|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total) |
| |
anil dahar | |
Total: 919,519 Year: 6,776/9,624 Month: 116/238 Week: 33/83 Day: 3/6 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Animal Intelligence and Evolution/Creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6283 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
The information in message #60 dealt with all that and provided the categorically vast implication of gargantua sorts pertaining to what we can do artificially... This has not been understood, or falsified. It has been understood. It has been falsified. Humans are at one end of a range for characteristics including technology, culture, and reasoning. Since other animals have these same characteristics, these characteristics do not make us "uniquely different" from other animals. Your introduction of the term "artificial" at this stage of the discussion does not change the underlying evidence.
Can our species design/create artificially, to make up for what it can not do naturally? If it can, can other species pertaining to natural ability? No they can't. It has been demonstrated to you multiple times that they can. You simply choose to ignore it. Let me summarize a bit: - You claim that our modern technological advances make us qualitatively different.- It is pointed out to you that other animals develop and use technology. - It is pointed out to you that it is a fallacy to define a species characteristic using historical evidence that would not have defined the species as such a hundred years ago. - You claim that even though Moses-era people didn't conceive of or design such technology, they could be taught how to use it. - It is pointed out to that chimps, bonobos, and orangs can be taught to use computers. Some even use a keyboard with a voice processor to talk to people over the phone. - You claim that the unique difference is now invisible, intangible, and the sum of quantitative and time differences (which is a fallacy). - Thus, you've descended into ignoring evidence and making up undetectable characteristics to prove your point. In defending that ancient humans were technologically apt, you stated:
Another example is time limitation, or not having the means to show your ability for lack of material/time. Again, chimps in the wild have culture, technology, and reasoning. (Not to mention the amazing abilities of captive chimps, such as the one developing stone working ability given the same "knowledge" that you say is required for humans to express their "unique" abilities). Given material and time they may develop these further (though this is unlikely due to niche considerations). My point is that the same argument you make to defend the aptitude of humans of the past can be used to defend the aptitude of apes of the present.
fallacy of slothful induction. Perhaps you should go back and rethink your incessant use of this term. It is simply a way to defend your "argument from the obvious".
Slothful induction requires me to ignore the evidence; however, I haven't ignored your evidence, I've refuted it. Now to the important boldface stuff: Falsehood #1:
Quantitive and qualitive is a moot strawman invoked by PS> It is not moot, and it is not a strawman. You argued that humans were "uniquely different"; that is, "obviously" having characteristics that other animals do not have.
This is a qualitative argument that you made. It cannot be a quantitative argument, because if a non-human animal has a human characteristic to a lesser degree, it still has that characteristic. Falsehood #2:
I am arguing about our abilities as a species, therefore it wouldn't matter if it was quantitive evidence, it still shows our ability. You've been arguing for human uniqueness, not human ability. It does matter if you argument is qualitative or quantitative, as I describe above. Falsehood #3:
WHy on earth do you ignore this evidence? I have not done so. First, I have repeatedly acknowledged that humans are quite different from other animals. Secondly, I have refuted the evidence you provided as "unique" human characteristics by giving you documented examples of those same characteristics in non-humans.
If I am refuting, I am not ignoring. Perhaps you should go back and reread the thread. What you have laid out here as your "ADDENDUM" is a complete misrepresentation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 6133 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I am looking at it from a perspective of species. What can a species do. Can our species design/create artificially, to make up for what it can not do naturally? If it can, can other species pertaining to natural ability? No they can't. Yes, they can, and you've been given numerous examples of this by many people, including me. In case you missed it: ANIMALS MAKE AND USE TOOLS. They do this naturally to overcome limitations of their morphology. JUST LIKE HUMANS. You have not only been refuted, your argument has been obliterated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member (Idle past 255 days) Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
I said;
mike the wiz writes: This has not been understood, or falsified. So far, all animals can eat and gather, and use their morphology to get by. But the point is that it is what they can naturally not do. For example, a beaver cannot naturally fly, and neither can a human. They both can NOT NATURALLY. Human's can artificially, not through quantity, but through ability. You both haven't even begun to understand what I mean by this. To falsify or refute this, you must show that an animal without a natural ability can produce that ability artificially. (I admitt using the word artificially late, but I only remembered it late, that's all, my argument was still the same. You invoked quality and quantity. But it's all moot as I am talking about evidence and I did from the start, in my first post dealing with inductive fallacy pertaining to evidence). What I mean by NOT having a natural ability; (And I mean something very specific) First of all, I mean an organism's capabilities. For example, a bird can fly. So flight isn't an example. Also - stating what a beaver or chimp can do naturally is also not what I mean. I mean such natural abilities in organisms as Swimming, running at high speed, seeing far etc. Now, a pig can not fly. That's is what you must start out with, something the species can not do naturally. And then, you must show how the species has artificially produced that natural trait. That is the only way to falsify and refute my argument. So logically Quetzal, I'm shocked frankly, that you say I have been obliterated. Do you know so very little about what I am talking about that you would say such a thing? A human, can not fly through natural ability. Artificially, a human species has the ability to fly, go under water, travel at high speed and create far distant sight (telescopes and such). THIS is the ability of the human. This is how a human is very unique in an un-equivalent capacity to that of any other organism. By showing me the equivalent of this in any other organism on earth, you will then falsify my logical statement. This means atleast one organism must have artificially produced natural abilities such as seeing far, moving at speed, going under water, flying and building atleast a rudimentary system involving energy. I am extremely confident that I am correct in my logical ability to discern what I am talking about. I don't say that to ignite flames, but I am simply very certain that you cannot refute this in any way whatsoever, not because of anything great that I have said, but because it is simply reality. I stated very early on that it is overwhelming the amount of evidence that there is on earth as to just how unique humans. are. SOme of those evidences remain. You can't refute evidence - lol, or I suppose I can say that evolution didn't happen at all. Splitting the atom, pertaining to our thinking. Playing God with our very genetic structure etc. These are simply statements pertaining to our ability to think and figure out. I am dealing with reality gentelemen. I am not defining what a human is - I am saying what the human species has the ability to do. To realize just how much you're fooling yourselves, look at this question; Does the human species have the ability to split the atom, design and create, create equations and show mathematical ability? My answer is yes. The last time I looked, that was just reality. I have proved that ability of a human does not relate to quantity. The first human would have the same intelligence as a modern one. So quality and quantity - no deal boss, coz it takes time to show quality. All species have had the same amount of time. I guess these points just floated in one ear and out the other eh? Ho hum.
PS writes: You've been arguing for human uniqueness, not human ability Yes, human uniqeness because of our ability. It's not a falsehood just because you don't understand what I am saying. *sheesh*
mike the wiz in message#22 writes: For me, it's a double standard, and is incredulous to deny how much more consciously endowed we are as conscious beings. (And is therefore denying the inductive and vast amount of evidence, and it's proper conclusion) Now usually I'm told of some vague ability that an animal may or may not have, but never have I been shown the equivalent. mikes link in message #45 writes: Humans seem to be far superior to other animals in their mindreading and manipulation abilities You're playing with words. What would satisfy you, what is a qualitative difference? Define and explain it fully to see if I can come up with any answers that qualify. Usually I use words, and evolutionists/atheists at infidels and here too, say "what definition are you using etccc", and play the word game. Well it cuts both ways Jack. I want to know the full criteria in specific details as to what would be a "qualitative difference". You've ducked an weaved for pages after pages, I've been called a jerk, told I've been refuted/obliterated, despite only being polite myself. So now explain what a qualitative difference is or you haven't proved a thing. Also statements of me having been completely refuted and falsified, don't of themselves mean anything other than the synergetic nature of the forum (thanks Brad). This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-16-2005 21:20 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member (Idle past 255 days) Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Ofcourse, I know exactly why Buz left this group. It's because not only is evolution the absolute law in town, but now you want us to believe that humans are just the same as all the animal, to complete the ideological naturalistic position.
But I doubt monkeys can talk and I doubt they can type either, and no post will convince me to ignore all the evidence which you have preached to me that I should always observe. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-16-2005 21:18 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 6133 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Okay, mike. You win. Tomorrow I'm going to throw out all my science books to make room for bible exegesis, Chick tracts, and self-help books. Then I'll cancel my subscriptions to Conservation Biology and Skeptical Inquirer (I assume I can keep my Military History Quarterly subscription?). Finally, I go in and clean out all those old peer-reviewed article files clogging up my computer.
Your wisdom and brilliant rhetoric has made my journey to the Dark Side complete.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6283 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
A human, can not fly through natural ability. Artificially, a human species has the ability to fly, go under water, travel at high speed and create far distant sight (telescopes and such). THIS is the ability of the human. This is how a human is very unique in an un-equivalent capacity to that of any other organism. By showing me the equivalent of this in any other organism on earth, you will then falsify my logical statement. Mike, oh Great Irrefutable Mike, there is but another way I can falsify this statement - I can demonstrate that it is not a universal characteristic of humans. Humans from just a few hundred years ago would not have this characteristic, therefore it is not a human characteristic. If an iPod is a defining human characteristic, then we were not humans when we were born. Come now Great Irrefutable Mike! Do you really not understand why modern technology cannot be a species-defining characteristic? I honestly don't believe that you are that dim. That is why we use more general terminology, like "culture" and "technology" to describe these examples you give. Unfortunately for your argument, these have been demonstrated in non-human animals. I also would hope that you honestly don't believe that Quetzal and I are so dim that we don't get your argument. We got it the first time, you know, before you incessantly repeated it as though that might make it true.
I have proved that ability of a human does not relate to quantity. You haven't, in fact, you argued that quantity was sufficient for the unique difference just a few posts ago.
The first human would have the same intelligence as a modern one. I doubt it. Simply from a nutritional standpoint humans are smarter now.
Well it cuts both ways Jack. So now explain what a qualitative difference is or you haven't proved a thing. What would satisfy you, what is a qualitative difference? I did explain it already, Jack. I had a feeling you weren't reading all of my messages, given some of your half-assed responses and claims that I didn't refute your points. Good thing you're irrefutable, huh? See, part of the reason I didn't give you an example qualitative difference was because I was trying to think of a real one (whether or not you believe it I was trying to come up with a qualitative difference myself - which is why I was able to share with you my brainstorm that religious worship might qualify). You want an unreal qualitative difference? Telekinesis. If humans were the only species with telekinesis I'd say that would qualify as a "unique difference".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6283 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
now you want us to believe that humans are just the same as all the animal, to complete the ideological naturalistic position. No, Mike. I was trying to come up qualitative differences as well. I discussed with you my thoughts on "spirituality" and "written language" and specifically why, after consideration, I felt they were not unique or defining to humans. Doesn't sound like I was part of the grand conspiracy you describe. It's too bad that you break down and rant and contradict yourself and the history of the thread when the discussion doesn't go your way.
But I doubt monkeys can talk and I doubt they can type either, Holy crap, Irrefutable Mike! You are absolutely correct on this one! They were apes, not monkeys.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Aximili23 Inactive Member |
What I mean by NOT having a natural ability; (And I mean something very specific) First of all, I mean an organism's capabilities. For example, a bird can fly. So flight isn't an example. Also - stating what a beaver or chimp can do naturally is also not what I mean. I mean such natural abilities in organisms as Swimming, running at high speed, seeing far etc. Now, a pig can not fly. That's is what you must start out with, something the species can not do naturally. And then, you must show how the species has artificially produced that natural trait. That is the only way to falsify and refute my argument. So logically Quetzal, I'm shocked frankly, that you say I have been obliterated. Do you know so very little about what I am talking about that you would say such a thing? A human, can not fly through natural ability. Artificially, a human species has the ability to fly, go under water, travel at high speed and create far distant sight (telescopes and such). THIS is the ability of the human. This is how a human is very unique in an un-equivalent capacity to that of any other organism. By showing me the equivalent of this in any other organism on earth, you will then falsify my logical statement. This means atleast one organism must have artificially produced natural abilities such as seeing far, moving at speed, going under water, flying and building atleast a rudimentary system involving energy. Mike, You're correct to identify the definition of "natural ability" as a source of conflict in this debate. It seems to me that your idea of a natural ability or inability (and consequently, an instance where an inability is overcome) is not the same that for everybody else. And to me, your definition seems flawed. I gather that your idea of of "natural ability" is "what the organism's morphology is capable of." In this sense I see your point; pigs cannot fly (no wings), humans cannot breathe underwater (no gills), but humans overcome these morphologic limitations through technology (i.e. scuba, submarines). To you, animals do not. But the definition that you seem to actually be using for "natural ability" for animals is "anything the animal is capable of." Chimps and their tools, ants and their aphid agriculture, etc, all seem to be natural abilities to you, because animals can do these things. But this is a truism: of course an ability is something that one can do. If your idea of "natural ability" encompasses everything animals can do, then of course there are no examples of them overcoming their natural inabilities through technological means. Because their ability to overcome their inabilities themselves become natural abilities. To show the difference, take the example of beavers cited earlier. You state, correctly, that beavers have a natural ability to build dams, because of their teeth (morphologically determined ability). But this is already the example of overcoming the inability. What beavers cannot do with their morphology, which they overcome with technology, is block the flow of river water. They certainly cannot use their bodies to do that, but they overcome this by building dams, which they can naturally do. Same with chimps: they cannot use their hands (morphology) to get termites or open nuts, so they resort to sticks and rocks (technology). The problem with defining any kind of tool use or technology as a natural ability is that, if applied to humans, then all our technologies are natural abilities. We use our eyes and hands to build tools and machines, to make more complex tools, to make more complex tools, etc., until we can go to space and play with DNA. After all, building tools is clearly something our morphology allows us to do. If all of these things are our natural abilities, then clearly there are no inabilities for us to overcome. Thus, we do not overcome our natural inabilities, and we are not uniquely different. But more to the point, defining technology as a natural ability is a tautology. Neither humans nor animals can develop a technology that they are not naturally, morphologically capable of developing.
To falsify or refute this, you must show that an animal without a natural ability can produce that ability artificially. Again, beavers have no natural (morphological) ability to block river water. They produce this artificially by building dams. Chimps have no natural ability to reach into termite mounds, or break open nuts. They artificially use sticks and rocks. Birds have no natural ability to house their young, or bees to house their colonies. They artificially build nests and hives. Ants have no natural ability to produce large quantities of food for the entire colony. They artificially used aphids.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 676 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Your a funny guy. You nswer yourself, but you don't read your own answers.
Ok first, you assume I am calling you stupid, which I have done nothing of the sort. I mearly pointed out, that you wouldn't want to be that species, so then you really shouldn't compare yourself to it. Makes sense right? I did it with rehtoric, and that's allowed here. Then you go one to point out forum rules, after calling me a smartass, way to go hypocrite!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6283 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
I mearly pointed out, that you wouldn't want to be that species, so then you really shouldn't compare yourself to it. Makes sense right? No, it doesn't make sense. Not wanting to be a species doesn't invalidate a comparison, it simply demonstrates a weak ego that cannot stand the thought of being compared to a non-human. Luckily science doesn't ignore such comparisons on egotistical grounds, since major medical advancements have been made based on the fact that humans and bacteria/yeast/worms/flies/mice have a heck of a lot in common. In other words, you have medically benefited from 'icky' comparisons (unless you refuse modern medical treatment). (Also, I read your previous post just like Crash did - as an insult to Crash.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 676 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
But it's so silly.
Hey mom, can I go over Johnny's house?' No Why not? Because. But other kids do.
Clearly, being intelligent isn't all that great an adaptation. The most successful species on Eath, after all, do just fine without it.
Do I even know what species he was talking about?I could guess, roaches? Then I replied, "I bet you could be that species right now, don't you. "Which even though I left out the question mark, it was a question, so there-for could not be an insult. All he had to do was answer no. So first he claims that intelligence isn't all that, then he get's insulted because he thinks I'm calling him stupid? If intelligence isn't all that, then why get insulted, if you think I am calling you stupid, you obviously hold non-intelligence in such high regards, what's the big deal? Being called stupid should be a compliment, no? Utterly ridiculus. If he got insulted, or you, then it's your problem, not my comment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 362 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
Gaaa! I wish I was able to check this place more often. I bet someone's already responded to this one.. but I can't... resist... doing so too.
I'm having a real trouble with your thinking here, Mike. When you were saying that humans could defy nature and fly, I was thinking you meant with planes and stuff. Now I'm not so sure. You seem to be saying that when a chimp uses a hammer and anvil, that's not impressive because they are using "natural resources"? can you name a human engineering or design feat that DOESN'T use natural resources? The implication is that we fly with unnatural resources. I'm having visions of magic broomsticks or something. I'm now going to read on and find that this has already been explained... ah well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 362 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
Now I've read on a bit further... and I'm still wondering what you mean. It sounds as though you are asking the other two to prove that animals will one day develop technology that allows them to "trancend their morphology"* That's a pretty difficult task you've set them, isn't it? Maybe impossible. But we don't have to talk about maybes and what-ifs. The evidence of animal tool use is all around us now.
I think it was RAZD who linked to that article about crows that make tools from sticks. Assuming that this is true, then I can't think of any less ambiguous example of an animal "trancending its morphology" than this. It would be really helpful if you could explain why this exact equivalence doesn't work for you... I think then I might be able to get more of an understanding of your position. If you were to go back in time and see a couple of prehistoric men flint-knapping, isn't that directly equivalent to the crows making termite sticks? Would you pish and shrug and say that the prehistoric humans were just manipulating natural resources? Would you say with any confidnece that since their ancestors had done it for tens of thousands of years before them, that they would never develop more complex technologies? Clearly you'd be wrong if you did. *at a tangent... if bikes are the most efficient self-powered locomotive solution for a being with human morphology in an earth-like environment - I've wondered for ages what would a squid bike or a cow bike would look like... hey, or maybe a human moon bike, or a camel mars bike!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6283 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
But it's so silly. Hey mom, can I go over Johnny's house?' No Why not? Because. But other kids do. What are you referring to here? It isn't clear. Is this supposed to counter my point that personal disgust at a comparison does NOT scientifically invalidate it?
So first he claims that intelligence isn't all that, then he get's insulted because he thinks I'm calling him stupid? His claim was "that intelligence isn't all that" in evolutionary terms. Obviously stating that a human has the intelligence of a bacterium or roach is an insult. I bet you could be one of those species right now, don't you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 676 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
I bet you could be one of those species right now, don't you.
Right now, yes I do.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024