Will the internet survive energy contraction?

[drkitten]

Nope, what the hell are you talking about?

I'm talking about your idiotic claim that there are animals that are "very close" to human-level intelligence,

I'm talking about your idiotic attempt to support your claim by pointing at pathological cases such as Downs' syndrome as though that was representative of human intelligence. This is, of course, particularly idiotic because it's an epic fail, in that no animal of any sort has ever scored anywhere near Down's syndrome level on any recognized cognitive test of any type.

I'm talking more generally about your tendency to accept whatever drivel comes out of the keyboard of your political idol of the month without doing even the slightest bit of fact checking.

Yes, dolphins are intelligent (by animal standards); they can, for example, recognize themselves in a mirror, which only about six other species have been confirmed to do. This doesn't mean that they're anywhere near human intelligence. (I'm not sure there are any recognized forms of mental retardation that produce retardation in humans so profound as to cause the patient to fail the mirror test while still retaining enough functionality to be able to take the mirror test in the first place.)

In post #873 you claimed, and I quote, "It's a proven fact there are many animal species with our same intelligent. Most apes, and dolphins for examples. Along with elephants."

This "proven fact" is simply not true. No sensible person has claimed it; no sensible person would claim it, and it bespeaks of gullibility on your part that you'd even suggest it.

But then you go on and offer in support the statement that : "Dolphins have been declared the world’s second most intelligent creatures after humans, with scientists suggesting they are so bright that they should be treated as “non-human persons”."

How does that support the idea that dolphins are "same intelligent" as humans? It explicitly states the exact opposite -- that dolphins are the second-most intelligent species after humans. It bespeaks of poor reading skills on your part that you can get "same intelligent" out of that.

But beyond that, this bit that you're quoting is a classic bit of pseudo-scientific fluff, and has no weight as evidence. "Scientists" suggest this? Which ones? Even Wikipedia wouldn't accept this in support of an article on delphine intelligence; if you bothered to read the actual article, it's a reprint-of-a-reprint of a third party source, and the actual suggestion is from a professor of ethics (i.e. a completely unqualified source on animal biology).

This bespeaks of poor critical thinking skills on your part, that you can look at this bit of science-journal fluff as any way authoritative or evidentiary.

Basically, you don't even have the necessary critical reasoning skills to understand how wrong you are. You literally don't seem to understand when you're being lied to.

 

[TFian]

I'm talking about your idiotic claim that there are animals that are "very close" to human-level intelligence,

Let's remember "very close"...moving on

I'm talking about your idiotic attempt to support your claim by pointing at pathological cases such as Downs' syndrome as though that was representative of human intelligence. This is, of course, particularly idiotic because it's an epic fail, in that no animal of any sort has ever scored anywhere near Down's syndrome level on any recognized cognitive test of any type.

I'm not the one who brought up the down syndrome comparison. That was another user. Of course I don't think downies are the metric of human intelligence. Defects are never representative of any normal human population.

I'm talking more generally about your tendency to accept whatever drivel comes out of the keyboard of your political idol of the month without doing even the slightest bit of fact checking.

Who's my political idol of this month? This should be interesting...

In post #873 you claimed, and I quote, "It's a proven fact there are many animal species with our same intelligent. Most apes, and dolphins for examples. Along with elephants."

Which I changed to "almost as".

This "proven fact" is simply not true. No sensible person has claimed it; no sensible person would claim it, and it bespeaks of gullibility on your part that you'd even suggest it.

May I ask what makes humans so unique?

Basically, you don't even have the necessary critical reasoning skills to understand how wrong you are. You literally don't seem to understand when you're being lied to.

Uh huh...

 

[excaza]

This has nothing to do with your baseless assertions about the world's energy supply

 

[drkitten]

May I ask what makes humans so unique?

Lots of things. Tool-making tools. Recursive syntax. The ability to think about and plan for situations removed in space and time. Anthropologists and psychologists are continually finding out more.

Why didn't you ask this question before you claimed that humans weren't unique?

Another classic example of your Ready-Fire-Aim technique.

 

[TFian]

This has nothing to do with your baseless assertions about the world's energy supply

Yeah I know, but diversions can add flavor.

 

[excaza]

Yeah I know, but diversions can add flavor.

So would support for your statements.

 

[drkitten]

This has nothing to do with your baseless assertions about the world's energy supply

In content? Not much.

In method, there's a surprising overlap. In both cases, he's reading some opinion piece backed up by no actual evidence, an opinion piece that falls apart under close reading because the facts don't support the conclusions it draws. Rather than doing the close reading himself, he simply presents this and then gets all huffy when we point out that the ArchDruid has no Robes.

 

[TFian]

Lots of things. Tool-making tools. Recursive syntax. The ability to think about and plan for situations removed in space and time. Anthropologists and psychologists are continually finding out more.

Well I don't think all of those are unique to humans.

Why didn't you ask this question before you claimed that humans weren't unique?

Because it wasn't the original topic?

Another classic example of your Ready-Fire-Aim technique.

I have classic examples now? Sweet!

 

[TFian]

So would support for your statements.

Again, you're funny.

 

[excaza]

Again, you're funny.

Again, I'm not trying to be funny. I'm trying to get you to support the idiotic things you say, which you have yet to do.

 

[TFian]

Again, I'm not trying to be funny.

Still, you make me laugh.

 

[excaza]

I'm sorry your ignorance amuses you.

 

[TFian]

I'm sorry your ignorance amuses you.

Don't be.

 

[drkitten]

Well I don't think all of those are unique to humans.

Shrug. You don't think that seawater contains dissolved uranium, either.

You're wrong.

 

[TFian]

Shrug. You don't think that seawater contains dissolved uranium, either.

You're wrong.

No, I am aware there's considerable amounts of uranium in seawater.

 

[Weak Kitten]

Anyway, the real test of how many rights a being should have is how well it can handle the responsibilities that come with those rights. If we gave animals the same rights as humans, or close to the same rights, then we would have to judge them the same way we do humans. That could mean prosecuting them for assault, public indecency, public defecation, and a number of other offenses that humans are held responsible for. The excuse of "he's just an animal" doesn't work if you are insisting on giving them rights close to the level of a human.

Now, if an animal is intelligent enough to learn not to attack in a crowded room, to use the proper facilities for disposal of waste, and can be counted on to teach these things to its young then that is a being who can start moving towards full human rights. Otherwise it is better for both us and them to continue to treat them as animals, particularly bright and rare animals but animals never the less.

 

[TFian]

Anyway, the real test of how many rights a being should have is how well it can handle the responsibilities that come with those rights. If we gave animals the same rights as humans, or close to the same rights, then we would have to judge them the same way we do humans. That could mean prosecuting them for assault, public indecency, public defecation, and a number of other offenses that humans are held responsible for. The excuse of "he's just an animal" doesn't work if you are insisting on giving them rights close to the level of a human.

Now, if an animal is intelligent enough to learn not to attack in a crowded room, to use the proper facilities for disposal of waste, and can be counted on to teach these things to its young then that is a being who can start moving towards full human rights. Otherwise it is better for both us and them to continue to treat them as animals, particularly bright and rare animals but animals never the less.

Sure, I'd agree with that. I never advocated they should be given full human rights.

 

[Roboramma]

Well I don't think all of those are unique to humans.

Have you examined that thought?

For instance, can you offer any examples of an animal that makes tools for making tools?

There certainly are examples of tool use in animals, of course, and they are quite astounding in their way.
For instance, here is a video of a chimpanzee cracking nuts with a stick: http://www.bbcmotiongallery.com/gallery/clip/1B05614_0003.do
Here is another of a chimpanzee "fishing for termites":
http://www.bbcmotiongallery.com/gallery/clip/1B03871_0040.do
The latter is even more impressive in that the tool had to be specially made. It's also a skill that's passed on culturally.

But neither of those is making tools to be used in making tools. And while tool use has been found in some other animal species as well, none of them make tools for making tools either.

So, what makes you think that this isn't unique to humans? Because if you've seen something I haven't, I'd be very interested.

But perhaps you were referring to recursive syntax? Language is being studied in many other species. Chimpanzees are taught sign language, for instance. And their use of it is again, impressive, at least if you were under the impression that they could make no use of it. But it's also extremely limited. As I recall they never make sentences longer than two words.
And chimpanzees, again, have the highest complexity that we've studied so far.

Perhaps it's possible that the songs of the Humpback Whale have some sort of recursive syntax? Sorry to break it to you, but while we still have a great deal to learn about them, and while there is something truly beautiful about them, here's the thing: every whale in a large population sings the same song. It changes over time (which has meaningful implications) but they are singing the same song. Which makes it a little difficult to suggest that it's a type of language, particularly one with recursive syntax.

Whales within a large area sing the same song. All North Atlantic humpbacks sing the same song, and those of the North Pacific sing a different song. Each population's song changes slowly over a period of years without repeating.

Maybe you know of some other species, though, with a complex language with recursive syntax? If so, awesome, please share because I would be really really excited to hear about it.

Or perhaps you're referring to "The ability to think about and plan for situations removed in space and time"? Cool! If you have some evidence of this in other animal species, I would be thrilled to see it.

 

[theprestige]

Interesting new article over at EB

Since when does using refrigeration technology count as abandoning refrigeration technology?

The lady in this modern-day Aesop's fable is in fact so enamored of refrigeration technology,that when the refrigerator at her workplace is shut down, far from giving up on refrigeration, she promptly turns to her refrigerator at home to make up the difference and keep her in the manner to which she has become accustomed.

Hardly a tale of technological abandonment. Rather, the moral of the story is that humans will always use technology wherever possible, to get the most value for their money.

 

[GreyArea]

Why do you think it's so underreported?

Because it lacks conflict. Because it doesn't fit the outdated Ehrlich-Simon spectrum of argument. Because it's hard to make it photogenic or telegenic. Because it is slow. Because it is about women primarily in the South.

Well, if it really is a problem, what's the problem with passive fatalism?

Whatever.

No, not quite. But if say, I'm going to die anyway, why not accept it?

You're asking a 'what if' question? All right, then. What if you're wrong? What if you're wrong about the fates of other people?

... technofix ... business as usual ... car culture ...

It will be different. But I have already described ways that the "car culture" has changed.

TFian, would you say that Europe has a car culture? Does Japan?

Second off, the desires of a particular consumer culture don't change physical realities, such as resource constrains, and the limits of a finite planet.

But the desires to do particular things will persist. How they are accomplished will change as new methods are invented and old methods become impractical. I don't think people care how they are done so much as that their doing is within their reach.

After all, I come from a "poor" country myself, so I can certainly visualize some of the path downwards we may take.

What do the people of Kerala want?

You can probably find some of his stuff on Youtube. He's made four main documentary series - Connections, the first, now pretty old, then The Day the Universe Changed, then Connections 2 and Connections 3.

I think you'll really enjoy them.

I agree.

TFian, if you watch only one of these episodes, watch the first episode of Connections. Here is a YouTube playlist for "The Trigger Effect". Each 10-minute segment automatically rolls into the next.

Although, the first Burke I watched was The Day the Universe Changed, which is also interesting. You might also like After the Warming. Ironically, it is a good example of how predictions that once seemed reasonable can be left behind by reality. (For example, look at how people in 1990 thought Japan would be running things by now.)

I almost did actually, but I picked another field instead.

Why did you not choose civil engineering? What did you choose instead, if I may ask?

I'm generally weary of any sort of geo engineering.

You mean "wary". And speaking of geo-engineering, it's starting to be taken seriously.