Obviously most think that production/technology/science = demonstrably most intelligent by far. I tend to disagree. I think we just use our intelligence in a different way. A way that people consider superior.
We do so many things that betray any level of intelligence we might boast about as well. I mean, look at your decision to scrap the U2 show in your backyard.
Why would any species not need to evolve? I don't think animals evolve out of necessity. The stall could occur out of the lack of intelligence.
Evolution occurs almost exclusively from necessity. Random mutation is a very small part of the process, intelligence of the species isn't part of the process either. A species may evolve intelligence as a trait, just like claws or feathers, but the claws don't drive the process... It's all about natural selection, i.e. the survival of the fittest.
If a species does not compete for food, is suited to a stable environment, and is not under stress of predation, evolution will drastically slow. Random mutation and sexual selection will still exert force, but it Will make an insanely slow process effectively halt.
Obviously most think that production/technology/science = demonstrably most intelligent by far. I tend to disagree. I think we just use our intelligence in a different way. A way that people consider superior.
We do so many things that betray any level of intelligence we might boast about as well. I mean, look at your decision to scrap the U2 show in your backyard.
Why would any species not need to evolve? I don't think animals evolve out of necessity. The stall could occur out of the lack of intelligence.
Evolution occurs almost exclusively from necessity. Random mutation is a very small part of the process, intelligence of the species isn't part of the process either. A species may evolve intelligence as a trait, just like claws or feathers, but the claws don't drive the process... It's all about natural selection, i.e. the survival of the fittest.
If a species does not compete for food, is suited to a stable environment, and is not under stress of predation, evolution will drastically slow. Random mutation and sexual selection will still exert force, but it Will make an insanely slow process effectively halt.
I should have said exclusively out of necessity. I understand your point.
If we weren't the most intelligent animals on the planet, we wouldn't be on top of the food chain. Luckily dinosaurs aren't around anymore.
I haven't read the article yet. But it looks interesting.
The dumb kids regularly beats up the smart kid.
that's not really an accurate summary of what Last 12 was trying to say, in my view.
Sure, if we think of intelligence outside the box as being in harmony with nature and our overall surroundings, one could argue that humanity is actually less intelligent than in years past (as the article also mentions-like untouched tribes). But then we have to redefine intelligence. I think intelligence is seperate from action. Sure, many humans destroy the earth, litter, kill each other, leave the lights on when they aren't home, etc, etc, but that doesn't mean that COLLECTIVELY the human race is less intelligent than a whale or a dolphin.
many humans are pleasantly ignorant of their negative surroundings, completely happy, do nothing but good, but does that make them more intelligent than someone with a higher IQ? I don't know about that.
I don't consider that intelligent, in the traditional sense of the word. Intelligent to me is brain capacity. Emotional intelligence is differentiated for a reason. there is emotional, and there is cranial.
I quoted this one, but my response to you is more to the body of your posts in this thread. Even if intelligence is brain capacity alone, you are dismissing some serious brain capacities. The power of "echo location" is a brain capacity that is very impressive, and many ocean dwellers have spatial memory that far surpasses our own. There is much to be considered in defining intelligence, for instanceLeBron James is one of the most intelligent men on the planet in a particular fashion... It takes serious neural firing to perform such athletic feats. A vast majority of the brain is connected to the visual system, and we don't even have particularly good vision.
No, there are many incredible things/abilities thatoccur in nature that I find utterly astounding, but I dont equte those with overall intelligence. I am not dismissing anything, I just have a different way of defining it.
I just think the general feeling is that people who are unhappy with the way humans conduct themselves, whether through individual experience, or in mass disappointment with the perceived failure of man with regards to other species and the Earth as a whole, are the ones that seem to have a general bias towards humankind and their intelligence.
With all of the wrongs man has committed against itself and its environment, that does not alone make us lesser than other beings. Look around. Look at the sheer marvel of what we have created (regardless of what personal value you may put on those achievements, they are remarkable nonetheless), and how we have been able to elongate the very lifespan of our own species. The development of medical science alone, in my mind, makes it indisputable.
in·dis·put·a·ble ˌindəˈspyo͞odəb(ə)l adjective: indisputable unable to be challenged or denied.
Interesting, coming from you, Hugh. So we're done here, eh?
Not sure what "coming from you" is supposed to imply, but yes, in my opinion, in the contrxt of my definition, it is no contest.
If we weren't the most intelligent animals on the planet, we wouldn't be on top of the food chain. Luckily dinosaurs aren't around anymore.
I haven't read the article yet. But it looks interesting.
The dumb kids regularly beats up the smart kid.
that's not really an accurate summary of what Last 12 was trying to say, in my view.
Sure, if we think of intelligence outside the box as being in harmony with nature and our overall surroundings, one could argue that humanity is actually less intelligent than in years past (as the article also mentions-like untouched tribes). But then we have to redefine intelligence. I think intelligence is seperate from action. Sure, many humans destroy the earth, litter, kill each other, leave the lights on when they aren't home, etc, etc, but that doesn't mean that COLLECTIVELY the human race is less intelligent than a whale or a dolphin.
many humans are pleasantly ignorant of their negative surroundings, completely happy, do nothing but good, but does that make them more intelligent than someone with a higher IQ? I don't know about that.
I don't consider that intelligent, in the traditional sense of the word. Intelligent to me is brain capacity. Emotional intelligence is differentiated for a reason. there is emotional, and there is cranial.
I quoted this one, but my response to you is more to the body of your posts in this thread. Even if intelligence is brain capacity alone, you are dismissing some serious brain capacities. The power of "echo location" is a brain capacity that is very impressive, and many ocean dwellers have spatial memory that far surpasses our own. There is much to be considered in defining intelligence, for instanceLeBron James is one of the most intelligent men on the planet in a particular fashion... It takes serious neural firing to perform such athletic feats. A vast majority of the brain is connected to the visual system, and we don't even have particularly good vision.
No, there are many incredible things/abilities thatoccur in nature that I find utterly astounding, but I dont equte those with overall intelligence. I am not dismissing anything, I just have a different way of defining it.
I just think the general feeling is that people who are unhappy with the way humans conduct themselves, whether through individual experience, or in mass disappointment with the perceived failure of man with regards to other species and the Earth as a whole, are the ones that seem to have a general bias towards humankind and their intelligence.
With all of the wrongs man has committed against itself and its environment, that does not alone make us lesser than other beings. Look around. Look at the sheer marvel of what we have created (regardless of what personal value you may put on those achievements, they are remarkable nonetheless), and how we have been able to elongate the very lifespan of our own species. The development of medical science alone, in my mind, makes it indisputable.
Necessity is the mother of invention! If we had a stable environment and abundance in the resources we need as a species, we wouldn't be seeing the "achievements" that make us the kings of the Earth. It's not about emotion for me, just raw brain potential...in which we probably are the winners, but it's a tighter race than many think.
I agree with you on this! Again like I said before.. The only reason animals never evolved further, is because there was no reason to.
Why do some believe humans "needed" these resources? We survived for thousands of years without the technological advancements beyond simple tools. We dont need any of this. We wanted it.
Obviously most think that production/technology/science = demonstrably most intelligent by far. I tend to disagree. I think we just use our intelligence in a different way. A way that people consider superior.
We do so many things that betray any level of intelligence we might boast about as well. I mean, look at your decision to scrap the U2 show in your backyard.
If we weren't the most intelligent animals on the planet, we wouldn't be on top of the food chain. Luckily dinosaurs aren't around anymore.
I haven't read the article yet. But it looks interesting.
The dumb kids regularly beats up the smart kid.
that's not really an accurate summary of what Last 12 was trying to say, in my view.
Sure, if we think of intelligence outside the box as being in harmony with nature and our overall surroundings, one could argue that humanity is actually less intelligent than in years past (as the article also mentions-like untouched tribes). But then we have to redefine intelligence. I think intelligence is seperate from action. Sure, many humans destroy the earth, litter, kill each other, leave the lights on when they aren't home, etc, etc, but that doesn't mean that COLLECTIVELY the human race is less intelligent than a whale or a dolphin.
many humans are pleasantly ignorant of their negative surroundings, completely happy, do nothing but good, but does that make them more intelligent than someone with a higher IQ? I don't know about that.
I don't consider that intelligent, in the traditional sense of the word. Intelligent to me is brain capacity. Emotional intelligence is differentiated for a reason. there is emotional, and there is cranial.
I quoted this one, but my response to you is more to the body of your posts in this thread. Even if intelligence is brain capacity alone, you are dismissing some serious brain capacities. The power of "echo location" is a brain capacity that is very impressive, and many ocean dwellers have spatial memory that far surpasses our own. There is much to be considered in defining intelligence, for instanceLeBron James is one of the most intelligent men on the planet in a particular fashion... It takes serious neural firing to perform such athletic feats. A vast majority of the brain is connected to the visual system, and we don't even have particularly good vision.
No, there are many incredible things/abilities thatoccur in nature that I find utterly astounding, but I dont equte those with overall intelligence. I am not dismissing anything, I just have a different way of defining it.
I just think the general feeling is that people who are unhappy with the way humans conduct themselves, whether through individual experience, or in mass disappointment with the perceived failure of man with regards to other species and the Earth as a whole, are the ones that seem to have a general bias towards humankind and their intelligence.
With all of the wrongs man has committed against itself and its environment, that does not alone make us lesser than other beings. Look around. Look at the sheer marvel of what we have created (regardless of what personal value you may put on those achievements, they are remarkable nonetheless), and how we have been able to elongate the very lifespan of our own species. The development of medical science alone, in my mind, makes it indisputable.
in·dis·put·a·ble ˌindəˈspyo͞odəb(ə)l adjective: indisputable unable to be challenged or denied.
Interesting, coming from you, Hugh. So we're done here, eh?
Not sure what "coming from you" is supposed to imply, but yes, in my opinion, in the contrxt of my definition, it is no contest.
No disrespect meant at all, Hugh. What I mean is that you have always supported the idea of being able to dispute an idea. I was just a bit surprised to see you use the term "indisputable" is all. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Obviously most think that production/technology/science = demonstrably most intelligent by far. I tend to disagree. I think we just use our intelligence in a different way. A way that people consider superior.
We do so many things that betray any level of intelligence we might boast about as well. I mean, look at your decision to scrap the U2 show in your backyard.
If we weren't the most intelligent animals on the planet, we wouldn't be on top of the food chain. Luckily dinosaurs aren't around anymore.
I haven't read the article yet. But it looks interesting.
The dumb kids regularly beats up the smart kid.
that's not really an accurate summary of what Last 12 was trying to say, in my view.
Sure, if we think of intelligence outside the box as being in harmony with nature and our overall surroundings, one could argue that humanity is actually less intelligent than in years past (as the article also mentions-like untouched tribes). But then we have to redefine intelligence. I think intelligence is seperate from action. Sure, many humans destroy the earth, litter, kill each other, leave the lights on when they aren't home, etc, etc, but that doesn't mean that COLLECTIVELY the human race is less intelligent than a whale or a dolphin.
many humans are pleasantly ignorant of their negative surroundings, completely happy, do nothing but good, but does that make them more intelligent than someone with a higher IQ? I don't know about that.
I don't consider that intelligent, in the traditional sense of the word. Intelligent to me is brain capacity. Emotional intelligence is differentiated for a reason. there is emotional, and there is cranial.
I quoted this one, but my response to you is more to the body of your posts in this thread. Even if intelligence is brain capacity alone, you are dismissing some serious brain capacities. The power of "echo location" is a brain capacity that is very impressive, and many ocean dwellers have spatial memory that far surpasses our own. There is much to be considered in defining intelligence, for instanceLeBron James is one of the most intelligent men on the planet in a particular fashion... It takes serious neural firing to perform such athletic feats. A vast majority of the brain is connected to the visual system, and we don't even have particularly good vision.
No, there are many incredible things/abilities thatoccur in nature that I find utterly astounding, but I dont equte those with overall intelligence. I am not dismissing anything, I just have a different way of defining it.
I just think the general feeling is that people who are unhappy with the way humans conduct themselves, whether through individual experience, or in mass disappointment with the perceived failure of man with regards to other species and the Earth as a whole, are the ones that seem to have a general bias towards humankind and their intelligence.
With all of the wrongs man has committed against itself and its environment, that does not alone make us lesser than other beings. Look around. Look at the sheer marvel of what we have created (regardless of what personal value you may put on those achievements, they are remarkable nonetheless), and how we have been able to elongate the very lifespan of our own species. The development of medical science alone, in my mind, makes it indisputable.
in·dis·put·a·ble ˌindəˈspyo͞odəb(ə)l adjective: indisputable unable to be challenged or denied.
Interesting, coming from you, Hugh. So we're done here, eh?
Not sure what "coming from you" is supposed to imply, but yes, in my opinion, in the contrxt of my definition, it is no contest.
No disrespect meant at all, Hugh. What I mean is that you have always supported the idea of being able to dispute an idea. I was just a bit surprised to see you use the term "indisputable" is all. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant.
Maybe a poor choice of wording, then again maybe not. I just cant personally fathom how anyone could think that a species who could perform open heart surgery is less intelligent than a species that does nothing beyond its own instincts of survival.
But I will say again, maybe it is my, the traditional, definition of intelligence.
As for the open heart surgery thing, we are the only species that decided we should live outside of natural selection's process, which is why we are now destroying the earth, too many of us for too long a period of time.. That in itself shows a lack of intelligence. Or at least in My opinion. When we're sick and supposed to die off, we shouldn't fight that.. Again that comes from our ability to act on emotions. Just because we feel that we should have so and so around longer, doesn't mean we SHOULD prolong the life span that natural selection has designated.
As for the open heart surgery thing, we are the only species that decided we should live outside of natural selection's process, which is why we are now destroying the earth, too many of us for too long a period of time.. That in itself shows a lack of intelligence. Or at least in My opinion. When we're sick and supposed to die off, we shouldn't fight that.. Again that comes from our ability to act on emotions. Just because we feel that we should have so and so around longer, doesn't mean we SHOULD prolong the life span that natural selection has designated.
Not sure I'd agree with this, WH. So no treatment for those with cancer or other serious illnesses (regardless of child or adult)? What about when our animals get sick?
Most recognize when quality of life is no more, and act accordingly. I can't imagine making my father get treatment when he was obviously at the end of his journey, but before that? Hell yeah dad, if you can and want to still fight, I'm right there with you!
I get that it's the choice for some to forgo that kind of assistance, but - and maybe I'm reading you wrong? - to say we should NOT prolong a viable life seems to place (*edit) little value on it.
As for the open heart surgery thing, we are the only species that decided we should live outside of natural selection's process, which is why we are now destroying the earth, too many of us for too long a period of time.. That in itself shows a lack of intelligence. Or at least in My opinion. When we're sick and supposed to die off, we shouldn't fight that.. Again that comes from our ability to act on emotions. Just because we feel that we should have so and so around longer, doesn't mean we SHOULD prolong the life span that natural selection has designated.
Not sure I'd agree with this, WH. So no treatment for those with cancer or other serious illnesses (regardless of child or adult)? What about when our animals get sick?
Most recognize when quality of life is no more, and act accordingly. I can't imagine making my father get treatment when he was obviously at the end of his journey, but before that? Hell yeah dad, if you can and want to still fight, I'm right there with you!
I get that it's the choice for some to forgo that kind of assistance, but - and maybe I'm reading you wrong? - to say we should NOT prolong a viable life seems to place (*edit) little value on it.
I think I said that wrong. I'm not saying healing the sick is wrong. Just that it goes against the process of natural selection. I instantly thought of my dad in this scenario, because if not for medical science and advancements, he would have died YEARS ago. But to fight to out live natural selection is weird to me, it throws everything off balance.
I think I said that wrong. I'm not saying healing the sick is wrong. Just that it goes against the process of natural selection. I instantly thought of my dad in this scenario, because if not for medical science and advancements, he would have died YEARS ago. But to fight to out live natural selection is weird to me, it throws everything off balance.
I guess I'm also looking at it from the standpoint of, say, parents who find out their baby will be born with a physical or mental disability and decide to have the child...or even the act of CPR. I think they all have their place - and, in that same breath, must also say I respect those who opt for DNR's.
Now...if only Darwinism worked on idiots like the ones Brian posted earlier!
As for the open heart surgery thing, we are the only species that decided we should live outside of natural selection's process, which is why we are now destroying the earth, too many of us for too long a period of time.. That in itself shows a lack of intelligence. Or at least in My opinion. When we're sick and supposed to die off, we shouldn't fight that.. Again that comes from our ability to act on emotions. Just because we feel that we should have so and so around longer, doesn't mean we SHOULD prolong the life span that natural selection has designated.
I wasnt really talking about the immediacy of the individual and keeping them alive with no or little quality of life. I dont plan on that for myself. I was more speaking to medical advancements (and our way of life as a whole) making our estimated and average healthy life span longer. Only a few hundred years ago, 40 years old was considered old age. Mid life at 20.
Who is to say we are stepping outside of nature? This could very well BE our nature.
Natural selection cares nothing for what happens to you after you have ensured the continuation of your genes. If, by being sick and requiring care from your progeny that could otherwise go into producing more progeny, then the "caring for the sick" issue is, evolutionarily speaking, a problem, but otherwise it is irrelevant. If the "cared for" one improves and goes on to further reproduce, or provides a benefit to their progeny, then it would be a bonus. Selection pressure is everything, and you bet animals "fight" dying if they can avoid it, too.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Natural selection cares nothing for what happens to you after you have ensured the continuation of your genes. If, by being sick and requiring care from your progeny that could otherwise go into producing more progeny, then the "caring for the sick" issue is, evolutionarily speaking, a problem, but otherwise it is irrelevant. If the "cared for" one improves and goes on to further reproduce, or provides a benefit to their progeny, then it would be a bonus. Selection pressure is everything, and you bet animals "fight" dying if they can avoid it, too.
I'm kind of struggling with the "caring for the sick" issue as my brother-in-law is dying of cancer. On the one hand, it's truly wonderful that we've had him longer than we would have had years ago but but on the other hand, now that it's a matter of hours, maybe a few days-- these last days- OMG, just such a painful process. When it's my time, hope I go fast. I don't want my wife to go through this.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Natural selection cares nothing for what happens to you after you have ensured the continuation of your genes. If, by being sick and requiring care from your progeny that could otherwise go into producing more progeny, then the "caring for the sick" issue is, evolutionarily speaking, a problem, but otherwise it is irrelevant. If the "cared for" one improves and goes on to further reproduce, or provides a benefit to their progeny, then it would be a bonus. Selection pressure is everything, and you bet animals "fight" dying if they can avoid it, too.
I'm kind of struggling with the "caring for the sick" issue as my brother-in-law is dying of cancer. On the one hand, it's truly wonderful that we've had him longer than we would have had years ago but but on the other hand, now that it's a matter of hours, maybe a few days-- these last days- OMG, just such a painful process. When it's my time, hope I go fast. I don't want my wife to go through this.
Yes, when it happens in a drawn out way like that it certainly can be terrible, although with lovely moments at times when the process allows for deepening of connections. I hope my post didn't come across as insensitive to that; I was just speaking from an evolutionary theory point of view in response to some of the earlier comments.
Post edited by oftenreading on
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Natural selection cares nothing for what happens to you after you have ensured the continuation of your genes. If, by being sick and requiring care from your progeny that could otherwise go into producing more progeny, then the "caring for the sick" issue is, evolutionarily speaking, a problem, but otherwise it is irrelevant. If the "cared for" one improves and goes on to further reproduce, or provides a benefit to their progeny, then it would be a bonus. Selection pressure is everything, and you bet animals "fight" dying if they can avoid it, too.
I'm kind of struggling with the "caring for the sick" issue as my brother-in-law is dying of cancer. On the one hand, it's truly wonderful that we've had him longer than we would have had years ago but but on the other hand, now that it's a matter of hours, maybe a few days-- these last days- OMG, just such a painful process. When it's my time, hope I go fast. I don't want my wife to go through this.
Yes, when it happens in a drawn up way like that it certainly can be terrible, although with lovely moments at times when the process allows for deepening of connections. I hope my post didn't come across as insensitive to that; I was just speaking from an evolutionary theory point of view in response to some of the earlier comments.
As well I Hope I did not offend with my theory. I know my logic seems harsh at times, and I never took your situation in mind when I posted that Brian. I apologize sincerely if I was out of line in my timing on that. I hope for your family's sake his suffering is over soon.
As for the open heart surgery thing, we are the only species that decided we should live outside of natural selection's process, which is why we are now destroying the earth, too many of us for too long a period of time.. That in itself shows a lack of intelligence. Or at least in My opinion. When we're sick and supposed to die off, we shouldn't fight that.. Again that comes from our ability to act on emotions. Just because we feel that we should have so and so around longer, doesn't mean we SHOULD prolong the life span that natural selection has designated.
I wasnt really talking about the immediacy of the individual and keeping them alive with no or little quality of life. I dont plan on that for myself. I was more speaking to medical advancements (and our way of life as a whole) making our estimated and average healthy life span longer. Only a few hundred years ago, 40 years old was considered old age. Mid life at 20.
Who is to say we are stepping outside of nature? This could very well BE our nature.
I think I said that wrong. I'm not saying healing the sick is wrong. Just that it goes against the process of natural selection. I instantly thought of my dad in this scenario, because if not for medical science and advancements, he would have died YEARS ago. But to fight to out live natural selection is weird to me, it throws everything off balance.
I guess I'm also looking at it from the standpoint of, say, parents who find out their baby will be born with a physical or mental disability and decide to have the child...or even the act of CPR. I think they all have their place - and, in that same breath, must also say I respect those who opt for DNR's.
Now...if only Darwinism worked on idiots like the ones Brian posted earlier!
Natural selection cares nothing for what happens to you after you have ensured the continuation of your genes. If, by being sick and requiring care from your progeny that could otherwise go into producing more progeny, then the "caring for the sick" issue is, evolutionarily speaking, a problem, but otherwise it is irrelevant. If the "cared for" one improves and goes on to further reproduce, or provides a benefit to their progeny, then it would be a bonus. Selection pressure is everything, and you bet animals "fight" dying if they can avoid it, too.
I'm kind of struggling with the "caring for the sick" issue as my brother-in-law is dying of cancer. On the one hand, it's truly wonderful that we've had him longer than we would have had years ago but but on the other hand, now that it's a matter of hours, maybe a few days-- these last days- OMG, just such a painful process. When it's my time, hope I go fast. I don't want my wife to go through this.
Yes, when it happens in a drawn up way like that it certainly can be terrible, although with lovely moments at times when the process allows for deepening of connections. I hope my post didn't come across as insensitive to that; I was just speaking from an evolutionary theory point of view in response to some of the earlier comments.
As well I Hope I did not offend with my theory. I know my logic seems harsh at times, and I never took your situation in mind when I posted that Brian. I apologize sincerely if I was out of line in my timing on that. I hope for your family's sake his suffering is over soon.
oftenreading, W.H., no worries! No offense taken in the least. I was just ruminating about how ironic and difficult dying can be as a result of our advanced medical skills which at the same time save many lives and is also often quite wonderful. I'm not hugely freaked out about my own mortality, just not great at dealing with others death.
As for the open heart surgery thing, we are the only species that decided we should live outside of natural selection's process, which is why we are now destroying the earth, too many of us for too long a period of time.. That in itself shows a lack of intelligence. Or at least in My opinion. When we're sick and supposed to die off, we shouldn't fight that.. Again that comes from our ability to act on emotions. Just because we feel that we should have so and so around longer, doesn't mean we SHOULD prolong the life span that natural selection has designated.
I wasnt really talking about the immediacy of the individual and keeping them alive with no or little quality of life. I dont plan on that for myself. I was more speaking to medical advancements (and our way of life as a whole) making our estimated and average healthy life span longer. Only a few hundred years ago, 40 years old was considered old age. Mid life at 20.
Who is to say we are stepping outside of nature? This could very well BE our nature.
We're veering off topic a bit here but that's an interesting perspective and a good question, Hugh. Maybe we could start a thread about what is "Human Nature" including questioning and discussing what we think is "Enough" (in quotes because this is the title of a Bill McKibben book that discusses these very questions) when it comes to our advancing technology and medical skills. We could cover questions such as, What, if anything, are the boundaries of nature? When do we reach a point where replacing parts takes us outside the realm of being a human being? What does it mean to be "human"?. How far to we go with nano-technology and does that kind of technology or does that not fit within the parameters of what we call "natural". Etc. I'm guessing we could fill a few hundred pages there!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I think this is a very interesting discussion, and all of you have been given a lot of arguments one way or the other! Although I do miss some arguments in it, so I'll try to add them.
First of all a philosophical question... Is it even possible to get an objective answer to the question? I doubt it very much... I don't think it is possible for a species to have an objective vision on it's own intelligence. All the ways we know of, to measure intelligence, are developed by humans, To measure the intellect of other species on human standards. in arias where humans do have skills we don't think other animals have. Who knows how many tests dolphins or whales have already done with humans, without, the humans did recognize being tested. Because we don't have a real understanding of the way these animals communicate, doesn't mean they don't do it. It simply means we don't understand it, or even recognize it as communication. Therefore these whole discussion is somehow very one sided. But never the less, I like participating in it!
So here we go... The definition of intelligence is a hard one, looking through all the post before, I've seen many different ways to describe it. So I've looked up the definition in the Oxford Dictionary oxforddictionaries.com/definition/learner/intelligence And this is what it said: "the ability to learn, understand and think in a logical way about things; the ability to do this well". This definition has so many assumptions in it were we could debate about... for example, how do you describe "a logical way" what is "Logical"? What kind of "things", are we talking about? And how would you describe "the ability to do this well"? So this definition is in my opinion at least vague, and open for many interpretations. But I'll try to work with it, as all of you have done before me.
If you look at the psychological theories of Skinner's Verbal Behavior(1957) and the theory which evolved from Skinner's theory in the latest decades of the twentieths century, the Relational Frame Theory (RFT), which both form a relationship between behavior and language, one of the main differences between humans and other animals is the ability to work out relationships between three object when only two relationships have been seen.
For example: "RFT treats relational responding as a generalized operant, and thus appeals to a history of multiple-exemplar training. Specific types of relational responding, termed relational frames, are defined in terms of the three properties of mutual and combinatorial entailment, and the transformation of functions. Relational frames are arbitrarily applicable, but are typically not necessarily arbitrarily applied in the natural language context.
Mutual entailment refers to the derived bidirectionality of some stimulus relations, and as such it is a generic term for the concept of "symmetry" in stimulus equivalence. "Mutual entailment" applies if stimulus A is related to another stimulus B in a specific context, and as a result a relation between B and A is entailed in that context. Combinatorial entailment refers to instances in which two or more relations that have acquired the property of mutual entailment mutually combine. Combinatorial entailment is the generic term for what is called "transitivity" and "equivalence" in stimulus equivalence. Combinatorial entailment applies when, in a given context, A is related to B and B is related to C, and then in that context a relation is entailed between A and C and another between C and A. For example, if A is bigger than B, and B is bigger than C, then a bigger-than relation is entailed between A and C, and a smaller-than relation is entailed between C and A. A transformation of stimulus functions applies when functions of one event in a relational network is altered based on the functions of another event in the network and the derived relation between them. Mutual and combinatorial entailment are regulated by contextual cues (C rel). The transformation of stimulus functions are regulated by additional contextual cues (C func)."https://contextualscience.org/what_is_rft
Up until the age of three years old the learning ability of human children and animals is based on the capacity to learn only from the direct experienced relationships. Like A is bigger than B. Through out multiple animal behavioral experiments, animals are capable to learn many of these kind of relationships, like an monkey learns by experience , when he pushes a button with a picture of a banana he receives food, while when he pushes another picture nothing happens. They are also capable to learn to make a distinguish differences between more pictures if on those pictures are different rewards granted. These kind of experiments have been done with different kinds of animals, like dolphins, killer whales, primates, but also dogs and wolves. All those animals are capable of learning these kinds of relationships, although it takes them all a lot more time then it takes a human infant to learn these skills. But after the age of three years old the brain of a human child develops itself to learn also the non-experienced relationships as described above in the RFT. This kind of development of relationships, has non of the animals ever achieved. So the big difference between the intelligence of humans and animals lays in the ability to form relationships in the mind bases on predictions, as described as above.
In my point of view I have to admit all of the experiments are done by humans, and are thereby based on a human perspective of intelligence. Although the tested experiments have been numerous, the RFT, is even in its field itself a theory which is very much debated... But all the tests between animal behavior and human behavior are very well documented, the debate is on the theory and not on the outcome of those experiments.
Therefor the conclusion is, that humans have an extra dimension of abilities in there brains, which widens their intelligence. This extra dimension, has the downside of making us not only the smartest of the animals, but also the most unhappy ones, because we have the ability to see a lot more danger in our environment than other animals can. The brain is designed to protect us, from immediate danger. In the early stages of our development, there was lots of that, to keep the mind busy. But in resent times the immediate dangers have been decreased, but our brain hasn't adept to the new reality, and therefor is always on the lookout of this danger. If it can't find it in real life, it invents it to keep itself busy.... How smart is that?
Besides intelligence, there is an other main issue that has conducted to give us the position we have on earth today. Besides the intelligence aggression has played a major role in ruling the Earth. For example the Neanderthal human, had almost the same intellectual capacities as modern human beings, but according to some theories their primary urges to mate and and their survival skills to protect themselves were far less than those of our ancestors, therefor Human Sapiens Sapiens have become us and the Neanderthal human has extinguished.
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
Humans are one of the, if not the most aggressive species on this planet, so I think the combination of aggression and intelligence, has made it possible to dominate our environment.
I don't think modern medicine is the only to blame for this, and i am sure glad it exists, because otherwise my life had ended at the age of thirteen months old, when i was diagnosed with a chronicle illness. But I do think modern medicine and the increase of our time here on earth has made the already fragile balance between humans and their environment on earth some what more fragile. The concept of being able to dominate our environment, and stand above it instead of being a part of it has made us almost destroy the earth!!! I'm not sure its in our basic nature to restore the damage we have done, I hope we can learn how to do so in time...
If you are interested in learning more about the Relational Frame Theory, I will include some links:
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
Aafke, wow. Excellent! I may have to re-read to better absorb as my mind isn't yet fully awake.
(By the way, if I recall correctly, English isn't your first language...? If so, an even bigger wow from here.)
Thanks Hedonist, for your compliments...No English isn't my first language... As a dyslectic person, in high school my teachers were convinced I would never learn how to speak, write, or understand it... spelling control and digital improvements, do help me a lot, but most of all it helped me to overcome my own conviction that I would never learn to understand or express myself in this language, hi, hi...
Besides, this subject (RFT and ACT the therapeutic transformation of RFT) are very close to my heart at the moment, I like to share information about it!
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
Comments
If a species does not compete for food, is suited to a stable environment, and is not under stress of predation, evolution will drastically slow. Random mutation and sexual selection will still exert force, but it Will make an insanely slow process effectively halt.
Dignin, Hugh, and RG out at RG's spread!
I was just out pruning 'mater plants, luckily I didn't fall in the process.
Tings be gettin' bedder e'er since ya dun went an falled from dat tree!
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
But I will say again, maybe it is my, the traditional, definition of intelligence.
www.headstonesband.com
My opinion. When we're sick and supposed to die off, we shouldn't fight that.. Again that comes from our ability to act on emotions. Just because we feel that we should have so and so around longer, doesn't mean we SHOULD prolong the life span that natural selection has designated.
http://phys.org/news/2013-12-humans-smarter-animals-experts.html
Most recognize when quality of life is no more, and act accordingly. I can't imagine making my father get treatment when he was obviously at the end of his journey, but before that? Hell yeah dad, if you can and want to still fight, I'm right there with you!
I get that it's the choice for some to forgo that kind of assistance, but - and maybe I'm reading you wrong? - to say we should NOT prolong a viable life seems to place (*edit) little value on it.
Now...if only Darwinism worked on idiots like the ones Brian posted earlier!
Who is to say we are stepping outside of nature? This could very well BE our nature.
www.headstonesband.com
Hope I did not offend with my theory. I know my logic seems harsh at times, and I never took your situation in mind when I posted that Brian. I apologize sincerely if I was out of line in my timing on that. I hope for your family's sake his suffering is over soon.
First of all a philosophical question... Is it even possible to get an objective answer to the question? I doubt it very much... I don't think it is possible for a species to have an objective vision on it's own intelligence. All the ways we know of, to measure intelligence, are developed by humans, To measure the intellect of other species on human standards. in arias where humans do have skills we don't think other animals have. Who knows how many tests dolphins or whales have already done with humans, without, the humans did recognize being tested. Because we don't have a real understanding of the way these animals communicate, doesn't mean they don't do it. It simply means we don't understand it, or even recognize it as communication. Therefore these whole discussion is somehow very one sided. But never the less, I like participating in it!
So here we go... The definition of intelligence is a hard one, looking through all the post before, I've seen many different ways to describe it. So I've looked up the definition in the Oxford Dictionary oxforddictionaries.com/definition/learner/intelligence
And this is what it said: "the ability to learn, understand and think in a logical way about things; the ability to do this well". This definition has so many assumptions in it were we could debate about... for example, how do you describe "a logical way" what is "Logical"? What kind of "things", are we talking about? And how would you describe "the ability to do this well"? So this definition is in my opinion at least vague, and open for many interpretations. But I'll try to work with it, as all of you have done before me.
If you look at the psychological theories of Skinner's Verbal Behavior(1957) and the theory which evolved from Skinner's theory in the latest decades of the twentieths century, the Relational Frame Theory (RFT), which both form a relationship between behavior and language, one of the main differences between humans and other animals is the ability to work out relationships between three object when only two relationships have been seen.
For example: "RFT treats relational responding as a generalized operant, and thus appeals to a history of multiple-exemplar training. Specific types of relational responding, termed relational frames, are defined in terms of the three properties of mutual and combinatorial entailment, and the transformation of functions. Relational frames are arbitrarily applicable, but are typically not necessarily arbitrarily applied in the natural language context.
Mutual entailment refers to the derived bidirectionality of some stimulus relations, and as such it is a generic term for the concept of "symmetry" in stimulus equivalence. "Mutual entailment" applies if stimulus A is related to another stimulus B in a specific context, and as a result a relation between B and A is entailed in that context. Combinatorial entailment refers to instances in which two or more relations that have acquired the property of mutual entailment mutually combine. Combinatorial entailment is the generic term for what is called "transitivity" and "equivalence" in stimulus equivalence. Combinatorial entailment applies when, in a given context, A is related to B and B is related to C, and then in that context a relation is entailed between A and C and another between C and A. For example, if A is bigger than B, and B is bigger than C, then a bigger-than relation is entailed between A and C, and a smaller-than relation is entailed between C and A. A transformation of stimulus functions applies when functions of one event in a relational network is altered based on the functions of another event in the network and the derived relation between them. Mutual and combinatorial entailment are regulated by contextual cues (C rel). The transformation of stimulus functions are regulated by additional contextual cues (C func)." https://contextualscience.org/what_is_rft
Up until the age of three years old the learning ability of human children and animals is based on the capacity to learn only from the direct experienced relationships. Like A is bigger than B. Through out multiple animal behavioral experiments, animals are capable to learn many of these kind of relationships, like an monkey learns by experience , when he pushes a button with a picture of a banana he receives food, while when he pushes another picture nothing happens. They are also capable to learn to make a distinguish differences between more pictures if on those pictures are different rewards granted. These kind of experiments have been done with different kinds of animals, like dolphins, killer whales, primates, but also dogs and wolves. All those animals are capable of learning these kinds of relationships, although it takes them all a lot more time then it takes a human infant to learn these skills. But after the age of three years old the brain of a human child develops itself to learn also the non-experienced relationships as described above in the RFT. This kind of development of relationships, has non of the animals ever achieved. So the big difference between the intelligence of humans and animals lays in the ability to form relationships in the mind bases on predictions, as described as above.
In my point of view I have to admit all of the experiments are done by humans, and are thereby based on a human perspective of intelligence. Although the tested experiments have been numerous, the RFT, is even in its field itself a theory which is very much debated... But all the tests between animal behavior and human behavior are very well documented, the debate is on the theory and not on the outcome of those experiments.
Therefor the conclusion is, that humans have an extra dimension of abilities in there brains, which widens their intelligence. This extra dimension, has the downside of making us not only the smartest of the animals, but also the most unhappy ones, because we have the ability to see a lot more danger in our environment than other animals can. The brain is designed to protect us, from immediate danger. In the early stages of our development, there was lots of that, to keep the mind busy. But in resent times the immediate dangers have been decreased, but our brain hasn't adept to the new reality, and therefor is always on the lookout of this danger. If it can't find it in real life, it invents it to keep itself busy.... How smart is that?
Besides intelligence, there is an other main issue that has conducted to give us the position we have on earth today. Besides the intelligence aggression has played a major role in ruling the Earth. For example the Neanderthal human, had almost the same intellectual capacities as modern human beings, but according to some theories their primary urges to mate and and their survival skills to protect themselves were far less than those of our ancestors, therefor Human Sapiens Sapiens have become us and the Neanderthal human has extinguished.
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
I don't think modern medicine is the only to blame for this, and i am sure glad it exists, because otherwise my life had ended at the age of thirteen months old, when i was diagnosed with a chronicle illness. But I do think modern medicine and the increase of our time here on earth has made the already fragile balance between humans and their environment on earth some what more fragile. The concept of being able to dominate our environment, and stand above it instead of being a part of it has made us almost destroy the earth!!! I'm not sure its in our basic nature to restore the damage we have done, I hope we can learn how to do so in time...
If you are interested in learning more about the Relational Frame Theory, I will include some links:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2779078/
actmindfully.com.au/upimages/rft_simplified.pdf
https://newharbinger.com/blog/relational-frame-theory-101-introduction
https://contextualscience.org/system/files/IntroRFT_0.pdf
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee
(By the way, if I recall correctly, English isn't your first language...? If so, an even bigger wow from here.)
Besides, this subject (RFT and ACT the therapeutic transformation of RFT) are very close to my heart at the moment, I like to share information about it!
"The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed".- Carl Jung.
"Art does not reproduce what we see; rather, it makes us see."- Paul Klee