3 ms·
> You don't know what it is even if you dearly believe you do Right, but you know enough -- of course! -- to say that I do not know. I've written the first dr
by mjburgess 3y ago
> You don't know what it is even if you dearly believe you do
Right, but you know enough -- of course! -- to say that I do not know.
I've written the first draft of a book on animal intelligence. I doubt neither you nor Carmack have even thought that a study of actually intelligent systems (animals) should even enter the conversation.
No no, of course, it's just going to be a modulo trick.
- famouswaffles 3y ago>Right, but you know enough -- of course! -- to say that I do not know. I simply know that sincerely believing something to be so has no actual bearing on truth. I know that results are what matter because that is what we employ with each other. And because that's the only thing Evolution "cared" about. >I've written the first draft of a book on animal intelligence. That's good for you. >I doubt neither you nor Carmack have even thought that a study of actually intelligent systems (animals) should even enter the conversation. I do know that this study is not the be all end all. Why would I be concerned with following one example of biology to a T when even Nature itself does not (Flight and the bee and the bird amongst others). >No no, of course, it's just going to be a modulo trick. There is no trick. There is only what flies and what does not. Trick flying is not a distinction that exists. Reality does not play tricks.