From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:46:15 -0000 Archived: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:07:58 -0500 Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence >From: John Donaldson <john.donaldson.nul> >To: "post.nul" <post.nul> >Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:26:11 +0000 >Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence >>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:48:59 -0000 >>Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence >>>From: John Donaldson <John.Donaldson.nul> >>>To: "post.nul" <post.nul> >>>Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 16:09:27 +0000 >>>Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence >>>>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> >>>>To: <post.nul> >>>>Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 15:17:59 -0000 >>>>Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence <snip> >>>>Nope, as you can see my position is that 'morality' +/or >>>>'ethics' are evolutionary outcomes which have developed >>>>(because they work) to increase a species chances of >>>>survival. It's as simple as that. <snip> >Again, without addressing the specific arguments of moral >realists, to point to evolutionary explanations for the fixation >of moral behavioural traits in the human population simply >doesn't address the point at issue. Hello John, First - apologies for delay: computer crash followed by faulty phone lines (+ water mains) meant being off-line for nearly a month (very restful, got some reading done). I can understand your objections, yet certain problems are of such scales (time, distance etc - like the question of the size and age of the universe), that Popperian 'falsifiability' - see www.perceptions.couk.com/real-popper.txt cannot be applied to them just now, so we can only examine the viability of suggested mechanisms. E.g. - it now seems that classical Darwinian evolution is non-viable - see: www.perceptions.couk.com/creation.html#summary i.e. that Darwin's rather primitive and conformist 'mechanisms' see: www.perceptions.couk.com/olfacs.txt couldn't have worked in the time available. However a deeper examination - by Wallace - suggests that more complex interactions are taking place, giving almost metaphysical outcomes. 'Deeper' because, IMHO, Wallace was a more thoroughgoing scientist, collecting zoological and anthropological evidence word-wide for many years. As a result Wallace's evolution is a richer theory and seems to better fit the evidence, see www.perceptions.couk.com/uef/wallace.html#1 In addition he wasn't afraid to think outside of conformist boxes and to follow his logic to arrive at a rather startling conclusion: "we must therefore admit the possibility that, if we are not the highest intelligences in the universe, some higher intelligence may have directed the process by which the human race was developed, by means of more subtle agencies than we are acquainted with". [By 'more subtle agencies' he meant as yet undiscovered sciences of the future.] You might think that my position (above) is merely a development of Wallace's main evolutionary idea, and that's true in a way yet it was arrived at independently, before I'd read his stuff. Cheers Ray D Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp