Er, Jason - I think you're just not getting it. Slow down for a moment.
Gene is construing the AP as an epistemological screening filter. We see
what we see because we are here, not vice versa.
At 03:19 PM 24/10/00 -0700, you wrote:
>If dolphins were intelligent, would this be a two blip, or a one blip? Why?
That *could* be a good question, but I doubt it - it's still local-bound
conditions. If smart archaeo-gloop near a volcanic vent aced the IQ scores,
>Do you believe that the anthropic principle is a "good enough" answer as to
>the origin of existence?
See, you've got it turned around. It just says that we see what we see
because we evolved to fit what's there.
>Do you believe that real world science should treat the (strong) anthropic
>principle as a fundamental truth?
He's not talking about the strong AP.
>In what way do you feel that the anthropic principle biases our universe to
>the emergence of only *one* intelligence?
Obviously he doesn't think that. Even Tipler in a theological raputure
doesn't think that; Tipler only thinks it biases the *very long term
persistence of* just one regnant intelligence.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:18 MDT