Recent content by ShadowKraz

Point, thank you. I'll have to re-think.

Which means they have the ability to adapt to changes in their environment already in their genes and aren't under pressure to evolve differently.

Which would be their adaptability; if they can't adapt, they won't successfully reproduce.

Not just how, but why. Why this piece of data and not that one? A subtle difference but important I think.

Exactly. What we're discussing has become a buzzword to sell. "Oh, look, it has AI! yippee! buy now!"

Well, this is based on an erroneous statement of the actual theory. It is the survival of the most fit to adapt, not the survival of the fittest. If you're going to run withthe erroneous latter statement, then sure you're probably right, but please don't pin it on Darwin and Wallace. It belongs...

There is a difference between the 'box' and knowledge. It is in how one treats the knowledge. If it is assumed to be completely solid, irrefutable knowledge, it becomes the box. The foundation of modern science is precisely to question the knowledge, to test it, to see if it truly is...

This is precisely why I like differing viewpoints no matter the forum. I know I have biases and pre-conceptions and am intellectually honest enough to act on correcting them via other people's viewpoints and knowledge. I don't like boxes and labels, they grossly inhibit critical thinking.

No problem. I totally understand your confusion. It took me a couple of months to realize what 'FWIW' meant.

I've been reading this thread and I think OP's alien culture would want to use something along one of two lines; a) a sonic gun that renders the non-autonomous nervous system either useless or at a lower level of function (pacification) or, 2) a gun that fires tranquilizer-crystal flechettes...

It was supposed to be "Both" and combined with the rest of her post, I'd say you are oth, sorry, both in agreement, just from differing directions. Obviously a solution has to fit in with the laws of physics or it simply won't work. But a solution that doesn't break new ground is merely a patch...

I find this reasoning spurious because you seem to be using the mis-quote of Darwin rather than what he actually espoused. Would you please clarify?

"Well, we know what his red laser does. I wonder what other lasers he has." "I just don't want to know what a brown laser does."

First blush response; i'm kind of in the middle of something else and in a hurry but wanted to at least respond: As for the failing qualia (took me a bit to read up on it, interesting and food for thought), if the digital component has identical functionality, then it would seem not to change...

It is an assertion. I've seen nothing that proves intelligence can be based on or arise from binary logic, rather the contrary; all our efforts are only producing mimics of intelligence and not very good ones at that. Of course, that may be because we don't have the right insight, inspiration...