theCPE

Oh and btw your citation "Beyond the Ivory towers" says that increased ghg are probably responsible but no where in that article does it say "majority from man" And also the article did what others were doing earlier, it bases conclusiveness on the percentage of articles for and agaisnt GW.....hardly scientific.

Well than the clarity of the statement needs to be made. Because as I have shown GW and recent temperature increases are not equivalent terms. I received my numbers from wikipedia, whom lists 65 sources one of which is the beloved ipcc. Further, the other listed links are other sources such as nasa, national geographic etc, where similar numbers for GW contributions are provided. Think, warming is caused by infrared radiation not escaping into the atmosphere. All co2 causes this blockage, not just a handful of it. Understand? And remember you can't point out these gases caused this degree, and these gases caused this degree increase, it is a culmination of ghgs causing the effect of warming. Not really. Your right, all co2 causes 24% of GW. Not true, even if exponential. The initial part of the curve (where .6 would be) is actually less than linear. Ever used linear approximations on graphs? haha, not at all. Because if anything we know that more than 20% increase hasn't occured in water vapor. Which puts a ceiling on the contributions of man. No. You are missing the point. The temperature increase from the increased water vapor has already been included within the .6C measurement! You can't say that the water vapor increase then causes more temperature increase, because that has already been accounted for in the measured .6C!!! IF Someone said .4C was due to co2 additions but due to water vapor feedback, the total temperature increase was more than .4C THEN you could incrementally break down temperature increase due to the feedback. Do you see???? The .6C is measured NOW, and it includes all temperature increases, thus the TOTAL feedback result from the TOTAL temperature feedback can be calculated. Extra temperature? That is poor terminology, increase in temperature is much better. And the assumption that man has caused 90% of the temperature increases in the past century came from someone either quoting ipcc or misquoting ipcc. And again, things are simple, if understood properly they can be incrementally digested and understood in simple increments. Whenver someone suggests something is complex they probably don't completely understand it themselves.

I agree.

Possibly. I have followed Numenta a little of late in their attempts at creating object recognition (the field I eventually want to migrate too) and they are approaching it by trying to model the neocortex similarly.

Haha, I am so through with you. I've played your little game of "well your math is wrong because of X, now Y, now Z" long enough. If you are too stubborn and naive to understand my simple point that is your problem. Debating this with you is pretty much a waste of time, either because you don't understand simple math and logic or because you are intentionally stubborn and ignoring opposition to your fragile understanding of GW. Have fun.

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html http://www.uic.com.au/nip24.htm (this source excludes water vapor...I wonder why, thus co2 being responsible for 60%) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming_2.html (national geographic citing findings of the supercharged effect water vapor has on GW) http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ 1. ^ a b c d e f g h Summary for Policymakers (PDF). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007-02-05). Retrieved on 2007-02-02. 2. ^ American Quaternary Association (2006-09-05). "Petroleum Geologists‘ Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" (PDF). Eos 87: 364. “[AAPG] stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming.” 3. ^ Climate Change Policy (cfm). American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Retrieved on 2007-03-30. 4. ^ American Quaternary Association (2006-09-05). "Petroleum Geologists‘ Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" (PDF). Eos 87: 364. “Few credible scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.” 5. ^ Climate Change: Basic Information. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2006-12-14). Retrieved on 2007-02-09. “In common usage, 'global warming' often refers to the warming that can occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.” 6. ^ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article I. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Retrieved on 2007-01-15. 7. ^ Joint science academies' statement: The science of climate change (ASP). Royal Society (2001-05-17). Retrieved on 2007-04-01. “The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science” 8. ^ Leidig, Michael; Nikkhah, Roya (2004-07-17). The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame. Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved on 2007-04-29. 9. ^ Meehl, Gerald A.; et al. (2005-03-18). "How Much More Global Warming and Sea Level Rise". Science 307 (5716): 1769–1772. DOI:10.1126/science.1106663. Retrieved on 2007-02-11. 10. ^ (December 2002). "Living with Climate Change – An Overview of Potential Climate Change Impacts on Australia. Summary and Outlook" (PDF). Australian Greenhouse Office. Retrieved on 2007-04-18. 11. ^ Pearson, Paul N.; Palmer, Martin R. (2000-08-17). "Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 60 million years". Nature 406 (6797): 695-699. DOI:10.1038/35021000. 12. ^ Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001-01-20). Retrieved on 2007-01-18. 13. ^ Tans, Pieter. Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide – Mauna Loa. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved on 2007-04-28. 14. ^ Prentice, I. Colin; et al. (2001-01-20). 3.7.3.3 SRES scenarios and their implications for future CO2 concentration. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved on 2007-04-28. 15. ^ 4.4.6. Resource Availability. IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved on 2007-04-28. 16. ^ Sample, Ian. "Warming Hits 'Tipping Point'", The Guardian, 2005-08-11. Retrieved on 2007-01-18. 17. ^ a b Soden, Brian J.; Held, Isacc M. (2005-11-01). "An Assessment of Climate Feedbacks in Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Models" (PDF). Journal of Climate 19 (14). Retrieved on 2007-04-21. “Interestingly, the true feedback is consistently weaker than the constant relative humidity value, implying a small but robust reduction in relative humidity in all models on average" "clouds appear to provide a positive feedback in all models” 18. ^ Stocker, Thomas F.; et al. (2001-01-20). 7.5.2 Sea Ice. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved on 2007-02-11. 19. ^ Marsh, Nigel; Henrik, Svensmark (November 2000). "Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate" (PDF). Space Science Reviews 94: 215-230. DOI:10.1023/A:1026723423896. Retrieved on 2007-04-17. 20. ^ Climate Change 2001:Working Group I: The Scientific Basis (Fig. 2.12) (2001). Retrieved on 2007-05-08. 21. ^ Scafetta, Nicola; West, Bruce J. (2006-03-09). "Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming" (PDF). Geophysical Research Letters 33 (5). DOI:10.1029/2005GL025539. L05708. Retrieved on 2007-05-08. 22. ^ Stott, Peter A.; et al. (2003-12-03). "Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?". Journal of Climate 16 (24): 4079–4093. DOI:10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016%3C4079:DMUTSC%3E2.0.CO;2. Retrieved on 2007-04-16. 23. ^ Smith, Thomas M.; Reynolds, Richard W. (2005-05-15). "A Global Merged Land–Air–Sea Surface Temperature Reconstruction Based on Historical Observations (1880–1997)" (PDF). Journal of Climate 18 (12): 2021-2036. ISSN 0894-8755. Retrieved on 2007-03-14. 24. ^ Hansen, James E.; et al. (2006-01-12). Goddard Institute for Space Studies, GISS Surface Temperature Analysis. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Retrieved on 2007-01-17. 25. ^ Global Temperature for 2005: second warmest year on record (PDF). Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia (2005-12-15). Retrieved on 2007-04-13. 26. ^ WMO STATEMENT ON THE STATUS OF THE GLOBAL CLIMATE IN 2005 (PDF). World Meteorological Organization (2005-12-15). Retrieved on 2007-04-13. 27. ^ Mitchell, J. F. B.; et al. (2001-01-20). 12.4.3.3 Space-time studies. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved on 2007-01-04. 28. ^ Ruddiman, William F. (March 2005). "How Did Humans First Alter Global Climate?" (PDF). Scientific American 292 (3): 46-53. Retrieved on 2007-03-05. 29. ^ Schmidt, Gavin; et al. (2004-12-10). "A note on the relationship between ice core methane concentrations and insolation". Geophysical Research Letters 31 (23). DOI:10.1029/2004GL021083. L23206. Retrieved on 2007-03-05. 30. ^ Hansen, James; et al. (2006-09-26). "Global temperature change" (PDF). PNAS 103: 14288-14293. Retrieved on 2007-04-20. 31. ^ Open University (2004-01-30). The Open University Provides Answers on Global Warming (PDF). Press release. Retrieved on 2007-03-04. 32. ^ Cohen, Anthony S.; et al. (February 2004). "Osmium isotope evidence for the regulation of atmospheric CO2 by continental weathering" (PDF). Geology 32 (2): 157-160. DOI:10.1130/G20158.1. Retrieved on 2007-03-04. 33. ^ Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001-01-20). Retrieved on 2007-04-28. 34. ^ Torn, Margaret; Harte, John (2006-05-26). "Missing feedbacks, asymmetric uncertainties, and the underestimation of future warming". Geophysical Research Letters 33 (10). L10703. Retrieved on 2007-03-04. 35. ^ Harte, John; et al. (2006-10-30). "Shifts in plant dominance control carbon-cycle responses to experimental warming and widespread drought". Environmental Research Letters 1 (1). 014001. Retrieved on 2007-05-02. 36. ^ Scheffer, Marten; et al. (2006-05-26). "Positive feedback between global warming and atmospheric CO2 concentration inferred from past climate change.". Geophysical Research Letters 33. DOI:10.1029/2005gl025044. Retrieved on 2007-05-04. 37. ^ Stocker, Thomas F.; et al. (2001-01-20). 7.2.2 Cloud Processes and Feedbacks. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved on 2007-03-04. 38. ^ a b Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001-02-16). Retrieved on 2007-03-14. 39. ^ a b Summary for Policymakers (PDF). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Working Group II Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007-04-13). Retrieved on 2007-04-28. 40. ^ Church, John A.; et al. (2001-01-20). Executive Summary of Chapter 11. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved on 2005-12-19. 41. ^ Thomas, Chris D.; et al. (2004-01-08). "Extinction risk from climate change" (PDF). Nature 427 (6970): 145-138. DOI:10.1038/nature02121. Retrieved on 2007-03-18. 42. ^ a b McLaughlin, John F.; et al. (2002-04-30). "Climate change hastens population extinctions" (PDF). PNAS 99 (9): 6070-6074. DOI:10.1073/pnas.052131199. Retrieved on 2007-03-29. 43. ^ Permesan, Camille (2006-08-24). "Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change" (PDF). Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 37: 637-669. DOI:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.37.091305.110100. Retrieved on 2007-03-30. 44. ^ At-a-glance: The Stern Review. BBC (2006-10-30). Retrieved on 2007-04-29. 45. ^ Tackling climate change. A bargain. The Economist (2007-05-04). Retrieved on 2007-05-04. 46. ^ Dlugolecki, Andrew; et al. (2002). Climate Risk to Global Economy (PDF). CEO Briefing: UNEP FI Climate Change Working Group. United Nations Environment Programme. Retrieved on 2007-04-29. 47. ^ Kyoto Protocol Status of Ratification (PDF). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2006-07-10). Retrieved on 2007-04-27. 48. ^ Revkin, Andrew. "Poor Nations to Bear Brunt as World Warms", The New York Times, 2007-04-01. Retrieved on 2007-05-02. 49. ^ Brahic, Catherine (2006-04-25). China's emissions may surpass the US in 2007. New Scientist. Retrieved on 2007-05-02. 50. ^ Crampton, Thomas. "More in Europe worry about climate than in U.S., poll shows", International Herald Tribune, 2007-01-04. Retrieved on 2007-04-14. 51. ^ Summary of Findings. Little Consensus on Global Warming. Partisanship Drives Opinion. Pew Research Center (2006-07-12). Retrieved on 2007-04-14. 52. ^ "Exxon cuts ties to global warming skeptics", MSNBC, 2007-01-12. Retrieved on 2007-05-02. 53. ^ Sandell, Clayton. "Report: Big Money Confusing Public on Global Warming", ABC, 2007-01-03. Retrieved on 2007-04-27. 54. ^ Holzer, Jessica. "Global warming becomes hot topic on Capitol Hill", The Hill, 2007-01-18. Retrieved on 2007-05-02. 55. ^ Zabarenko, Deborah. "U.S. rejects 'high cost' global warming scenarios", Reuters, 2007-05-04. Retrieved on 2007-05-04. 56. ^ "EU agrees on carbon dioxide cuts", BCC, 2007-03-09. Retrieved on 2007-05-04. 57. ^ Angleys, Emmanuel. "China, India, Brazil hold up climate change talks", Agence France-Presse, 2007-05-02. Retrieved on 2007-05-02. 58. ^ "U.S. Population 300,888,812 for Jan. 1", Red Orbit, 2006-12-28. Retrieved on 2007-05-03. 59. ^ The Ocean and the Carbon Cycle. NASA (2005-06-21). Retrieved on 2007-03-04. 60. ^ Jacobson, Mark Z. (2005-04-02). "Studying ocean acidification with conservative, stable numerical schemes for nonequilibrium air-ocean exchange and ocean equilibrium chemistry" (PDF). Journal of Geophysical Research 110 (D7). DOI:10.1029/2004JD005220. D07302. Retrieved on 2007-04-28. 61. ^ Caldeira, Ken; Wickett, Michael E. (2005-09-21). "Ocean model predictions of chemistry changes from carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and ocean". Journal of Geophysical Research 110 (C09S04): 1-12. Retrieved on 2006-02-14. 62. ^ Raven, John A.; et al. (2005-06-30). "Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide" (ASP). Royal Society. Retrieved on 2007-05-04. There is a list of references I found for citing GW contributions by green house gases, as well as the list of resources cited by wikipedia which interestingly enough includes your covated IPCC as a resource. BTW, of course exxon and oil companies have motives, just like the ipcc does. Oil wants people not to be limited in how much they buy, ipcc wants funding to be forced into alternate energy research....its pretty simple. There are the citations.

It really is a shame that you can't point out anything wrong with my logic or math (at least correctly) and so even after I used numbers provided by you or other GW proponents all you can still say is "omg citations omg citations omg" Its a joke.

Before you give dak to large a pat on the back, maybe you should be sure he is correct with the math...which he still isn't. Further, I am not trying to disprove man contributes to GW, I am merely showing what amount he does and how ipcc misleads people by wording things very cleverly.

It isn't as once again I have shown both you and dak.

Well they are GW proponent numbers so if anything they should be acceptable to that crowd right? See that is where you are wrong and getting confused. Please visit the EPA website for a definition and description of GW. GW is the culmination of all processes whether man or natural that create greenhouse gases that help warm our planet. These GHGs are NECESSARY for life. See, like I said, you not understanding doesn't make it a paradox. I will explain the math. I did earlier for someone else. If you have a bucket with 10 gallons of water and bob has a bucket with 10 gallons of water and the two of you combine your water into one bucket of 20 gallons, YOUR water increased bob's water by 100%, however your water accounts for only 50% of all the water. Hence 10/20 = .5 Apply that too the co2 increase and total co2. No, reread my words, man is responsible for 26% of CO2 in the atmosphere...not 26% increase...... No, every day the planet is warmed and every night the planet cools somewhat. The process of warming is GW. The 26% of co2 in the atmosphere due to man is only a part of the co2 in the atmosphere that blocks escaping infrared radiation and thus warms the planet. Your right, it isn't necessarily linear, however remember I said this isn't accurate to 20 decimal places, this is to produce a jist of what man contributes. Given though that the increase in temperature of .6 is far from 3 the possibility for error is fairly small in the 4%. Now, here is where you stumble again. You are saying that the increase in water vapor then increases the temperature again which increases water vapor again...you realize you are suggesting an undamped system which would quickly escalate to infinity...... The .6C warmer has already occured and is measured....during this warming water vapor was being introduced accumulating to about 4%. You get it? No, read the above. No.....the h2o that was introduced was causing warming as it was being introduced and the warming it caused was accounted for in the .6C which is currently measured....... That is only because I assumed (for purpose of demonstrating the totality of man's contributions to GW) that ALL co2 increases have been due to man. And it actually only suggests man has caused 90%. Again, no! All co2 in the atmosphere blocks infrared radiation.....not just extra co2 over the last century. Citation, as klb would say:) No again. Same reason as above. "Extra" co2 doesn't cause radiation blockage, all Co2 does.....

Thus numbers aren't mine, they were all provided by others in the ipcc fan club. It really isn't a formula. It is no different than if you are at the grocery store and you are buying two things and you want to account for how much of your total money comes from which item...... The people citing the numbers were citing them from ipcc and other sources, why would I re-cite their citation/ Yeh, ive seen those cute little proofs too, they invovle limits, and other 'tricky' math. This is multiplication. Haha, more of the same. None of you can point out any flaws in the actual math so instead you just say "i don't agree because it seems wonky or dubious to me" Its pretty funny.

It is very doubtful that simple binary computers will result in true AI, whether or not the target platform for programming is binary computers..... No, easier. When neurons fire they connect with multiple other neurons with varying strength. The varying strength of connection between neurons creates the 'weighted' states. This would be easier to model with a logic system with weighted states as opposed to one without weighted states.

Hell i'll make it really easy for you to point out the paradox...... 76-90% of GW is due to water vapor according to wiki and GW proponents. 9-24% of GW is due to CO2 according to wiki and GW proponents. Do you understand what those numbers mean? They mean that all the water vapor traps about 76-90% of infrared radiation from escaping. Same with the CO2 number....make sense? Do you understand why a range is given......is there a paradox here? Man has increased CO2 ppm from a historical average of 280 to 377. That is an increase of 97 divided by 280 = 35% increase in co2 in the atmosphere. Any paradox here? That means that 35/135 = 26% of the total CO2 is from man. Any paradox yet? According to veedo and his stats from ipcc I am assuming, 3C temperature increase causes a 20% feedback increase in water vapor. There has been a .6C increase in temperature. .6/3 gives you the percentage of the 20% water vapor increase due to temperature. = 4% 4/104 = 3.8% Of all the water vapor in the atmosphere is due to man. Any paradox or illogic yet? So .76 (water vapor) * .038 = 2.8% And .24 (co2) * .26 = 6% 2.8+6 ~ 9% of the total effect from GHGs is from man. I once again eagerly await this paradox to be pointed out.

No, you not understanding the math does not make it paradoxical, and you continuing to say "24% then you say 9%" makes no sense and I have no clue where you are getting that, if you want to show the paradox or the invalid logic within my math go ahead, because it isn't there and I have no clue what you are suggesting when you say "24% is from co2, then 9% is from co2" Because well, that is just retarded and is no where in my math. That is exactly what I am doing here. I am not saying that absolutely to 20 decimal places my number is right. The jist of my math is obvious though...... I eagerly await a description of this 'paradox' my math creates.......

That isn't true. If someone has an agenda than it is very conceivable that certain mathematical models or explanations would be left out in favor of more convincing and dire models that promote the agenda of the group. The agenda is force funding into alternate resources. Further, if this overwhelming amount of data is peer reviewed and thus close to certainly right, than there is no reason that GW is understood to the point of being easily modeled and explained. Just like relativity, sounds like some really complex ideas (and I suppose it is) however, with the proper person explaining it with the proper analysis and illustrations it too can be broken into managiable peices and digested. So if the data I used FROM THE IPCC is so overwhelmingly accurate, than bascule's continued assertion that I am creating rules and are wrong is false, and therefore my math is accurate. I didn't invent the rules or numbers, they came from the ipcc and GW proponents, I merely provided the math that demonstrates how much is resulted from man and nature. And my math has NOTHING to do with modeling GW, it has everything to do with classifying the GHGs as man's or nature's. How much of the gases are directly due to man, and how much are directly due to nature. That is it. Man causes about 9%. But ipcc won't say that, instead they say, "man caused 90% of current warming". Which I have CONTINUED to explain means, man helped produce .5C change in temperature, not that man is responsible for 90% of the total GW process. There is no vodoo in my math, there isn't nothing special in it either, it simple shows that ipcc words things to BENEFIT their agenda.

Does co2 cause around 9-24% of GW? Does water vapor result in around 76-90% of GW? Does methane along with other trace greenhouse gases contribute extremely small amounts to GW? I am sure it is. So why can one side be so dead set that they are absolutely right, and any analysis the opposition does with their 'data' is just to simplified and is wrong??? No, I never suggested any rules or dynamics of GW. I used the rules and dynamics provided by others in your corner. The rules for how much certain gases contribute, the rules for how much man contributes of those gases, and the rules of how temperature increases causes feedback which increases other gases. I didn't suggest those rules, I didn't create those rules, I didn't pull those rules out of a hat, I simply applied THEM which came FROM your 'associates' to demonstrate that according to ipcc's own rules they are sensationalizing GW. I believe you should familiarize yourself with math, and the scientific process. Also, I really enjoy reading when people suggest how COMPLEX certain systems or ideas are, and thus they can't be easily explained to laymen. And that in order to provide such an explanation oversimplification must be occuring which makes the explanation wrong. Any system or idea that is too complex to be thoroughly and simply explained to someone else, is not understood well enough by the person trying to provide the explanation. In fact, that is a paraphrase of quotes from some of the greatest physicists of all time including Einstein. If you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't understand it yourself.

String theory reminds me of chemistry lab........ manipulating the numbers, operations, and rounding to inch my data ever closer to the 'expected' values.........

This thread was about the most intelligent animal outside of humans, not the most adaptable, and not about 'explaining' things. So, heh.

What natural resource crisis are we currently in that mars can solve? We can observ whether or not life exists on a planet without colonizing. It would make much more sense to build 'space stations' and live in space than to try to colonize planets with our current travel limitations.

You didn't, a previous poster did. In your post it appeared you were suggesting it is difficult to gauge degrees of intelligence. Predetermination? What are you referring too? Number of neurons is important for memory capacity and possibly associative pattern recognition complexity. The connection strength of a neuron and thus ability to 'remember' patterns relates to intelligence. Color vision stems from the rods/cones in the eye. Um no. I have never asserted that outside of humans all animals are equally intelligent. In fact if you go back to page 5 you can say where I explained which animal outside of humans I thought was most intelligent. That was a joke. Huh? Haha, like what, GW? For that matter, being intelligent or the MOST intelligent does not mean you can't do stupid things. And survival is not a direct function of intelligence either, which you seem to not keep separated, obvios through your little snip about the tubeworm possibly out lasting us. That has zero to do with its intelligence. Yeh, humans have kinda eliminated the ability for natural selection to run its course. Medecine, socialism, technology.....natural selection isn't very natural for humans anymore.

Well limitations to analog computers made them all but obsolete in the digital age. The ability to have multiple states (not just 0 and 1) while enjoying the benefits and strengths of digital computers would make a quantum computer much better geared for AI than an analog computer. I think it would be easier to model the neocortex with a quantum computer.

So a deep sea tube worm must be very intelligent. It adapted to living thousands of feet under the sea away from sunlight and in immense pressure. Or of course evolving to your environment != evolving intelligence. How can a barracuda brain recognize and learn behavioural patterns? That is what neurons do, they form/recognize patterns and associations. I performed some experiments actually so my findings are scientific, I have yet to get an animal to play me in chess;) I imagine it can be difficult for some to gauge what is more intelligent, an animal that adapts and learns hunting tactics (through neural pattern matching and association) to one that understands how to create mathematical equations (abstract) to describe and predict motion of objects, create 'things' called transistors that depend on electrons to manipulate data, or build machines and vehicles that defy gravity and move faster than sound. It is a pretty close call.

Ignore this:)

The ability to have weighted logic states as opposed to yes or no seems to lend itself to AI because the actual functioning of our neurons is based upon strength of connection between the neurons (weighted states). Why do you suggest that doesn't help AI?

Not entirely on topic (although pretty close) rent the Penn and Teller episode of B.S. on the ESA. It is quite interesting:)