RWC,
Thanks, you seem to get what I am saying. It may be that we are all viewing these words differently since they haven't been pinned down precisely. But that is what I meant that you can have purpose without intelligence.
Posts by Seeker
-
46You Can't Have Purpose Without Intelligence, And?
by D wiltshire inyou can't have purpose without intelligence,and.. you can't have intelligence without intelligence.. .
.
if someone lived a trillion x longer than you, and had a billion x more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?.
-
-
-
46
You Can't Have Purpose Without Intelligence, And?
by D wiltshire inyou can't have purpose without intelligence,and.. you can't have intelligence without intelligence.. .
.
if someone lived a trillion x longer than you, and had a billion x more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?.
-
-
Seeker
You said, "I think evolution is probably true," and then you used the tired "theory" argument against it. Oh sure, you wrote in such generalities you can give plausible deniability to whatever I say now. You can point out that you said the way ants developed is one theory, and thus you believe it. But you said there are other theories for that explanation, even though I know of none that are scientifically credible.
And now you are quibbling over what your original premise meant. Since I can't read your mind, I went with what you wrote. Clearly I misunderstood what you intended, and since we are getting nowhere with these word games, I'll leave you in peace on this subject.
-
46
You Can't Have Purpose Without Intelligence, And?
by D wiltshire inyou can't have purpose without intelligence,and.. you can't have intelligence without intelligence.. .
.
if someone lived a trillion x longer than you, and had a billion x more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?.
-
-
Seeker
That's one threory. There are others.
I see you don't accept evolution as much as you said.
-
46
You Can't Have Purpose Without Intelligence, And?
by D wiltshire inyou can't have purpose without intelligence,and.. you can't have intelligence without intelligence.. .
.
if someone lived a trillion x longer than you, and had a billion x more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?.
-
-
Seeker
D Wiltshire,
Copy of title of thread:: You Can't Have Purpose Without Intelligence...
And thus there is an example of a purpose being carried out without intelligence being directed toward that purpose's fulfillment. And that was the intent of the premise, even if it wasn't spelled out, or else the premise becomes meaningless. It would then be like saying, I have purpose and you have intelligence, and thus that counts.
So the ants do have a purpose and they do have intelligence. True they don't have a complete understanding of what they do or why they do it.I'm fascinated to see your (or anyone else's) reponse to simple-celled organisms, which have NO thought, no intelligence, and yet have the purpose of survival.
-
32
Secret military tribunals and historical precedent
by Seeker inthe subject of secret military tribunals has been raised here in recent months, and i've made no secret of my displeasure at such moves.
it was pointed out to me that president lincoln also did this, something i was not aware of.
however, i have recently read an article in the feb. 2002 issue of the atlantic monthly that discusses the world war ii precedent cited by bush for these tribunals.
-
-
Seeker
If this were the People's Republic of China holding Taliban detainees ... the issue would not even be debated to discussed. The Chinese would simply pronounce them guilty and shoot them in the back of the head and kick them into the grave they made them dig for themselves.
Funny enough, that's almost exactly what Roosevelt had done to the would-be saboteurs. They were pronounced guilty, then they held a trial where the guilt was announced, then they were taken to be executed a few days later. Just like China. Hmm....
I do agree with you, Amazing, that news travels much faster today, and so the people in the U.S. Government who want to get up to dirty tricks have to be more on their toes than it used to be. My point, however, is that the U.S. Government has repeatedly shown itself to be untrustworthy at times. Therefore, as a U.S. citizen, I want my 6th-Amendment rights kept in place so I can keep an eye on things. Without accountability, power corrupts more rapidly.
-
32
Secret military tribunals and historical precedent
by Seeker inthe subject of secret military tribunals has been raised here in recent months, and i've made no secret of my displeasure at such moves.
it was pointed out to me that president lincoln also did this, something i was not aware of.
however, i have recently read an article in the feb. 2002 issue of the atlantic monthly that discusses the world war ii precedent cited by bush for these tribunals.
-
-
Seeker
ISP,
I don't understand what you are asking me. Can you clarify, please?
-
32
Secret military tribunals and historical precedent
by Seeker inthe subject of secret military tribunals has been raised here in recent months, and i've made no secret of my displeasure at such moves.
it was pointed out to me that president lincoln also did this, something i was not aware of.
however, i have recently read an article in the feb. 2002 issue of the atlantic monthly that discusses the world war ii precedent cited by bush for these tribunals.
-
-
Seeker
ISP,
The beauty of the concept of innoncent until proven guilty is just that -- I have no idea how I would judge these individuals because I haven't yet heard the evidence (and in a secret trial, I never would hear the evidence).
Obviously, the people responsible for the terrorist attacks are guilty and should be treated as such. Whether these particular prisoners are among those guilty, or whether they are just people the U.S. government decided to get even with for some other reason and chose this excuse to cover it up, I have no idea. SInce countries around the world are using the 'war on terrorism' as an excuse to do what they want against their enemies, terrorists or not, I'm naturally suspicious that something shady might be going on. The U.S. government has lied to us so many times in the past, it is entirely possible that they are doing so again, though I have no evidence to suggest this. That's the beauty of a public trial -- we get to judge for ourselves. In a secret trial, as I said, we are reduced to trusting the government.
-
32
Secret military tribunals and historical precedent
by Seeker inthe subject of secret military tribunals has been raised here in recent months, and i've made no secret of my displeasure at such moves.
it was pointed out to me that president lincoln also did this, something i was not aware of.
however, i have recently read an article in the feb. 2002 issue of the atlantic monthly that discusses the world war ii precedent cited by bush for these tribunals.
-
-
Seeker
These are a bunch of dessert rats with towels on their heads thinking that Allah is with them.
I don't normally pick on typos, but this one made me laugh with the wonderful mind picture of a bunch of rodents rolling around some pies and cakes while having religious thoughts...
-
32
Secret military tribunals and historical precedent
by Seeker inthe subject of secret military tribunals has been raised here in recent months, and i've made no secret of my displeasure at such moves.
it was pointed out to me that president lincoln also did this, something i was not aware of.
however, i have recently read an article in the feb. 2002 issue of the atlantic monthly that discusses the world war ii precedent cited by bush for these tribunals.
-
-
Seeker
Amazing,
Also, the fairness is governed by the USMCJ standards. So, even if Bush wanted the death penalty, the Military are not going to be pressured, as they still have the defense attorney to cry foul, and go public.
Read that Atlantic Monthly article if you can. In that World War II trial, there were defense lawyers assigned from the military, and they did an able job. Didn't make a difference, for the verdict was virtually fixed from the beginning. And since it was a secret trial, the defense lawyers weren't allowed to go public. That's the whole point of a secret trial.It was until the presidential archives were examined, decades later, that we got to find out about the details of this trial, and the miscarriage of justice that went on. Since Bush just gutted the Freedom of Information Act to make it impossible to get presidential papers unless the ex-president gives his permission, we may never get the chance to examine these new trial details. We are left with an implied, 'Trust us, we're the government.' Wouldn't you agree that this concept is un-American? That our country was founded on the principle that no governments could be trusted, but should be watched by the people?
The earlier trials you mention did go fine, but this was because the USA was only dealing with the defendants ... and not invading another country.
Are we worried about Afghanistan retaliating? Not really. No country is involved now, only terrorists and a religious group that was harboring them.I'm not trying to be contentious, Amazing, and I respect that you are raising valid questions. My responses are my opinions only, and I respect yours.
-
32
Secret military tribunals and historical precedent
by Seeker inthe subject of secret military tribunals has been raised here in recent months, and i've made no secret of my displeasure at such moves.
it was pointed out to me that president lincoln also did this, something i was not aware of.
however, i have recently read an article in the feb. 2002 issue of the atlantic monthly that discusses the world war ii precedent cited by bush for these tribunals.
-
-
Seeker
After all, we are not officially at war in this "war" on terrorism that they say will go on for the next fifty years. Unless you want to consider drug dealers that get arrested POWs in the "war" on drugs.