Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Evolution

Posted May 20, '14 at 9:23am

Kennethhartanto

Kennethhartanto

248 posts

This is like saying that obese people have poor cognitive abilities in comparison to small thin people. The size of the body is not a significant factor within the range we're talking about.


No, variation around species level should not be very much.

I say again that they don't.


I say again that they are. if you wanted to prove me wrong you can at least try to quote links like mage, which shot down a primary part of my argument by casting it off as invalid

Actually, this isn't true. The prefrontal cortex is involved primarily in social behaviour and concentration, not logic.


ok then. having my point invalid, i had to agree with this

It was still to explicitly state that they are underdeveloped, which they aren't.


compared to us, i think they are way way more undeveloped. i get this conclusion from wikipedia and my biology textbook. if you really think otherwise, at least prove it, because i can go like this for forever if you wanted to.

No, because that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.


well, it has everything to do with it if i was right. but because i'm wrong, i had to agree with this. but if i had to say something in response beside this, then i would say that we have much more complex frontal lobe to do complex logic reasoning

This is incorrect on all three counts.


Can a monkey or a chimp solve the Rubik's cube? can any animal find the solution to a lateral thinking puzzles? i know not all humans can solve either one, but there are some that can solve it, at the very least i'm on those list. so my point is proven

Essentially meaning that, because we can't identify their reasons just from observation, whatever reasons they have must be completely irrational. Many people hurt people for unclear reasons; sometimes they don't even understand their own reasons, so I don't see why we should be claiming the cognitive high ground on this matter.


most animals have a more violent way of living than humans. their reasons to beat up each other can be pretty irrational, such as showing who's boss or "tribal warfare" in the case of chimps.

Actually, they can. The studies used to arrive at those conclusions are flawed and frequently subject to experimenter bias.


I have already agreed with this, so why are you bringing up the same mistake that i make?

By which you mean the pointy sticks, the stones with sharp edges, and the stones with flattish bottoms? The problem with this mode of thinking is that virtually all man-made tools can only be weilded, let alone constructed, by a creature with hands or hand-like appendages. Your expectations are therefore totally unreasonable.


No, not literally like those. i said "tools that rival" not "tools that mirrors" ones from homo habilis or homo erectus

That's right. They were created because the groups of migrant settlers who would develop them had already dispersed themselves over at least four continents, where they had no input from other groups.


Your point?

You're moving the goalposts again. Furthermore, the argument is completely illogical. Pigs don't have hands. They don't have complex vocal capabilities. None of this is related to their intellect.


as i stated earlier, it is NOT literally using tools that mirror that we humans make. but rather ones that can rival it, also i have never heard a pig solving complex puzzles designed for humans. which proved my point

That's an invalid assumption.


Are you seriously saying that animals have morality systems and non violent ways to solve problems? because what i see is they don't have those, they only showed intimidation and the like as non-violent way.

Wrong. Instinctive behaviour is one type of logical process.


So? it is one type right? which is why i said "in a way"

I disagree.


well, i agree. most animals have only ganglions of brain cells to form "brains". i infer you are saying that ganglionic brains beat full sized brains which i disgress, so how do you expect me to believe your claims?

Complexity of consciousness being identified by what, exactly? Given that the best observations we can make of their mental processes are through brain imaging and basic level communication, I consider this claim to be highly dubious.


defined by tests that test this parameter, obviously.
 

Posted May 20, '14 at 4:42pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,475 posts

I say again that they are. if you wanted to prove me wrong

He doesn't need to prove you wrong. You presented a claim without evidence.

most animals have a more violent way of living than humans. their reasons to beat up each other can be pretty irrational, such as showing who's boss or "tribal warfare" in the case of chimps.

Haven't looked at Africa lately?

So? it is one type right? which is why i said "in a way"

I think his point was that you seemed to have it backwards.

Instinctive behavior is a logical process
But all logical processes are not instinctive
 

Posted May 20, '14 at 9:40pm

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

2,047 posts

if you wanted to prove me wrong you can at least try to quote links like mage, which shot down a primary part of my argument by casting it off as invalid


Excuse me, but where exactly are your links? I feel like we've been over this before.

compared to us, i think they are way way more undeveloped. i get this conclusion from wikipedia and my biology textbook. if you really think otherwise, at least prove it, because i can go like this for forever if you wanted to.


To be under-developed is to suffer some developmental malfunction, id est, growth defect which causes development to be stunted. As this is not the case for the organisms in question, they do not have underdeveloped brains.

Can a monkey or a chimp solve the Rubik's cube? can any animal find the solution to a lateral thinking puzzles? i know not all humans can solve either one, but there are some that can solve it, at the very least i'm on those list. so my point is proven


1 Quite probably.
2 Yes.
3 Why do the rest get to ride on the success of those who can?
4 Your point is scarcely even supported at this point.

most animals have a more violent way of living than humans.


What do you mean by most? Ants are probably the most numerous animals, and they only have disputes with other colonies.

their reasons to beat up each other can be pretty irrational, such as showing who's boss or "tribal warfare" in the case of chimps.


You have no sound reason to conclude that their behaviour is irrational.

I have already agreed with this, so why are you bringing up the same mistake that i make?


I was interrupted for over an hour and didn't bother to edit that out.

No, not literally like those. i said "tools that rival" not "tools that mirrors" ones from homo habilis or homo erectus


In which case, they have already succeeded.

as i stated earlier, it is NOT literally using tools that mirror that we humans make. but rather ones that can rival it, also i have never heard a pig solving complex puzzles designed for humans. which proved my point


How, then, would you design an experimental apparatus to effectively determine the puzzle-solving abilities of a pig? It can't involve complex communication or anything that requires precise manipulation of objects. If your point was that the resources currently invested in the study of porcine cognition are woefully insufficient for any definite conclusion to be made, I'd have to agree.

Are you seriously saying that animals have morality systems and non violent ways to solve problems? because what i see is they don't have those, they only showed intimidation and the like as non-violent way.


I'm saying that you have no grounds upon which to assume that they don't. For example, what act of violence have you seen committed by a clam, a gecko, or a cricket? How many problems need to be resolved by the average service dog in a typical day?

i infer you are saying that ganglionic brains beat full sized brains which i disgress, [...]


From what do you infer that? Have I at any point even implied that one brain is definitively better than another?

[...] so how do you expect me to believe your claims?


I don't. I expect you to disregard them and go on believing whatever appeals to your ego.

defined by tests that test this parameter, obviously.


As a measurement of what? Foot size? Unless you discover a means of quantifying the abstract complexity of an animal's consciousness directly, there must be some kind of criterion.
 

Posted May 21, '14 at 5:07am

Kennethhartanto

Kennethhartanto

248 posts

Excuse me, but where exactly are your links? I feel like we've been over this before.


Try this

He doesn't need to prove you wrong. You presented a claim without evidence.


ok then. my mistake, but promise me that you will also present your evidence too if i showed mine. Try this, or this.

Those are where i get my assumptions from plus by biology textbook, which i can't quote of course, as it's in indonesian. your turn.

Haven't looked at Africa lately?


What's wrong with it?

I think his point was that you seemed to have it backwards.

Instinctive behavior is a logical process
But all logical processes are not instinctive


And? i think i never said that all logical processes are instinctive. i only said "in a way", not "all".

To be under-developed is to suffer some developmental malfunction, id est, growth defect which causes development to be stunted. As this is not the case for the organisms in question, they do not have underdeveloped brains.


So this is where the hotspot is. i don't mean that under-developed. by "under-developed", i mean primitive.

1 Quite probably.


So, why haven't i hear about it?

2 Yes.


do you mean humans? as humans ARE animals in a way

3 Why do the rest get to ride on the success of those who can?


Why can't they? chimps and gorillas can in Mage's link

4 Your point is scarcely even supported at this point.


I use the last 3 sentence as it's support

What do you mean by most? Ants are probably the most numerous animals, and they only have disputes with other colonies.


invertebrates and vertebrates is what i meant with most. Ants don't only have disputes with other colonies, they have dispute with a lot of animals there is, like the prey they eat, us humans, and termite colonies. don't forget anteaters too, as they prey on them. And please don't say that you assumed they used non-violent ways to deal with that.

You have no sound reason to conclude that their behaviour is irrational.


Have you ever watched the channels that showcase life on earth? because i can find a lot of examples to make me believe they're behavior is irrational. take for example, chimp's "tribal warfare". as you have said yourself about "Organized warfare is the most extreme and irrational form of violence", and tribal warfare being a form of warfare and it was obviously organized, so why would it not be the most extreme and irrational form of violence like with the organized warfare?

In which case, they have already succeeded.


in what way? what tools that they made that can rival a homo habilis or homo erectus creations in complexity?

If your point was that the resources currently invested in the study of porcine cognition are woefully insufficient for any definite conclusion to be made, I'd have to agree.


Yes, it is my point.

I'm saying that you have no grounds upon which to assume that they don't. For example, what act of violence have you seen committed by a clam, a gecko, or a cricket? How many problems need to be resolved by the average service dog in a typical day?


1. a clam produces pearls by trapping anything that can irritate the organism, which would be equivalent to burying the foreign object ( the "anything"). is this not a form of "violence"?.
2. a gecko eats a lot of mosquitoes and small flying bugs and it does this everyday. isn't this a form of violence?
3. a cricket in mating season would compete with each other. is this not a form of violence?

From what do you infer that? Have I at any point even implied that one brain is definitively better than another?


From your argument that human ability at logic is not superior to most animals. as most animals consist of invertebrates, and most of them having ranging from no brains in the case of sponges to ganglionic brains in the case of arthropods. from there i can get the idea that you think they're brains aren't more "under-developed" / primitive then ours

As a measurement of what? Foot size? Unless you discover a means of quantifying the abstract complexity of an animal's consciousness directly, there must be some kind of criterion.


I think HaHiha has done this explanation already
 

Posted May 21, '14 at 6:59am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,586 posts

Knight

Maybe wikipedia can help solve one or two questions...
Primate cognition

Have you ever watched the channels that showcase life on earth? because i can find a lot of examples to make me believe they're behavior is irrational. take for example, chimp's "tribal warfare". as you have said yourself about "Organized warfare is the most extreme and irrational form of violence", and tribal warfare being a form of warfare and it was obviously organized, so why would it not be the most extreme and irrational form of violence like with the organized warfare?

But what is your point here? On one hand such tribal warfare already necessitates a certain cognitive level in chimps be present. And on the other hand humans do it all the same, whether it be actual warfare, or in more civilised situations mobbing and "showing who's the boss", to quote one of your posts.

And anyway, when you say irrational violence is one thing that separates primate cognition from human cognition, what do you call rational violence and how does it relate to having a more complex consciousness?
 

Posted May 21, '14 at 7:44am

Kennethhartanto

Kennethhartanto

248 posts

But what is your point here? On one hand such tribal warfare already necessitates a certain cognitive level in chimps be present. And on the other hand humans do it all the same, whether it be actual warfare, or in more civilised situations mobbing and "showing who's the boss", to quote one of your posts.


my point is that i'm trying to prove that they live a more violent lifestyle than us humans. it also serve as a response to his comment that i quoted.

And anyway, when you say irrational violence is one thing that separates primate cognition from human cognition, what do you call rational violence and how does it relate to having a more complex consciousness?


In my opinion, "rational violence" is a violence that served a well thought purpose and in situations when the purpose itself can justify the action. examples include a parent scolding their children when doing something wrong and a police shooting at a well armed criminal. it relates to a more complex consciousness because a rational violence is mostly well thought and planned by anything that planned it and not just emotionally driven
 

Posted May 21, '14 at 12:24pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,586 posts

Knight

my point is that i'm trying to prove that they live a more violent lifestyle than us humans. it also serve as a response to his comment that i quoted.

But all chimps do is defend/expand their territory. This is not more violent than what humans have done, and not more irrational.

In my opinion, "rational violence" is a violence that served a well thought purpose and in situations when the purpose itself can justify the action.

Like when a predator kills a prey, or when an animal defends itself?...

examples include a parent scolding their children when doing something wrong

Do you assume this doesn't happen in the animal kingdom? Not even in social animals where the adults raise the offsprings (in whatever configuration)?

it relates to a more complex consciousness because a rational violence is mostly well thought and planned by anything that planned it and not just emotionally driven

Emotional response =/= instinct based response.
 

Posted May 21, '14 at 12:52pm

FishPreferred

FishPreferred

2,047 posts

Try this


Is this a definitive measure of logical thinking? No. It's a list of organisms by neuronal density. You're trying to prove that neuronal density is proportional to cognition, which is an insupportable claim, not that the density varies between species.

Try this, or this.


This #1 is the same as above, but using mass instead of neuron count. This #2 is unclear, because it doesn't seem to have any relation to what we're discussing. What are you trying to support with this article?

[quote]Haven't looked at Africa lately?


What's wrong with it?[/quote]

There are tribes in Africa that engage in wars and petty squabbles for dominance. What makes their "tribal warfare" any more rational?

So this is where the hotspot is. i don't mean that under-developed. by "under-developed", i mean primitive.


As I suspected. "Primitive", however, is equally incorrect. Organisms that exist today may have primitive vestigial features, but their brains are functional and modern. They are therefore not primitive. You could more easily argue that humans have more primitive brains than the laboratory fruit fly, because the flies go through more than 1000 recombinations for every single generation of humans.

So, why haven't i hear about it?


It isn't exactly nationwide headline material that a chimp can match up some coloured squares.

do you mean humans? as humans ARE animals in a way


I don't, and what do you mean "in a way"?

invertebrates and vertebrates is what i meant with most. Ants don't only have disputes with other colonies, they have dispute with a lot of animals there is, like the prey they eat, us humans, and termite colonies. don't forget anteaters too, as they prey on them. And please don't say that you assumed they used non-violent ways to deal with that.


1 You seem to be a bit confused about the meaning of violence. Eating is not an act of violence, nor is being eaten. Of course, if you think the process of killing another animal should qualify, we could discuss the violent and brutal butchering of millions of defenseless livestock animals on battery farms.
2 The only disputes with humans are when a human decides to completely destroy every individual of their colony for the sake of his/her own convenience.
3 "Oher colonies" includes termite colonies.

because i can find a lot of examples to make me believe they're behavior is irrational.


This is where the issue lies. You see their behaviour, but you do not understand it. Instead of taking the time to consider their goals, you just assume that there aren't any and that it is completely irrational.

take for example, chimp's "tribal warfare". as you have said yourself about "Organized warfare is the most extreme and irrational form of violence", and tribal warfare being a form of warfare and it was obviously organized, so why would it not be the most extreme and irrational form of violence like with the organized warfare?


Tribal warfare is not organized warfare. Organized warfare is when two political entities send hundreds of battle-trained soldiers in their stead to settle a dispute instead of coming to terms rationally.

in what way? what tools that they made that can rival a homo habilis or homo erectus creations in complexity?


The bent or broken twigs used by crows to hook or spear grubs, the clubs used by some parrots to drum on tree trunks, the stones used by otters to crack open mollusk shells, the straight twigs used by apes to collect ants and termites, and the bowers and nests made by myriad bird species are the first that come to mind.

1. a clam produces pearls by trapping anything that can irritate the organism, which would be equivalent to burying the foreign object ( the "anything"). is this not a form of "violence"?.


Those are oysters, but even in their case it is not an act of violence. The object, usually a tiny shell fragment or piece of grit, gets stuck between the shell plate and the oyster's unprotected flesh. It secretes a barrier of mucous which may eventually cause the formation of a pearl. It is not trapping anything, because the object is already stuck.

2. a gecko eats a lot of mosquitoes and small flying bugs and it does this everyday. isn't this a form of violence?


Eating is not violence. It is a necessity of life for most animal species.

3. a cricket in mating season would compete with each other. is this not a form of violence?


In what way is it even remotely violent? How is it more violent than American Idol?

From your argument that human ability at logic is not superior to most animals.


Not more â  less. Disbelief â  credulity.
 

Posted May 22, '14 at 2:45am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,475 posts

and what do you mean "in a way"?

I think he meant that when people say "animals", they're generally referring to the non-human kind, and was clarifying (or trying to) that that's what he meant.

Of course, if you think the process of killing another animal should qualify, we could discuss the violent and brutal butchering of millions of defenseless livestock animals on battery farms.

Not to mention the widespread use of insecticides and other toxins.

3 "Other colonies" includes termite colonies.

He likely thought that by "[Ants] only have disputes with other colonies", you meant specifically other ant colonies, not other insect colonies.

Instead of taking the time to consider their goals, you just assume that there aren't any and that it is completely irrational.

To further the point, there are tons of human goals that seem irrational as well, such as wasting time playing a video game or drawing a picture. These things don't (or barely) aid in survival, as opposed to the direct benefits of gathering food/water/supplies/mates/etc.

Organized warfare is when two political entities send hundreds of battle-trained soldiers in their stead to settle a dispute instead of coming to terms rationally.

That's infantry warfare, but ok.

In what way is it even remotely violent?

I think he was referring to congenital aggression, not the noisemaking.
 

Posted May 22, '14 at 10:34am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,809 posts

Knight

Can a monkey or a chimp solve the Rubik's cube? can any animal find the solution to a lateral thinking puzzles? i know not all humans can solve either one, but there are some that can solve it, at the very least i'm on those list. so my point is proven


You mean like these?
Chimp Solves Puzzle Faster Than Most Humans
Enrichment Puzzle
Just to mix it up a bit.
Sookie Opens The Parrot's Treasure Chest by Foragewise
 
Reply to Evolution

You must be logged in to post a reply!