On 1/10/2013 3:15 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:01 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    On 1/10/2013 2:28 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

    On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:15 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
    <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

        On 1/10/2013 1:58 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
        Hi Craig,

        I tend to agree with what you say (or what I understand of it). Despite 
        belief that it is possible to extract memories (or their 3p shadows) 
from a
        brain, I do not believe in the neuroscience hypothesis that 
        emerges from brain activity. I'm not sure I believe that there is a 
degree of
        consciousness in everything, but it sounds more plausible than the 
        from complexity idea.

        Do you agree that intelligence requires complexity?

    I'm not sure intelligence and complexity are two different things.

    Of course they're two different things. An oak tree is complex but not 
    The question is whether you think something can be intelligent without 
being complex?

I don't agree that an oak tree is not intelligent. It changes itself and its environment in non-trivial ways that promote its continuing existence. What's your definition of intelligence?

What's yours? I don't care what example you use, trees, rocks, bacteria, sewing machines... Are you going to contend that everything is intelligent and everything is complex, so that the words loose all meaning? Do you think there can be something that is intelligent but not complex (and use whatever definitions of "intelligent" and "complex" you want).


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