Another Puppy On sci.electronics.basics Gets House Trained

[Immortalist]

On Aug 13, 12:46 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You aint established that 'copying errors' are what matters with worthwhile new ideas.
What would constitute having been "established"?

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

Do you accept the major neuroscience theories about how the brain
functions? They are somewhere between hard physical sciences and
social science, in the degree of verifiability available considering
all the factors. These are inductive theories and hypothesis not
deductive necessity.

A gave alot of theoretical information

Not a shred relevant to what was being discussed, whether
there is any RANDOM PROCESS involved in NEW IDEAS.

I started out with how Rafael Lorente de Nó in 1938 postulated and
provided evidence for reverberating, cycling or looping circuits in
some parts of the nervouse system. And then the next step would be an
elaboration on the "Reticular Activating System" in the brain stem
which regulates the rate of everything in the brain by reverberating
circuits. Then I would dabble in the "spreading activation" theory and
then some more of the impossibility of point to point relaying when
entire patterns must mover around various regions of the brain in
sync. I am willing to go through all these evidences for you, but this
isn't something simple like nuclear power man.


REVERBERATING CIRCUITS link the cerebellum (the fissured organ at
right center of each picture) to the sensory nerves which connect
tactile, visual, proprioceptive and auditory sense organs to the
cerebrum. While part of the messages from these organs goes to the
cerebrum, part detours through the cerebellum, then "reverberates"
through the cerebrum to the cerebellum. It is thought that these
circuits server a feedback function. Proprioceptive impulses from
muscles may reach more than one cerebral center.

http://www.dyslexiaonline.com/information/brain/reverb_circuits.html

...All of this raises the possibility of self-reexciting loops, not
unlike the reverberating circuits postulated for the spinal cord by
Rafael Lorente de Nó in 1938, in the very first volume of the Journal
of Neurophysiology. If the synaptic strengths are high enough, and the
paths long enough to escape the refractory periods that would
otherwise limit re-excitation, closed loops of activity ought to be
possible, impulses chasing their tails. Moshe Abeles, whose Jerusalem
lab often observes more than a dozen cortical neurons at a time, has
seen some precise impulse timing of one neuron, relative to another,
in premotor and prefrontal cortex neuron ensembles. It is unknown
whether or not these firing patterns represent reverberation, in
Lorente's original sense of recirculating loops. These long, precisely-
timed firing patterns are important for the notion of spatiotemporal
patterns that I will later develop.

http://williamcalvin.com/bk9/bk9ch2.htm

On The Reticular Activating System

http://www.google.com/search?q=reticular+activating+system

The activity of this system is crucial for maintaining the state of
consciousness. It is situated at the core of the brain stem between
the myelencephalon (medulla oblongata) and mesencephalon (midbrain).

It is involved with the circadian rhythm; damage can lead to permanent
coma. It is thought to be the area affected by many psychotropic
drugs. General anesthetics work through their effect on the reticular
formation.

Fibers from the reticular formation are also vital in controlling
respiration, cardiac rhythms, and other essential functions.

Although the functioning of this system is a prerequisite for
consciousness to occur, it is generally assumed that this system's
role is indirect and it does not, by itself, generate consciousness.
Instead, its unique anatomical and physiological characteristics
ensure that the thalamocortical system fire in such a way that is
compatible with conscious experience. The reticular activating system
controls our sexual patterns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reticular_activating_system

Now before I go further with the theory I must ask if you are with me
that these are the dominant theories about how particular brain
functions. You can snip them and just say yes or no if you would like.
Next on to the SA Theory and then the need for pattern copying...

and it hasn't been countered by you.

HE made the claim.

And I disagree with both of you, it is not an all or nothing affair,
some ideas are probably randomly started and some ideas are probably
not randomly started.

HE gets to provide the evidence that supports the claim.

THATS how it works.

Only if we agree to thos rules. You cannot decide for us how it is to
be. You have violated many rules of logic, but I am not making demands.

 

[Immortalist]

On Aug 13, 8:07 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote

Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You aint established that 'copying errors' are what matters with worthwhile new ideas.
What would constitute having been "established"?
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Do you accept the major neuroscience theories about how the brain functions?

Irrelevant to how NEW IDEAS are produced.

Then you are saying that if ideas are are result of the activities of
particular regions of the brain, then they are not relevant to the
activities of particular areas of the brain? Your position doesn't
make sense, since the best science we have indicates that it is likely
that ideas are produced by neural activities in a brain.

New ideas are identical to the activities of some nerve cells.

The identity theory of mind holds that states and processes of the
mind are identical to states and processes of the brain.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/

Are we agreed that ideas and new ideas are the activities of nerve
cells in brains?

They are somewhere between hard physical sciences and social science,
in the degree of verifiability available considering all the factors.

Yep, so it hasnt been established that normal brain functions have
anything to do with darwin, let alone how new ideas are produced.

Again you being vague on what you mean by being established. There are
many theories about brain circuits and the activities that take place
within them, and neural darwinism is right up there with "games
theory" and "neural network" theories. The way the brain is wired has
everything to do with the activities of the brain.

I can easily show evidence that these are the three main theories in
brain science at this time and they are very similar, and based upon
"systems theory" or complexity theory.

These are inductive theories and hypothesis not deductive necessity.

Which is a fancy way of saying its just a CLAIM, and that hasnt been established.

By that reasoning anything in science is just a claim, which is
probably true. You see in science, a theory is an explanation.
Evolution is a theory, just like gravitation. Gravity is not a law of
nature but an explaination of observations. If you drop something,
it's going to fall. That's an observation: unsupported things fall.
But you explain that observation with the theory of gravity, which is
that the mass of what whatever it is you dropped, a pencil or a pen or
something, is attracted by the mass...it's really a theory of gravity?
But remember, a theory is an explanation.

Therefore it is not a fancy way of saying that it is "just" a claim,
since it is likely that all science and all human reasoning would be
"just" a claim.

 

[Immortalist]

What would constitute having been "established"?
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Do you accept the major neuroscience theories about how the brain functions?
Irrelevant to how NEW IDEAS are produced.
Then you are saying that if ideas are are result of the
activities of particular regions of the brain, then they are
not relevant to the activities of particular areas of the brain?

Nope, not saying anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

Your position doesn't make sense, since the best science we have indicates
that it is likely that ideas are produced by neural activities in a brain.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

Well brain functions and neural activities are the same thing, so
therefore it is not a straw man.

New ideas are identical to the activities of some nerve cells.

Meaningless gobbledegook.

Strange, if new ideas are identical to activities in some nerve cells
and the causes of those activities were established to be sometimes in-
line with other neural activities and at other time not in-line with
regular functions, as in copy errors, then it would be relevant
wouldn't it?

Are we agreed that ideas and new ideas are the activities of nerve cells in brains?

Yep. But you aint established that there is any RANDOM COMPONENT with new ideas.

Would you agree that patterns of activity in one area of the brain
needs to be transfered to other parts of the brain; for instance in
vision how there are different filters for depth, contrast,
brightness, color, movement and more, each in there own area that need
to work on the same patterns?

In this image a similar pattern needs to be moved to most of the spots
lit up
http://www.primidi.com/images/brain_vision_and_attention.jpg
http://blogs.zdnet.com/emergingtech/?p=92

They are somewhere between hard physical sciences and social science,
in the degree of verifiability available considering all the factors.
Yep, so it hasnt been established that normal brain functions have
anything to do with darwin, let alone how new ideas are produced.
Again you being vague on what you mean by being established.

Nope.

Then you are not making yourself clear on what is to be considered as
established and what is not. Please define the term you continue to
introduce to this conversation.

There are many theories about brain circuits and the activities that
take place within them, and neural darwinism is right up there with
"games theory" and "neural network" theories.

And it aint been established that that has anything to do with
what is being discussed, HOW NEW IDEAS ARE PRODUCED.

Some neural activities are identical to "trains of thought" and these
like other neural processes need to be iterated and continue to cycle
so that constancy can be maintained, based upon these changes.

The way the brain is wired has everything to do with the activities of the brain.

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist desperate wankers ?

Please explain what that means.

I can easily show evidence that these are the three main theories
in brain science at this time and they are very similar, and based
upon "systems theory" or complexity theory.

But you dont have a shred of evidence for what is being discussed,
WHETHER NEW IDEAS ARE PRODUCED BY RANDOM EVENTS.

I have evidence that patterns need to be shuffled around the brain and
that there is a probability of errors in the copying process. There is
evidence that a group of cells creating a pattern clone that pattern
in nearby groups of cells. Even copying files in a computer have some
errors.

This does get a little "wanky" but you can't elimnate evidence just
because it is beginning to get complex. Orientation-selective cells--
cells that are selectively responsive to bars and edges at particular
orientations--are a salient feature of the architecture of mammalian
visual cortex. In the previous paper of this series, I showed that
such cells emerge spontaneously during the development of

a simple multilayered network having local
but initially random feedforward connections
that mature, one layer at a time, according to
a simple development rule (of Hebb type).

In this paper, I show that, in the presence of

lateral connections between developing
orientation cells, these cells self-organize
into banded patterns of cells of similar orientation.

These patterns are similar to the "orientation columns" found in
mammalian visual cortex. No orientation preference is specified to the
system at any stage, none of the basic developmental rules is specific
to visual processing, and the results emerge even in the absence of
visual input to the system (as has been observed in macaque monkey).

http://www.pnas.org/content/83/22/8779.abstract

----

If you snip that I will continue search till I find the evidence in
more plain language, that there are these columns in the cortext that
have about 5000 cells and they pass patterns to other collumns, and
there obviously can be copying errors. The theory of copying has
pretty well established that.

These are inductive theories and hypothesis not deductive necessity.
Which is a fancy way of saying its just a CLAIM, and that hasnt been established.
By that reasoning anything in science is just a claim,

Wrong. As always. We have established that the earth revolves around the sun,
that the sun is a huge fusion reactor, that infection is due to viruses and bacteria etc.

Actually those are theories. If you were brought to the task you will
probably admit that what you call established is based upon
observations and explanations. You will bring some math, maybe some
experminatal data, but you will have to admit that they are
explanations based upon observations. Some theory have more
corrobarating evidence than other theories, that is all. Actual the
claim that you know these are facts is also theoretical and based upon
beliefs. You simply believe that something is established.

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:51:12 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:15:14 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
kaExtractThis@kevinaylward.co.uk> wrote:

You really need to think a lot deeper on where new ideas actualy
come from.

---
Indeed.

In the dawn of our time, a stretched sinew grabbed at and released
during the slaughter after a successful hunt or, during feeding, would
have emitted a tone/tones which led to the development of all our
present-day stringed instruments.

Initially, a truly random occurrence which one of our ancestors picked
up and capitalized on.

It wasnt RANDOM OCCURRENCES being discussed, what was being
discussed was the stupid claim that its RANDOM PROCESSES IN THE
MIND OF THE INVENTOR that are responsible for new ideas.

---
I see.

Then the very first idea didn't happen randomly, one of our ancestors
made conscious plans and thought: "OK, now I'm going to have an idea."

JF

 

[Immortalist]

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
Well brain functions and neural activities are the same thing,

You did get that bit right, presumably by accident.

so therefore it is not a straw man.

There is no 'so therefore' involved.

If you accept that brain functions and neural activities are the same
thing then there was no distortion of your position.

New ideas are identical to the activities of some nerve cells.

if new ideas are identical to activities in some nerve cells

Meaningless gobbledegook.

Then your claiming that there are some things that you experience that
are not the results of the activities of nerve cells? If so then you
are not a proponent of the identity theory and our paths diverge;

The identity theory of mind holds that states and processes of the
mind are identical to states and processes of the brain.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/

and the causes of those activities were established
to be sometimes in- line with other neural activities

More meaningless gobbledegook.

Try this one out from systems theory;

"an interaction of relationships"

and here is some more disturbing but now dogmatic gookie

The butterfly effect is a phrase that encapsulates the more technical
notion of sensitive dependence on initial conditions in chaos theory.
Small variations of the initial condition of a dynamical system may
produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system. So
this is sometimes presented as esoteric behavior, but can be exhibited
by very simple systems: for example, a ball placed at the crest of a
hill might roll into any of several valleys depending on slight
differences in initial position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

 

[Immortalist]

There are many theories about brain circuits and the activities
that take place within them, and neural darwinism is right up
there with "games theory" and "neural network" theories.
And it aint been established that that has anything to do with
what is being discussed, HOW NEW IDEAS ARE PRODUCED.
Some neural activities are identical to "trains of thought" and these
like other neural processes need to be iterated and continue to cycle
so that constancy can be maintained, based upon these changes.

More meaningless gobbledegook.

All known objects are processes. Consciousness is as much an object as
other processes that re-present a present moment through changing
stuff, everything is constantly changing and opposite things are
identical, so that everything is and is not at the same time. In other
words, Universal Flux and the Identity of Opposites may entail a
denial of the Law of Non-Contradiction, since all things go and
nothing stays, and comparing existents to the flow of a river which
you cannot step twice into. On those stepping into rivers staying the
same other and other waters flow. There is an antithesis between
'same' and 'other,' different waters flow in rivers staying the same,
though the waters are always changing, the rivers stay the same.
Indeed, it must be precisely because the waters are always changing
that there are rivers at all, rather than lakes or ponds. The message
is that rivers can stay the same over time even though, or indeed
because, the waters change. The point, then, is not that everything is
changing, but that the fact that some things change makes possible the
continued existence of other things. Perhaps more generally, the
change in elements or constituents supports the constancy of higher-
level structures.

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/h/heraclit.htm

Homeostasis is the property of an open system, especially living
organisms, to regulate its internal environment to maintain a stable,
constant condition, by means of multiple dynamic equilibrium
adjustments, controlled by interrelated regulation mechanisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis

 

[Immortalist]

The way the brain is wired has everything to do with the activities of the brain.
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist desperate wankers ?
Please explain what that means.

Go and fuck yourself and find a less pathetically hoary old line.

In debating technics, from college to parliamentary procedure, it is
common to call for a clear definition of a term. The objection is
sustainable.

I can easily show evidence that these are the three main
theories in brain science at this time and they are very
similar, and based upon "systems theory" or complexity theory.
But you dont have a shred of evidence for what is being discussed,
WHETHER NEW IDEAS ARE PRODUCED BY RANDOM EVENTS.
I have evidence that patterns need to be shuffled around the brain

No you dont.

-------------------------

At each level through the brain the visual information is packaged
into larger and larger units. First by computing in the retina, which
produces nerve impulses in the optic nerve each carrying a small
amount of information, as it were the letters of the visual code. The
cells of the thalamus (lateral geniculate body) send on information
about the distribution of small circular spots of light or dark,
rather like the dots on a photograph that has been screened for
reproduction in a newspaper. Then the primary visual cortex uses these
spots to compute edges, which could be compared with words. Further on
both in space through the cortex and in time, the brain interprets a
whole 'sentence'-say the sight of a cup or a face, or a letter, word,
or larger unit of information that is picked out in reading, perhaps a
whole line of print. The process does not continue uninterruptedly for
vision, or any other sense. The whole set of brain actions goes on in
discrete packages, each of perhaps one-fifth of a second. These may be
mainly visual, or mainly auditory, with perhaps mixtures of items from
visceral or emotional sources, or of memory records from previous
experience. Our own awareness of the stream of consciousness suggests
that there is some central processor receiving information at about
this rate, which is also the order of frequency of the
electroencephalogram.

So each part of the system progressively extracts more and more
abstract or general features of the visual information. It combines
them with information from other sense organs and of course with the
stored information and instructions already in it. Each part from time
to time gives outputs producing appropriate actions in the further
regions to which it is connected. We are only just beginning to find
the details of this web of backward and forward connections. There is
some evidence that each of the successive visual areas has its own
connections with the thalamus (Diamond 1978).

------------------

Programs of the brain.
J. Z. Young 1978
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0198575459/

and that there is a probability of errors in the copying process.

And that in spades.

Afraid not

There is evidence that a group of cells creating a
pattern clone that pattern in nearby groups of cells.

Irrelevant to whether there is any RANDOM COMPONENT with new ideas.

If this is how some parts of the process of idea formation works then
it is relevant.

Even copying files in a computer have some errors.

Wrong again.

I retract the reference to tin can computers, I was thinking about
copying CDs;


http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6138_102-0.html?forumID=31&threadID=100286&messageID=1173025

reams of your desperate wanking that has no relevance what so
ever to how NEW IDEAS are produced flushed where it belongs

How so?

These are inductive theories and hypothesis not deductive necessity.
Which is a fancy way of saying its just a CLAIM, and that hasnt been established.
By that reasoning anything in science is just a claim,
Wrong. As always. We have established that the earth revolves around the sun,
that the sun is a huge fusion reactor, that infection is due to viruses and bacteria etc.
Actually those are theories.

Nope, its been established that that is what happens.

reams of your desperate wanking that has no relevance what so
ever to how NEW IDEAS are produced flushed where it belongs

This is your weak point, that is about "establishment" and how you
have such strong faith in your beliefs about it you don't see how even
gravity is a theory.

 

[Immortalist]

Sorry about having to post it in three parts, Google has trouble
posting large arguments sometimes.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 03:59:31 -0500, John Fields wrote:

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:51:12 +1000, "Rod Speed"

It wasnt RANDOM OCCURRENCES being discussed, what was being
discussed was the stupid claim that its RANDOM PROCESSES IN THE
MIND OF THE INVENTOR that are responsible for new ideas.

---
I see.

Then the very first idea didn't happen randomly, one of our ancestors
made conscious plans and thought: "OK, now I'm going to have an idea."

Ideas come from the Aether - the brain is only an interface. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Immortalist]

There is evidence that a group of cells creating a
pattern clone that pattern in nearby groups of cells.
Irrelevant to whether there is any RANDOM COMPONENT with new ideas.
If this is how some parts of the process of idea formation works

You aint established that it is.

then it is relevant.

Fraid not.

Actually if this is how ideas are formed in the brain then is is
relevant to how ideas are formed.

 

[Immortalist]

reams of your desperate wanking that has no relevance what so
ever to how NEW IDEAS are produced flushed where it belongs

Actually there was plenty of relevance to establishing the
plausibility of the theory.

 

[Immortalist]

Google has trouble posting large arguments sometimes.

Nope.

Google occasionally does maintenance and many people have a hard
either getting their posts to show up or to get the form to submit at
all.

If you watch this link over the next week and check just after you
post to see how long it takes to show up you will see the variance.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search?enc_author=LY2KChcAAABog5Zd0XXHTxbTzvaB2TTrHqZiDvCVswhrZ6TQxKj0ww&scoring=d

http://tinyurl.com/5tpghq

Here is what the message looks like

The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to
this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the
Internet.

An error was encountered while trying to post, please try again later.

Sometime if you wait to long to submit the text you get that message

 

[Immortalist]

There is no 'so therefore' involved.
If you accept that brain functions and neural activities are
the same thing then there was no distortion of your position.

Irrelevant to how NEW IDEAS are produced.

So your saying that how ideas are produced in the brain has nothing to
do with how ideas are produced in the brain?

Aristotle’s law of noncontradiction states that “One cannot say of
something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the
same time.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction

 

[Immortalist]

On Aug 15, 6:51 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If you accept that brain functions and neural activities are
the same thing then there was no distortion of your position.
Irrelevant to how NEW IDEAS are produced.
So your saying that how ideas are produced in the brain
has nothing to do with how ideas are produced in the brain?

Pathetic.

Just contradiction.

 

[Immortalist]

On Aug 15, 6:52 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
reams of your desperate wanking that has no relevance what so
ever to how NEW IDEAS are produced flushed where it belongs
Actually there was plenty of relevance to establishing the plausibility of the theory.

Nope, not a shred.

I didn't see you offer anything to make the theory weaker.

The identity theory of mind holds that states and processes of the
mind are identical to states and processes of the brain.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/

 

[Immortalist]

On Aug 15, 6:53 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
There is evidence that a group of cells creating a
pattern clone that pattern in nearby groups of cells.
Irrelevant to whether there is any RANDOM COMPONENT with new ideas.
If this is how some parts of the process of idea formation works
You aint established that it is.
then it is relevant.
Fraid not.
Actually if this is how ideas are formed in the brain

You aint established that it is, or that that crap you waved around even claims that it is either.

then is is relevant to how ideas are formed.

Pathetic.

If you look at the information I provided throughout hese posts you
would see that I provided much evidence of the way brain processes and
neural functions take place. Unless your claiming that ideas,
thinking, feeling etc... are not identical to brain states and neural
activities I don't think you are entitled to make such a claim.

 

[Immortalist]

On Aug 15, 6:55 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:

Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Google has trouble posting large arguments sometimes.
Nope.
Google occasionally does maintenance and many people have a hard
either getting their posts to show up or to get the form to submit at all.

Nothing to do with your stupid claim about 'large arguments'

If you watch this link over the next week and check just after you
post to see how long it takes to show up you will see the variance.
http://groups.google.com/groups/search?enc_author=LY2KChcAAABog5Zd0XX...
http://tinyurl.com/5tpghq

Nothing to do with your stupid claim about 'large arguments'

Here is what the message looks like
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to
this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
An error was encountered while trying to post, please try again later.

Nothing to do with your stupid claim about 'large arguments'

Sometime if you wait to long to submit the text you get that message

Nothing to do with your stupid claim about 'large arguments'

Actually there is an upper limit to how much you can post into one of
these usenet groups through google, above a certain amount of text and
it won't post at all, period. When the posts get close to that size I
have noticed errors in posting for many years. This is just from
personal experience, so I make no claim to you vague theory of
establishment.

http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=2xKIgxkAAAD0W_q18KXgJLycCLsiajrI-tpoT5PwLSR6UIHNBXIAZQ&group=alt.philosophy

 

Without getting into all this blather abou how the brain works, i'm
just going to say i do not see how anyone could have a truly random
idea. Wether its an idea on the physical or theoretical plane the idea
coming from a human will always fill a physical or emotional need.
filling one of those to needs takes away the idea that an idea could
be random since the idea is in fact serving a purpose.

 

On Aug 30, 5:05 am, "Kevin Aylward" <kaExtractT...@kevinaylward.co.uk>
wrote:

krausze...@gmail.com wrote:
Without getting into all this blather abou how the brain works, i'm
just going to say i do not see how anyone could have a truly random
idea. Wether its an idea on the physical or theoretical plane the idea
coming from a human will always fill a physical or emotional need.
filling one of those to needs takes away the idea that an idea could
be random since the idea is in fact serving a purpose.

The brain is an electro-chemical machine. Period. It obeys the laws of
classical and quantum mechanics. Any "idea" is simple a state of the brain.
Brain states are formed by a process of replication, selection and random
variation of parent states, either genes (nature) or meme (nurture).

Ideas do not have to fill any need. Evolution is completely purposeless. It
is a Darwinian process that just happens.

Fine the brain is a machine it has no choice. However you stated that the brain takes into account two constant parent states your genes and meme those are concrete variables that are being taken into consideration in the formation of an idea. Nothing random about it.

 

[Bret Cahill]

Now I need a way to house train 'em by the dozen.

This is working out better than the sabotage in _Confederacy of
Dunces_.

Bret Cahill

You seem to have a lot of fun commenting on your own posts.

It ain't like you are bright enough to have a response.

Care to try again?


Bret Cahill