🚀 go-pugleaf

It's 'hilarious', and admittedly, not undeservedly so - you've come
into a discussion that;s been going on for going on two decades,
bringing up stuff that's been hammered on infinitum, and are
obviously, feeling rather 'smug' with respect to what you offer.

What can I say except that I can't say everything there is to say, or
even reiterate everything that I've posted in former msgs, in every
msg that I post.

But I also refuse to accept any 'argument' that's couched as yours
is. At least some of the previous discussions must be available by
doing groups-google [tm].

That failing, your post constitutes an instance that instantiates
that which your post describes.

So what :-]

I'm not arguing philosophical possibilities with respect to
infinities of infinities, each of which must be discussed
individually, and so all of which cannot be doscussed, so "Ha, ha",
in accord with the position you've presented, nothing at all can be
said.

I've been discussing, these many years, how, given any stimulus set,
nervous systems process information, regardless.

And I reject your sophistry that's founded in nothing more than
large-numbers ["Golly-Gee!"] and buzz-words - no actual thought went
into it.

k. p. collins

Bill Vajk wrote in message <3E1DCDD6.60809@hotmail.com>...
|Kenneth 'pawl' Collins wrote:
|
|> What I'm saying is that it's possible to converge upon 0., above,
|> without actively invoking 'chance', even though such will be
|> passively present.
|
|> Is what's here sufficient?
|
|No. Not at all. You omit the overdriven system aspects completely
|which alters the basic conjectures and the outcomes. Thus there
|is always a range of possible responses resembling randomness
|coupled with unpredictable neural misfires and random outside
|factors like being bumped on the head (or unexpected pain or a
|million other things.)
|
|See also "complexity."
|
|Then throw diet, allergies, and excitability in for good measure.
|These are all variables which come into and go out of play in
|completely unpredictable ways but affect outcomes.
|
|There are other factors as well far too numerous to get into here.
|
|A non-model human brain isn't something we're ready to get our
|hooks into just yet. Obviously you can make any predictions you
|might care to if you first establish the model, but that's a form
|of cheating. There's no real world correlation to such a model.
|
|William J. Vajk
|Techny,  Illinois
|
|