Kim Jones >>> Evolution is supposed to be "the only game in town" >>> >> >> >> I don't know who you're quoting but it's not me, and it's not true, at >> least not anymore. >> > > > PZ Meyers, Larry Krauss, Dicky Dawkins et al at their > atheist/physicalist talkfests >
I’ve never heard of Meyers but I've read lots of books by Krauss and every book Dawkins ever wrote, and none of them ever said anything even close to that, in fact my statement that until brains were invented Evolution was the only way complex objects could get built is just a paraphrase of what Dawkins wrote. >> At one time Evolution was the only way complex objects could get make, >> but that stopped being true 545 million years ago during the Cambrian >> Explosion when, more than 3 billion years after life first appeared, >> Evolution finely managed to make the first primitive brain. >> >> >Freudian slip. > There was no slip Freudian or otherwise, I deliberately used a anthropomorphic metaphor and will continue to do so because anthropomorphism can be a valuable mental tool if used carefully, and I did. > You appear to be assuming the need for consciousness right at the > outset. You are saying that evolution had a purpose right from the start > which was to introduce consciousness somehow. > Don’t be a insulting ass. > You cannot even assume that evolution has any goal or purpose at all > Thank you Captain Obvious for those words of wisdom. > Emotion is a very central part of intelligence. Evolution produced > intelligence which is absolutely one hundred per cent tethered to emotions. > Yes a AI would need emotion but that’s the easy part. I don’t know where people got the crazy idea that emotion was hard, maybe by watching too much Star Trek and the philosophy of Spock and Mr. Data. Evolution must have found it easy to make structures like the limbic system in our brain because it figured out how to make one over 350 million years ago. The limbic system seems to have a lot to do with fear, love, hate and sexual drive. It's our grossly enlarged neocortex that makes the human brain so unusual and so recent, it only started to get ridiculously large about one million years ago. It deals in deliberation, spatial perception, speaking, reading, writing and mathematics. If nature came up with feeling first and high level intelligence only much much later, I don't see why the opposite would be true for our computers. > >so why in the world would we find the exact opposite to be true when we >> make the same sort of thing? >> >> > Because intelligence is easy to produce. > It would be very hard for me but If it's easy for you then make a AI and become the world’s first trillionaire. > Emotions are hard to produce. > I can write code that causes a computer to experience a emotion, pain. It tries to avoid having a certain number in one of its registers regardless of what sort of input the machine receives, and if that number does show up in that register then the machine will stop whatever its doing and immediately change it to another number. Unfortunately unlike code that could make a AI this will not make me one dime because it’s so simple about nineteen million people already did it decades ago. 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 [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.
