On 1/10/2013 3:15 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:01 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
On 1/10/2013 2:28 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:15 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
On 1/10/2013 1:58 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
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)
brain, I do not believe in the neuroscience hypothesis that
emerges from brain activity. I'm not sure I believe that there is a
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
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
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 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