From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!mips!munnari.oz.au!metro!cluster!swift!peg!beam Tue Jun  9 10:07:30 EDT 1992
Article 6124 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!mips!munnari.oz.au!metro!cluster!swift!peg!beam
>From: beam@peg.pegasus.oz.au
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Grounding: Real vs. Virtual (former
Message-ID: <412400004@peg>
Date: 6 Jun 92 22:07:00 GMT
References: <679091756@1992May19.003821.9450@princeton.>
Lines: 18
Nf-ID: #R:1992May19.003821.9450@princeton.:679091756:peg:412400004:000:750
Nf-From: peg.pegasus.oz.au!beam    Jun  6 17:07:00 1992


In article <1992May24.143025.7180@psych.toronto.edu>
christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>Evolution can't save you here. How did evolution do it? There are infinite
>possible organismic constitutions. Thus the probability of it coming upon
>the right one intitially is exactly 0. A more sophisticated explanation
>is indicated.

exactly 0 is a bit harsh.
if the unlikely chance were the only explanation then the very fact that you
can ask the question implies that it occured.
the unlikely chance only becomes unlikely when considered against
alternate solutions to the problem.
in any case, the low probability of the unlikely chance would seem to
indicate the high probability of more sophisticated explanations.

--
tim edgoose


