3 ms·
The problem here is that you are being so vague that your comment can really only be understood if actually are talking about something 'supernatural'. Biology
by burgerbrain 15y ago
The problem here is that you are being so vague that your comment can really only be understood if actually are talking about something 'supernatural'.
Biology is really not much more than a self-replicating subset of chemistry. Without evidence to suggest something sort of psuedo-supernatural difference between the simplest of single cell organisms and homo sapiens, I think the only reasonable position is that whatever it is that "preforms" intelligence falls under the realm of the physical sciences.
Until we acquire evidence to suggest otherwise, it is silly to assume anything else.
- grannyg00se 15y agoI agree, that is a very reasonable position. But we are still a long way from proving the position. And until the position has been demonstrated true, then there is room for speculation. Which is what longbets is all about.
- burgerbrain 15y agoThe burden of proof is definitely on anybody asserting that intelligence isn't a physical phenomenon. We have no evidence to suggest that it isn't, but a hell of a lot to suggest that it is. Longbets is fine, but such unfounded speculation doesn't have much use in serious conversation. "proving the position proving the position" It seems like you might be misunderstanding the role of science.