NOT NEUROSCIENCE: Technological Singularity

F. Frank LeFever flefever at ix.netcom.com
Mon Jun 8 22:05:33 EST 1998


I urge concerned neuroscience people to reply directly to those
perpetuating this thread and ask them to omit bionet.neuroscience from 
thie list of newsgroups for any further off-topic discussions.  This
thread is dominating the newsgroup and crowding out neuroscience
discussion (survival of the fattest?).

If you succumb to the temptation to contribute to this off-topic
thread, please delete bionet.neuroscience from the list of newsgroups
in the address bar.



In <270_9806081014 at gastro.apana.org.au> root*@gastro.apana.org.au
(Terry Smith) writes: 
>
>"James Sharman" <james at exaflop.demon.co.uk>
>In Message-Id: <897063854.14638.0.nnrp-05.c2d9a433 at news.demon.co.uk>
>
>Followups: sci.econ,,comp.ai,comp.arch,comp.robotics.misc
>
>> Untrue,  natural selection favours that which is more likely to
>> survive,  my definition of better in this case is also 'those who
>> are more likely to survive'.  There are many example in the animal
>
>`Fitness' is `ability to produce offspring'. In many species in
different
>phyla some individuals do not produce offspring, but are neccessary
for
>the survival of the offspring of others. One example that springs
readily
>to mind is a `worker' ant.
>
>Followups [hopefully] set *out* of bionet.neuroscience.
>
>Terry
>--
>|Statesmanship means never having to say you're sorry.




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list