No. These Kamikaze snakes are just power-assisted gliders. Just wait for the more powerful versions to evolve.
Library collections are obviously the result of a selection process. If we imagine a set of academic specialty libraries all being stocked with the same random set of academic titles (publishers' entire catalogs or something), over time we would expect physics libraries collections to differ more and more from medical libraries or Greek and Roman classics libraries, as librarians weeded their collections of irrelevant titles.
I mean he must know because he posted a video of one. I guess he's wondering if the development of full flight with wings is inevitable? There has to be a path of possible gradual change with distinct advantage of each step in order to evolve. If gliding away from danger serves the animal well and there is no additional advantage to powered flight, it will never grow wings. Additionally, if snake limbs are completely vestigial and internal, there cannot be a gradual path towards increasing their size and flapping ability. Snake adaptation to flight involves their whole body spreading flatter. If they did evolve powered flight, it would have to be through a completely different mechanism than birds.
Yes, just an extremely limited form of it. I think machines can be conscious. After all, what are we but complex biological machines?
Right. Someone decides, based on pretty simple criteria, what to put in collections. Well, except that doesn't happen - no one says "hey, just order me a random bunch of titles from the catalog for my medical school library." And if they did that, and they let selection occur without librarian input, each collection would become MORE inappropriate as the appropriate titles (which would be the most heavily used) would be stolen or wear out. However, if you came up with an experiment where 1) all libraries started with random books and 2) the librarians then went and weeded out all the off-topic books, then each library would become instantly specialized, per the selection rules of each librarian.
sideshowbob - exchemist and anyone else interested in possibly not wasting their time I just put Eugene on iggy - you are never going to get sense out of a Seventh day Aventis Quantum something or other Found what the something is He has created (there's a bit of irony) himself as a quantum creationist That's one small step for ID, one tiny fall into more stupidity This your Atheistic Evolutionists signing of with the immortal words of Dave Allan Good night and may your god go with you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No. They bring concepts into existence (inasmuch as a concept can 'exist' in a material world). They don't bring things into existence until the engineers (applied mathematics) get involved.
Eugene Shubert: This is entirely a direct quote from Dawkins, is it? You ought to make it clear when you're quoting and when you're paraphrasing or writing your own material. This appears to be a non sequitur. Do you see some kind of problem with Dawkins' explanation, above? Is that why you're quoting it? Do you have a question you want to ask, or some point you'd like to make? The purpose of your posts in this this thread is not clear. Please explain exactly what is the issue you are trying to raise.
It seems to me that consciousness emerged due to the complexity of the mammalian brain. I believe that at least some other mammals are conscious. Perhaps all are. I am not sure about reptiles & do not believe that insects are conscious. It does not seem to be necessary for intelligent activity. At least it seems difficult to prove that it is necessary.
Thanks but I knew that. I only commented once for the benefit of other readers, then put him back on Ignore. I researched Shubert once. If I recall correctly, he managed to get chucked out of a 7th Day Adventist church, accusing someone called Graham Maxwell of heresy I think. But now he seems to have gone the full heretic himself, inventing his own religion! (As did David Icke, but that's another story). All part of the little world of 7th Day Adventism.
Just picked back up last night reading about concessness Little heavy going Might try to distilling my thoughts into text soon One thing about concessness is the awareness of self Grandiose claims "we are the Universe looking at itself" uggh Can't remember which animals but a few, think dolphin is one, when presented with a mirror understand they are looking at themselves. Don't know if that self awareness last (and no idea how you would test for it) after the mirror is removed YouTube has numerous videos of animals fighting their reflection. No self awareness Also Evey single brain is wired differently plus - it should be a obvious given - every brain grows it's own network connections. What for me is baffling is some areas of the brain specialise How can a newborn babies brain have, other than automatic response regions, how can a new brain know - this area I will use for seeing, this part for ready, this part for mathematics etc etc? Wonderful crazy world but I wouldn't be anywhere else Well maybe the Enterprise Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, this question slightly intrigues me as I don't really see any mystery about consciousness and don't understand the fuss that some people make over it. I should have thought that any form of awareness of the environment could be taken to be a form of consciousness. If one views the "mind" as effectively the functioning of the operating system of the brain, then one presumably has a complete spectrum of gradually developing "consciousness", all the way from worms through arthropods and on to mammals.
Concessness is much much more than what you are describing which is reactionary If reactionary is / was the only requirement for concessness then we have had it since the bi metal strip and programmers would not be struggling with AI At a very very basic level as I put in another post this thread concessness is self awareness We know we are we We know we are not only not others we know others are like us but different And they would be mistaken Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's a pretty fine line there. Dogs exhibit shame when they've wrecked a vase. I cannot see that complex an emotion in a creature that is not at least dimly conscious of itself in the world. Cats, of course, have no such shame.
I can see where you are coming from with that good point My first knee jerk reaction would be the dog is reacting to your tone of voice When I get deeper into the book "Concessness Explained" I might have a fuller answer (if Huey Dewey and Louie understand it and can transfer the understanding to me Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) Repeat Can't remember which animals but a few, think dolphin is one, when presented with a mirror understand they are looking at themselves. Don't know if that self awareness last (and no idea how you would test for it) after the mirror is removed YouTube has numerous videos of animalsfighting their reflection. No self awareness From my post #74 I would use self awareness as a starting point - not reactionary responses Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think, as with many attributes of neural networks, it is a continuum. Is a dog conscious? Yes, but at a lower level than a human. Is a mouse? A bird? A lizard? All to some degree or another.