I'm sorry, but brains do a _lot_ more than consciousness/self awareness.
Apropos of what? That's hardly news.
Because an ape's (chimp's) body is more similar to our own, it makes sense that their brains are more similar. You say that most of our brain is for language and hands. Dogs have no hands and a large portion of their brain is devoted to scent association.
?? WTF?. I don't dispute that I wrote that - but *what* is your point?
The dog most studied is Chaser - with a proven vocabulary greater than many people who drive trucks with gun racks.
Either you greatly underestimate the mental capacity of average humans, or Chaser would be more famous than Mr. Ed or Koko.
That doesn't translate - no one in this house knows who those people/things are. And using fame as a measure of relevance/importance is just as stupid as your assertions.
I bet you laughed at the Family Guy skit where Peter goes to the KFC asking for the Colonel, thinking to yourself "Oh my! What a delicious parody on the lack of vocabulary in the South!". What you missed is that the guy behind the counter was smarter than Peter, and was trying to impart his wisdom using the local dialect. "I say you he dead."
I'll take that bet. How much did you just lose? I had to Google to find out what the fuck you're talking about. It's a cartoon show. For children and immature adults. Which fits given your approach to taking in new information. I've never watched that show - and short some sort of catastrophic head injury, am never likely to want to.
Illuminating insight into your basement world though.
Most dogs (mine included) can do most everything an ape can do - and more.
I'm an ape. Get your dog to compile a custom kernel and I'll consider it. Have him complete Hurd and I'll believe you.
You seem to confuse the process of building a binary with running a race. But, please tell us more about *your* abilities - perhaps if we're sufficiently impresses with your claimed accomplishments your dogmatic opinions will gain some credibility. Do you have ninja skills too? Because dogs don't so therefore apes are more like humans (who, unlike you, are not apes but are the third chimpanzee).
I've already pointed out that dogs don't have our language or hands.
Do any of the apes (other than the third chimpanzees) compile code? How many humans can? How hard can make config, etc be?
To avoid public humiliation - *do not* post your education references, your teachers probably tried, but you failed.
Widening an already piss-weak argument hardly strengthens your argument. Now go chase down a rat, rabbit and fox. When and if you catch it, kill it with your teeth. A spurious comparison given that you've not just read my earlier comments about hands, but essentially agreed with it. I'm guessing the almond shaped bit of my dog's brain is some what larger than yours.
I'll give you $100 if you can teach an ape to find a three-dimensional object based on viewing a drawing - or point - or wait - or look where you're pointing. No ape has ever been taught to do any of those things.
It's always "the breakthrough free software has been waiting for"... free software has been growing over the years, but these sorts of things never seem to make the big global impact that the news reports they will. (Not saying this is a bad thing, though!)
I, for one, hope so. But then, I thought the same might happen due to Red Dragon. (sigh).
Actually, it's probably just the opposite. After the BSD backdoor story and after the Wikileaks cables, maybe Russia is concerned about using Microsoft Windows. Of course, Microsoft would *never* work with the NSA/FBI/CIA/Control/Chaos on back-doors that undermine the security of Russia... I can't imaging why they would want their own operating system...
[dons tin foil hat] Do you think already having the source code to Windoof, and the source code to GNU/Linux, that the Russians may have based their choice on reasons other than licensing costs?
You're apparently unaware that international commerce existed before the invention of the 18-wheeler. A piece of Alaskan jade was found in Central America, and Lake Superior copper has shown up in New Mexico and Florida. One of the products that Mayan caravans are known to have traded was tobacco, and I'd be exceedingly surprised if coca leaves weren't carried on the return trip northward. Interestingly, Egyptian mummies have been found with detectable levels of cocaine and nicotine in their tissues.
Addicted Spaniards imported tobacco seeds to South America fairly early in their occupation, IIRC before they even set up their first distillery.
Some of those things I was aware of - and I've an interest in paleontology and paleobotany. I'm not going to say that nicotine bearing plants weren't used by any South American cultures - only that I haven't read any mention of it in areas of early coca use, or of any archeological evidence.
The cute comment was in response to the quote you gave - to the best of my knowledge that is an urban myth (it's often quoted, a source would be nice). Though the expressed sentiments are true. I've read of South American tobacco use (Bruhn, Wasson, Cooper and others) but those writings (from memory) are specific to lowland areas where coca isn't produced. While it's *unlikely* the the two weren't used in the same areas - I have no references to it.
You are correct about transport and trade. Nicotine bearing plants in Australia are called "pituri" - and pituri trails cross the continent from far south-west to the north-eastern cape (where they would have met with Indonesians). Along those trails can be found evidence of the transport of materials such as ochres and flints. There is also reason to believe yarni (cannabis) was in use prior to the white invasion.
In Northern Europe (Scotland) there is substantial evidence that Cannabis sativa arrived long before the Romans (pollen, fiber ballast bagging and caulking, pipe twine etc).
In Australia (and Indonesia) there are a number of native erythroxylin species. The Javan variant has a higher active ingredient level than the Columbian plants - in fact prior to World War II most of the worlds production was (from Java area) Australian, English or Japanese. The Germans produced their cocaine in South America - the legacy of which is the current cocaine industry. Prior to German production the area that produced coca was much smaller, and restricted to the highest altitudes. The plants currently grown are a hybrid between one of the native Peruvian strains and the Javanese strain.
Indisputably (IMO) trade and transfer between all parts of the world existed just as it does now - the transfers just took a lot longer.
I read an interesting thesis some years ago that asserted the combination on monotheism, alcohol, and the military (Romes unholy trinity) led to the modern history we now live in - and ever since it has been a long and bloody crusade dedicated to removing all other religions and drug use. This makes it hard to reconstruct what was really used by original inhabitants.
Please point me at references to the Mayan caravans (if you remember it) - I've not seen anything on that subject, likewise the Inca. It's a subject I find fascinating (obviously)
Saying an object knows everything about itself is anthropomorphizing it.
No!
That's just the lame assertion of someone going to desperate lengths to support an unsustainable assertion. So desperate they're reduced to posting AC commends to support the ones they post under a pseudonym.
Your over investment in self-consciousness came at the cost of self-awareness. Meaning - we see your argument as baseless. Bluster changes nothing.
You look like a sad dick because you failed to use a dictionary to begin with. Continuing to misuse words doesn't give your original stupidly credibility.
A dog can recognize and fetch 100 different items by their name
A dog can recognize and fetch 1000 different items by their name - there fixed that for you.:-)
The dog is called "Chaser", it can work from drawings of the objects... and more. Originally featured in the doco "Secret Life Of The Dog" (BBC?). Also posted on here. Volumes of credible studies have been published.
I'm a vegetarian. I like killing things - I just don't eat them.
I'm not sure about farming humans for food being unviable - you could be wrong there (yummy soylent green).... how about street corner scales and compulsory liposuction? Could solve the energy crisis.....
Enjoy your hamburger - life is not sacred, it just is. My dog loves to hunt and kill (lives for it) - I don't discourage her, it's just the way it is. A big carbon cycle.
I suspect for evolutionary reasons the restrictions on killing our own kind are due to:-;our need for society/family support;the risk we may be killing our own offspring/relatives. Gene pool and support preservation no less.
Then, I guess he is not so proud of using drugs, now is he? If he is not willing to stand behind his words, then his words are meaningless. If his drug use is private, then he should keep it to himself. If he wants to publicly comment on his drug use and how good it was for him, then he should do it publicly under his own name, not cower behind a false front. Until he is willing to state publicly who he is and what drugs he has done, he can STFU.
Your name and address please or is gutless another one of your deficiencies?
You feel so positive about it that you post as an AC? Sorry, but I don't believe you at all.
At the posters (stated) age that's probably wise. We are talking about controversial and illegal activities.
Given the "chilling effect", anonymous posts are appropriate - particularly if the poster works and resides in the US/Malaysia/Indonesia or China.
Please don't take hallucinogenic drugs - the Mental Health system is already under strain. Your opinion is indicative of the sort of person who will have a bad trip - "seeing" who you really are will not be pleasant.
There is a difference between the "person" people project, and the "person" people are. If that difference is large they will not be able to cope with things that break down those barriers (psycoactive drugs and alcohol). Those that are ashamed, or scared, of who they really are cannot cope with self awareness (freakout). And they are not pleasant people to be around when the barriers come down.
"Never trust someone you haven't been drunk with - because you don't truly know 'them'"
--- my grandfather (who once explained that pot was not discovered in the 60s - "when I was a lad in the Merchant Navy we called it 'goofing off' - stoned was what booze did")
In five years, when you're bored of LSD and the long term effects have gone, you'll read this back and *facepalm*.
Believe one who knows.
Have to disagree there (of course my perception of reality is distorted). Thirty years later, children, grandchildren, successful in business, and generally regarded as a prominent member of society. Never had any "mental issues" or "flashbacks". Very, very few drugs I didn't try as a youth - including large amount of most of the hallucinogens (main academic background OC & P).
Drug use does not automatically give self-awareness or enlightenment. Drugs (legal or otherwise) are not incapable of causing damage. I certainly see many bad effects from drug use in others (alcohol, cocaine, amphetamines esp.). There are genetic factors that predispose some to greater risk of damage than others - and bad (contaminated) drugs. Other damage comes from social attitudes which force recreational drug users outside of mainstream society. But mostly, a healthy lifestyle, a good education, access to quality information (and drugs), coupled with self-discipline (delay that gratification) do allow safe recreational use of hallucinogenic drugs.
Note: Since my late twenties I haven't used any recreational drugs other than cannabis - though 6 years ago the wife and I took a holiday to Bali and enjoyed an ecstatic afternoon on gold-top mushies. (she's qualified to identify fungi using spore prints). Life is a joy, most of what makes people unhappy stems from a daily search for things to make them happy. Take your pleasure and insight where you find it.
I also enjoy fishing and surfing. Activities that kill and cripple people who fail to act in a responsible manner.
Denial is not being responsible. Humans/animals have always, and probably will always, modify their environment. Your head is part of your environment. Failure to recognize that is just indicative of the sort of futile desires that King Canute attempted to educate against.
The arguments that "it's not needed", "it poses a risk", are neither useful, nor relevant. They just demonstrate a lack of understanding.
I don't hold that my experiences will match those of others - I've certainly never proposed that any of my kids take drugs (though two of them have). Your experience may not match the experience of others. That the total number of people who regret trying hallucinogens (or other recreational drugs) is minute compared to the number of people who tried them should be some indication of the true situation. Literature and studies are fine - but when we are dealing with illegal drugs the true figures are distorted. Next time you're out and about - carefully phrase your questions and speak to some of us grandparents. You might be surprised.
It's unfortunate, given what a massive tool Paul is. But in general I think it's a safe assumption that his writings are probably paint a more accurate picture of the teachings of Jesus than the gospels. He at least was a contemporary, while the gospel writers were just some random guys who tossed on famous names as self promotion.
Mathew, Mark, Luke, and, John - everyone else came much later on.
And it's all bullshit. Not that this, or anywhere else is a forum for the undebatable. Faith, as evidenced by the arguments here, is not something that brooks debate (rationale, or logic).
Now don't be calling me PC. That's just uncalled for.;-p
We are not all equal in abilities.
PC means some people have "reading impediments". Reality is some people have not evolved the capacity to read. I suspect they may expend the energy elsewhere - like adapting to a life of cleaning sewage (class consciousness). But those things have no relationship to skin colour or geographic location.
Maybe you've got an ozone layer where you are - but we don't have much of one here. Black or white you slap the sunscreen on exposed skin or get burnt. Fact.
Intelligence is a little like crop production (poor analogy I know - but it's late and I'm in a hurry)- if the soil isn't toxic (no genetic impediments), and the nutrients are there (diet, education) and the environment isn't hostile (do we beat up the smart kids, do we value footballers over smarts) then intelligence flourishes. As pointed out in my earlier posts - evolution is vertical - not horizontal - it affects the offspring of individuals - not races. If the disparity between rich and poor is great - then so will be the ratio of low intelligence to high intelligence. Family and environment is everything.
Nootropic solutions are pure bullshit because they do not exist.
When people tell you that you're full of shit it doesn't mean they are PC people - it could be just that you *are* full of shit. I call bullshit to people who say that "discriminating" is wrong - and I ask them to find their fucking car without discriminating - and get a dictionary and look up "bigot". Black is black, White is white. A bigot is someone who decides that one is "better" than the other - which is not good, or bad - it's just stupid. And I call stupid - bullshit. PC says "everyone" has a valid point of view. I say "what, even fuckwits who are wrong?
(yawn). The purpose of patronizing views (like the ones you express) is that it makes you feel that you are better in some way. Which makes you a patronizing bigot who uses *bullshit* about black skin not requiring sun protection and "biochemical" cures for low intelligence to advance an argument - that *other* races are not as intelligent as theirs.
Oh - I've read the book. You can guess what I think of it.
If you're saying that dog brains are closer to ours than dog brains are to apes brains, you might be correct. If you're saying that dog brains are closer to ours than ape brains are to our brains, then you're incorrect.
And if you think that response is an argument to my post - you confuse an opinion with an argument.
Structurally, and functionally (aside from our more developed language centers and development for hands - minus our lost nasal and hearing abilities).... well, yes, I'm saying - what I said. Not all dogs, not all humans. Try "The Secret Life of a Dog" for a list of relevant references - inability to communicate and lack of colour vision are myths. The dog most studied is Chaser - with a proven vocabulary greater than many people who drive trucks with gun racks.
Most dogs (mine included) can do most everything an ape can do - and more. I'll give you $100 if you can teach an ape to find a three-dimensional object based on viewing a drawing - or point - or wait - or look where you're pointing. No ape has ever been taught to do any of those things. Many dogs can. Most collies and Jack Russells (other breeds as well, those are the ones I've mostly trained) easily learn 400+ words and concepts (around, under, over) - and colour recognition (get in the red car).
To generalize - dogs with eyes to the front (nose dogs) are smarter than dogs with eyes either side of the nose (eye dogs). Eye dogs are the ones that find it hard to not chase anything that moves and they don't tend to listen.
The former World Champion Garry Kasparov wrote that, based upon her games, "if to 'play like a girl' meant anything in chess, it would mean relentless aggression."
describing Judit Polgár.
He also said:-
"She has fantastic chess talent," said Kasparov. "but she is, after all a woman. It all comes down to the imperfections of the feminine psyche. No woman can sustain a prolonged battle."
He also played he and cheated (caught on film), and when she beat him he walked out in a fit.
Bobby Fisher refused to play her:-
"No, they're Jewish."
And for those with an interest in gender, intelligence and breeding....
Judit Polgár (born July 23, 1976) is a Hungarian chess grandmaster. She is by far the strongest female chess player in history. In 1991, she achieved the title of Grandmaster (GM) at the age of 15 years and 4 months. She was, at that time, the youngest person ever to do so. Polgár is ranked number 49 in the world on the November 2010 FIDE rating list with an Elo rating of 2686, (was) the only woman on FIDE's Top 100 Players list, and has been ranked as high as eighth (in 2005)
She and her two older sisters, Grandmaster Susan and International Master Sofia, were part of an educational experiment carried out by their father László Polgár, in an attempt to prove that children could make exceptional achievements if trained in a specialist subject from a very early age. "Geniuses are made, not born," was László's thesis. He and his wife Klara educated their three daughters at home, with chess as the specialist subject. From the beginning, Laszlo was against the idea that his daughters had to participate in female-only events. "Women are able to achieve results similar, in fields of intellectual activities, to that of men," he wrote. "Chess is a form of intellectual activity, so this applies to chess. Accordingly, we reject any kind of discrimination in this respect."
t's exactly the same as Northern Europeans need to treat their skins with sun blockers to avoid skin cancer in situations where people of African descent can tolerate the effects of the sun without ill effects.
Bullshit
Let's try to find the cause of low intelligence. If it's racially related, then let's find a biochemical cure, if Africans, or any other genetic group, have low intelligence due to race, let's develop some medicine that will allow them to have normal intelligence.
Go back to your fantasy lab and invent a "biochemical" cure for you own gullibility. Clearly you are too dumb to be allowed out of the trailer park
You are full of shit
Is there any part of my post you don't understand?
Consider the continuing catastrophe that is Africa. If it should happen that part of the problem is a low average IQ for blacks, one might think it essential to find out why this difference exists. If the factors are primarily environmental, that sets the general approach to dealing with the situation. If the factors are primarily hereditary, then completely different solutions are required.
Sticking our collective heads in the PC-sand, by prohibiting any discussion of the topic, is just stupid.
Let me try and explain why so many applicants for the US military get rejected - 'cause I've read the rejection rate profiles by racial background and if you took those outcomes without looking at the education level of those that didn't apply for the military - your argument'd hold water.
I run some sheep (really) - they appear pretty bloody stupid (they're merinos). Are merinos stupid sheep? Yes, and no.
If I ensure they all have good nutrition will they all be of equal intelligence? No.
If I keep breeding the least stupid ones will I get "smarter" sheep? No - two reasons - to work with them they have to be approachable (sheep stressed by humans don't yield as much as less stressed sheep) so I'm always unconsciously selecting the most domesticated sheep - while the smartest ones don't run with the flock - they just leap over the fence (easily) and do what they want. Eventually the escapees will suffer for their freedom - and there "smarter" genes will not flourish - but that because they've already been bred to need human intervention (need shearing, protection from insects). Go back to the wild ancestors of the merino and you will find the smarter sheep.
Compare the sheep in my paddocks with the wild sheep and my sheep are not as smart. If, however I bred for sheep that didn't need shearing and dipping (breeds do exist) - then I would have the basis for smarter sheep.
So my problems with a lot of these studies is that they fail to account for the factors that restrict the reproduction of the smartest - and the factors that favour the reproduction of the least smart, most compliant.
I suspect the latter factor is also part of PC. Too dumb, lazy or whatever to earn top dollars and increase the chances of your offspring having offspring? Taxpayer to the rescue! (sigh)
Africa is one of many countries that has had centuries of oppression through war and slavery - and who is first up against the wall? The biggest threat to the established order is. This is same the world over. Most of the world, at some time or other has been oppressed - the smarter either seized the chance to escape, got killed/imprisoned (didn't breed), or stayed and had their ability to reproduce reduced (usually) - unless they were particularly smart and acted dumb. (acting dumb is a way of dealing with an oppressor - when asked by the bigger, threatening bloke what you're doing "I dunno" is the safest response)
In short, war, commerce, and legal systems influence gene selection. Gene selection is the basis of intelligence (impels not compels). Failure to account for these factors in intelligence profiling is the opposite of intelligent. To argue that whether someone gets to reproduce or not has no bearing on intelligence is just stupid.
Similarly, it's not politically correct to talk about how race is a major indicator of intelligence... despite being absolutely proven, with economic and societal levels controlled for.
Bullshit
Evolution is vertical, not horizontal. And most definitely not defined by race or geography (just like stupidity).
Bad statistics were invented for douchebag arseclowns like you. If you weren't so inferior you wouldn't need to constantly invent "proof" that you're not.
Only time will tell - is your family expanding in size and success?
Because the 'religion of the day' is that the genders are "equal", so it's pure blasphemy to point out the glaring facts.
Yep. And not just gender equality, morons, wusses, bullies, etc. We are all no more equal than we all have the same abilities.
Where it really craps out is when we try and apply mean averages to individuals. Take any woman at random and measure her abilities against a random man - the differences are probably no greater than comparing *any* two random people. Not that it's that simple either - culture plays a very big part in it. Ditto evolution. From an evolutionary point of view women "may" have greater adaptability and networking skills than men - and I note that what might have been beneficial 10K years ago might not be now. Before any of the little dicks get all touchy - it all balances out. If a man had an internal growth 1/4 the size of baby they'd die.
Evolution - by the way - is vertical, not horizontal.
I suspect we are not all thinking the same thing when we say "war" - I mean it as protracted violence to achieve territory involving more than two parties. Traditionally women have often raised (in some cultures) their children to war.... and if you live in the so-called Western world - I defy you go out on a Friday night to the less regulated areas and show me that women are less aggressive and violent. Check your newspapers, hang out at your local courts. 50 years ago is was fairly rare for a woman to be charged with assault in a public place. Not now. Control over their own fertility has changed a lot of things.
About woman...
Woman has no nuts. This basic thing you should learn at lest from movies.
In case of danger - man will attack, woman will do whatever else to survive. That expands to the males with woman brain also. Of course, any rule has exceptions. But this is thinking by overall categories and marks.
What makes sense is bullshit - and the rest makes no sense.
Leave you television and your movies. Go outside. Consider traveling to other countries. You seriously delusional.
Baseball & other sports take more mental prowess than you seem to think, at least on the professional level. A lot of a teams success can hang on managements ability to judge the other team, their own personnel & how they use their personnel.
Not really. What happens is that when all the other significant factors of co-ordination, physical fitness and practice, practice, practice have been pushed to the utter extremes by being taken to the high levels of national and international competition, to the point where everybody is a brilliant athete and sportsman, then at that point the factors which are normally dwarfed by such things, e.g. choosing to send in one person in to bat next over another, start to become relevant. But with Chess, it's like that all the way down.
You have a good point there. Be it fighting, playing pool or chess, or running a marathon - once you get to a certain level of knowledge, ability, and experience - it becomes, to quote John Wayne (the 8 ball player, yes really) "90% psychology".
Seriously - what you wrote sounds like a big line of bullshit. The consequences of chess are fuck all - ditto the collateral damage. Where's the commitment in a board game? Sorry paintball fans - that isn't war either. Neither are any more warlike than watching a John Wayne movie. The closest thing to war is climbing in the ring, or calling out the dude with the tattooed forehead at the Rebels clubhouse.
The same argument is sometimes applied to certain fields like math, etc., where men seem to be more successful than women. On average, men and women perform at the same level; the difference comes in the distribution. Men supposedly tend to cluster at the really high and really low levels, so while 4/5 of the best may be male, 4/5 of the very worst will also be male. It's a thought-provoking theory, and there is actually some evidence for it, but there is also plenty of evidence against it and it isn't one to make lightly. Like many other areas, it is likely really smart women are tragically funneled elsewhere or pushed to do something "more appropriate."
More concretely, the concept that chess simulates war is simply outdated. Civilization, Warcraft III, and half the console games these days simulate war. Chess is an artful mastery of planning, brainpower, and pattern recognition that cannot be matched, but it's NOT warfare, not the way it matters.
The natural tendency for men to be more aggressive (better suited to war) is bullshit anyway. Traditionally certain cultures have held chess in high regard, those same cultures (i.e. Russia) have not encouraged (actively discouraged) women from playing chess.
I'm a reasonable chess player, I grew up in a chess playing culture - but only males were encouraged to play - girls would get shooed away. I used to play in a club, one of my best mates was one of the best players -- he offered to show my younger sister how to play one night. She whipped him. He never spoke to me again.
More recently I've had some games with my mother - she's better than I am. When I commented on that she remarked that "just because we don't play, doesn't mean we can't, and that we don't watch".
I remember a shaman from one of those South American cultures say something like: "We have been using tobacco for hundreds of years, and look at what it did to you when you discovered it. We have been using coca for generations, and look at what you did when you found it. I fear the worst for you once you find the rest of our plants."
I guess the point is of the article is that the use of "drugs" is something part of nature, it's just how we do it that matters.
Cute. Which "South American" culture is that has been using both tobacco and coca for "hundreds" of years?
There is freaking huge gap between human mind and anything modern apes have. Sure, there was a long process between those levels, but all intermediate steps are long extinct, and have no chance to show up to make question about their level of consciousness relevant.
Given that apes can be taught to understand primitive writing in a way and teh behaviour of certain humans I would say that you are wrong until you provide a source.
And given that dogs have exhibited abilities that apes cannot reproduce - recognize 3 dimensional objects from 2 dimensional, learn more than 400 words, point, and respond to pointing - I'd say that Alex has pulled his bible belt a little too tight.
I've seen dogs that definitely do understand "tomorrow". Tell them they're going hunting tomorrow and they will start trying to wake you up at 4am. Don't tell them, they'll sleep till noon. Record the different barks and noises made by dogs - then play them back to other dog owners and you'll find that regardless of the location - the owners will consistently understand what the dog is saying - and that dog communication is not for other dogs - it's for humans. I suspect that due to our long relationship with dogs (teaming up with them may well have made up more effective hunters) means that dog brains are more similar to ours than apes.
Most of our brains are for language and hands. We are not alone in either modifying ourselves, our environment, or responding to future, possible events.
Not that I'm saying that animals are equal, or that I shouldn't kill them. Ditto for self-proclaimed superior lifeforms.;-p
Blindly proclaiming superiority is just, um, inferior(?).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, but brains do a _lot_ more than consciousness/self awareness.
Apropos of what? That's hardly news.
Because an ape's (chimp's) body is more similar to our own, it makes sense that their brains are more similar. You say that most of our brain is for language and hands. Dogs have no hands and a large portion of their brain is devoted to scent association.
?? WTF?. I don't dispute that I wrote that - but *what* is your point?
The dog most studied is Chaser - with a proven vocabulary greater than many people who drive trucks with gun racks.
Either you greatly underestimate the mental capacity of average humans, or Chaser would be more famous than Mr. Ed or Koko.
That doesn't translate - no one in this house knows who those people/things are. And using fame as a measure of relevance/importance is just as stupid as your assertions.
I bet you laughed at the Family Guy skit where Peter goes to the KFC asking for the Colonel, thinking to yourself "Oh my! What a delicious parody on the lack of vocabulary in the South!". What you missed is that the guy behind the counter was smarter than Peter, and was trying to impart his wisdom using the local dialect. "I say you he dead."
I'll take that bet. How much did you just lose? I had to Google to find out what the fuck you're talking about. It's a cartoon show. For children and immature adults. Which fits given your approach to taking in new information. I've never watched that show - and short some sort of catastrophic head injury, am never likely to want to.
Illuminating insight into your basement world though.
Most dogs (mine included) can do most everything an ape can do - and more.
I'm an ape. Get your dog to compile a custom kernel and I'll consider it. Have him complete Hurd and I'll believe you.
You seem to confuse the process of building a binary with running a race. But, please tell us more about *your* abilities - perhaps if we're sufficiently impresses with your claimed accomplishments your dogmatic opinions will gain some credibility. Do you have ninja skills too? Because dogs don't so therefore apes are more like humans (who, unlike you, are not apes but are the third chimpanzee).
I've already pointed out that dogs don't have our language or hands.
Do any of the apes (other than the third chimpanzees) compile code? How many humans can? How hard can make config, etc be?
To avoid public humiliation - *do not* post your education references, your teachers probably tried, but you failed.
Widening an already piss-weak argument hardly strengthens your argument. Now go chase down a rat, rabbit and fox. When and if you catch it, kill it with your teeth. A spurious comparison given that you've not just read my earlier comments about hands, but essentially agreed with it. I'm guessing the almond shaped bit of my dog's brain is some what larger than yours.
I'll give you $100 if you can teach an ape to find a three-dimensional object based on viewing a drawing - or point - or wait - or look where you're pointing. No ape has ever been taught to do any of those things.
Perhaps not, but they do really understand the meaning of color-words: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-milestones-with-thinking-japanese.html http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Thinking-Like-a-Chimpanzee.html
Apropos of what? You have a better way of testing the ability of an animal to differentiate between colours without differentiating between colours.
Many dogs can.
It's always "the breakthrough free software has been waiting for"... free software has been growing over the years, but these sorts of things never seem to make the big global impact that the news reports they will. (Not saying this is a bad thing, though!)
I, for one, hope so. But then, I thought the same might happen due to Red Dragon. (sigh).
Actually, it's probably just the opposite. After the BSD backdoor story and after the Wikileaks cables, maybe Russia is concerned about using Microsoft Windows. Of course, Microsoft would *never* work with the NSA/FBI/CIA/Control/Chaos on back-doors that undermine the security of Russia... I can't imaging why they would want their own operating system...
[dons tin foil hat] Do you think already having the source code to Windoof, and the source code to GNU/Linux, that the Russians may have based their choice on reasons other than licensing costs?
You're apparently unaware that international commerce existed before the invention of the 18-wheeler. A piece of Alaskan jade was found in Central America, and Lake Superior copper has shown up in New Mexico and Florida. One of the products that Mayan caravans are known to have traded was tobacco, and I'd be exceedingly surprised if coca leaves weren't carried on the return trip northward. Interestingly, Egyptian mummies have been found with detectable levels of cocaine and nicotine in their tissues. Addicted Spaniards imported tobacco seeds to South America fairly early in their occupation, IIRC before they even set up their first distillery.
Some of those things I was aware of - and I've an interest in paleontology and paleobotany. I'm not going to say that nicotine bearing plants weren't used by any South American cultures - only that I haven't read any mention of it in areas of early coca use, or of any archeological evidence.
The cute comment was in response to the quote you gave - to the best of my knowledge that is an urban myth (it's often quoted, a source would be nice). Though the expressed sentiments are true. I've read of South American tobacco use (Bruhn, Wasson, Cooper and others) but those writings (from memory) are specific to lowland areas where coca isn't produced. While it's *unlikely* the the two weren't used in the same areas - I have no references to it.
You are correct about transport and trade. Nicotine bearing plants in Australia are called "pituri" - and pituri trails cross the continent from far south-west to the north-eastern cape (where they would have met with Indonesians). Along those trails can be found evidence of the transport of materials such as ochres and flints. There is also reason to believe yarni (cannabis) was in use prior to the white invasion.
In Northern Europe (Scotland) there is substantial evidence that Cannabis sativa arrived long before the Romans (pollen, fiber ballast bagging and caulking, pipe twine etc).
In Australia (and Indonesia) there are a number of native erythroxylin species. The Javan variant has a higher active ingredient level than the Columbian plants - in fact prior to World War II most of the worlds production was (from Java area) Australian, English or Japanese. The Germans produced their cocaine in South America - the legacy of which is the current cocaine industry. Prior to German production the area that produced coca was much smaller, and restricted to the highest altitudes. The plants currently grown are a hybrid between one of the native Peruvian strains and the Javanese strain.
Indisputably (IMO) trade and transfer between all parts of the world existed just as it does now - the transfers just took a lot longer.
I read an interesting thesis some years ago that asserted the combination on monotheism, alcohol, and the military (Romes unholy trinity) led to the modern history we now live in - and ever since it has been a long and bloody crusade dedicated to removing all other religions and drug use. This makes it hard to reconstruct what was really used by original inhabitants.
Please point me at references to the Mayan caravans (if you remember it) - I've not seen anything on that subject, likewise the Inca. It's a subject I find fascinating (obviously)
Cheers.
Saying an object knows everything about itself is anthropomorphizing it.
No!
That's just the lame assertion of someone going to desperate lengths to support an unsustainable assertion. So desperate they're reduced to posting AC commends to support the ones they post under a pseudonym.
Your over investment in self-consciousness came at the cost of self-awareness. Meaning - we see your argument as baseless. Bluster changes nothing.
You look like a sad dick because you failed to use a dictionary to begin with. Continuing to misuse words doesn't give your original stupidly credibility.
A dog can recognize and fetch 100 different items by their name
A dog can recognize and fetch 1000 different items by their name - there fixed that for you. :-)
The dog is called "Chaser", it can work from drawings of the objects... and more. Originally featured in the doco "Secret Life Of The Dog" (BBC?). Also posted on here. Volumes of credible studies have been published.
A vegetarian I see
No fair (you insensitive sod)! ;-p
I'm a vegetarian. I like killing things - I just don't eat them.
I'm not sure about farming humans for food being unviable - you could be wrong there (yummy soylent green).... how about street corner scales and compulsory liposuction? Could solve the energy crisis.....
Enjoy your hamburger - life is not sacred, it just is. My dog loves to hunt and kill (lives for it) - I don't discourage her, it's just the way it is. A big carbon cycle.
I suspect for evolutionary reasons the restrictions on killing our own kind are due to:- ;our need for society/family support ;the risk we may be killing our own offspring/relatives. Gene pool and support preservation no less.
No regrets, but I don't buy the hype,
Sounds wise :-D
Advocate and Educate have different spellings for a reason.
Then, I guess he is not so proud of using drugs, now is he? If he is not willing to stand behind his words, then his words are meaningless. If his drug use is private, then he should keep it to himself. If he wants to publicly comment on his drug use and how good it was for him, then he should do it publicly under his own name, not cower behind a false front. Until he is willing to state publicly who he is and what drugs he has done, he can STFU.
Your name and address please or is gutless another one of your deficiencies?
You feel so positive about it that you post as an AC? Sorry, but I don't believe you at all.
At the posters (stated) age that's probably wise. We are talking about controversial and illegal activities.
Given the "chilling effect", anonymous posts are appropriate - particularly if the poster works and resides in the US/Malaysia/Indonesia or China.
Please don't take hallucinogenic drugs - the Mental Health system is already under strain. Your opinion is indicative of the sort of person who will have a bad trip - "seeing" who you really are will not be pleasant.
There is a difference between the "person" people project, and the "person" people are. If that difference is large they will not be able to cope with things that break down those barriers (psycoactive drugs and alcohol). Those that are ashamed, or scared, of who they really are cannot cope with self awareness (freakout). And they are not pleasant people to be around when the barriers come down.
"Never trust someone you haven't been drunk with - because you don't truly know 'them'"
--- my grandfather (who once explained that pot was not discovered in the 60s - "when I was a lad in the Merchant Navy we called it 'goofing off' - stoned was what booze did")
In five years, when you're bored of LSD and the long term effects have gone, you'll read this back and *facepalm*.
Believe one who knows.
Have to disagree there (of course my perception of reality is distorted). Thirty years later, children, grandchildren, successful in business, and generally regarded as a prominent member of society. Never had any "mental issues" or "flashbacks". Very, very few drugs I didn't try as a youth - including large amount of most of the hallucinogens (main academic background OC & P).
Drug use does not automatically give self-awareness or enlightenment. Drugs (legal or otherwise) are not incapable of causing damage. I certainly see many bad effects from drug use in others (alcohol, cocaine, amphetamines esp.). There are genetic factors that predispose some to greater risk of damage than others - and bad (contaminated) drugs. Other damage comes from social attitudes which force recreational drug users outside of mainstream society. But mostly, a healthy lifestyle, a good education, access to quality information (and drugs), coupled with self-discipline (delay that gratification) do allow safe recreational use of hallucinogenic drugs.
Note: Since my late twenties I haven't used any recreational drugs other than cannabis - though 6 years ago the wife and I took a holiday to Bali and enjoyed an ecstatic afternoon on gold-top mushies. (she's qualified to identify fungi using spore prints). Life is a joy, most of what makes people unhappy stems from a daily search for things to make them happy. Take your pleasure and insight where you find it.
I also enjoy fishing and surfing. Activities that kill and cripple people who fail to act in a responsible manner.
Denial is not being responsible. Humans/animals have always, and probably will always, modify their environment. Your head is part of your environment. Failure to recognize that is just indicative of the sort of futile desires that King Canute attempted to educate against.
The arguments that "it's not needed", "it poses a risk", are neither useful, nor relevant. They just demonstrate a lack of understanding.
I don't hold that my experiences will match those of others - I've certainly never proposed that any of my kids take drugs (though two of them have). Your experience may not match the experience of others. That the total number of people who regret trying hallucinogens (or other recreational drugs) is minute compared to the number of people who tried them should be some indication of the true situation. Literature and studies are fine - but when we are dealing with illegal drugs the true figures are distorted. Next time you're out and about - carefully phrase your questions and speak to some of us grandparents. You might be surprised.
It's unfortunate, given what a massive tool Paul is. But in general I think it's a safe assumption that his writings are probably paint a more accurate picture of the teachings of Jesus than the gospels. He at least was a contemporary, while the gospel writers were just some random guys who tossed on famous names as self promotion.
Mathew, Mark, Luke, and, John - everyone else came much later on.
And it's all bullshit. Not that this, or anywhere else is a forum for the undebatable. Faith, as evidenced by the arguments here, is not something that brooks debate (rationale, or logic).
We are not all equal in abilities.
PC means some people have "reading impediments". Reality is some people have not evolved the capacity to read. I suspect they may expend the energy elsewhere - like adapting to a life of cleaning sewage (class consciousness). But those things have no relationship to skin colour or geographic location.
Maybe you've got an ozone layer where you are - but we don't have much of one here. Black or white you slap the sunscreen on exposed skin or get burnt. Fact.
Intelligence is a little like crop production (poor analogy I know - but it's late and I'm in a hurry)- if the soil isn't toxic (no genetic impediments), and the nutrients are there (diet, education) and the environment isn't hostile (do we beat up the smart kids, do we value footballers over smarts) then intelligence flourishes. As pointed out in my earlier posts - evolution is vertical - not horizontal - it affects the offspring of individuals - not races. If the disparity between rich and poor is great - then so will be the ratio of low intelligence to high intelligence. Family and environment is everything.
Nootropic solutions are pure bullshit because they do not exist.
When people tell you that you're full of shit it doesn't mean they are PC people - it could be just that you *are* full of shit. I call bullshit to people who say that "discriminating" is wrong - and I ask them to find their fucking car without discriminating - and get a dictionary and look up "bigot". Black is black, White is white. A bigot is someone who decides that one is "better" than the other - which is not good, or bad - it's just stupid. And I call stupid - bullshit. PC says "everyone" has a valid point of view. I say "what, even fuckwits who are wrong?
(yawn). The purpose of patronizing views (like the ones you express) is that it makes you feel that you are better in some way. Which makes you a patronizing bigot who uses *bullshit* about black skin not requiring sun protection and "biochemical" cures for low intelligence to advance an argument - that *other* races are not as intelligent as theirs.
Oh - I've read the book. You can guess what I think of it.
If you're saying that dog brains are closer to ours than dog brains are to apes brains, you might be correct. If you're saying that dog brains are closer to ours than ape brains are to our brains, then you're incorrect.
And if you think that response is an argument to my post - you confuse an opinion with an argument.
Structurally, and functionally (aside from our more developed language centers and development for hands - minus our lost nasal and hearing abilities).... well, yes, I'm saying - what I said. Not all dogs, not all humans. Try "The Secret Life of a Dog" for a list of relevant references - inability to communicate and lack of colour vision are myths. The dog most studied is Chaser - with a proven vocabulary greater than many people who drive trucks with gun racks.
Most dogs (mine included) can do most everything an ape can do - and more. I'll give you $100 if you can teach an ape to find a three-dimensional object based on viewing a drawing - or point - or wait - or look where you're pointing. No ape has ever been taught to do any of those things. Many dogs can. Most collies and Jack Russells (other breeds as well, those are the ones I've mostly trained) easily learn 400+ words and concepts (around, under, over) - and colour recognition (get in the red car).
To generalize - dogs with eyes to the front (nose dogs) are smarter than dogs with eyes either side of the nose (eye dogs). Eye dogs are the ones that find it hard to not chase anything that moves and they don't tend to listen.
The former World Champion Garry Kasparov wrote that, based upon her games, "if to 'play like a girl' meant anything in chess, it would mean relentless aggression."
describing Judit Polgár.
He also said:-
"She has fantastic chess talent," said Kasparov. "but she is, after all a woman. It all comes down to the imperfections of the feminine psyche. No woman can sustain a prolonged battle."
He also played he and cheated (caught on film), and when she beat him he walked out in a fit.
Bobby Fisher refused to play her:-
"No, they're Jewish."
And for those with an interest in gender, intelligence and breeding....
Judit Polgár (born July 23, 1976) is a Hungarian chess grandmaster. She is by far the strongest female chess player in history. In 1991, she achieved the title of Grandmaster (GM) at the age of 15 years and 4 months. She was, at that time, the youngest person ever to do so. Polgár is ranked number 49 in the world on the November 2010 FIDE rating list with an Elo rating of 2686, (was) the only woman on FIDE's Top 100 Players list, and has been ranked as high as eighth (in 2005)
She and her two older sisters, Grandmaster Susan and International Master Sofia, were part of an educational experiment carried out by their father László Polgár, in an attempt to prove that children could make exceptional achievements if trained in a specialist subject from a very early age. "Geniuses are made, not born," was László's thesis. He and his wife Klara educated their three daughters at home, with chess as the specialist subject. From the beginning, Laszlo was against the idea that his daughters had to participate in female-only events. "Women are able to achieve results similar, in fields of intellectual activities, to that of men," he wrote. "Chess is a form of intellectual activity, so this applies to chess. Accordingly, we reject any kind of discrimination in this respect."
gajillions
Sigh
t's exactly the same as Northern Europeans need to treat their skins with sun blockers to avoid skin cancer in situations where people of African descent can tolerate the effects of the sun without ill effects.
Bullshit
Let's try to find the cause of low intelligence. If it's racially related, then let's find a biochemical cure, if Africans, or any other genetic group, have low intelligence due to race, let's develop some medicine that will allow them to have normal intelligence.
Go back to your fantasy lab and invent a "biochemical" cure for you own gullibility. Clearly you are too dumb to be allowed out of the trailer park
You are full of shit
Is there any part of my post you don't understand?
Consider the continuing catastrophe that is Africa. If it should happen that part of the problem is a low average IQ for blacks, one might think it essential to find out why this difference exists. If the factors are primarily environmental, that sets the general approach to dealing with the situation. If the factors are primarily hereditary, then completely different solutions are required. Sticking our collective heads in the PC-sand, by prohibiting any discussion of the topic, is just stupid.
Let me try and explain why so many applicants for the US military get rejected - 'cause I've read the rejection rate profiles by racial background and if you took those outcomes without looking at the education level of those that didn't apply for the military - your argument'd hold water.
I run some sheep (really) - they appear pretty bloody stupid (they're merinos). Are merinos stupid sheep? Yes, and no.
If I ensure they all have good nutrition will they all be of equal intelligence? No.
If I keep breeding the least stupid ones will I get "smarter" sheep? No - two reasons - to work with them they have to be approachable (sheep stressed by humans don't yield as much as less stressed sheep) so I'm always unconsciously selecting the most domesticated sheep - while the smartest ones don't run with the flock - they just leap over the fence (easily) and do what they want. Eventually the escapees will suffer for their freedom - and there "smarter" genes will not flourish - but that because they've already been bred to need human intervention (need shearing, protection from insects). Go back to the wild ancestors of the merino and you will find the smarter sheep.
Compare the sheep in my paddocks with the wild sheep and my sheep are not as smart. If, however I bred for sheep that didn't need shearing and dipping (breeds do exist) - then I would have the basis for smarter sheep.
So my problems with a lot of these studies is that they fail to account for the factors that restrict the reproduction of the smartest - and the factors that favour the reproduction of the least smart, most compliant.
I suspect the latter factor is also part of PC. Too dumb, lazy or whatever to earn top dollars and increase the chances of your offspring having offspring? Taxpayer to the rescue! (sigh)
Africa is one of many countries that has had centuries of oppression through war and slavery - and who is first up against the wall? The biggest threat to the established order is. This is same the world over. Most of the world, at some time or other has been oppressed - the smarter either seized the chance to escape, got killed/imprisoned (didn't breed), or stayed and had their ability to reproduce reduced (usually) - unless they were particularly smart and acted dumb. (acting dumb is a way of dealing with an oppressor - when asked by the bigger, threatening bloke what you're doing "I dunno" is the safest response)
In short, war, commerce, and legal systems influence gene selection. Gene selection is the basis of intelligence (impels not compels). Failure to account for these factors in intelligence profiling is the opposite of intelligent. To argue that whether someone gets to reproduce or not has no bearing on intelligence is just stupid.
Similarly, it's not politically correct to talk about how race is a major indicator of intelligence... despite being absolutely proven, with economic and societal levels controlled for.
Bullshit
Evolution is vertical, not horizontal. And most definitely not defined by race or geography (just like stupidity).
Bad statistics were invented for douchebag arseclowns like you. If you weren't so inferior you wouldn't need to constantly invent "proof" that you're not.
Only time will tell - is your family expanding in size and success?
Because the 'religion of the day' is that the genders are "equal", so it's pure blasphemy to point out the glaring facts.
Yep. And not just gender equality, morons, wusses, bullies, etc. We are all no more equal than we all have the same abilities.
Where it really craps out is when we try and apply mean averages to individuals. Take any woman at random and measure her abilities against a random man - the differences are probably no greater than comparing *any* two random people. Not that it's that simple either - culture plays a very big part in it. Ditto evolution. From an evolutionary point of view women "may" have greater adaptability and networking skills than men - and I note that what might have been beneficial 10K years ago might not be now. Before any of the little dicks get all touchy - it all balances out. If a man had an internal growth 1/4 the size of baby they'd die.
Evolution - by the way - is vertical, not horizontal.
I suspect we are not all thinking the same thing when we say "war" - I mean it as protracted violence to achieve territory involving more than two parties. Traditionally women have often raised (in some cultures) their children to war.... and if you live in the so-called Western world - I defy you go out on a Friday night to the less regulated areas and show me that women are less aggressive and violent. Check your newspapers, hang out at your local courts. 50 years ago is was fairly rare for a woman to be charged with assault in a public place. Not now. Control over their own fertility has changed a lot of things.
The world is an interesting place.
About woman... Woman has no nuts. This basic thing you should learn at lest from movies. In case of danger - man will attack, woman will do whatever else to survive. That expands to the males with woman brain also. Of course, any rule has exceptions. But this is thinking by overall categories and marks.
What makes sense is bullshit - and the rest makes no sense.
Leave you television and your movies. Go outside. Consider traveling to other countries. You seriously delusional.
Baseball & other sports take more mental prowess than you seem to think, at least on the professional level. A lot of a teams success can hang on managements ability to judge the other team, their own personnel & how they use their personnel.
Not really. What happens is that when all the other significant factors of co-ordination, physical fitness and practice, practice, practice have been pushed to the utter extremes by being taken to the high levels of national and international competition, to the point where everybody is a brilliant athete and sportsman, then at that point the factors which are normally dwarfed by such things, e.g. choosing to send in one person in to bat next over another, start to become relevant. But with Chess, it's like that all the way down.
You have a good point there. Be it fighting, playing pool or chess, or running a marathon - once you get to a certain level of knowledge, ability, and experience - it becomes, to quote John Wayne (the 8 ball player, yes really) "90% psychology".
faints and deceptions
Thank you, now I see what was holding me back! :-D
Seriously - what you wrote sounds like a big line of bullshit. The consequences of chess are fuck all - ditto the collateral damage. Where's the commitment in a board game? Sorry paintball fans - that isn't war either. Neither are any more warlike than watching a John Wayne movie. The closest thing to war is climbing in the ring, or calling out the dude with the tattooed forehead at the Rebels clubhouse.
The same argument is sometimes applied to certain fields like math, etc., where men seem to be more successful than women. On average, men and women perform at the same level; the difference comes in the distribution. Men supposedly tend to cluster at the really high and really low levels, so while 4/5 of the best may be male, 4/5 of the very worst will also be male. It's a thought-provoking theory, and there is actually some evidence for it, but there is also plenty of evidence against it and it isn't one to make lightly. Like many other areas, it is likely really smart women are tragically funneled elsewhere or pushed to do something "more appropriate."
More concretely, the concept that chess simulates war is simply outdated. Civilization, Warcraft III, and half the console games these days simulate war. Chess is an artful mastery of planning, brainpower, and pattern recognition that cannot be matched, but it's NOT warfare, not the way it matters.
The natural tendency for men to be more aggressive (better suited to war) is bullshit anyway. Traditionally certain cultures have held chess in high regard, those same cultures (i.e. Russia) have not encouraged (actively discouraged) women from playing chess.
I'm a reasonable chess player, I grew up in a chess playing culture - but only males were encouraged to play - girls would get shooed away. I used to play in a club, one of my best mates was one of the best players -- he offered to show my younger sister how to play one night. She whipped him. He never spoke to me again.
More recently I've had some games with my mother - she's better than I am. When I commented on that she remarked that "just because we don't play, doesn't mean we can't, and that we don't watch".
I remember a shaman from one of those South American cultures say something like: "We have been using tobacco for hundreds of years, and look at what it did to you when you discovered it. We have been using coca for generations, and look at what you did when you found it. I fear the worst for you once you find the rest of our plants." I guess the point is of the article is that the use of "drugs" is something part of nature, it's just how we do it that matters.
Cute. Which "South American" culture is that has been using both tobacco and coca for "hundreds" of years?
Will you be publishing this new discovery soon?
There is freaking huge gap between human mind and anything modern apes have. Sure, there was a long process between those levels, but all intermediate steps are long extinct, and have no chance to show up to make question about their level of consciousness relevant.
Given that apes can be taught to understand primitive writing in a way and teh behaviour of certain humans I would say that you are wrong until you provide a source.
And given that dogs have exhibited abilities that apes cannot reproduce - recognize 3 dimensional objects from 2 dimensional, learn more than 400 words, point, and respond to pointing - I'd say that Alex has pulled his bible belt a little too tight.
I've seen dogs that definitely do understand "tomorrow". Tell them they're going hunting tomorrow and they will start trying to wake you up at 4am. Don't tell them, they'll sleep till noon. Record the different barks and noises made by dogs - then play them back to other dog owners and you'll find that regardless of the location - the owners will consistently understand what the dog is saying - and that dog communication is not for other dogs - it's for humans. I suspect that due to our long relationship with dogs (teaming up with them may well have made up more effective hunters) means that dog brains are more similar to ours than apes.
Most of our brains are for language and hands. We are not alone in either modifying ourselves, our environment, or responding to future, possible events.
Not that I'm saying that animals are equal, or that I shouldn't kill them. Ditto for self-proclaimed superior lifeforms. ;-p
Blindly proclaiming superiority is just, um, inferior(?).