Cats brain is a Go. at IBM.
spintronic
neurons and 10 trillion individual learning synapses.
Exactly, I asked the same question, "why a cat"?
Some interesting figures here;
"For some scale reference points, consider this:
A cat cortex has roughly 760 million neurons and 6 trillion synapses.
So, IBM's simulation exceeds cat-scale.
A monkey cortex has roughly 2 billion neurons and 20 trillion
synapses. IBM's simulation is roughly equal to 50 percent of monkey-
scale.
A human cortex has 22 billion neurons and 220 trillion synapses. IBM's
simulation, then, is 4.5 percent of human-scale".
So theirs is greater than a Cat's brain, but falls short of simulating
Y.O.O's brain.
So what has this to do with T.O?
Well look at them figures for 2 secs.
From "boreoeutherian ancestor" to us 70 million years = 21 billion
neurons extra.
From Y.O.O family to us, 2.4 million years = 20 billion neurons extra.
Are you saying it takes;
70 million years to get an extra 21 billion neurons,
And at the same time
2.3 million years to get an extra 20 billion neurons?
You guys can't get anything right, can you?
All-seeing-I
No. They can't.
Would you expect otherwise?
Boikat
Wow! Mr. Cambrian Mammal = Trilobite is pretending he understands the
spinchronic non sequitor, and that it made some sort of valid point!
>
> Would you expect otherwise?-
Seeing scientific progress must really piss you off.
Boikat
Boikat
Your babbling is a non-sequitur.
>
> You guys can't get anything right, can you?
Sorry, reality does not have to match up with your imaginary, and
deluded, world views.
John Harshman
> Are you saying it takes;
>
> 70 million years to get an extra 21 billion neurons,
> And at the same time
> 2.3 million years to get an extra 20 billion neurons?
Are you saying that we should expect the number of neurons to increase
at some constant rate over time? If so, why?
Evolution proceeds at different rates at different times. If there's
strong selection for increasing brain size, it happens fast. If there's
selection for brain size staying the same, it doesn't happen at all. Is
that hard to understand?
David Hare-Scott
> From "boreoeutherian ancestor" to us 70 million years = 21 billion
> neurons extra.
>
> From Y.O.O family to us, 2.4 million years = 20 billion neurons extra.
>
>
> Are you saying it takes;
>
> 70 million years to get an extra 21 billion neurons,
> And at the same time
> 2.3 million years to get an extra 20 billion neurons?
>
> You guys can't get anything right, can you?
>
Tell us why exactly evolution of brains must always proceed at the same rate
of neurons per million years or admit that this is another stupid and
pointless straw man argument.
David
chris thompson
What's the difference between an idiot who agrees with a drunk and the
drunk?
In this case, nothing. The next morning, they're both sober idiots.
Chris
AusShane
Evolution not linear - cant extrapolate changes based on previous
activity (yawn)
AusShane
Evolution not linear - cant extrapolate changes based on previous
activity (yawn)
Burkhard
I'm totally with spin on this, there are just too many things we are
told that just don't add up.
Just think about it: Usain Bolt allegedly runs 100m in 9:58s, and they
call this a world record. And Noah Ngeny runs the 1000m in 2:11:49,
and they call_that_ a world record too. When _obviously_, the 100m
record ought to be a mere 1:40 or so, 10 times the time of Bolt.
_Someone_ obviously is lying here!!!!!!!!!!!!
My guess is that the Great Anarchist Conspiracy is behind it all, they
_lie_ about speed in all walks of life to distract fromt he fact they
are really couch potatoes themselves.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<f32570a7-a678-4cbd...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>):
[snippity of crappola already demolished by others]
Aren't you supposed to be weeping at your nan's deathbed?
And, failing that, aren't you supposed to be setting up that DOS attack on
me? Or at least preparing your testimony for the Trial of the Century, when
you Reveal To All(tm) that I'm a serial killer?
Focus, man! Focus!
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
spintronic
> spintronic wrote:
> > Are you saying it takes;
>
> > 70 million years to get an extra 21 billion neurons,
> > And at the same time
> > 2.3 million years to get an extra 20 billion neurons?
>
> Are you saying that we should expect the number of neurons to increase
> at some constant rate over time? If so, why?
Are you saying every living animal on the planet seemed to get along
just fine with less than 2 billion neurons, but for some reason we
needed an extra 20 Billion?
To quote Sir Sean Connery: "What can you do with 22 Billion neurons
that you cannot do with 2"?
> Evolution proceeds at different rates at different times. If there's
> strong selection for increasing brain size, it happens fast. If there's
> selection for brain size staying the same, it doesn't happen at all. Is
> that hard to understand?
The neuron results above, show no such thing.
They show that every animal alive does fine with less than 2 billion
neurons.
What could possibly be the selective pressure to require an extra 20
billion?
It would be like; every animal alive does fine with 2 lungs, but we
have 22.
My guess is, that your inability to understand the math &
implications, is clouding your judgement.
spintronic
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:25:51 -0500, spintronic wrote
> (in article
>
> [snippity of crappola already demolished by others]
>
> Aren't you supposed to be weeping at your nan's deathbed?
>
> And, failing that, aren't you supposed to be setting up that DOS attack on
> me? Or at least preparing your testimony for the Trial of the Century, when
> you Reveal To All(tm) that I'm a serial killer?
>
> Focus, man! Focus!
>
> --
> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Sorry, I was still focusing on the law suite you was bringing that
would see me behind bars.
Am I to assume, that's been cancelled?
spintronic
.
> I'm totally with spin on this, there are just too many things we are
> told that just don't add up.
Your most sensible comment to date.
Martin Andersen
Boikat
> On Nov 21, 1:25 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > spintronic wrote:
> > > Are you saying it takes;
>
> > > 70 million years to get an extra 21 billion neurons,
> > > And at the same time
> > > 2.3 million years to get an extra 20 billion neurons?
>
> > Are you saying that we should expect the number of neurons to increase
> > at some constant rate over time? If so, why?
>
> Are you saying every living animal on the planet seemed to get along
> just fine with less than 2 billion neurons, but for some reason we
> needed an extra 20 Billion?
That's just the way humans evolved, Captain Evasion (You didn't answer
his question.)
>
> To quote Sir Sean Connery: "What can you do with 22 Billion neurons
> that you cannot do with 2"?
If you have to ask that question, I seriously doubt you would
understand the answer.
>
> > Evolution proceeds at different rates at different times. If there's
> > strong selection for increasing brain size, it happens fast. If there's
> > selection for brain size staying the same, it doesn't happen at all. Is
> > that hard to understand?
>
> The neuron results above, show no such thing.
Amazing.
>
> They show that every animal alive does fine with less than 2 billion
> neurons.
And, by coincidence, very few animals can make fire, build aircraft,
cars, spacecraft, plan ahead, perforom complex math problems,
understand the atom, chemistry, and so on.
>
> What could possibly be the selective pressure to require an extra 20
> billion?
If you have to ask that question, you would not understand the answer.
>
> It would be like; every animal alive does fine with 2 lungs, but we
> have 22.
Idiot.
>
> My guess is, that your inability to understand the math &
> implications, is clouding your judgement.
The real problem is that you are an idiot.
Boikat
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <4b07f310$0$271$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>):
I can hardly wait for IBM to put the simulation into a nice robobody and then
turn it loose on PETA.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<70c6a75d-5caa-4815...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>):
Where did I say that _I_ was going to do that? I quite clearly said that
perhaps someone in the UK might want to do that?
>
> Am I to assume, that's been cancelled?
>
Babbling again, eh? Figures.
spintronic
> On Nov 21, 7:53 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 1:25 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > spintronic wrote:
> > > > Are you saying it takes;
>
> > > > 70 million years to get an extra 21 billion neurons,
> > > > And at the same time
> > > > 2.3 million years to get an extra 20 billion neurons?
>
> > > Are you saying that we should expect the number of neurons to increase
> > > at some constant rate over time? If so, why?
.
> > Are you saying every living animal on the planet seemed to get along
> > just fine with less than 2 billion neurons, but for some reason we
> > needed an extra 20 Billion?
>
> That's just the way humans evolved,
Well it makes no sense.
> Captain Evasion (You didn't answer his question.)
Because he didn't answer mine.
Do try to keep up.
> > To quote Sir Sean Connery: "What can you do with 22 Billion neurons
> > that you cannot do with 2"?
>
> If you have to ask that question, I seriously doubt you would
> understand the answer.
By your answer I seriously doubt you understood the question.
> > > If there's strong selection for increasing brain size, it happens fast.
>
> > The neuron results above, show no such thing.
>
> Amazing.
I thought so too.
> > They show that every animal alive does fine with less than 2 billion
> > neurons.
>
> And, by coincidence, very few animals can make fire, build aircraft,
> cars, spacecraft, plan ahead, perforom complex math problems,
> understand the atom, chemistry, and so on.
I think I'll just sit here, and let you continue. You're making my
argument for me.
> > What could possibly be the selective pressure to require an extra 20
> > billion?
>
> If you have to ask that question, you would not understand the answer.
If you question that question, you can't comprehend the answer.
But since your mouth is on overdrive, why don't you tell us what that
"selective pressure was"?
Then we can set up an experiment and reproduce the results.
> > It would be like; every animal alive does fine with 2 lungs, but we
> > have 22.
>
> Idiot.
No comment eh?
But that's *EXACTLY* what it's like.
It's like *EVERY* single organism who has ever lived does fine with 1
head, but we have 11.
> > My guess is, that your inability to understand the math &
> > implications, is clouding your judgement.
>
> The real problem is that you are an idiot.
Second evasion noted.
John Harshman
> On Nov 21, 1:25 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> spintronic wrote:
>>> Are you saying it takes;
>>> 70 million years to get an extra 21 billion neurons,
>>> And at the same time
>>> 2.3 million years to get an extra 20 billion neurons?
>> Are you saying that we should expect the number of neurons to increase
>> at some constant rate over time? If so, why?
>
> Are you saying every living animal on the planet seemed to get along
> just fine with less than 2 billion neurons, but for some reason we
> needed an extra 20 Billion?
As usual, you didn't answer the question, but have wandered off into new
territory. I would certainly agree that all our extra neurons are good
for something. I think your numbers are off, by the way. How many
neurons does a chimpanzee have?
But why didn't you answer the question?
> To quote Sir Sean Connery: "What can you do with 22 Billion neurons
> that you cannot do with 2"?
That should be fairly obvious to anyone who is capable of using those
neurons.
>> Evolution proceeds at different rates at different times. If there's
>> strong selection for increasing brain size, it happens fast. If there's
>> selection for brain size staying the same, it doesn't happen at all. Is
>> that hard to understand?
>
> The neuron results above, show no such thing.
>
> They show that every animal alive does fine with less than 2 billion
> neurons.
No they don't. You in fact listed only two animals. One of them was a
cat, good enough, but the other was a monkey, and we don't even know
what kind of monkey. I suspect that there's a lot more variation than
you can cover with two species, one of them unspecified.
> What could possibly be the selective pressure to require an extra 20
> billion?
While we don't know, we can certainly speculate. Your inability to
imagine is hardly a limit on possibility.
> It would be like; every animal alive does fine with 2 lungs, but we
> have 22.
> My guess is, that your inability to understand the math &
> implications, is clouding your judgement.
What math? Your argument is "cats have small brains, therefore evolution
is impossible". That's just crazy.
bpuharic
<spint...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>But since your mouth is on overdrive, why don't you tell us what that
>"selective pressure was"?
>
>Then we can set up an experiment and reproduce the results.
experiment?
results?
gee. now if only creationists would do this for their ghost-based view
of the universe
Boikat
> On Nov 21, 2:04 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Nov 21, 7:53 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 21, 1:25 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > > spintronic wrote:
> > > > > Are you saying it takes;
>
> > > > > 70 million years to get an extra 21 billion neurons,
> > > > > And at the same time
> > > > > 2.3 million years to get an extra 20 billion neurons?
>
> > > > Are you saying that we should expect the number of neurons to increase
> > > > at some constant rate over time? If so, why?
>
> .
> .
>
> > > Are you saying every living animal on the planet seemed to get along
> > > just fine with less than 2 billion neurons, but for some reason we
> > > needed an extra 20 Billion?
>
> > That's just the way humans evolved,
>
> Well it makes no sense.
Why not?
>
> > Captain Evasion (You didn't answer his question.)
>
> Because he didn't answer mine.
Typically, you're questions are the mythical "stupid question".
>
> Do try to keep up.
You might try that some time.
>
> > > To quote Sir Sean Connery: "What can you do with 22 Billion neurons
> > > that you cannot do with 2"?
>
> > If you have to ask that question, I seriously doubt you would
> > understand the answer.
>
> By your answer I seriously doubt you understood the question.
I understood the question just fine. It's an amazingly stupid
question. Since you like analogies, what can you do with a computer
with 2 gig of memory that you can't do with 2 meg of memory.
>
> > > > If there's strong selection for increasing brain size, it happens fast.
>
> > > The neuron results above, show no such thing.
>
> > Amazing.
>
> I thought so too.
What was amazing was your display of stupidity. Glad you agreed.
>
> > > They show that every animal alive does fine with less than 2 billion
> > > neurons.
>
> > And, by coincidence, very few animals can make fire, build aircraft,
> > cars, spacecraft, plan ahead, perforom complex math problems,
> > understand the atom, chemistry, and so on.
>
> I think I'll just sit here, and let you continue. You're making my
> argument for me.
So, you're argument is that you are an ignorant twit? Then there's no
point to go further. I'll concede the point.
<snip ignorant twaddle from the twit>
Boikat
spintronic
> spintronic wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 1:25 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
.
> >>> Are you saying it takes;
> >>> 70 million years to get an extra 21 billion neurons,
> >>> And at the same time
> >>> 2.3 million years to get an extra 20 billion neurons?
> >> Are you saying that we should expect the number of neurons to increase
> >> at some constant rate over time? If so, why?
>
> > Are you saying every living animal on the planet seemed to get along
> > just fine with less than 2 billion neurons, but for some reason we
> > needed an extra 20 Billion?
>
> As usual, you didn't answer the question,
Becaues as usual, your question was a non-answer to mine.
> I think your numbers are off, by the way. How many
> neurons does a chimpanzee have?
Funny think, now you mention it.
First of all, they weren't my numbers.
Now, they seem to have overestimated 1 (The cats neurons)
Apparently they have 0.3 Billion (Not 0.76 Billion).
And they seem to have grosely underestimated the chimps.
They have 6 Billion, and not 2 billion.
But since they seem to have *ALSO* grosely underestimated humans.
We have 100Billion and not 22 Billion.
The strength of my argument just went up by a ratrio of (100/6)/(22/2)
= .1.51515152
Thanks for that.
> But why didn't you answer the question?
I don't answer questions that are questions to mine.
> > To quote Sir Sean Connery: "What can you do with 22 Billion neurons
> > that you cannot do with 2"?
>
> That should be fairly obvious to anyone who is capable of using those
> neurons.
I think you missed Sir Seans argument.
What? Buy 1 million houses you dont need instead of the ample room of
the 2 you have?
Thought evolution cut waste?
> > What could possibly be the selective pressure to require an extra 20
> > billion?
>
> While we don't know, we can certainly speculate. Your inability to
> imagine is hardly a limit on possibility.
So whats your imagination telling you again?
> > It would be like; every animal alive does fine with 2 lungs, but we
> > have 22.
> > My guess is, that your inability to understand the math &
> > implications, is clouding your judgement.
>
> What math? Your argument is "cats have small brains, therefore evolution
> is impossible". That's just crazy.
If you think that's the argument, no wonder you're so confused.
spintronic
> On Nov 21, 8:23 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
.
> I understood the question just fine. It's an amazingly stupid
> question.
Really?
> Since you like analogies, what can you do with a computer
> with 2 gig of memory that you can't do with 2 meg of memory.
Since you're so bad at them, I will ask a similar question.
How did your 2 meg of memory get upto 2 gig?
Oh, that's right. Someone built it.
Boikat
> On Nov 21, 3:46 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Nov 21, 8:23 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> .
> .
>
> > I understood the question just fine. It's an amazingly stupid
> > question.
>
> Really?
Yes.
>
> > Since you like analogies, what can you do with a computer
> > with 2 gig of memory that you can't do with 2 meg of memory.
>
> Since you're so bad at them,
How, aside from the obvious, is the analogy flawed?
> I will ask a similar question.
Why not just answer the question? Or do you feel evasion makes you
look "intelligent"?
>
> How did your 2 meg of memory get upto 2 gig?
Captain Evasion strikes again. Irrelevant to my question.
>
> Oh, that's right. Someone built it.
Irrelevant to the question. Now, do you care to answer the question,
or would youlike to continue to run off in obtuse directions in a vain
attempt at pretending you have an IQ higher than a pumpkin?
Boikat
spintronic
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:03:22 -0500, Martin Andersen wrote
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don't worry. If the simulation ever gets upto your I.Q, the robobody
will be completely harmless.
Though it may druel & dribble a bit.
Boikat
Like you?
Boikat
spintronic
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:57:36 -0500, spintronic wrote
> (in article
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 12:24 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:25:51 -0500, spintronic wrote
> >> (in article
> >> <f32570a7-a678-4cbd-a1ca-1f508b2e9...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>):
>
> >> [snippity of crappola already demolished by others]
>
> >> Aren't you supposed to be weeping at your nan's deathbed?
>
> >> And, failing that, aren't you supposed to be setting up that DOS attack on
> >> me? Or at least preparing your testimony for the Trial of the Century, when
> >> you Reveal To All(tm) that I'm a serial killer?
>
> >> Focus, man! Focus!
>
> >> --
> >> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
.
> > Sorry, I was still focusing on the law suite you was bringing that
> > would see me behind bars.
>
> Where did I say that _I_ was going to do that? I quite clearly said that
> perhaps someone in the UK might want to do that?
QUOTE:
"You've demonstrated yourself to be a criminal. I see nothing funny in
this. June 17th 10:21 a.m"
"You're busted, boyo June 19th 1:38 p.m"
"By falsely accusing him of doing what you are clearly guilty of, you
have
committed what in both British and American law is a criminal offence.
"
"I have urged YOO to have you prosecuted for it.."
"and that my counter-suit would succeed."
I_ would be perfectly happy to ensure that my
counter-suit cleans you out of every piece of personal property you
own.
Let's rock.
END (OF THE LUNACY) QUOTE
> > Am I to assume, that's been cancelled?
>
> Babbling again, eh? Figures.
You sound just as crazy after the re-read, as you did in the original.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<bcdae632-646b-4712...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>):
if only that were the limits of his problems...
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<8c2d10fc-440d-43f1...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):
[snipity]
Where's my DOS attack, spinny? Why haven't you called the cops on me for my
alleged multiple murders or at least for my alleged stalking? Focus, man,
focus!
Boikat
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:32:28 -0500, Boikat wrote
> (in article
True. He does tend to piddle on himself quite a bit and seems to
enjoy making little statues of himself out of his poo, then pretends
they are worshiping him...
Boikat
John Harshman
> On Nov 21, 2:48 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> spintronic wrote:
>>> On Nov 21, 1:25 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> spintronic wrote:.
> .
>
>>>>> Are you saying it takes;
>>>>> 70 million years to get an extra 21 billion neurons,
>>>>> And at the same time
>>>>> 2.3 million years to get an extra 20 billion neurons?
>>>> Are you saying that we should expect the number of neurons to increase
>>>> at some constant rate over time? If so, why?
>>> Are you saying every living animal on the planet seemed to get along
>>> just fine with less than 2 billion neurons, but for some reason we
>>> needed an extra 20 Billion?
>> As usual, you didn't answer the question,
>
> Becaues as usual, your question was a non-answer to mine.
If I jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?
But the answer to your question is "no". I thought that would have been
obvious. See this as a problem requires that you make ridiculous
assumptions about the nature of evolution, which I tried to point out in
my question.
>> I think your numbers are off, by the way. How many
>> neurons does a chimpanzee have?
>
> Funny think, now you mention it.
>
> First of all, they weren't my numbers.
>
> Now, they seem to have overestimated 1 (The cats neurons)
>
> Apparently they have 0.3 Billion (Not 0.76 Billion).
>
> And they seem to have grosely underestimated the chimps.
>
> They have 6 Billion, and not 2 billion.
>
> But since they seem to have *ALSO* grosely underestimated humans.
>
> We have 100Billion and not 22 Billion.
>
> The strength of my argument just went up by a ratrio of (100/6)/(22/2)
> = .1.51515152
>
> Thanks for that.
Where are you getting your numbers? And what argument? I haven't seen an
argument yet.
>> But why didn't you answer the question?
>
> I don't answer questions that are questions to mine.
Why not?
>>> To quote Sir Sean Connery: "What can you do with 22 Billion neurons
>>> that you cannot do with 2"?
>> That should be fairly obvious to anyone who is capable of using those
>> neurons.
>
> I think you missed Sir Seans argument.
What argument?
> What? Buy 1 million houses you dont need instead of the ample room of
> the 2 you have?
>
> Thought evolution cut waste?
Well, natural selection does, for certain definitions of "waste". Is it
your contention that we don't use our neurons? That seems a necessary
assumption to make sense of your claim. I don't think it's true. I think
all our neurons are useful. (Well, mine. Yours, maybe not.)
>>> What could possibly be the selective pressure to require an extra 20
>>> billion?
>> While we don't know, we can certainly speculate. Your inability to
>> imagine is hardly a limit on possibility.
>
> So whats your imagination telling you again?
Merely that a god of the gaps argument is futile here, as always.
>>> It would be like; every animal alive does fine with 2 lungs, but we
>>> have 22.
>>> My guess is, that your inability to understand the math &
>>> implications, is clouding your judgement.
>> What math? Your argument is "cats have small brains, therefore evolution
>> is impossible". That's just crazy.
>
> If you think that's the argument, no wonder you're so confused.
What is the argument? Especially the math part.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<c412a35d-b9fe-4580...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>):
Where did _I_ say that _I_ was going to start a 'suite' against you? As your
very own quotes state quite clearly I have urged those who are in the UK to
do something, and have _never_ said that _I_ would do something. Of course,
if you can show otherwise, please do so.
And, besides, isn't this minor compared to your case against me for stalking
and mass murder? Focus, laddie, focus.
>
>
>
>>> Am I to assume, that's been cancelled?
>>
>> Babbling again, eh? Figures.
>
>
> You sound just as crazy after the re-read, as you did in the original.
>
Oh, the irony.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<809f61bc-8565-479a...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>):
And he quotes me urging others to have him prosecuted, and stating that if he
does anything to me that I'll present a counter-suit (in exactly those
words...) and then tries to say that this means that _I_ should have started
something against _him_. Hint, spinny, 'counter-suit' means that _you_ gotta
start the ball rolling.
Where's my DOS attack, spinny? Shut me up. Do it. Let's rock, spinny.
spintronic
> spintronic wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 2:48 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> spintronic wrote:
> >>> On Nov 21, 1:25 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> spintronic wrote:.
> > .
>
> >>>>> Are you saying it takes;
> >>>>> 70 million years to get an extra 21 billion neurons,
> >>>>> And at the same time
> >>>>> 2.3 million years to get an extra 20 billion neurons?
> >>>> Are you saying that we should expect the number of neurons to increase
> >>>> at some constant rate over time? If so, why?
> >>> Are you saying every living animal on the planet seemed to get along
> >>> just fine with less than 2 billion neurons, but for some reason we
> >>> needed an extra 20 Billion?
> >> As usual, you didn't answer the question,
> > Becaues as usual, your question was a non-answer to mine.
>
> If I jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?
If my answer doesn't affect your decision, will you still promise to
go first?
> But the answer to your question is "no".
Then I ain't jumpin.
> >> I think your numbers are off, by the way. How many
> >> neurons does a chimpanzee have?
>
> > Funny think, now you mention it.
>
> > First of all, they weren't my numbers.
>
> > Now, they seem to have overestimated 1 (The cats neurons)
>
> > Apparently they have 0.3 Billion (Not 0.76 Billion).
>
> > And they seem to have grosely underestimated the chimps.
>
> > They have 6 Billion, and not 2 billion.
>
> > But since they seem to have *ALSO* grosely underestimated humans.
>
> > We have 100Billion and not 22 Billion.
>
> > The strength of my argument just went up by a ratrio of (100/6)/(22/2)
> > = .1.51515152
>
> > Thanks for that.
>
> Where are you getting your numbers?
In my first post there's a link.
And after your correction, I found this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons
> And what argument? I haven't seen an argument yet.
You have to understand the problem, to know you have one.
> >> But why didn't you answer the question?
>
> > I don't answer questions that are questions to mine.
>
> Why not?
Why?
> >>> To quote Sir Sean Connery: "What can you do with 22 Billion neurons
> >>> that you cannot do with 2"?
> >> That should be fairly obvious to anyone who is capable of using those
> >> neurons.
>
> > I think you missed Sir Seans argument.
>
> What argument?
Once you can do more or less everything with 2 billion pounds, what's
the point of having 22 billion?
Have you ever asked warren buffet how much he spent on his house, or
car?
Ask him how much he spends a day. He'll say, anout $12 on a bagel &
coffee.
> > What? Buy 1 million houses you dont need instead of the ample room of
> > the 2 you have?
>
> > Thought evolution cut waste?
>
> Well, natural selection does, for certain definitions of "waste".
Well our brain (burning so much energy) can lose 30 - 40% of our body
heat though they are about 10% of the volume.
Chimps don't have that problem.
> Is it your contention that we don't use our neurons?
Well if by "we" you mean "you & me", I know one of us doesn't.
> That seems a necessary
> assumption to make sense of your claim. I don't think it's true. I think
> all our neurons are useful. (Well, mine. Yours, maybe not.)
If you call an empty box equivelant to 10% of the volume of your body
useful,
by losing only 0.01% of your body heat, then I agree.
You're head is very useful.
> >>> It would be like; every animal alive does fine with 2 lungs, but we
> >>> have 22.
> >>> My guess is, that your inability to understand the math &
> >>> implications, is clouding your judgement.
> >> What math? Your argument is "cats have small brains, therefore evolution
> >> is impossible". That's just crazy.
>
> > If you think that's the argument, no wonder you're so confused.
>
> What is the argument? Especially the math part.
What would you call extravagant, on this animal?
1 head vs 16 heads?
or
2 lungs vs 32 lungs?
spintronic
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:54:26 -0500, Boikat wrote
.
> Where's my DOS attack, spinny? Shut me up. Do it. Let's rock, spinny.
Lol, you loonball.
spintronic
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:38:36 -0500, spintronic wrote
> (in article
Sure, if posting something a second time, makes it twice as likely,
you won't read it.
QUOTE (AGAIN)
"
> > my counter-suit would succeed."
> > I_ would be perfectly happy to ensure that my
> > counter-suit cleans you out of every piece of personal property you
> > own.
"
> And, besides, isn't this minor compared to your case against me for stalking
> and mass murder? Focus, laddie, focus.
My greenhouse has toughened glass. Throw as many stones as you wish.
> >>> Am I to assume, that's been cancelled?
>
> >> Babbling again, eh? Figures.
>
> > You sound just as crazy after the re-read, as you did in the original.
>
> Oh, the irony.
I thought so too.
g...@risky-biz.com
Much as you might try to dodge it, your argument does hinge on the
idea that our brains have more neurons than are useful. I don't think
that this is a supportable position, but if it were, it would surely
argue against a designer, at least a competent one.
Greg Guarino
spintronic
>
> - Show quoted text -
That depends what you mean by *need*.
Evolution doesn't throw a ferrari at you when a mini cooper gets you
around.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<bd36d976-7e27-49c4...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>):
Where's my DOS attack, spinny? What's the matter, you can't put your money
where your fat yap has been, eh?
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<eb1cd50e-24fc-488e...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):
I said _counter-suit_. That means that it's in _reaction_ to something, twit.
Everyone can see quite clearly what you're trying, and failing, to do.
>
> QUOTE (AGAIN)
> "
>>> my counter-suit would succeed."
>>> I_ would be perfectly happy to ensure that my
>>> counter-suit cleans you out of every piece of personal property you
>>> own.
> "
>
>> And, besides, isn't this minor compared to your case against me for stalking
>> and mass murder? Focus, laddie, focus.
>
>
>
> My greenhouse has toughened glass. Throw as many stones as you wish.
Babbling again...
>
>
>
>>>>> Am I to assume, that's been cancelled?
>>
>>>> Babbling again, eh? Figures.
>>
>>> You sound just as crazy after the re-read, as you did in the original.
>>
>> Oh, the irony.
>
>
> I thought so too.
>
Where's my DOS attack, spinny?
spintronic
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:11:15 -0500, spintronic wrote
> (in article
>
> > On Nov 21, 6:50 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:54:26 -0500, Boikat wrote
.
.
> >> Where's my DOS attack, spinny? Shut me up. Do it. Let's rock, spinny.
>
> > Lol, you loonball.
>
> Where's my DOS attack, spinny? What's the matter, you can't put your money
> where your fat yap has been, eh?
You scare me. That's what's up.
spintronic
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:10:20 -0500, spintronic wrote
.
> >>>>> Sorry, I was still focusing on the law suite you was bringing that
> >>>>> would see me behind bars.
>
> >>>> Where did I say that _I_ was going to do that? I quite clearly said that
> >>>> perhaps someone in the UK might want to do that?
>
> >>> QUOTE:
> I said _counter-suit_.
Which is filing a suit.
> Where's my DOS attack, spinny?
Why looking for an excuse to shoot someone else?
Boikat
Why does he scare you, spinny? Because he doesn't agree with you?
Because he thinks you are a nut case? Seek help, or take your meds,
that you must have forgotten to take, or (just as likely) take a break
from posting until you've sobered up.
Boikat
Boikat
Accusations like that can get you in a peck of trouble. You'd better
take a break from posting until after you've sbered up.
Boikat
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<16faa589-5e56-42a3...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
> On Nov 21, 8:47 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:10:20 -0500, spintronic wrote
> .
> .
>
>>>>>>> Sorry, I was still focusing on the law suite you was bringing that
>>>>>>> would see me behind bars.
>>
>>>>>> Where did I say that _I_ was going to do that? I quite clearly said that
>>>>>> perhaps someone in the UK might want to do that?
>>
>>>>> QUOTE:
>
>> I said _counter-suit_.
>
>
> Which is filing a suit.
Only after you did something stupid first, spinny. You make threats, I let
you know what will happen if you carry out your threat, and you piss yourself
as you run away.
>
>
>> Where's my DOS attack, spinny?
>
> Why looking for an excuse to shoot someone else?
>
'Someone else'? Who did I shoot before? When? Where? Why haven't you told the
proper authorities what you know? Would you like the phone number for the
Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office so you can call them? How about for the
Florida Department of Law Enforcement's South Florida office? How about for
the FBI here in Palm Beach County? Come on, spinny, why are you so chicken?
Go for it, spinny, go for it. Let's rock.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<3638a5f6-2a3a-4757...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
Gee, spinny, why do I scare you? What could I possibly do to you from the
other side of the Atlantic? Do you still say that I'm a serial killer,
spinny? Who have I killed? When? Where? How? Why haven't you contacted the
proper authorities and let them know any of this? If you did, then I'd be
safely behind bars and there'd not be anything I could do to you, so you'd
not have to be afraid of me killing you in your sleep, now would you? Come
on, spinny, what's stopping you? Go for it, spinny. Go. Go. Go.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<b9211bb0-bd63-409b...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):
> On Nov 21, 3:16 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 21, 8:47 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:> On Sat,
>> 21 Nov 2009 15:10:20 -0500, spintronic wrote
>>
>> .
>> .
>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, I was still focusing on the law suite you was bringing that
>>>>>>>> would see me behind bars.
>>
>>>>>>> Where did I say that _I_ was going to do that? I quite clearly said
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> perhaps someone in the UK might want to do that?
>>
>>>>>> QUOTE:
>>> I said _counter-suit_.
>>
>> Which is filing a suit.
>>
>>> Where's my DOS attack, spinny?
>>
>> Why looking for an excuse to shoot someone else?
>
> Accusations like that can get you in a peck of trouble.
It was an accusation like that which inspired my original threat of a
counter-suit should he do something idiotic...
> You'd better
> take a break from posting until after you've sbered up.
He's not drunk, he's brain-damaged. The best part about all his nonsense is
that if he ever does get a pair of pants that's not soaked in piss and shit
and actually makes some kind of report, I've got _lots_ of proof that he's
absolutely insane... and plenty of proof for my counter-suit to fry his ass.
Let's rock, spinny. Come on. If everything is as you say, you have nothing to
fear. Where's my DOS attack? Why haven't you spoken to the cops? What are you
waiting for, spinny?
HighQ
> On Nov 21, 3:13 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 8:48 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:11:15 -0500, spintronic wrote
> > > (in article
> > > <bd36d976-7e27-49c4-9df9-c250d1fb8...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > > > On Nov 21, 6:50 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> > > >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:54:26 -0500, Boikat wrote
>
> > .
> > .
>
> > > >> Where's my DOS attack, spinny? Shut me up. Do it. Let's rock, spinny.
>
> > > > Lol, you loonball.
>
> > > Where's my DOS attack, spinny? What's the matter, you can't put your money
> > > where your fat yap has been, eh?
.
> > You scare me. That's what's up.
>
> Why does he scare you, spinny? Because he doesn't agree with you?
No, bacause he's a creepy stalker, as his 4 post flurry shows above.
And your 2 post flurry, implies your heading down his dark path.
Boikat
If you were only "slightly" nut's before, you cone clear over to
"fruitcake" now.
>
> And your 2 post flurry, implies your heading down his dark path.
You seem to be under the impression that when someone suggests you
eitehr sober up, or see a shrink, they are insulting you. Actually,
many who make the suggestion only wish you would seek help because you
obviously need help. You'r posting crazy accusations aimed at someone
that lives a whole ocean away from you, as if he's going to pop out of
the closet, or pop up from under your bed, like Freddie Kruger, and
gut you like a fish. *THAT IS INSANE*.
Now, thee's two things you can do about your little problem. Let it
grow into a full blown psychotic episode, and everyone can read about
your insanity in the papers, or you can see a shrink and get help.
It's up to you.
Boikat
HighQ
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:16:12 -0500, spintronic wrote
.
> >> I said _counter-suit_.
>
> > Which is filing a suit.
>
> Only after you did something stupid first, spinny. You make threats,
Nonono.
You rambled to yourself. I had nothing to do with your crazy rant.
you;
1) Invided me to sue you.
QUOTE
"Please note that _you_ are perfectly able to bring suit against _me_
should you so wish
END
2) Then threatened you would sue me.
QUOTE
"my counter-suit would succeed"
END
> I let you know what will happen if you carry out your threat,
The one you invited me to make, which I ignored.
> and you piss yourself as you run away.
I'm still here.
> why are you so chicken? Go for it, spinny, go for it. Let's rock.
And you wonder why you scare me.
HighQ
> On Nov 21, 4:28 pm, HighQ <einstein...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.
> he's going to pop out of the closet, or pop up from under your bed,
> like Freddie Kruger, and gut you like a fish.
See, even you know what he's like.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<5352b6fd-8cc8-4e12...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
> On Nov 21, 9:57 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:16:12 -0500, spintronic wrote
> .
> .
>
>>>> I said _counter-suit_.
>>
>>> Which is filing a suit.
>>
>> Only after you did something stupid first, spinny. You make threats,
>
>
> Nonono.
>
> You rambled to yourself. I had nothing to do with your crazy rant.
Oh, yes you did.
>
> you;
>
> 1) Invided me to sue you.
> QUOTE
> "Please note that _you_ are perfectly able to bring suit against _me_
> should you so wish
> END
>
> 2) Then threatened you would sue me.
>
> QUOTE
> "my counter-suit would succeed"
> END
Quite right it would. if you believe otherwise, what's stopping you from
making your little DOS attack, oh chicken-hearted looney?
>
>
>> I let you know what will happen if you carry out your threat,
>
>
> The one you invited me to make, which I ignored.
Chuck-chuck-chuck, superchicken.
>
>> and you piss yourself as you run away.
>
>
> I'm still here.
Where's my DOS attack, spinny?
>
>
>> why are you so chicken? Go for it, spinny, go for it. Let's rock.
>
>
> And you wonder why you scare me.
>
Come on spinny, go for it.
Boikat
What's he going to do, spinny, throw a punch through the internet?
I'm suggesting, again, that you take a breather.
Boikat
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<14d15c64-4fa1-4ca5...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
> On Nov 21, 9:25 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 21, 3:13 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 21, 8:48 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:> On Sat,
>>> 21 Nov 2009 15:11:15 -0500, spintronic wrote
>>>> (in article
>>>> <bd36d976-7e27-49c4-9df9-c250d1fb8...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>>>> On Nov 21, 6:50 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:54:26 -0500, Boikat wrote
>>
>>> .
>>> .
>>
>>>>>> Where's my DOS attack, spinny? Shut me up. Do it. Let's rock, spinny.
>>
>>>>> Lol, you loonball.
>>
>>>> Where's my DOS attack, spinny? What's the matter, you can't put your money
>>>> where your fat yap has been, eh?
> .
> .
>
>>> You scare me. That's what's up.
>>
>> Why does he scare you, spinny? Because he doesn't agree with you?
>
>
> No, bacause he's a creepy stalker,
If I'm a stalker, then by all means DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Call the proper
authorities, present your evidence. Go on, do it. What's stopping you?
> as his 4 post flurry shows above.
You're insane.
>
>
> And your 2 post flurry, implies your heading down his dark path.
>
And here we go...
Boikat
You've got to be kidding. Please tell me you're kidding. If you're
not, then you really are psychotic.
Boikat
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<81348413-c20c-4aef...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>):
> On Nov 21, 4:28 pm, HighQ <einstein...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Nov 21, 9:25 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 21, 3:13 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Nov 21, 8:48 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:> On
>>>> Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:11:15 -0500, spintronic wrote
>>>>> (in article
>>>>> <bd36d976-7e27-49c4-9df9-c250d1fb8...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>>>>> On Nov 21, 6:50 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:54:26 -0500, Boikat wrote
>>
>>>> .
>>>> .
>>
>>>>>>> Where's my DOS attack, spinny? Shut me up. Do it. Let's rock, spinny.
>>
>>>>>> Lol, you loonball.
>>
>>>>> Where's my DOS attack, spinny? What's the matter, you can't put your
>>>>> money
>>>>> where your fat yap has been, eh?
>>
>> .
>> .
>>
>>>> You scare me. That's what's up.
>>
>>> Why does he scare you, spinny? Because he doesn't agree with you?
>>
>> No, bacause he's a creepy stalker, as his 4 post flurry shows above.
>
> If you were only "slightly" nut's before, you cone clear over to
> "fruitcake" now.
He's been at the 'fruitcake' level for a _long_ time now.
>
>>
>> And your 2 post flurry, implies your heading down his dark path.
>
> You seem to be under the impression that when someone suggests you
> eitehr sober up, or see a shrink, they are insulting you. Actually,
> many who make the suggestion only wish you would seek help because you
> obviously need help. You'r posting crazy accusations aimed at someone
> that lives a whole ocean away from you, as if he's going to pop out of
> the closet, or pop up from under your bed, like Freddie Kruger, and
> gut you like a fish. *THAT IS INSANE*.
Oh, yeah. I'm on the bloody far side of the Atlantic and he's posting that
he's afraid that I'm going to kill him in his sleep! How the _hell_ am I
supposed to do that from West Palm Beach when he's in bloody _England_?
Anyone who says that kind of thing is quite clearly _insane_. He's generated
a thread based on some youtube incident in _Russia_. What the hell am I
supposed to be, Jason bloody Bourne? Able to cross borders at will, carrying
sniper rifles and explosives? Just his stuff today is enough to get his
brain-damaged, ranting, raving, utterly insane ass locked up in a mental
ward.
>
> Now, thee's two things you can do about your little problem. Let it
> grow into a full blown psychotic episode, and everyone can read about
> your insanity in the papers, or you can see a shrink and get help.
> It's up to you.
I think that we'd better check out the papers 'cause there's gonna be some
news from England about a nutter roaming loose...
HighQ
You said it, not me.
HighQ
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:41:43 -0500, HighQ wrote
.
> Where's my DOS attack, spinny?
>
> >> why are you so chicken? Go for it, spinny, go for it. Let's rock.
>
> > And you wonder why you scare me.
>
> Come on spinny, go for it.
Somehow a picture of you in shorts & gloves, running around the ring
like a demented loony came to mind.
Stuart
They're coming to take spinny away.. they're coming to take spinny
away. hehe hoho..
Stuart
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<f914c72a-a595-4afe...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):
He's insane. It's that simple.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<5bbff301-75a2-4925...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>):
Okay... this speaks for itself.
Boikat
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:41:50 -0500, Boikat wrote
> (in article
Apparently, more like Freddie Kruger. The boy is severly mental,
that's for sure.
> Able to cross borders at will, carrying
> sniper rifles and explosives? Just his stuff today is enough to get his
> brain-damaged, ranting, raving, utterly insane ass locked up in a mental
> ward.
>
>
>
> > Now, thee's two things you can do about your little problem. Let it
> > grow into a full blown psychotic episode, and everyone can read about
> > your insanity in the papers, or you can see a shrink and get help.
> > It's up to you.
>
> I think that we'd better check out the papers 'cause there's gonna be some
> news from England about a nutter roaming loose...
Hopefully, they will tranq him before he hurts himself or someone
else.
Boikat
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<862aa0f6-7a4b-4411...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):
This is just what I expect from him. He's been nuts for a very long time, and
now everyone should be able to see it.
HighQ
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:41:50 -0500, Boikat wrote
.
> I think that we'd better check out the papers 'cause there's gonna be some
> news from England
HighQ
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:52:10 -0500, HighQ wrote
.
> >> he's going to pop out of the closet, or pop up from under your bed,
> >> like Freddie Kruger, and gut you like a fish.
>
> > See, even you know what he's like.
>
> Okay... this speaks for itself.
Confession is good for the soul.
HighQ
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:38:36 -0500, spintronic wrote
.
.
> _I_ was going to start a 'suite' against you? As your
> very own quotes state quite clearly
Yes, because you're nuts.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<a0d3415e-6fff-4ce7...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>):
yep, he's insane.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<d13a0c11-97b6-4ae5...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>):
So why don't you put a stop to this, spinny? If you're right, then the
relevant authorities will lock me up and end my reign of terror forever. Tell
them, spinny. Tell them how I'm going to kill you in your sleep from the
other side of the Atlantic.
You're _NUTS_, spinny.
Boikat
Let's put it back into context. I said:
"You're posting crazy accusations aimed at someone that lives a whole
ocean away from you, as if he's going to pop out of
the closet, or pop up from under your bed, like Freddie Kruger, and
gut you like a fish. *THAT IS INSANE*."
Note: You dishonestly snipped the "You're posting crazy accusations
aimed at someone that lives a whole ocean away from you, as if.."
part.
So, your insanity must imvolve a fair bit of self delusion and
dishonesty.
Boikat
Boikat
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:52:10 -0500, HighQ wrote
> (in article
>
> > On Nov 21, 10:41 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> On Nov 21, 4:28 pm, HighQ <einstein...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > .
> > .
> >> he's going to pop out of the closet, or pop up from under your bed,
> >> like Freddie Kruger, and gut you like a fish.
>
> > See, even you know what he's like.
>
> Okay... this speaks for itself.
Yup, even when you take into consideration he snipped the lead-in to
my "Freddie Kruger" comment, which was, "You're posting crazy
accusations aimed at someone that lives a whole ocean away from you,
as if..."
Boikat
spintronic
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:06:39 -0500, HighQ wrote
.
> >> Where's my DOS attack, spinny?
>
> >>>> why are you so chicken? Go for it, spinny, go for it. Let's rock.
>
> >>> And you wonder why you scare me.
>
> >> Come on spinny, go for it.
>
> > Somehow a picture of you in shorts & gloves, running around the ring
> > like a demented loony came to mind.
>
> So why don't you put a stop to this, spinny?
Sure: Do you have an "off" button?
> If you're right, then the relevant authorities will lock me up and end
> my reign of terror forever.
This is much more fun.
> Tell them, spinny. Tell them how I'm going to kill you in your sleep from the
> other side of the Atlantic.
Boyprat already told us how.
> You're _NUTS_, spinny.
You could prove me wrong and go away.
But I doubt you had the brains to arrive at that conclusion.
Boikat
So, you are admitting that you are a nutcase. Tha's a good first
step. Next, you should seek professional mental help.
Boikat
spintronic
> On Nov 21, 5:03 pm, HighQ <einstein...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
.
> Let's put it back into context. I said:
>
> "he's going to pop out of the closet, or pop up from under your bed, like Freddie Kruger, and
> gut you like a fish.
Yes, that's what I said you said.
spintronic
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:06:39 -0500, HighQ wrote
.
> I'm going to kill you in your sleep
> You're _NUTS_, spinny.
Says you.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<c45d60af-b122-43bc...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>):
> On Nov 21, 11:27 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:06:39 -0500, HighQ wrote
> .
> .
>
>>>> Where's my DOS attack, spinny?
>>
>>>>>> why are you so chicken? Go for it, spinny, go for it. Let's rock.
>>
>>>>> And you wonder why you scare me.
>>
>>>> Come on spinny, go for it.
>>
>>> Somehow a picture of you in shorts & gloves, running around the ring
>>> like a demented loony came to mind.
>>
>> So why don't you put a stop to this, spinny?
>
>
> Sure: Do you have an "off" button?
no.
>
>> If you're right, then the relevant authorities will lock me up and end
>> my reign of terror forever.
>
> This is much more fun.
It is for me...
>
>> Tell them, spinny. Tell them how I'm going to kill you in your sleep from
>> the
>> other side of the Atlantic.
>
>
> Boyprat already told us how.
Yep, you're insane.
>
>
>> You're _NUTS_, spinny.
>
>
> You could prove me wrong and go away.
How would that prove you wrong?
>
> But I doubt you had the brains to arrive at that conclusion.
>
Come on, let us into your <ahem> train of thought </ahem>.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<47332576-595f-421e...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):
As I've said before, he's insane. He quotes stuff out of context and and is
totally dishonest. In other words, he's a creationist cretin.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<0087657a-e4bd-423a...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>):
Cool. There's something in Florida called the Baker Act (see
<http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/mentalhealth/laws/index.shtml> for more info)
under which those who are insane and are a danger to themselves or others may
be locked up. All you need to do is contact the relevant authorities (in this
case, the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office) and give them the evidence
supporting your position (in this case, that I'm a serial killer who is going
to kill you in your sleep) and they will take it from there. Would you like
the PBSO's phone number?
Come on, spinny, what's stopping you? If you're right, you can get rid of me
forever. Go for it spinny. Go. Go. Go.
John Harshman
> On Nov 21, 6:33 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> spintronic wrote:
>>> On Nov 21, 2:48 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> spintronic wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 21, 1:25 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>> spintronic wrote:.
>>> .
>>>>>>> Are you saying it takes;
>>>>>>> 70 million years to get an extra 21 billion neurons,
>>>>>>> And at the same time
>>>>>>> 2.3 million years to get an extra 20 billion neurons?
>>>>>> Are you saying that we should expect the number of neurons to increase
>>>>>> at some constant rate over time? If so, why?
>>>>> Are you saying every living animal on the planet seemed to get along
>>>>> just fine with less than 2 billion neurons, but for some reason we
>>>>> needed an extra 20 Billion?
>>>> As usual, you didn't answer the question,
>
>
>>> Becaues as usual, your question was a non-answer to mine.
>> If I jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?
>
> If my answer doesn't affect your decision, will you still promise to
> go first?
>
>
>
>> But the answer to your question is "no".
>
>
> Then I ain't jumpin.
>
>
>
>>>> I think your numbers are off, by the way. How many
>>>> neurons does a chimpanzee have?
>>> Funny think, now you mention it.
>>> First of all, they weren't my numbers.
>>> Now, they seem to have overestimated 1 (The cats neurons)
>>> Apparently they have 0.3 Billion (Not 0.76 Billion).
>>> And they seem to have grosely underestimated the chimps.
>>> They have 6 Billion, and not 2 billion.
>>> But since they seem to have *ALSO* grosely underestimated humans.
>>> We have 100Billion and not 22 Billion.
>>> The strength of my argument just went up by a ratrio of (100/6)/(22/2)
>>> = .1.51515152
>>> Thanks for that.
>> Where are you getting your numbers?
>
> In my first post there's a link.
>
> And after your correction, I found this link.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons
Thanks. I turns out you are comparing two different numbers. The 6
billion for chimps counts cerebral cortex only, while the 100 billion
for humans counts all neurons in the body. The comparable figure,
according to your link, is 11 billion. So in fact we have only twice the
neurons that chimps do. I will also point out that the same source,
counting total neurons this time, gives elephants and whales twice the
neurons of humans.
So, if we suppose that chimps resemble the common ancestor, that means
the number of neurons in the cerebral cortex of the human lineage has
roughly doubled in the last 5 million years. What suggests to you that
such a thing is impossible?
>> And what argument? I haven't seen an argument yet.
>
> You have to understand the problem, to know you have one.
Do you in fact have one? If so, what is it?
>>>> But why didn't you answer the question?
>>> I don't answer questions that are questions to mine.
>> Why not?
>
> Why?
So you're going with "do as I say, not as I do".
>>>>> To quote Sir Sean Connery: "What can you do with 22 Billion neurons
>>>>> that you cannot do with 2"?
>>>> That should be fairly obvious to anyone who is capable of using those
>>>> neurons.
>>> I think you missed Sir Seans argument.
>> What argument?
>
> Once you can do more or less everything with 2 billion pounds, what's
> the point of having 22 billion?
That assumes you can do everything with 2 billion neurons. I don't think
you can. I think the human brain can do some things better than your
monkey brain.
> Have you ever asked warren buffet how much he spent on his house, or
> car?
>
> Ask him how much he spends a day. He'll say, anout $12 on a bagel &
> coffee.
I fail to see the relevance of any of this to the question of brain
evolution.
>>> What? Buy 1 million houses you dont need instead of the ample room of
>>> the 2 you have?
>>> Thought evolution cut waste?
>> Well, natural selection does, for certain definitions of "waste".
>
> Well our brain (burning so much energy) can lose 30 - 40% of our body
> heat though they are about 10% of the volume.
>
> Chimps don't have that problem.
Yes, but we gain a corresponding benefit. Well, some of us do.
>> Is it your contention that we don't use our neurons?
>
> Well if by "we" you mean "you & me", I know one of us doesn't.
On that we are agreed. But haven't you just refuted your own claim? One
of us apparently needs those extra neurons.
>> That seems a necessary
>> assumption to make sense of your claim. I don't think it's true. I think
>> all our neurons are useful. (Well, mine. Yours, maybe not.)
>
> If you call an empty box equivelant to 10% of the volume of your body
> useful,
>
> by losing only 0.01% of your body heat, then I agree.
>
> You're head is very useful.
For one thing, it helps me know the difference between "your" and
"you're". Are you in fact claiming that the human brain is not more
useful to us than a monkey brain would be?
>>>>> It would be like; every animal alive does fine with 2 lungs, but we
>>>>> have 22.
>>>>> My guess is, that your inability to understand the math &
>>>>> implications, is clouding your judgement.
>>>> What math? Your argument is "cats have small brains, therefore evolution
>>>> is impossible". That's just crazy.
>>> If you think that's the argument, no wonder you're so confused.
>> What is the argument? Especially the math part.
>
> What would you call extravagant, on this animal?
>
> 1 head vs 16 heads?
>
> or
>
> 2 lungs vs 32 lungs?
That would depend on the environment. And of course a bigger head or
bigger lungs might be a better solution to any such problem. Again, you
seem to be claiming that the human brain is not useful. Are you willing
to state that explicitly?
AusShane
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:41:50 -0500, Boikat wrote
> (in article
He's English??? Oh I am so so embarrassed and ashamed...........
spintronic
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:19:04 -0500, HighQ wrote
> (in article
>
> > On Nov 21, 6:46 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:38:36 -0500, spintronic wrote
.
.
> >> _I_ was going to start a 'suite' against you? As your
> >> very own quotes state quite clearly
>
> > Yes, because you're nuts.
>
> Cool. There's something in Florida called the Baker Act (see
> <http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/mentalhealth/laws/index.shtml> for more info)
How come you're such an expert on "mental health acts"?
Been read your right's a few times?
spintronic
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:37:10 -0500, spintronic wrote
.
> >> So why don't you put a stop to this, spinny?
>
> > Sure: Do you have an "off" button?
>
> no.
Damn cheap Japanese A.I.
> >> If you're right, then the relevant authorities will lock me up and end
> >> my reign of terror forever.
>
> > This is much more fun.
>
> It is for me...
Keep going then.
I dare you.
> >> Tell them, spinny. Tell them how I'm going to kill you in your sleep from
> >> the other side of the Atlantic.
>
> > Boyprat already told us how.
No he said "
> he's going to pop out of the closet, or pop up from under your bed,
> like Freddie Kruger, and gut you like a fish. "
Hence my fear of you.
> Yep, you're insane.
>
> >> You're _NUTS_, spinny.
>
> > You could prove me wrong and go away.
>
> How would that prove you wrong?
Try it & see.
> > But I doubt you had the brains to arrive at that conclusion.
>
> Come on, let us into your <ahem> train of thought </ahem>.
Come where? and to do what?
Now you're scaring me.
Boikat
However, you dishonest twit, you left off a certain contestual element
which demonstrates your demented state of mind. That part being:
"You're posting crazy accusations aimed at someone that lives a whole
ocean away from you, as if..."
Your dishonesty is snipping the context, implying that I share your
delusions. But, you are mentally unstable, so what else would anyone
expect?
Boikat
Boikat
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:38:49 -0500, spintronic wrote
> (in article
>
> > On Nov 21, 11:31 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> On Nov 21, 5:03 pm, HighQ <einstein...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > .
> > .
>
> >> Let's put it back into context. I said:
>
> >> "he's going to pop out of the closet, or pop up from under your bed, like
> >> Freddie Kruger, and
> >> gut you like a fish.
>
> > Yes, that's what I said you said.
>
> As I've said before, he's insane. He quotes stuff out of context and and is
> totally dishonest. In other words, he's a creationist cretin.
Yup, and is so ignorant or deluded that he thinks nobody else can see
his dishonesty or dementia.
Boikat
Friar Broccoli
> On Nov 21, 8:21 pm, "g...@risky-biz.com" <g...@risky-biz.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 21, 3:05 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 21, 6:33 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> spintronic wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 21, 2:48 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>> spintronic wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 21, 1:25 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> spintronic wrote:.
>
>
>>> You have to understand the problem, to know you have one.
>
>
>>>>> I don't answer questions that are questions to mine.
>
>>>> Why not?
>
>>> Why?
>
>>>>>>> that you cannot do with 2"?
>>>>>> That should be fairly obvious to anyone who is capable of using those
>>>>>> neurons.
>
>>>>> I think you missed Sir Seans argument.
>
>>>> What argument?
>
>>> Once you can do more or less everything with 2 billion pounds, what's
>>> the point of having 22 billion?
>
>>> car?
>
>>> Ask him how much he spends a day. He'll say, anout $12 on a bagel &
>>> coffee.
>
>>>>> the 2 you have?
>
>>>>> Thought evolution cut waste?
>
>>>> Well, natural selection does, for certain definitions of "waste".
>
>>> Well our brain (burning so much energy) can lose 30 - 40% of our body
>>> heat though they are about 10% of the volume.
>
>>> Chimps don't have that problem.
>
>
>>> Well if by "we" you mean "you & me", I know one of us doesn't.
>
>>>> assumption to make sense of your claim. I don't think it's true. I think
>>>> all our neurons are useful. (Well, mine. Yours, maybe not.)
>
>>> If you call an empty box equivelant to 10% of the volume of your body
>>> useful,
>
>>> by losing only 0.01% of your body heat, then I agree.
>
>>> You're head is very useful.
>
>>>>>>> have 22.
>>>>>>> My guess is, that your inability to understand the math &
>>>>>>> implications, is clouding your judgement.
>>>>>> What math? Your argument is "cats have small brains, therefore evolution
>>>>>> is impossible". That's just crazy.
>
>>>>> If you think that's the argument, no wonder you're so confused.
>
>>>> What is the argument? Especially the math part.
>
>>> What would you call extravagant, on this animal?
>
>>> 1 head vs 16 heads?
>
>>> or
>
>>> 2 lungs vs 32 lungs?
.
>> Much as you might try to dodge it, your argument does hinge on the
>> idea that our brains have more neurons than are useful. I don't think
>> that this is a supportable position, but if it were, it would surely
>> argue against a designer, at least a competent one.
>
>> Greg Guarino
> That depends what you mean by *need*.
.
> Evolution doesn't throw a ferrari at you when a mini cooper gets you
> around.
So blue whales prove creation because they're too big?
- Male Peacocks because they're too showy?
- Giraffes because they are too tall?
- Dolly Parton bec
Hmm, what was I thinking about, I need more neurons or
something, or maybe fewer that act more efficiently.
spintronic
.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons
>
> Thanks. I turns out
I say "It",you say "I",that's for your "you're" below.
> you are comparing two different numbers. The 6
> billion for chimps counts cerebral cortex only, while the 100 billion
> for humans counts all neurons in the body. The comparable figure,
> according to your link, is 11 billion.
Other estimates are 22 Billion for humans.
But it's nothing to do with that anyway.
It's how many synapses you have, and how many connections those
neurons can make with othes.
http://www.ted.com/talks/henry_markram_supercomputing_the_brain_s_secrets.html
Humans make far more than chimps do.
Not only that, but the synapses them selves get more complicated.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/health/research/10brai.html
Our brain is more complex on every level, down to the number of
proteins that the synapses can send to each other.
> So in fact we have only twice the
> neurons that chimps do.
No, in the cerebralcortex we have inbetween 2 & 3.5. In thw whole
brain we have many times more.
Some believe that's why chimps arre stronger,because they have far
fewer motor neurons controlling muscles.
But it's about how complex the network is.
We have far more neurons.
Each neuron can form *FAR* more connections.
Each connection has *FAR* more signal carrier/proteins.
> I will also point out that the same source,
> counting total neurons this time, gives elephants and whales twice the
> neurons of humans.
Yes, because their brains weigh at least 4 times more. And the neurons
are far less complex.
> >>> I think you missed Sir Seans argument.
> >> What argument?
>
> > Once you can do more or less everything with 2 billion pounds, what's
> > the point of having 22 billion?
>
> That assumes you can do everything with 2 billion neurons. I don't think
> you can.
So what did human ancestors have to do that chimp ancesters didn't?
> I think the human brain can do some things better than your
> monkey brain.
Making petty insults isn't one of them.
> > Have you ever asked warren buffet how much he spent on his house, or
> > car?
>
> > Ask him how much he spends a day. He'll say, anout $12 on a bagel &
> > coffee.
>
> I fail to see the relevance of any of this to the question of brain
> evolution.
He spend's what he needs & no less.
All life does, bar humans.
> >>> What? Buy 1 million houses you dont need instead of the ample room of
> >>> the 2 you have?
> >>> Thought evolution cut waste?
> >> Well, natural selection does, for certain definitions of "waste".
>
> > Well our brain (burning so much energy) can lose 30 - 40% of our body
> > heat though they are about 10% of the volume.
>
> > Chimps don't have that problem.
>
> Yes, but we gain a corresponding benefit. Well, some of us do.
Such as?
> >>>>> It would be like; every animal alive does fine with 2 lungs, but we
> >>>>> have 22.
> >>>>> My guess is, that your inability to understand the math &
> >>>>> implications, is clouding your judgement.
> >>>> What math? Your argument is "cats have small brains, therefore evolution
> >>>> is impossible". That's just crazy.
> >>> If you think that's the argument, no wonder you're so confused.
> >> What is the argument? Especially the math part.
>
> > What would you call extravagant, on this animal?
>
> > 1 head vs 16 heads?
>
> > or
>
> > 2 lungs vs 32 lungs?
>
> That would depend on the environment. And of course a bigger head
I didn't say bigger head.
> or bigger lungs
I didn't say bigger lungs.
John Harshman
>> Thanks. I turns out
>
> I say "It",you say "I",that's for your "you're" below.
You probably don't want to start down that path. Just saying.
>> you are comparing two different numbers. The 6
>> billion for chimps counts cerebral cortex only, while the 100 billion
>> for humans counts all neurons in the body. The comparable figure,
>> according to your link, is 11 billion.
>
> Other estimates are 22 Billion for humans.
Live by the Wikipedia, die by the Wikipedia.
> But it's nothing to do with that anyway.
Then why did you bring it up at all?
> It's how many synapses you have, and how many connections those
> neurons can make with othes.
That's like saying "it's how many dogs you have, and how many
domesticated canines".
> http://www.ted.com/talks/henry_markram_supercomputing_the_brain_s_secrets.html
>
> Humans make far more than chimps do.
>
> Not only that, but the synapses them selves get more complicated.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/health/research/10brai.html
>
> Our brain is more complex on every level, down to the number of
> proteins that the synapses can send to each other.
Some of that may be true. So?
>> So in fact we have only twice the
>> neurons that chimps do.
>
> No, in the cerebralcortex we have inbetween 2 & 3.5. In thw whole
> brain we have many times more.
What is your evidence for that?
> Some believe that's why chimps arre stronger,because they have far
> fewer motor neurons controlling muscles.
>
> But it's about how complex the network is.
>
> We have far more neurons.
>
> Each neuron can form *FAR* more connections.
>
> Each connection has *FAR* more signal carrier/proteins.
Again, assuming this is true, why are you only now mentioning it, and
what's the point of doing so?
>> I will also point out that the same source,
>> counting total neurons this time, gives elephants and whales twice the
>> neurons of humans.
>
> Yes, because their brains weigh at least 4 times more. And the neurons
> are far less complex.
Hey, you're the one who was counting neurons. And I'd like to see some
support for that second claim.
>>>>> I think you missed Sir Seans argument.
>>>> What argument?
>>> Once you can do more or less everything with 2 billion pounds, what's
>>> the point of having 22 billion?
>> That assumes you can do everything with 2 billion neurons. I don't think
>> you can.
>
> So what did human ancestors have to do that chimp ancesters didn't?
I don't know. It may be impossible to find out. And does that mean you
have abandoned your previous claim?
>> I think the human brain can do some things better than your
>> monkey brain.
>
> Making petty insults isn't one of them.
Yes it is, actually. But I didn't intend to refer to your brain, just
the monkey brain you initially brought up. It may in fact be that the
human brain does clueless paranoia better than a monkey brain too, but I
won't speculate.
>>> Have you ever asked warren buffet how much he spent on his house, or
>>> car?
>>> Ask him how much he spends a day. He'll say, anout $12 on a bagel &
>>> coffee.
>> I fail to see the relevance of any of this to the question of brain
>> evolution.
>
> He spend's what he needs & no less.
>
> All life does, bar humans.
Ah, now you return to your claim that the human brain isn't useful to
humans. Why do you think so?
>>>>> What? Buy 1 million houses you dont need instead of the ample room of
>>>>> the 2 you have?
>>>>> Thought evolution cut waste?
>>>> Well, natural selection does, for certain definitions of "waste".
>>> Well our brain (burning so much energy) can lose 30 - 40% of our body
>>> heat though they are about 10% of the volume.
>>> Chimps don't have that problem.
>> Yes, but we gain a corresponding benefit. Well, some of us do.
>
> Such as?
Such as the computer you're typing on, the civilization that makes it
possible, and so on. I for one am glad to spend the extra calories.
>>>>>>> It would be like; every animal alive does fine with 2 lungs, but we
>>>>>>> have 22.
>>>>>>> My guess is, that your inability to understand the math &
>>>>>>> implications, is clouding your judgement.
>>>>>> What math? Your argument is "cats have small brains, therefore evolution
>>>>>> is impossible". That's just crazy.
>>>>> If you think that's the argument, no wonder you're so confused.
>>>> What is the argument? Especially the math part.
>>> What would you call extravagant, on this animal?
>>> 1 head vs 16 heads?
>>> or
>>> 2 lungs vs 32 lungs?
>> That would depend on the environment. And of course a bigger head
>
> I didn't say bigger head.
>
>> or bigger lungs
>
> I didn't say bigger lungs.
Indeed you didn't. I was pointing out that your example was stupid, and
that if we needed more lung surface, there are better and easier ways
than growing extra lungs.
You accidentally snipped my question: Again, you seem to be claiming
spintronic
.
.
> >>>>> Thought evolution cut waste?
> >>>> Well, natural selection does, for certain definitions of "waste".
> >>> Well our brain (burning so much energy) can lose 30 - 40% of our body
> >>> heat though they are about 10% of the volume.
> >>> Chimps don't have that problem.
> >> Yes, but we gain a corresponding benefit. Well, some of us do.
>
> > Such as?
>
> Such as the computer you're typing on, the civilization that makes it
> possible, and so on. I for one am glad to spend the extra calories.
So get off your lard ass & P.C & go for a run.
> >>>>>>> It would be like; every animal alive does fine with 2 lungs, but we
> >>>>>>> have 22.
> >>>>>>> My guess is, that your inability to understand the math &
> >>>>>>> implications, is clouding your judgement.
> >>>>>> What math? Your argument is "cats have small brains, therefore evolution
> >>>>>> is impossible". That's just crazy.
> >>>>> If you think that's the argument, no wonder you're so confused.
> >>>> What is the argument? Especially the math part.
> >>> What would you call extravagant, on this animal?
> >>> 1 head vs 16 heads?
> >>> or
> >>> 2 lungs vs 32 lungs?
> >> That would depend on the environment. And of course a bigger head
>
> > I didn't say bigger head.
>
> >> or bigger lungs
>
> > I didn't say bigger lungs.
>
> Indeed you didn't. I was pointing out that your example was stupid, and
> that if we needed more lung surface, there are better and easier ways
> than growing extra lungs.
But it's O.K to grow extra neurons?
> You accidentally snipped my question:
Yes, I'm quite tidy. If I didn't your rubbish would fill the whole
page.
> Again, you seem to be claiming
> that the human brain is not useful. Are you willing to state that
> explicitly?
I am saying it has more use, than the carrier needs just to survive.
Them uses are expensive.
Look how much P.O.O-head saved on food bills after his labotomy for
example.
John Harshman
Yes. Even you should be able to see that growing a bigger brain is like
growing a bigger lung, and not like growing 32 lungs. That would be like
growing 32 small brains.
>> Again, you seem to be claiming
>> that the human brain is not useful. Are you willing to state that
>> explicitly?
>
> I am saying it has more use, than the carrier needs just to survive.
What makes you think so?
g...@risky-biz.com
> On Nov 21, 8:21 pm, "g...@risky-biz.com" <g...@risky-biz.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > > You have to understand the problem, to know you have one.
>
> > > > >> But why didn't you answer the question?
>
> > > > > I don't answer questions that are questions to mine.
>
> > > > Why not?
>
> > > Why?
>
> > > > >>> To quote Sir Sean Connery: "What can you do with 22 Billion neurons
> > > > >>> that you cannot do with 2"?
> > > > >> That should be fairly obvious to anyone who is capable of using those
> > > > >> neurons.
>
>
> > > > What argument?
>
> > > Once you can do more or less everything with 2 billion pounds, what's
> > > the point of having 22 billion?
>
> > > car?
>
> > > Ask him how much he spends a day. He'll say, anout $12 on a bagel &
> > > coffee.
>
> > > > > the 2 you have?
>
>
> > > > Well, natural selection does, for certain definitions of "waste".
>
> > > Well our brain (burning so much energy) can lose 30 - 40% of our body
> > > heat though they are about 10% of the volume.
>
> > > Chimps don't have that problem.
>
>
> > > Well if by "we" you mean "you & me", I know one of us doesn't.
>
> > > > That seems a necessary
> > > > assumption to make sense of your claim. I don't think it's true. I think
> > > > all our neurons are useful. (Well, mine. Yours, maybe not.)
>
> > > If you call an empty box equivelant to 10% of the volume of your body
> > > useful,
>
> > > by losing only 0.01% of your body heat, then I agree.
>
> > > You're head is very useful.
>
> > > > >>> have 22.
> > > > >>> My guess is, that your inability to understand the math &
> > > > >>> implications, is clouding your judgement.
> > > > >> What math? Your argument is "cats have small brains, therefore evolution
> > > > >> is impossible". That's just crazy.
>
> > > > > If you think that's the argument, no wonder you're so confused.
>
> > > > What is the argument? Especially the math part.
>
> > > What would you call extravagant, on this animal?
>
> > > 1 head vs 16 heads?
>
> > > or
>
> > > 2 lungs vs 32 lungs?
>
> > idea that our brains have more neurons than are useful. I don't think
> > that this is a supportable position, but if it were, it would surely
> > argue against a designer, at least a competent one.
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> That depends what you mean by *need*.
I don't see that word in my post, and it is imprecise in this usage.
anyway Species don't "get" what they "need", certain traits tend to
produce a reproductive advantage.
> Evolution doesn't throw a ferrari at you when a mini cooper gets you
> around.
Does the Mini-Cooper brain get us around? The success of the human
species seems to have a lot to do with communication, as one example.
The Mini-Cooper brain has some capability in this area, but pales in
comparison with the Ferrari, wouldn't you agree? The Cooper does not
seem to be equipped with the symbolic metaphor package, which means
that it probably could not cope with this automotive analogy at all.
But I think I'm getting it now, the "point" you try to obfuscate for
as long as possible. The extra neurons are not useful in a survival
sense, they are God's gift of art, humor, music and spirituality to
us. Am I getting warm?
Greg Guarino
Greg Guarino
HighQ
> > I am saying it has more use, than the carrier needs just to survive.
>
> What makes you think so?
Your argument against my I.Q.
John Harshman
isn't necessary for survival, because you survive even though you're an
idiot. Is that it?
Nick Keighley
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:41:50 -0500, Boikat wrote
> > On Nov 21, 4:28 pm, HighQ <einstein...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Nov 21, 9:25 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>> On Nov 21, 3:13 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 21, 8:48 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:> On
> >>>> Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:11:15 -0500, spintronic wrote
> >>>>>> On Nov 21, 6:50 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:54:26 -0500, Boikat wrote
<snip>
> Oh, yeah. I'm on the bloody far side of the Atlantic and he's posting that
> he's afraid that I'm going to kill him in his sleep! How the _hell_ am I
> supposed to do that from West Palm Beach when he's in bloody _England_?
he's in england?! Oh bugger
<snip>
> > Now, thee's two things you can do about your little problem. Let it
> > grow into a full blown psychotic episode, and everyone can read about
> > your insanity in the papers, or you can see a shrink and get help.
> > It's up to you.
>
> I think that we'd better check out the papers 'cause there's gonna be some
> news from England about a nutter roaming loose...
that would hardly make news