On Friday, November 28, 2014 6:34:16 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 12:26 PM, <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > > > You've not answered the logic so far >> > > Give me some logic and I'll give you a answer. I thought you were asking > how Evolution produced consciousness but apparently that's not the question > you wanted answered. Maybe I missed it but as far as I can tell that's the > only question you asked. True you then said that Evolution could have > produced consciousness even if intelligence and consciousness were > unrelated because consciousness makes for better intelligent actions, which > is so self contradictory I didn't believe I needed to refute it. >
I don't know what you are talking about I didn't say any of these points. You may have more than one discussion you are in mixed together there. I was talking about your root idea that Evolution cannot detect consciousness (because we can't, I think you said) u What I showed in was that natural selection will detect any kind of difference between the same traits in two individuals, if those traits are being selected. It doesn't matter something is physically buried in the brain, or undetectable by humans at the present time,. Natural Selection will just favour the more overall efficient traits for that purpose. The same goes for consciousness . What is the problem you have understanding which of your ideas I am referring to. This is you key big idea John. Your idea that evolution cannot detect consciousness. I refer to it explicitly in that first at the top. So you seem to be saying you don't know what my post is disproving and what idea of yours it refers to. Inspite of the idea in question is your big idea that you've talked for ages. Inspite also of the fact I explicitly reference at the top of the first post. In spite of the fact the actual reason that you keep deleting also makes it pretty obvious what is being disproven > and you've deleted probably the most key section. >> > > And in this response to your latest post I deleted 6 paragraphs, > Why? When I stated you need all the reasoning in the same place so you understand and have the opportunity to come up with answer that s strong. Why do something like that? It's inflammatory. You're not fussing around deleting peoples post. I've actually taken the trouble to refute something here. And actually asked you not to delete the argument which is short. Instead answer it. Do it inline if you want or at the bottom. But leave my argument there as well. So we don't have to do another round like this. Please. You know what idea is of yours. You know where my argument is. Please reply to my arugment and lesve it in so other people can see what I do and what you do. Just in case one of us is playing with poo here. Come on don't fuck me around like this. I put effort in. About you or key idea. I'm just asking for a response I the normal way, that doesn't involve you deleting my argument and claiming you don't know what my argument is. Leaving it hard for me or anyone to compare and see. You don't do this in any other interactions. And your big is squarely falsified john. Fair and square. Go to the post and give your counter argument if you have one. Like you do all your posts. -- 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.
