The whole idea of evolution 'figuring out' anything is not consistent
> > with our understanding of natural selection.
> It's a figure of speech.
> > > Natural selection is not teleological.
> A keen grasp of the obvious.
Sorry, I can't tell the difference here if you are using it as a
figure of speech or positing agency to evolution. Even using that as a
figure of speech suggests an exaggeration of the role of evolution in
> > The subject was things that influenced my theory. Light, electricity, and
> > electromagnetism are significant influences.
> Electromagnetism significantly influences everything as do the other 3
> fundamental physical forces. Tell me something new.
If I yell out 'Tesla' and then get hit by lightning, is that not
associated strongly enough for you to be noticed?
> > > What do you think understanding is actually supposed to lead to?
> Your ideas lead to navel gazing not understanding.
And your ideas lead to...?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at