On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com>wrote:
>> You may be pedantic about the use of anthropomorphic language but I am
> > It can become distracting / misleading in deeper discussions about the
> mechanisms of evolution.
I don't care, anybody who was mislead or distracted and believed Evolution
could think would be so stupid that I wouldn't care to talk to them. And as
you once said "who are you to say what's useful or not as a tool for other
people to think and understand?".
> > Emergence is just a way to connect different levels of abstraction.
The trouble is people say X leads to Y but when asked how they just wave
their hands around and say it's a emergent property, as if that explains
> What do you mean "useful"?
I'm not going to tell you. Any definition I give you will be made of words
and I have no doubt you would then demand a definition of at least one of
> >> That's the trouble with this list, everybody is a big picture man with
>> their own fundamental holistic theories about consciousness
>> > Isn't "big picture" the theme of this list?
I thought the theme of this list was everything, and details are something.
Dilettantes are always big picture men because that is so much easier than
being a details man; they are VERY big picture men, so big that their ideas
have made absolutely no changes to science or to anything that anyone can
> If consciousness is easier than intelligence
Evolution certainly found that to be the case.
> how come we have scientific progress in the latter and not in the former?
Today's computers are smarter than they were 10 years ago so I think it is
highly likely that they are more conscious too. If you have another method
for measuring consciousness other than intelligent behavior I would very
much like to hear about it.
> how do you know that intelligence is a requirement of consciousness?
The only consciousness I have direct experience with is my own and I note
that when I'm sleepy my consciousness is reduced and so is my intelligence,
when I'm alert the reverse is true.
> Somebody who puts "philosopher" in the occupation line on his tax form
> Ok, I guess Plato and Aristotle and the rest of that gang are out then.
Archimedes was a mathematician and he discovered more philosophy than Plato
and Aristotle combined.
John K Clark
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.