Liz wrote: > *"...The zebra-fish brain imaging (Chris) is a 'physical-world' > representation of something more than a billon times simpler than our own > mentality (if it is right to calculate proportions). I would be happy to > see 'adaptive behavior' - or, 'strategic awareness' in the fish brain > examined in physico/physiological numerical data comparison only."Does not > compute. Please resubmit your input in English. "Does it point > to topical features? "* >
I can try, but it may be even worse. The 'brain-imaging" uses only numerical data from physico - physiological measurements within our present scientific techniques. - The last sentence you separated belongs to this: I don't know about topical differences to understand the measured NUMBERS as to their meaning. We can guess. Sorry for the typo *b*illion vs.* m*illion. (80,000 in 80,000,000,000) On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 5:34 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 10 September 2014 08:56, John Mikes <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Liz: >> instinctive or learned? our instincts are not 'god-given', they developed >> by learning. >> > > Yes, they are a form of genetic learning. > > >> Then you use my favorite put-down word: "adaptive". >> > > Pot, kettle. You just used a put down by calling it a put down. > > >> I see no 'adaptation' as assigned to (evolutionary?) mutations. *How* >> would a creature recognize benefit/disadvantage ratios to DECIDE what is >> good for her? then again: *How *would the offsprings remember and FIND >> WAYS to implement the GOOD - or eliminate the BAD (as they think of it)? >> then - *HOW* would they do it? (These are some steps for an adaptation). >> > > I assume you know about natural selection, so that's one filter for genes > to learn adaptive behaviour. Otherwise, at what I would consider a higher > level, we have culture in various forms, from learning by imitation to the > internet. > > >> What seems (to me!) more rational: there are tendecies (pressures?) in >> the infinite world (of which we know only a tiny fraction - but are >> subjected to all) and our complexity responds to them as they expose >> themselves onto us. Given the momentary status with more, or less >> efficiency. >> > > Sounds like a vague and woolly version of evolution, so (like Brent on > many occasions) I suspect you are sounding like you disagree but actually > agreeing. > > >> The result of such change is what we may call (mutational??) adaptation >> in the coming generations. Good, or bad. >> > > Or we could stick with accepted usage and call it evolution. > > >> The zebra-fish brain imaging (Chris) is a 'physical-world' representation >> of something more than a billon times simpler than our own mentality (if it >> is right to calculate proportions). I would be happy to see 'adaptive >> behavior' - or, 'strategic awareness' in the fish brain examined in >> physico/physiological numerical *data* comparison only. >> > > Does not compute. Please resubmit your input in English. > > >> Does it point to *topical* features? >> > > You mean, is the fish thinking about sun-cream? I'm afraid we can only > conjecture at this stage. > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
