On Friday, November 28, 2014 4:37:40 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 4:43 AM, <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > > > Let's say there are two individuals, one seems to be normal in that >> there is no history of injuries to the head. While the other individual >> fell off a tricycle and ended up hospitalized with a head injury. Now let's >> jump into the shoes of objective reality. >> > > OK but remember you said "objective reality", Evolution can't detect > subjective reality any better than we can. Just like us Evolution can see > actions but it can't see intentions. And the more intelligent a animal's > actions are the more likely it is that its genes get passed into the next > generation. >
You are also not responding here, to the line above, but to the paragraph that came afterward. Which you have deleted. There is not redundancy for legitimate deletion of this kind. The argument is arranged through paragraphs with each paragraph containing ONE strong component of relevance with everything else just for illustrative purposes. It is obvious what the strong component is each paragraph. What was the strong component of relevance in the lines above? You just have to ask what is necessary to preserve a logical flow through the points. The first paragraph just show differentials in consciousness are trivially demonstrated in any number of commonplace everyday examples. We don't even need to go to evolution. > > we happen to know the efficiency of the conscious experience and its >> delivery has been negatively impacted. >> > > And the only way you or Evolution could have "happened to know" that is if > you observed a impairment in intelligent actions and made a deduction from > that using a theory, the theory being that intelligence implies > You've deleted my argument John. And what you reply to here, just as what you replied to above, is totally irrelevant the logical argument that you are supposed to be trying to provide a strong answer to. I don't want to think. You've not answered the logic so far and you've deleted probably the most key section. You continued this basic approach below, but anyway it's lost be here so I've deleted below. Please, a strong answer John. You need a fresh reply command so you benefit from the full sequence of argument. Please...identify the strong component in each paragraph. By simply asking what component is essential to preserve a logical sequence. First paragraphs are always less essential because they introduce and so on. Give a strong answer as the rational man of science you say, and I will nod - that you are. It's a 10 minute work at most John. Either you have a strong answer you do not. -- 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.
