No subject

Sun Apr 10 21:52:51 EST 2005

>> I say:

>> 1. There is not a single example of intelligence but in nature.

Is there?

>> 2. Even the arguments you derive or present are based on biological
>> intelligence.

>> 3. The only tools you have are those, rooted in biological intelligence.
>> 4. What you call intelligence is not intelligence,
>> but a functional mechanical level,
>> invalid as a general case for intelligence.

>Again, where's the difference except for the choice of words?

Difference between what and what?

>> 5. Your notions of intelligence can not be proven to provide
>> the reasons to be, to exist and to continue as entity.


Yep, all you got is kwestion marks,
but can you provide the reason for that mechanical intelligence
to perpetuate?
What would they be?

>> The most fundamental principles, assuring your very survival,
>> are missing, and once they are missing,
>> there is simply no impetus to be.


Same thing. Kwestion marks is all you got.

But where is the "answers"?


>I think, before you (Bloxy's) go on discussing with grown-ups

Like you?

What are you playing a guilt trip on me here?
What kind of criteria is this?
You got a phd also?

> first get yourself some manners

And what is that?
On what basis do you assert this obscenity
of moral caliber, rooted deeply in the religion
of mass brainwashing?

> (I know, that's no argument but it certainly can be
>helpful to make your point). 

You just mind yer own royal business
and make all the points you want.
Let me decide how, what and when myself.

Do you mind?

>Greetings, Leo

And finally you got greetings?
Based on yer royal analysis, you should be saying "booo",
and you say "greetings".

Are you a pathological liar, by any humble chance?

>Ralph Leonhardt (Dipl.-Biol.)                   Tel.:   +49 (0)234 700 5559
>Inst. f. Neuroinformatik, Geb. ND 04/297        Fax:    +49 (0)234 709 4209
>D-44780 Bochum, Germany

>E-mail: ralph.leonhardt at

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list