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> firstname.lastname@example.org
(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>
>> 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
>phyla some individuals do not produce offspring, but are neccessary
>the survival of the offspring of others. One example that springs
>to mind is a `worker' ant.
>Followups [hopefully] set *out* of bionet.neuroscience.
>|Statesmanship means never having to say you're sorry.
More information about the Neur-sci