[SoylentGreen]

Technosoul So you do not think that something is of greater value then nothing, gee, I would hate to see your home budget accounting.

Of course I do, I even said so. Why assume I can't give a numeral a value?

Of course it can be tested. Remove single cell life organizems from water and you got nothing but water, remove the water and you got nothing but space. Remove everything containing that space and you got nothing but nothing. Not even space because space is relative to what it is compared with, which gives it a dimension with boarders.

Good now you have proved 0 = 0 , now assign a value to zero. In this case lets say 0 = before creation.
1 = after creation., or assign the value 1 = creation of a god or over mind or generic deity or spaghetti monster or whatever.

But of course if both groups did not have access to the potatos or the shells then they could not have done the same thing. It is always possible that all the ones in the 2nd group just happen to come up with the bright idea which the first monkey did in the first group

Yes that's true.

But what would cause them to have that same ability to conduct such a experiment between the two groups?

All physical abilities between monkeys should be relatively similar.
The physical aspects of their environment should be relatively similar.

Your question is good but it is to soon. To ask your question first it is necessary to see whether given that all things are similar would two separate groups of identical beings discover similar methods of dealing with the environment.
If it occurs that the two groups would then it is appropriate to ask your question.

What would cause them both to make the same connection between eating a potato after soaking it in water to make it soft?

Actually, the trick observed was that the monkey washed the potato in the river to remove sand which they found gritty and unpleasant.
I only mention this to point out that the reaction of the monkey brought it instant results. If the monkey had shown an ability to actually wait the time required for a potato to grow soft in water then that would have been a sign of greater intelligence ie, actual future planning instead of immediate action / reaction response.

If that had passed on through out the islands then you might have a case.
But a simple action /reaction is not beyond the mental capabilities of any average monkey.

Being that the first monkey found it out accidently ( I would assume)

Accidents occur and monkeys are known to learn from them.

The uniformity of accidental behavorism is somewhat unlikely to ocur in the way you discribe it. Where as the one I presented makes sense and also made sense to the people involved in observing those monkeys in that epidemology experiment.

What uniformity of accidental behaviour?
You seem intent on making this appear as if it all occurred out of the blue, that there is no uniformity between events on the island.
What you have described as accidents were actually planned.
The monkeys (They are Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata),)
all live in tribes on similar type islands.
The food source was new and deliberately introduced and left by the sea on each island.
The learning process was similar throughout the islands and was a process that took 6 tears starting with the younger learning first.
The period of learning happened over a series of years not in an afternoon.

Where as the one I presented makes sense and also made sense to the people involved in observing those monkeys in that epidemology experiment.

You mean epistemology I think?
Yours might make sense if the facts were presented correctly. But you have not been doing so.

You kept demanding links and when I provided one you ignored it and made no comment. Proof that finding links for you is a waste of time.

My apologies I didn't realise you needed a response to that.
I thought you were presenting it as some back ground info to your overmind theory that you would be presenting later.
I have bookmarked it and am still reading it. Thanks, it's interesting.

But the evidence (observations) still would support both findings. At which point bias would be the only determining factor for creating a conclusion.

But the evidence (observations) does not support both findings.
In fact most of the evidence you have supplied is misinformation.

You said

Ha, so the young monkeys swam across the ocean to the other islands to teach the older monkeys, but that is not what they witnessed happening at all.

Actually one young monkey was observed having doing that and living on the island for 4 years.

you said

(acturally the natives just started to grow the potatos not those doing the study)

During 1952 and 1953 the primatologists began "provisioning" the troops - providing them with such foods as sweet potatoes and wheat. The food was left in open areas, often on beaches. As a result of this new economy, the monkeys developed several innovative forms of behavior

you said

Perhaps washing them made the potato softer and more like eating fruit? Or they did not like the taste of dirt on thier food?

Imo was a member of the troop on Koshima island. She discovered that sand and grit could be removed from the sweet potatoes by washing them in a stream or in the ocean.

Nothin' is still nothin' and something is still something

.
True

1 - 1 is still 0.

true

Call it metaphyical or call it basic math, the result is the same.

I call it math when the the numerals are only assigned a numerical value.

I assigned the symbol 0 to mean nothing and assigned "thought" to the symbol 1,

Now it's metaphysical.

and then added that those thoughts orbited in the mind around a still center which is the point of nothingness

the point of nothingness which is a meta-physical concept.

Remember we have agreed to there being two separate identities, 0 = nothing and 1 = thought.
And that 1 +1 +1 (continued for unspecified length ) = mind.
And that 1 - 1 = 0 or that without thought there is nothing
But I don't remember you putting forward any reason to believe that
1 = 0, or that there is "a still center which is the point of nothingness" that can coexist , let alone be orbited by the mind.

As in the theroy of relativity.

Einstien did physics not meta-physics.
Nor does relativity have anything to do with mind or the concept of nothingness.

You said

one is one relative to nothing. (and also relative to having two).

Which is the definition of the word relative , not the theory of relativity.

A space that could be occupied.

which would make 0+1, not 0 =1. One or the other not both at same time.

Other then you trying to dodge that by naming it metaphysical, .

I don't believe I am dodging anything. Naming it meta-physical is placing the argument in its context.

you did not prove that anything is basically default in that particular outline.

Need I remind you that you have not presented any real connection yet between "my (Technosoul)own more elaborate version the Overmind which is part of the Designer Mind., and the link you gave.
Though you have the advantage , you have read it and I still am reading.

Anyone in gradeschool can go around calling something funny names, I was hoping to have a debate based on a higher level of maturity

Right,... now you have hurt my feelings.
If I am to dumb for you then fine go find some one else to play with.