Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: ]
    #2221448 -

But when we discover that these two states of matter are reducible to the velocity at which the molecules of water and of ice are in motion, we learn that the difference in kind between water and ice is only a difference in the degree of the velocity of molecular particles.

Thia is wrong this guy doesn't pocess a high schoolers understanding of chemistry if he was talking about a nonpolar molecule this example might hold water.

edit the second link makes the same mistake and I can't spell,

and that they don't realize that is is a mistake is significant in that they do not understand the properties of an example they are using. 

The differences between water and ice are a differenc in kind.  For ice to become water a lot of energy has to be added to break the polar bonds between H and O.
These polar forces are also important inthe diference between steam and water.

If they had used wax as an example it would have been valid, but less convincing these guys seem to ignore some basic principles of matter or unaware.

They also like to take the long way home. :rolleyes: :eyemouth:

another edit I just finished reading the first link, and I think once you concede perceptual thought you are talking about a question of degree. Its an oxymoron.
What does peceptual thought?

Edited by falcon (01/05/04 08:45 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: falcon]
    #2222612 -

Hmmm

So you are saying that liquid water is H2O but ice and steam are not H2O?

The author's point was that each state of H2O is a different form of the same thing. And different by degree. They aren't teaching chemistry.

But at least you read those articles which is more than most people will do.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: ]
    #2222902 -

I read it, starting after they finished talking in math concepts. My brain freezes up at numbers. Or at anything that sounds like geometry, statistics, numbers, 1+1, etc....

Humans, alone, use reason and language and concepts, which elevates them above animals. Some animals can problem-solve, but that is the limit of their intelligence and doesn't make them as intelligent as humans.


--------------------
The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.  -Teilard

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: Frog]
    #2222995 -

A brilliant synopsis if you ask me, concise and to the point.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: ]
    #2223335 -

I read it and that essay is so full it.. I don't even know where to start...

first of all, the law of the excluded middle does not apply.
biologists say that it's entirely possible for a chimp and a human to mate and produce (non-viable) offspring. it's never been done (for obvious cultural reasons), but there's no physical, biological mechanism preventing it.
there are no discrete classifications. it's a continuum of species.

secondly, he tries to point out "contradictions" in the writings of biologists, but those statements are not contradictory at all once you realize that a difference in kind is a difference in degree. it's typical but he has made an analytical distinction that works in principle, but gets messy when applied to reality. he needs to study the concepts of emergent properties and critical mass, which deal with how in the real world, differences in degree can give rise to differences in kind.

"many writers, philosophers as well as scientists, into the contradiction of asserting, on the one hand, that man differs only in degree from other animals, while acknowledging, on the other hand, that man is able to do certain things that no other animal is able to do at all."

this is NOT a contradiction.
the ability to conceptualize and use reason is a function of a larger, more complicated human brain, something that differs in degree to a smaller animal brain. this is not a fundamental difference in kind between animals and humans (look at the example of the mentally retarded. do they lack something? or do they just have less of something? think about it). and besides, animals can conceptualize things, though to a lesser degree than humans. chimps can use tools and form concepts about family ties, friendships, past offenses etc. this is conceptualizing at a basic level. to say that we are fundamentally different just because we can conceptualize at a higher level is just stupid.

now, if he were to say that the ability to conceptualize is not a function of the size and the degree of complexity of the human brain, that it is distinct from any difference in degree, he can certainly make that point.. but it would be on him to provide proof. all he does in that essay is attack the currently accepted evolutionary model.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2223347 -

There was a chimp that had learned ASL. When it ate watermelon for the first time, it called it (in sign language) "candy fruit". I thought that to be a fairly clever conceptualization.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: Swami]
    #2223387 -

Quote:
There was a chimp that had learned ASL.


You mean there's a chimp that uses AOL Instant Messenger?


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: Swami]
    #2223411 -

Koko the gorilla, if that's how you spell her name, once saw a swan on a TV screen and signed the words "water" and "bird". some naysayers say that she was only describing the different elements in the picture, but I doubt it. it sounds like a simple conceptualization.

unfortunately, it's impossible to prove definitively that these animals can conceptualize, because we don't know what's really going on inside their minds, but there's a mountain of evidence out there supporting it.

question: assuming that you believe in evolution, at what point did humans become separate from animals? was there a single individual that was no longer an animal? at some point did a pre-human mother give birth to a human child? what was the criteria that made him human? was it a discrete trait, or did a combination of factors and traits (like cranial capacity) reach a critical mass?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: ]
    #2223809 -

When water becomes ice it has very different properties than water, it gives up an incredible amount of energy to make the jump to ice.  It is not a gradual change from water to ice. It is less dnese. It floats. I'm not sure about this one , but I believe the refractive index changes when water becomes ice. With water and ice there are differences that go beyond degree.  :smirk:

  I think the authors would have made a better analogy if they had used the differences between water and ice as a difference in kind.  I think they used water because it is associated with life so strongly, and to use it in the way they did is misleading.  Almost any other liquid that becomes a solid would have been a good example of a change of degree.

I suggested wax because with wax there is a gradual change of state, it hardens.

edit: There is also a problem with the logic used by the second link; Even though he goes to great lengths to describe differences in degrees and kind, his argument is dependent on finding contradictions in the statements of experts..

edit:
Quote:
But when we discover that these two states of matter are reducible to the velocity at which the molecules of water and of ice are in motion, we learn that the difference in kind between water and ice is only a difference in the degree of the velocity of molecular particles.



there is much more going on with water and ice than a difference of velocity of the molecular particles when polar forces play such a large role in how water becomes ice. Water has some structure but it is fluid, another bad pun, ice is structured steam has little if not polar bonding so no structure.

thank MM I haven't thought about this stuff for along time.

Edited by falcon (01/06/04 05:36 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: falcon]
    #2225413 -

Humans became human when the species Homo sapiens sapiens arose, some 100,000 years ago in Africa. Why only then? Because the species beforehand didn't have the same anatomy or brain capacity.

On humans being the only species to be able to rationalise... Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and the archaic homo sapiens were different species than we are, and they both made tools and showed signs of conceptual thought. I'll go look for a link somewhere, and I'll see if I can get some info on why neanderthals became extinct and we didn't (although both species could speak and neanderthals had bigger brains - about 160cc's more).


--------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

- Aristotle

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: infidelGOD]
    #2225464 -

Actually you're so full of it I don't know where to begin.  :smirk:

For starters since we don't have much time as the server is going down let me post a quote/link about "Koko" the "talking" primate:

Here is an example of Koko, "talking"  :lol:

Question: Koko are you going to have a baby in the future?

Koko signs: Pink
Patterson explains: We had earlier discussion about colors today.

Question: Do you like to chat with people?

Koko signs: Fine nipple.
Patterson explains: Nipple rhymes with people, she doesn't sign people per se, she was trying to do a "sounds like..."

Question: Does she have hair? Or is it like fur?

Koko signs: Fine.
Patterson explains: She has fine hair.

Question: Koko, do you feel love from the humans who have raised you?

Koko signs: Lips, apple give me.
Patterson explains: People give her her favorite foods.

Check out this link.  The skeptics should love it, it's from the Skeptical Inquirer.

http://www.csicop.org/articles/koko/

It is interesting how many people will cling to an instance or a few instances when their philosophical presuppositions are challenged.

Lips apple give me.  Yep, that ape sure can talk! 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: ]
    #2225645 -

These apes do better at human talk than humans can do at "ape talk". Dogs and dolphins also understand our words better than we understand "Arf! Arf! and "Squeek-clik-clik".


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: Shroomism]
    #2225751 -

Shroomism said:
yes and also dolphins are the only other species on Earth besides humans that seem to have sex for pleasure or love instead of just procreation. Also, dolphins have larger frontal lobes and larger brains altogether than humans.








Look at these pictures. Then think about which brain YOU would rather have.

Gorilla- Human- Dolphin
Kind of a natural progression (in terms of brain complexity, anyways)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: Alan Stone]
    #2226032 -

Quote:
On humans being the only species to be able to rationalise... Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and the archaic homo sapiens were different species than we are, and they both made tools and showed signs of conceptual thought.


Actually, those were all just subspecies of Homo Sapiens, and therefore were all the same species. To go back to a human ancestor that was a different species, you'd have to look at Homo Erectus. Anyway, I think we're talking about different species that are alive today, so I don't think it's relevant to discuss other homonids.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: silversoul7]
    #2226043 -

no, neanderthalis was a completely different species with a huge brain and a pelvic hinge, for birthing children with huge brains.  Genetic evidence suggests no relationship to homo sapiens, though they may have been related further back in time on the evolutionary chain

despite having bigger brains, neanderthalis was not smarter than sapiens.  Studies on the neanderthal brain suggest that it had a less developed frontal lobe than sapiens.  size doesnt matter, its how you use it :wink:

Edited by DoctorJ (01/07/04 01:37 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2226133 -

What studies on their brains? Last I heard of, brains don't fossilize because they're too soft a material. All I've been taught is that the skull has a larger volume and that the skeletal structure showed them to be about 20-30% stronger than modern Europeans would be. They also had tools, but less of them, and lived in smaller groups. Couldn't their extinction be based on something else than intelligence? Like longer pregnancy, or a higher mortality rate in childbirth?

It just looks like it's always assumed that any being that came before us must have been more stupid, because they didn't survive. Jericho and Catal H?y?k never became centers of great civilisations, but they were the first cities. One says nothing about the other.


--------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

- Aristotle

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: DoctorJ]
    #2226165 -

Genetic evidence suggests no relationship to homo sapiens, though they may have been related further back in time on the evolutionary chain

Please explain how they have genetic evidence regarding Neanderthals.

In the meantime I'm going to write up an answer to infidelGOD's posts.

-------------------------------------------------
Edit

I did a quick search and found that the theories regarding man's origins and specifically their breeding with other hominids are in conflict with one another. I don't know about you but I think I would wait for these arguments to be resolved before hanging my hat on their tentative conclusions.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0306_0306_outofafrica.html

Edited by Mr_Mushrooms (01/07/04 02:46 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: Alan Stone]
    #2226792 -

Quote:
What studies on their brains? Last I heard of, brains don't fossilize because they're too soft a material.


I believe they were examining the shape of the skull, in addition to its size, when they concluded that the neanderthalis had inferior abstract reasoning capabilities.  Of course that is very questionable.  I wasnt trying to say that i had the exact answer, I was merely adding some info to the table. 

I had to write a paper on this a couple years ago for an undergrad class.  Unfortunately, I wrote it on the computers at school, so I dont have a copy :frown:

Quote:
Please explain how they have genetic evidence regarding Neanderthals


Bones contain genetic info.  ever read Jurrasic park?  You might recall a passage in which Grant sets aside junk bones from a dig site to be shipped to a genetics lab. 

I remember seeing something on PBS that showed a genetic tree of man and his ancestors.  It was like this:

  |
  |
  |
  |
  |\
  | \
  |  \
  |  Neanderthalis
  |
  |
  |
/ | \
Homo erectus, sapiens, etc...

Could be wrong/outdated info though...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: Alan Stone]
    #2226854 -

Quote:
On humans being the only species to be able to rationalise... Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and the archaic homo sapiens were different species than we are, and they both made tools and showed signs of conceptual thought. I'll go look for a link somewhere, and I'll see if I can get some info on why neanderthals became extinct and we didn't (although both species could speak and neanderthals had bigger brains - about 160cc's more).



We may not be a different species than neandrethals, but if we are different we probably ate them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Did you ever think... [Re: silversoul7]
    #2226916 -

Koko used sign language to make jokes on several occaisons. If you ask me, once an animal is capable of humour I think it's only reasonable to consider it equal. Whether that means that it can IEATPEOPLE conceptualize is up to anyone's personal opinions.


--------------------
Don't worry, I'm wrong.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Totem animals...
( 1 2 3 all )		 HypnoToad 4,729 43 05/13/04 09:52 PM
by TinTree
* A quote on man and dolphins Adamist 1,226 14 12/29/02 08:49 AM
by FreakQlibrium
* The ability to conceptualize
( 1 2 all )		 TrueBrode 4,210 27 01/18/04 01:05 PM
by jpod
* Problems in Philosophy: Knowledge chodamunky 1,163 3 05/03/04 08:38 AM
by TheShroomHermit
* Animal Empathy? RebelSteve33 888 2 02/12/03 09:37 AM
by adrug
* Concept of soul mates
( 1 2 all )		 cleaner 3,743 28 09/02/03 06:33 AM
by TrippeeChik
* Dolphins
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 Adamist 7,128 86 09/30/02 01:04 AM
by Anonymous
* Power o Now (Tolle) - Animals don't need Therapy
( 1 2 3 all )		 lucid 3,767 43 12/31/03 05:19 PM
by Anonymous

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
4,748 topic views. 1 members, 1,150 guests and 125 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 16 queries.