Bloxy,
At times you're a hard nut to crack.
Here I agree to a degree with what I believe to be both your and Sergio's
positions.
My comments will be brief and tangential.
Bloxy's <Bloxy's at hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7lrknh$jqv$1 at its.hooked.net...
> In article <3781235b at news3.us.ibm.net>, "Sergio Navega" <snavega at ibm.net>
wrote:
> >Only after that we will be able to "propose" new
> >methods and algorithms to enhance biological intelligence with
> >functionally equivalent
>> "Functionally equivalent" is a definition, inapplicable to intelligence.
> It is the same absurd view of the world, based on a model
> of giant sucking machine.
>> Unless you can show that the playfulness, art, beauty,
> love and plenty of other aspects, are functional,
> there is no way to reduce intelligence to a function of ANY kind,
> as most exciting aspects of intelligence seem to be quite
> "useless" from the standpoing of maximization of the rate os sucking.
I don't know what one looks for when attempting to see the beauty in the
dance.
Do choreographers talk of "functionally equivalent" moves? I don't know.
Maybe there are times a choreographer will indicate a stumble so as to draw
attention to the movement surrounding it. If so, can I take your use of
"sucking"
as something like a stumble within the movement, that is a way to draw
attention
to the surrounding text?
