| Stalemates are seen in chess and checkers, Doppler defines "intelligence"? :-) | ![]() | ||
| Re: you can't use imaginary knights and bishops to defend your king -- Frank | Post Reply | ![]() |
Forum |
|
Posted by: DWA 05/05/2008, 11:07:25 (About author)
Edit |
Frank:"Given that all scientific statements are tentative, it isn't proper to call checkmate in a scientific sense, but when you are down to your last piece and the rest of the board is covered by your opponent, saying it's a stalemate is a pretty dramatic exaggeration." So, you actually think that "everything" is knowable to mortals? How droll. As a preteen, I myself discovered that there is indeed a stalemate in checkers, and later, in chess. That is, unless the successful barricading king/last movable checker voluntarily steps out, under the established rules, to meet the sword, or run, run, run, to a new square. :-) Frank:"Don't forget your final realization that EM waves are not sound and that you couldn't expect them to behave the same.. Whatever your precarious spin on my own recollections is, my temporal realization there was merely: That Doppler formulas mined in textbooks and on the web in various languages don't always work in unison. Barbarian got nowhere impressive, either, with his web-mined animated illustrations that did not match my own stone dropping in the leafy creek observations. Admittedly, no one has taken a clock or yo-yo on a speed of light journey, or tried to phone home to ET mother. Also, I did not closely study the alternative French version, (different researcher) (which might be better) or every complicated multi-symbol formula I saw, to the theoretical maximum humanly possible. It is sort of like a stalemate between me and Herr Doppler? Somewhere in my early or middle education I learned from a classmate that seeking to know what is actually incrutable or actually pure nonsense can be a futile exercise. Naturally, "understanding" evolution at your arbitrary earth-only scale is a little bit easier than "knowing" the whole story. I also can admit that knowing the true nature and extent of a "supreme intelligence" is very remote. So, seeking to understand that supreme intelligence, which certainly exists, and may even be among us, as with the dolphins in Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, OR pretending to know "all" about "evolution" is comparably looney. What WAS remarkable in the Doppler criticising experience was how many differing formulas and treatments were available in the first place. That is somewhat echoing the shift in biological classification (cladism?) methodology approaches with the newest incredible investigations on the cellular, molecule, and even atom-level. I hear your basic challenging question quite clearly, though, namely how to detect "intelligence" and intelligent influence. It is legitimate to wonder what intelligence itself actually is, and whether it actually exists.
|
| Post Reply | Email Friend | Alert |
|
Previous | Next | Current page |
|