Willravel

Great video, twisted.

From the video:
ROFL

Johnny Rotten

I believe that a literal reading is not only incorrect, but potentially damaging to faith. It forces you by implication to take the Bible word-for-word, when it is full of chronological inconsistencies, apparent philosophical contradictions, and a few outright fabrications. It pulls away from the message of Jesus, which sometimes must be read in between the lines. His message, aside from him being the Son of God and dying on the Cross for our sins, is that we must love one another as we love ourselves. Unconditional love is one of the most powerful things a person can feel.

He as many wise things to say aside from the Golden Rule. The Synoptic Gospels are a treasure trove of knowledge. He dines with the sinners instead of with the faithful. The devil's three-part challenge in the desert explains why we don't test God, why materialism is bad, and why miracles do not occur for their own sake. He teaches the value of spiritual humility, and balances it with the importance of sharing faith and doing good works.

A literal reading of the Bible is not really necessary to understanding the Christian way, and it introduces more problems than it solves.

__________________
"The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine

KnifeMissile

It depends on what you mean by "are want to lump all gods together." If you mean that all atheist lump all gods into the category of fiction then yes, they do, by definition. If you mean that they think they're all the same, well that's simply untrue. They're obviously different, at least literally speaking...

Why did you even bring this up? It looks like a complete non-sequitur to your conversation...

This makes no sense.

If there is a god, he would be caring because... we can conceive of such a thing? Care to elaborate on that?

I also don't think we're nearly as smart as you think we are, relative to the other animals on Earth. The other primates are capable of surprisingly abstract thought and communication. They can even understand the concept of zero; an abstract idea that came surprisingly late in human history.

The thing that really separates us from the other animals is our capacity for complex language. Other animals clearly think and care about things. Some of them don't have nearly as much instinct as you might think.

What do you mean by "programming?"

Ourcrazymodern?

The universe ain't getting any younger, nor are the stories we've used to explain it when we were.

Math beats mythology in my book, because it leads away from confusion.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

ReasonAndLogic

www,Reasons,org Reasons
You can have Several LITERAL translations of Genesis 1. And one of them allows for "YOM" to mean "long period of time" instead of "24 hours" (in the Day of david.. in the Day of the typewriter, in the day God Created Light)

www,reasons,org/resources/non-staff-papers/introduction-to-the-creation-date-debate
this page speeks specifically to the young earth-old earth depbate.

First, if you look at verse 1.. it is a summary that "God made everything in the Universe".
The rest of Genesis 1 is talking specifically from the view of on earth "and the spirit of God hovered over the water of the deep [on earth]"

There is biblical and scientific evidence that Light, the sun, and Stars existed BEFORE day 1 and day 4.

1) The word used when describing god creating light and the sun and stars is NOT the word for "Brand New". (The bible uses the Hebrew word for 'brand new' when talking about Man.

2) Scientific evidence suggests that the earth had a thick cloud atmosphere (like venus) except thicker because the earth is farther from the sun, and has a larger mass.

3) In the book of Job, it talks about how during creation God "shrouded the earth" with clouds.

4) 'Day 1' suggestes that God made the opaque sky turn Translucent. Thus there was light on earth.(there is scientific evidence fot this)
5) 'Day 4' suggestes that God made the Tranclucent sky Transparent. Thus the sun and moon and stars were visible in the sky.(there is scientific evidence for this)

.... (much more evidence exists)

When looking at different religions the order of creation in the Bible is by far the Most accurate. (i believe it had 14/14 of the order of major creation events correct, where the next best religion had 2/14 correct.)


Check that website.. or you can google "Reasons to believe" (they also have DAILY updates about NEW scientific evidence that supports a Creator)

boink

pretty much. I grew up learning about dinosaurs, fossils etc. I later learned that people really believe the Bible stuff and man I find it a bit disturbing. no offence but it really sounds like flat earthers or the sun and planets orbit the earth.

this is completely ridiculous to me.

__________________
when you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer. Superstition ain't the way.

Cynosure

It's completely ridiculous to me that some people can't see (or refuse to see) the obvious. Animals are indeed vastly inferior to human beings in their intelligence.

Give me a break. Did these other primates discover the concept of zero, or was it taught to them? And what useful (if not enterprising) endeavors are these other primates able to apply their understanding of zero?

Show me a monkey who can be taught to, say, assemble a desktop computer (let alone design one, with all its complex and intricate parts), and on a consistent basis (that is, without the monkey quickly getting bored or distracted, and thus throwing computer parts across the room or smearing his feces over them), and maybe then I'll be impressed.

Poppinjay

Dolphins have the ability to shut down half of their brain at a time. One half sleeps while the other half stands guard, for the most part.

And monkeys are the only hair or fur bearing animals (including humans) that do not get fleas.

As a lifelong UMCer (even went to a methodist university) I can attest to this but add, try Presbyterian USA. It may just be this area, but when I was with the UMC, all the sermons were about wellness and being good to yourself, kind of like a counseling session. When we joined the PUSA, everything is about caring for Gaia and other people.

And cookies. Cookies and coffee after the service.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

KnifeMissile

There are many obvious things that people can't see. The reason for this, of course, is that we're just not that smart...

Now, we're a good deal smarter than the rest of the animal kingdom but you make it sound as if other animals hardly think at all. They also feel and care. To what degree we'll never know 'cause these things are subjective and not well defined...

Your examples aren't very good. While other primates were taught the concept of zero, what you're ignoring is that you were also taught that concept. I find it highly unlikely that, left to your own devices, you would have figured it out yourself. I'm also willing to bet that you have as much hope of designing a computer as a monkey. I'm not even convinced that I can train you to design one!

Individual humans have been smart enough in particular ways and helped by particular circumstances to figure certain things out. When they did, they told someone else about it. This information went on to help someone else figure something else out. This is how mankind discovers things but make no mistake: you do very little.

What sets us apart from other animals, more so than our intellect, is our unique ability for language. With that, we can learn from other people without having to do everything that other person went through to learn it themselves. This accumulation of knowledge even traverses generations so I may learn from people who died long before I was ever born. We even rely on each other 'cause no one person can know all that much. That's why some of us design and build computers while other have no hope of doing so...

You want to see how we're not so much smarter than other animals? Visit any church or talk to any Creationist...

shakran

We should remember that the Church persecuted Galileo for having the audacity to suggest that the earth was not the center of the universe - something we now know to be 100% true (and the church admits this as well.) If the church was wrong about that, then it stands to reason that it could be wrong about any of the theories of the universe which it puts forth. Take that logic into consideration with the mounds of scientific evidence that show that the earth, not to mention the universe, is far older than that, and it is difficult to find merit in the church's claim.

Additionally, if the universe were only 10,000 years old, we should only be able to see stars that are 10,000 light years away. any further than that, would mean the universe is older, since a light year is the distance light travels in one year. In fact we can see on the order of 12 billion light years away. this would take quite an elaborate trick by God to make something that's only 10,000 years old look like it emitted light 12 billion years ago.

telekinetic

I feel inferior to a lot of cephalopods.

Things I can't do that an octopus can:

Survive under water
Regrow limbs
Fit through 1" diameter pipes (even a very large octupus can fit through very small spaces if motivated properly)
Emit prey-customized venom (one opens clams!)
Strangle a shark to death
Camoflage myself completely to blend in with my surroundings
Change the pigment of my skin at will

Did you know cuttlefish communicate with sign language?
Did you hear about the octopus who would sneak out of his (locked) tank, eat crabs from an aquarium a couple rows over, then return and relock his tank to remove suspicion from himself? The ONLY thing that keeps cephalopods down is their short lifespan, which makes their intelligence even more amazing.

__________________
twisted no more

shakran

Well. . You were taught the concept of 0. You didn't have to discover it. Does that mean you're dumb? I would say, no.


1) Humans don't design computers anymore. They're designed by other computers.
2) Monkeys have been taught to fly simulated airplanes, and real space capsules. They may not be as smart as us, but they're quite a bit smarter than you give them credit for. Koko the gorilla even comes up with her own concepts and signs them to her caretaker.

Cynosure

I never said animals are unintelligent. I said human intelligence is vastly superior to animal intelligence.

If I say a human adult is vastly more capable of complex thought than is a human toddler, does that make it sound like a human toddler can hardly think at all?

Methinks this – that ol' ax of yours, that you love to grind – is what's keeping you from conceding here that human beings are vastly superior to animals in intelligence.

So, seriously... If for some reason you had to save either a church full of Creationists, or a barn full of animals, and it had to be one or the other, which would it be? Seriously.

But, of course, it's a rhetorical questions, because we already know the great lengths a rescue team will go, and the enormous costs a society will bear, just to rescue a single human being in peril.

Meh. I'm not impressed. Most of those things, human being are able to replicate through their technology. And with that technology, they're able to do far, far more and greater things than an octopus can do. Besides, just on a physical scale of things, an octopus is far more limited and far less adaptable on this earth than human beings are.

Still not impressed. But then, I've witnessed the many and wondrous things that a mere human toddler can do.

1. Big deal. Today's computers are designed by computers that were originally built by humans, right? And anyway, no computer of today is able to design a new computer all by itself. Humans have to provide the goal and its requirements, and the impetus to achieve those, as well as provide continual imput and guidance throughout the design process. (Not to mention we provide the required manufactured parts, operating power, manual labor, etc.)

2. Why is this so impressive? What's far more impressive is, those simulated airplanes and real space capsules were designed and built by humans!

KnifeMissile

Okay but, looking back on these posts, my original point is that I don't think we're nearly as smart in relation to other animals as you think we are. Have you been paying attention to my emphasis on language? It's hard to tell 'cause you've been cutting it out without a response.

Speaking of which, I can't believe you edit my sentences in the quoted context. It's like you're trying to remove context to emphasize your point of view...

How so? What does our intellect as a species have to do with Creationism?

How serious could your question have been if it's rhetorical?

Would you be surprised if I saved the idiot filled church instead of the barn? How is this question at all relevant?




By the way, here's another YouTube gem for the discussion:

boink

did you ever consider that humanity's (or maybe just some humans)shining intelligence just may not be good enough to perceive some of the various capabilities of animals ? humans have a habit of assuming 'others' are lesser and they are superior. superior to other 'different' humans and animals.

maybe there is a quality some animals possess that's more valuable than intelligence ? why is it so great to be 'intelligent' ? a lion outwits a gazelle in the chase, it's not necessarily instinct, it a skill taught by it's parents. lions social structure allows for times of less prey, humans on the other hand populate like maggots and foul their environment to the point of disaster -for all life- how intelligent is that ?!?

I get the feeling "intelligence" is some kind of licence to ownership...of the world for instance. personally I'd say if humans were not on this planet the animals would be doing just fine. some species would die off, some new would evolve (if you believe in such a crazy concept) but none would die just for the fun of killing them...and humans love killing animals and other humans just for the fun of it. not to mention killing other humans cause they feel they are 'lesser' and are obviously of lower intelligence. honestly, this is how slavery, torture and war comes about.

humans are only superior in certain ways. in some ways humans are more foul than can be imagined. plenty of humans make me ashamed to be human, but all animals just do what they are born to do. as god(?) made them, did god make humans to rape and cannibalise his own children ? I must assume he did cause some humans do this. or did satan ? but wait ! god made satan too !

all religions are just stories invented by ignorant humans trying to make sense of a world they don't understand. over time these stories have been used as a tool to control population. more and more it seems to me religious organizations are just havens for perverted sexual deviants who've ran away from society due to fears of their own inner horrors, or a magnet for megalomaniacal sociopaths, or just a way to use population as a cash cow.

I was hearing about hasidic jews in NY complaining about women in short skirts on NPR the other day...they seemed to blame these women's mode of dress for their own "evil" thoughts ??? please, give me a break.

if a christian dies, and goes to heaven, does he look down at the jews and say HAW HAW ya dumb asses ! you don't believe so yer goin to HELL and burn forever !! or what about the muslims ? are the dead muslims sitting in their heaven with virgins, glasses of milk and honey and thinking heh heh, retarded christians, your not getting any virgins or milk and honey ? or what if the jews are right ? they just think when your dead you're dead so they won't be saying ha, ya dumb goya ! your just gonna be worm food !

oh, and I'd save the farm animals, or any animals before some creationists.

and wtf is so great about enterprising ventures ? most of this human endeavour is destroying the planet. most animals are at least smart enough not to shit in their own bed. some of humanity makes a fetish of it, smearing all over their bodies shit, vomit and general bodily waste has been fetishized by lots of humans. pritty smart ehh ?

sorry guess I wanderd off the (edge?)of "old earth"

__________________
when you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer. Superstition ain't the way.

Cynosure

Dude, you're preaching to the choir, here. Did you read my post in the "Why can't anyone prove ghosts?" thread? I've had my own "close encounters of the ghostly kind", on numerous occasions, and yet I'm still skeptical about ghosts.

BTW: What I saw, on several, separate occasions, was definitely not floating dust particles or flashing lights from outside or anything like that. No, I saw extraterrestrial if not supernatural forms or shapes. However, I am scientific minded enough to admit that what I saw was more than likely due to sleep paralysis dreams (even though I was in no way paralyzed during my experiences).

Whatever, I know I'm not crazy. (Although, I do question the power and makeup of my subconscious.)

shakran

So you're saying that before computers or, to be generous, any modern electronic technology, that humans were no smarter than the animals?

Because you said:

So apparently your sole measure of intelligence is whether or not a creature can stick a video card into a slot. Monkeys can fly airplanes which is much more complicated than throwing together a PC. Your logic is breaking down. The ability to assemble things does not mean you're as intelligent as a human. Monkeys can assemble things. They use tools. Hell there are birds that use tools. The use of tools may be impressive, but it's not an absolute measure of intelligence. One of the failings of humans is that they base their measures of intelligence on the assumption that humans are themselves the smartest things on the planet. That's a fundamentally flawed and circular basis of comparison. 'we're the smartest because we rate a species' intelligence based on how similar to us it behaves."

Cynosure

Eh? Man, you come to some far out conclusions.

It was just an example I gave, and was not meant to be the focal point of my entire argument here.

But tell me: If assembling a desktop computer is so simple, why can't monkeys be taught to do it, and on a consistent basis?

And I suppose you're confident enough in a monkey's intelligence, that you would allow one to fly a plane with you in the passenger's seat?



What a foolish line of argument you're taking. Look at the things human beings have invented, designed, built, and modified on this world, compared to what animals are capable of. Compare the likes of the Hoover Dam to what dams beavers can build. Compare the likes of a modern-day skyscraper to what nests birds can build. Compare the likes of New York City, with its subways and infrastructure, to what tunnels and structures that the smartest of burrowing animals are able to build. My God, the difference between what humans can create, compared to what animals can create, is astronomical! (And, as you know, we humans can destroy, too. We could destroy practically all life on this planet, if we chose to.)

I don't measure an animal's intelligence based so much on how similar to us it behaves, as I do on what that animal is able to create and achieve with its intelligence. And in that regard, for sure, animals are far, far inferior to human beings.

telekinetic

Because they lack the nerve connections required to use their muscles on a prolonged low force fine motor skill. A desktop computer could easily be designed to be monkey-assembleable if there were some incentive to do so.

I would have no problems with this. You are looking at intelligence all wrong...simple feedback loop problem solving, like flying a plane, is easy for neural networks like brains. It's much much harder computationally to fly a bird than fly a plane. A thin layer of brain cells in a dish can learn to fly a plane, so a monkey is practically overengineered.

You should look into the uses of animals in industry before you make sweeping generalizations. In many cases, it is cheaper to train pigeons to sort parts than it is to built robots to do the same (and much cheaper than hiring humans), and they have better accuracy.

The only thing that separates us from other animals is our communication ability. That's it. Without our advance level of communication, and the ability to build up a repository of knowledge, and not have to start from scratch every generation, we'd be hosed.

OK, one beaver vs one cynosure in a dam building contest. No tools allowed that you don't make yourself on site. And....FIGHT!

I find the nests more impressive

The extremely well engineered passive heating and cooling systems and complex passageway organization of termite mounds still baffles us, and is lightyears ahead of our city (and building) designs.

We will probably not achieve that level of widespread architectural sustainability in my lifetime.

Here's the thing: Humans are animals. We're pretty successful ones, by a lot of measures, but there isn't anything that actually separates us in any sort of meaningful way. We are a collection of useful abilities that have allowed us to survive and thrive, but we don't really have anything unique about us....just about every single thing we can do, some animal can also. We share 100% of our anatomy with various animals, we share brain areas, although some are more developed in humans than other species. Saying humans are superior to animals is ignoring the fact that WE ARE ANIMALS.

__________________
twisted no more

Cynosure

Smart ass. I'm comparing the intelligence of all human beings to all other life forms on this planet.

But, so, what? A beaver could build a better damn than me. I bet you I could draw a better picture than any beaver could. I could also write a better essay, compose a better song, and solve mathematical problems far, far better than any beaver could. Hell, I could take on all the other animals in this world, combined, when it comes to picture drawing, essay writing, music composition, and mathematical problem solving.

Furthermore, if I chose to pursue a dam-building contest with a beaver, I could acquire the know-how to build tools on-site, along with the know-how to build a primitive dam with those tools. As for the beaver and his dam: I could build a spear to hunt him with, and once he was dispatched, I could tear down his dam. And then there would be no competition – Cynosure (i.e. a human) takes all!

---------- Post added at 11:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 AM ----------

Then why does it take so darn much training (which is not only trying and time intensive, but also pretty costly) to fly a plane? Why is the user manual for Microsoft Flight Simulator so darn thick?

Is it because, oh, there's a whole lot more to flying a plane than maintaining the joystick, throttle, and pedals, and keeping the plane airborne?

Just about every thing, huh? Because, we both know that no animal can fly to the moon unless we send it there.

If that were the case, China would surely be employing animals to do assembly-line work, and the animal-rights activists be damned.

Our advance level of communication, and our ability to build up a repository of knowledge, are parts of our intelligence.

More impressive compared to a sky scraper, how? Aesthetically?



Insect intelligence, eh? Lightyears ahead of our own, huh?



I see where this debate is going. I'm done, here. (I'd just as soon be debating with the kooks at PETA.)

telekinetic

Ah, I see that my debate skills are no match for your advanced hybrid strawman/texas sharpshooter/"you are a liar!" technique. Glad to see you are done, maybe now an actual conversation can take place.

__________________
twisted no more

Cynosure

Yeah, well, you know the adage about arguing on the Internet...

No Child Images

KnifeMissile

You're concentrating too hard on one particular aspect of the video; that of ghosts. The point I was making with the video is that we're just as superstitious as those brilliant animals: pigeons...

In many respects, we're still very stupid animals...

I had a whole wealth of interesting questions posed to you that could have been the start of some interesting dialogue. Why did you quietly ignore them?

Now we're getting into a semantic argument; something I find deeply uninteresting.

However, I'm curious to know if you would still consider language a part of our intellect if you knew it was instinctual and not something we figured out?

Cynosure

Which questions? In the "Why can't anyone prove ghosts?" thread?

I'm not sure what you're getting at, here. Whatever, we humans have surely – through research and invention, i.e. via our intellect, not our instincts – advanced in leaps in bounds in our ability to communicate with one another, e.g. engraving, writing, printing, telegraphs, signal flags, telephones, televisions, the Internet.

For humans, superstition is a state of mind. It's not so much linked to our intelligence as it is, our emotions and our subconscious. Superstition can also be due to cultural influences, and individuals who know better may participate in superstitious beliefs and acts just to get along with their peers. Whatever, an individual can rise above it, if he chooses to. (Unless his superstition is a form of obsessive-compulsive disorder, and then it's a deeply rooted psychological problem that's not so easily left behind.)

KnifeMissile

The questions I posed to you in my response to you in this very thread. Really, I have no idea how you can miss them. I'll reproduce the dialogue, here:

Is your inability to predict where I'm leading with a question causing you to avoid it? I asked you whether or not you would consider language an aspect of intelligence if you knew that it was instinctual instead of something figured out? In case you can't answer the question without knowing why I asked it, I'm going to show you that it is not something invented by ourselves but rather an innate ability we've evolved over time...

I'm not convinced that people can just "choose" to "rise above" their superstitions. It inconveniences their lives and yet they still persist. Cultural influence just means that we are swayed more by our society than we are by reality. I wouldn't consider that a trait of intelligence. That's just the heard following their heard instincts...

---------- Post added at 09:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 PM ----------

Wow, you have come a long way!

I think we're very special animals but, of course, I'm biased. However, the notion that some (religious) people have that we are somehow not part of the kingdom Animalia is just sheer stupid denial...

Cynosure

I used the word "serious" in that question because I wanted to point out that I was describing a literal (albeit hypothetical) situation, and not using hyperbole or something like that.

But then I said the question was rhetorical because I (and probably everyone else here) already knew what your answer would be: If it were a literal situation, if you really did have to choose between saving a church full of Creationists or a barn full of animals, then you would choose to save the Creationists. Of course you would. You'd be inhuman – or at least, crazy – if you did not.

So, no, I would not be surprised if you saved the Creationists.

Because, when it comes right down to it, even a church full of "idiot" Creationists, who you hold in such great contempt, are more worthy of saving than a barn full of animals.

There. I answered those questions. (Really, I thought the answers to them were rather obvious, and thus not worth my while. Already, I've spent too much of my time in this thread, which I saw nearly two days ago was becoming pointless. And yet still I'm here. Groan.)

Not at all. If anything, I think I pretty much know where most if not all of your questions are ultimately leading. It's become obvious to me what your agenda is, here and in other threads of a topic similar to this one (i.e. any thread involving belief in the supernatural and/or the divine). As I said in this thread and elsewhere: You have an ax to grind.

shakran

Interesting example. The dams beavers build tend to be fairly ecologically sound. They don't heat up the water, they don't kill fish - in fact they create places for fish to live, and they're not made of gobs of concrete which leaches harmful chemicals. They don't have to form a committee to study the feasibility and cost/benefit analysis of building the dam, they don't have to deal with contractors, lawsuits from the Sierra Club, or other beavers jumping off the top of the completed dam to commit suicide. In short, they build the damn dam and do it much more peacefully, efficiently, and ethically than we possibly can. Doesn't sound so stupid to me.

Why the hell would a bird need a skyscraper? Part of the reason we invent what we invent is because we perceive a need for it. The needs of a bird are simple. Food. Basic shelter. Someone to mate with. If that's all we needed, then we wouldn't build skyscrapers.

Additionally, comparing intelligence solely on what something has built has some unfortunate implications - - "gee, I've built more stuff than you, and therefore you're a moron."

Clearly. I'm not positing that animals are smarter than humans by our standards. But, by the dolphin's standards, we're probably pretty fucking moronic. We run around scrabbling for resources, fighting each other over little green pieces of paper, getting fat because we sit in front of glowing boxes and argue with each other, shooting each other because we want something that someone else has, poisoning the air that we must have in order to live, destroying our food in contraptions that poison the air while conveying us to places where we either collect or divest ourselves of more green pieces of paper, and meanwhile the dolphins are messing around in the ocean, playing and eating, and only occasionally having to fight off a shark.

The fact that we got together and decided to create devices which can destroy us and everything else on the planet, points more to our abject stupidity than to our intelligence.

Cynosure

Your ability to miss my point entirely, amazes me.

A man who builds more stuff than, say, a monkey, is not necessarily an indicator of mankind's higher intelligence. However, a man who builds stuff that is far more complex than what a monkey can builds, is.

Oh, if only animals were in charge of the world, instead of humans! Then the world would be a much better place. Oh, wait... There are no animals on this planet capable of taking and maintaining charge, like we humans are.

Dolphins, if they were able to create and channel nuclear fission, would not use that for destruction, right? Because, unlike mankind, dolphins are entirely peaceful and altruistic. Or are they... ?

shakran

There is a difference between missing your point, and rejecting it as arrogantly asinine.


Again as I said, I'm not saying that animals are smarter than humans. I am, however, saying (and you have proven my point with all of your examples) that when you create a test, knowing that you will have to take the test, the tendency is to create the test such that you will score highly on it. We do not, for instance, base our estimation of intelligence on the ability to find food in the wild, otherwise squirrels would outscore us. We do not base our estimation of intelligence on the ability to survive a global catastrophe, else cockroaches would have it all over us. Of course we are the smartest creatures on the planet. I'm not saying that we aren't. But I am saying that it is convenient that the factors making us more intelligent than the other animals happens to be the only factors that are applied in the intelligence tests that we invented.

We are quite intelligent in our environment, but tend to be dumber than the other animals when we go to theirs. This is why tigers and sharks and crocodiles are dangerous - they're much smarter about stalking and killing us than we are about avoiding them.


While I, again, do not dispute our superior intelligence to the rest of the animals, this bias has led us to underestimate the abilities of other animals. We are firmly convinced that we are the only species with language (We aren't) or that if other species have language, it's not complex (it is).

When did I say I wished the animals ran things?



As to your "we build shit and therefore we're smart" measure of intelligence, that doesn't even conform with the already human-specific measure of intelligence used by the scientific community, which is generally defined as "the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience."

roachboy

i'm confused. it seems to me that twistedmosaic basically ended the discussion in an abstract sense by pointing to communication skill as what differentiates human modes of practice from that of other animals. it'd probably have been a good idea to specifically say language. all the various abilities pointed to above concerning human being and it's particular forms of intelligence rest of the ways in which cognition is mediated by language--regardless of the framework that one deploys in order to talk about how language is knit into the forming and collapse of various neural networks (which are obviously ways of talking about cognition as a bio-system functionality, which in the end loops back onto the properties of language not as an object but as a system of mediations that shape practical activity, opening up certain options, foreclosing others)....

you could say that the central capability language enables is recursion. since recursion entails a separation between action and statements about actions, it is in a sense a device that enables consideration of the roles of distancing, formalization, decomposition of a whole into parts, recombination of parts into a whole, etc. recursion is itself a highly rule-bound operation, so to talk about it you're also necessarily talking about rules or constraints. so language is a repository of constraints in a sense. but that would mean nothing--and not be possible--were it not for memory and the way it is organized, which presupposes language (in the human being context it seems)...at this point, things start to get more complicated, not so much in themselves but at the level of generating accounts which are stylistically consistent, given the constraints of a messageboard.

ANYWAY...this is not at all to say that other bio-systems do not have forms of intelligence, but rather that the nature of language and of our relations to the world mediated through it is---so far as we know--what differentiates human from other forms.

that's enough for now,

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cynosure

Arrogant, how? Because I believe mankind's intelligence is unequivocally superior to that of all animals on this planet? And that the matter should be beyond dispute?

Why talk about creating and taking rigged tests? (Who would create and administer such a test anyway? Only mankind could.) Mankind does not need to take any tests – rigged or not – to prove his intelligence is superior to that of all the animals on this world, no more than a man needs to arm wrestle a toddler to prove his strength is superior. Our superior intelligence is self evident.

Well, duh! If we were to include and consider other factors, we wouldn't be testing for "intelligence", now would we? We'd be testing for something else (albeit perhaps something related).

Quite intelligent, only in our environment? Tell me, what environment on this planet have we not already moved in to and subjugated, due to our superior intelligence?

We're not in any way less intelligent than tigers, sharks and crocodiles, we're just not as naturally adapted to, and equipped for hunting in, their environment as they are. Nevertheless, it doesn't take long for humans to move in to a predatory animal's environment, and to completely take over. And then, even an animal that is physically better for hunting than a man is, becomes the prey of men because of mankind's superior intelligence.

Ah. Is this how you think I'm being arrogantly asinine?

I never said that animals don't have language, or that if animals do have language, it isn't in any way complex. I have said (or at least, implied) that mankind's language is far more complex than any animal's.

Again, it is the complexity, and the enormity (in scale as well as in power and ability), of what we build, that is a measure of our superior intelligence. That is indeed a measure of our ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience.

KnifeMissile

It looks like "literally" would have been a better word than "seriously..."

Oh, okay. A lot more could have been said if you had thought differently...

...and do you think this is a testament to their intellect? I'd save them so therefore they're smart?

Those ones, yes. You still edited my post and selectively answered questions...

You say that like it's a bad thing...

You said all this while still evading the question. What the hell?

I highly doubt you know where this is heading since my axe to grind is against Creationism and this is not heading there. I asked you about language being instinctual 'cause your opinion on that would determine whether this was a semantic argument or not. This is valuable information in terms of the debate but you persist on pretending the question was never posed. I have no idea what this sort of denial is about...

Cynosure

Looks like.

Then, why don't you quit beating around the bush and just give us (me) that information?

Oh, very well... I'll answer your bloody question. (Really, at first I merely overlooked it. Then, after I saw you getting anxious because I didn't answer it, like it was your trump card or like you were dangling it out in hopes to ensnare me, I began to purposely ignore it. Because, I've learned to be on guard against trolls, on these message boards.)

Is language instinctual for mankind or did we figure it out? Hmm... I never really thought about it, and I haven't read any information on the subject, but I suppose originally language was the product of mankind's instincts. But eventually, mankind discovered – i.e. we figured out – new and more powerful ways to communicate; the first big one being "writing", but before that, there were ways like oral tradition and story telling and cave paintings; ways to express complex thoughts and ideas, ways to transmit information over time and space, and ways to preserve knowledge. And that, for sure, is due to mankind's intelligence.

KnifeMissile

The reason I posed the question is that I don't like semantic debates. Therefore, if your meaning of the word "intelligence," in this context, matches mine, we may continue the discussion. However, if we mean slightly different things, like whether instincts are part of it or not, then the only disagreement would be semantic and I'd be done. Pretty sinister, eh?

While I'm also wary of trolls on random web forums, the reason I like the TFP is that definite lack of trolls here. Have you noticed any? Perhaps more to the point, have you noticed me trolling?

You're sort of walking the line here with your opinion.

I haven't studied the subject but there are telltale signs that language is innate. It's easier for us to learn language while we're young even though, as you've suggested yourself, we're much smarter as adults. This shows that there's some hardwiring in our brains for the acquisition of language. This is also evidenced in how, as adults, we can speak a new language for 50 years and still not get the pronunciation right. Also, I'm no linguist but I'm pretty sure that every language on Earth is based on a sequence of nouns, verbs and adjectives. This commonality suggests that grammars and the parsing thereof are part of our biology. Finally, I think I've heard somewhere that there are specific parts of our brain dedicated to language processing...

Obviously, many parts of language are learned, such as the particular language used and their written forms but all this follows from the initial ability for language. Any discovery or ingenuity made by some lucky and gifted individual may be preserved and propagated by the population to aid in further discoveries or ingenuities. It's a feedback loop and I think it's vain to think that this alone is a testament to our intelligence.

Judging by some of your other posts, you may find this opinion "nihilistic." I find this term to be far overused by pious people who find anything short of self worship (which I regard deity worship to be but that's a subject for yet another thread!) to be "nihilism..."

Finally, you have a funny habit of not completing your thoughts. For instance, you tried to create an implication between our value for human life and the intelligence of said life but when I questioned you on that you just ignored the question. This is not the first time you've done this, even in this thread alone. I just wanted to point that out to you...

Cynosure

I wouldn't have used the word "nihilistic" in this case. However, I do find that you and others like you, here (and, no, I'm not referring to the atheists collectively, here at TFP), have a tendency to reduce the greatest qualities of mankind – e.g. intelligence, free will, love, faith – down to their most base elements, thereby making those qualities seem small and maybe even insignificant. IMHO, you guys come off sounding all brains and no heart, all intellect and no soul.

Methinks you over-analyze my posts. You shouldn't be so anal about catching me in a contradiction, or spotting some factual error in my posts, upon which you can pounce. It's like you're looming over my posts, waiting for a chance to say, "Ah ha! Caught you... !"