My apologies for presuming you had not put reasonable though into your posts. I made that assessment based on some of the assertions made in your prior post but, as they say, it's hard to judge a book by it's cover. Obviously you put much effort into your latest post and you raise reasonable questions. I won't play devils advocate and try to refute all your assertions made as I agree on many of them. I'll just address a couple of the questions your raise.
First, the alligator brain. Reptiles have a very rudimentary brain structure. There is no cortex at all, so there is no capability for reasoning or true cognition. Reptiles operate 100% on instinct and have little or no capacity for learned behavior. Almost all of a reptile's brain is devoted to sensory and motor functions. It is a very different (and much simpler) structure than the brain of mammals.
Next, the elephant brain. The elephant (as you note) is a highly intelligent mammal. It's remarkable memory capacity is real. Elephants have some capacity for reasoning and cognition, although they (as far as we know) lack the capacity for abstract thought. When you consider the size of an elephant together with it's high level of intelligence, why would you expect the brain to be the size of lima beans? It makes perfect sense that their brains would be larger than humans? However, when you factor in their body size, their brain-mass to body-mass ratio is less than that of humans which only serves to confirm my original arguments.
As I stated earlier, the brain-mass to body-mass ratio is simply a very rough rule of thumb indicator which is statistically significant. It does not tell the whole story though. All animals have varying degrees of capabilities and there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes one type of intelligence over another. Dolphins exceed humans in spacial awareness, Elephants exceed humans in memory capacity, Eagles exceed humans in visual acuity and so on an so forth.
If somehow you've taken from my posts that I am against the idea of rights for animals, I don't think any of my posts reflect that and if they do, it certainly wasn't my intention. I believe all creatures have just as much right to be here as we do and we should respect that right. No other species (with the possible exception of some interesting observations of higher primates) kills for pleasure other than homo-sapiens. While we like to think of ourselves as the protectors of the earth, the reality is humans are without a doubt the most evil of all species.
I might remind you that humans didn't develop these capabilities until the last 10,000 years or so after around 2 billion years of evolution.
Not really. Flintknapping was an invention. Flintknapping a hand ax or arrowhead or spearhead was an invention. The stone-tipped spear was an invention. The bow and arrow was an invention. Figuring out how to first control and then consistently be able to start a fire was an invention. What evidence we have of that period suggests that they developed some understanding how seasons worked (if they lived in a temperate climate), and made some attempts at medicine. They probably also started telling stories about the world around them, now known as myths.
Our cave men ancestors were ignorant and starting from scratch, but there's no reason to think they were stupid and didn't invent stuff, learn stuff, and pass that knowledge along. And they were really no dumber than we are.
I agree 100%. The earliest homo-sapiens were really not different (physiologically) that us. They had almost exactly the same mental capacity that we have.
Toolmaking goes back as far as 3.4 million years ago (Australopithecus afarensis - long before homo-sapiens) and it's not a even a trait unique to humans as toolmaking has been observed in other primates, birds and even octopuses.
What I was particularly referring to above was civilization and science. True civilization (not counting simple settlements which again, are not unique to humans) did not really occur until around 10,000 years ago (in the "Fertile Crescent" in the Near East, where the Nile, Tigris and Euphrates rivers, as well as the warm climate, allowed agriculture to flourish). Prior to that humans were basically hunter-gatherers. Science is even more recent than that, beginning around 3500BC in Mesopotamia.
Only time will tell, but every move Apple has made since they became a dominant player has been to restrict how and what applications are allowed on their iOS platform. Now with the app store for OSX the trend toward a walled garden for OSX is not far fetched at all. There is considerable speculation that iOS will eventually merge with OSX to become the platform on desktop, server and mobile devices. When (and if) that happens, there is no reason to believe that Apple will be any more open with their desktops than they are with their mobile devices. If they are able to maintain their dominant position yet be able to maintain absolute control over what software is available for their devices, why wouldn't they do it. In my mind, the only reason they wouldn't do this is if the third party developers refused to play their game and forced them to be more open before they get to that point. However, signs so far have not been very encouraging as apple fanbois seem to believe Apple can do no wrong and are willing to play the game Apple's way, regardless of the implications (even if it is to their own detriment).
In any case, I'm sure there is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise so I've probably just waste more time on this topic. You can stay in Apple-land (aka Oceania) as long as you wish. Me, I'm taking a different road and we'll see in a few years who was right.
Yep. Think how much $$$ and time FOSS has saved Apple from having to develop their own OS and tools from scratch. They have taken and (in all fairness) given back to the FOSS community. However, most everything the have used is BSD license which means they can release proprietary code based on BSD licensed software. It also means they don't have to contribute their code back to the community. My point was that once Apple locks down their OS so that the only way to install software is through their app store, they could easily stop providing development tools and iOS/OSX users would no longer be able to do development.
Most people watch news, post on discussion boards, don't influence anyone, probably never write to their MPs. So who is doing the "smarter thing"
Actually, posting on discussion boards (assuming your arguments are persuasive) is not a bad way to reach a lot of people who might only watch Fox news and never hear any position other than that of the right, especially for those of us that don't have as big a microphone as Palin. And while you're giving her such credit for standing up and "speaking her mind", remember that she quit 1/2 way through her term because "she arrived at her decision in part to protect her family, which has faced withering criticism and occasional mockery, and to escape ethics probes that have drained her family's finances and hampered her ability to govern". Yea, that "withering criticism and occasional mockery" thing - I'm sure that'd never happen if she became POTUS. Most likely she really quit because she had offers for more $$$ from book deals and TV shows.
Contrary to how this discussion has gone, I don't have any ill will toward Palin and wish her success in her career as a reality show star and Fox news analyst. But as the leader of the free world? GMAFB! Is she really the best the right wing can come up with? It's important for POTUS to make good decisions, be able to communicate effectively (without offending everyone around them) and to not quit when things get tough. IMO, Palin fails on all three counts.
You are certainly entitled to your opinions as am I. I understand that intelligent people can have differing opinions on public policy and lean right or lean left. However, what baffles me is that, when it comes to picking the leadership in this country, the right always seem to value how "average" the person is, rather how "exceptional" they are (in terms of intelligence, perseverance and general leadership qualities).
If intelligence basically means thriving & succeeding in *your environment*, then yes, she is more intelligent than most people.
By that definition of intelligence, the fungus growing around the waste water pond is intelligent. No, I think intelligence has a more formal definition than that:
1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
2.
manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit.
3.
the faculty of understanding.
Fungus is not intelligent, ergo neither is ("We must stand by our North Korean allies") Palin.
It's open source isn't it. There's no such thing as "coming real soon now". You can get it NOW if you know how to use git. Will it work? Maybe. Would it be better to wait until the official full release ? Probably, if you want a somewhat bug free version.
The point is, it is available for Android in pre-release and will eventually be available in general release form. It will not (ever) be available for iOS.
I don't think they really care enough either way to try. Seems to me they are working toward devices that cannot be programmed at all by outside developers so all apps must be purchased from Apple. Once they have everything locked down, they'll probably start charging out the ass for the development tools if not stop providing them to third parties at all.
This is not just a Wikipedia article or my idea. This is a widely accepted measure in the sciences, as long as you understand what it is, a very crude generalization (and no, it does not apply to electronic devices, although intelligence does not really apply at all to either of your two examples). The brain to body mass ratio is a very "rough" estimate and is mainly useful when comparing similar species, but when used as a rough "rule of thumb" estimate it does correlate in most cases. Obviously there are more precise measurements that take into account the relative size of the neocortex and the organization of it's various components.
The reasoning goes something like this; The amount of body mass is relevant because (again generally) larger bodies have more and larger muscles and organs that require more neurons than smaller bodies. Therefore, a large animal (such as an elephant) has a larger overall brain mass than a human, but they have much larger muscles and organs (including skin surface area) so a larger percentage of their brains are devoted to motor and sensory areas as opposed to cognition.
Another factor that bears on this ratio has to do with how the brain is organized. Humans have a "ridiculously" large amount of brain mass (neocortex specifically) devoted to executive functions (such as reasoning, prediction and abstract thought), while other mammals, such as the dolphin, have a larger proportion devoted to spatial awareness, location memory and specialized senses such as sonar. This is exactly why the term "intelligence" is a relative term. It is thought that dolphins can remember every place in the ocean they've ever been, while some humans have trouble finding their way back home from work. Does that mean dolphins are more intelligent than humans? No. It means that they can exceed humans in certain specific abilities and therefore have a "different" intelligence, but intelligence nonetheless.
The point is, none of this is new and this is really not a productive discussion when placed in a philosophical context. Neuroscience, cognitive psychology, brain physiology, anthropology and a host of other disciplines have been studying this for years and have a far better understanding than you or I on what constitutes intelligence.
You are certainly within your rights to hold the views you do, but I think I'll go with the folks who've put more than 5 minutes of thought into this topic.
second in mass only to the human brain when corrected for body size
And how is that supposed to be relevant? Even if brain mass closely correlates with intelligence, that doesn't mean that the ratio of brain mass to body size does.
Ummm, actually it does. Brain mass alone does not correlate to intelligence (if it did, elephants would be our overlords). Intelligence generally (although not precisely) correlates to the ration of brain to body mass. Sorry, but it does.
I might remind you that humans didn't develop these capabilities until the last 10,000 years or so after around 2 billion years of evolution. Dolphins are/were quite content with their lives in the ocean being at the top of the food chain. What need did they have to develop civilization (although they are social animals), science or inventions? Humans were forced to come up with these to survive. That doesn't make humans better, just different.
Would it be impolite to point out that she has accomplished far more in life than you or I have, or probably ever will? If Sarah Palin is dumb, therefore, there's a significantly greater than zero chance that you and I are even dumber.
That is based on the ridiculous notion that intelligence equates to fame. To make this point, I only have two words - "Jersey Shore".
Slashdot Mirror
My apologies for presuming you had not put reasonable though into your posts. I made that assessment based on some of the assertions made in your prior post but, as they say, it's hard to judge a book by it's cover. Obviously you put much effort into your latest post and you raise reasonable questions. I won't play devils advocate and try to refute all your assertions made as I agree on many of them. I'll just address a couple of the questions your raise.
First, the alligator brain. Reptiles have a very rudimentary brain structure. There is no cortex at all, so there is no capability for reasoning or true cognition. Reptiles operate 100% on instinct and have little or no capacity for learned behavior. Almost all of a reptile's brain is devoted to sensory and motor functions. It is a very different (and much simpler) structure than the brain of mammals.
Next, the elephant brain. The elephant (as you note) is a highly intelligent mammal. It's remarkable memory capacity is real. Elephants have some capacity for reasoning and cognition, although they (as far as we know) lack the capacity for abstract thought. When you consider the size of an elephant together with it's high level of intelligence, why would you expect the brain to be the size of lima beans? It makes perfect sense that their brains would be larger than humans? However, when you factor in their body size, their brain-mass to body-mass ratio is less than that of humans which only serves to confirm my original arguments.
As I stated earlier, the brain-mass to body-mass ratio is simply a very rough rule of thumb indicator which is statistically significant. It does not tell the whole story though. All animals have varying degrees of capabilities and there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes one type of intelligence over another. Dolphins exceed humans in spacial awareness, Elephants exceed humans in memory capacity, Eagles exceed humans in visual acuity and so on an so forth.
If somehow you've taken from my posts that I am against the idea of rights for animals, I don't think any of my posts reflect that and if they do, it certainly wasn't my intention. I believe all creatures have just as much right to be here as we do and we should respect that right. No other species (with the possible exception of some interesting observations of higher primates) kills for pleasure other than homo-sapiens. While we like to think of ourselves as the protectors of the earth, the reality is humans are without a doubt the most evil of all species.
I might remind you that humans didn't develop these capabilities until the last 10,000 years or so after around 2 billion years of evolution.
Not really. Flintknapping was an invention. Flintknapping a hand ax or arrowhead or spearhead was an invention. The stone-tipped spear was an invention. The bow and arrow was an invention. Figuring out how to first control and then consistently be able to start a fire was an invention. What evidence we have of that period suggests that they developed some understanding how seasons worked (if they lived in a temperate climate), and made some attempts at medicine. They probably also started telling stories about the world around them, now known as myths.
Our cave men ancestors were ignorant and starting from scratch, but there's no reason to think they were stupid and didn't invent stuff, learn stuff, and pass that knowledge along. And they were really no dumber than we are.
I agree 100%. The earliest homo-sapiens were really not different (physiologically) that us. They had almost exactly the same mental capacity that we have.
Toolmaking goes back as far as 3.4 million years ago (Australopithecus afarensis - long before homo-sapiens) and it's not a even a trait unique to humans as toolmaking has been observed in other primates, birds and even octopuses.
What I was particularly referring to above was civilization and science. True civilization (not counting simple settlements which again, are not unique to humans) did not really occur until around 10,000 years ago (in the "Fertile Crescent" in the Near East, where the Nile, Tigris and Euphrates rivers, as well as the warm climate, allowed agriculture to flourish). Prior to that humans were basically hunter-gatherers. Science is even more recent than that, beginning around 3500BC in Mesopotamia.
Only time will tell, but every move Apple has made since they became a dominant player has been to restrict how and what applications are allowed on their iOS platform. Now with the app store for OSX the trend toward a walled garden for OSX is not far fetched at all. There is considerable speculation that iOS will eventually merge with OSX to become the platform on desktop, server and mobile devices. When (and if) that happens, there is no reason to believe that Apple will be any more open with their desktops than they are with their mobile devices. If they are able to maintain their dominant position yet be able to maintain absolute control over what software is available for their devices, why wouldn't they do it. In my mind, the only reason they wouldn't do this is if the third party developers refused to play their game and forced them to be more open before they get to that point. However, signs so far have not been very encouraging as apple fanbois seem to believe Apple can do no wrong and are willing to play the game Apple's way, regardless of the implications (even if it is to their own detriment).
In any case, I'm sure there is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise so I've probably just waste more time on this topic. You can stay in Apple-land (aka Oceania) as long as you wish. Me, I'm taking a different road and we'll see in a few years who was right.
Yep. Think how much $$$ and time FOSS has saved Apple from having to develop their own OS and tools from scratch. They have taken and (in all fairness) given back to the FOSS community. However, most everything the have used is BSD license which means they can release proprietary code based on BSD licensed software. It also means they don't have to contribute their code back to the community. My point was that once Apple locks down their OS so that the only way to install software is through their app store, they could easily stop providing development tools and iOS/OSX users would no longer be able to do development.
Doesn't this sound a lot like Microsoft's Passport they tried to get traction on a few years ago but failed?
Most people watch news, post on discussion boards, don't influence anyone, probably never write to their MPs. So who is doing the "smarter thing"
Actually, posting on discussion boards (assuming your arguments are persuasive) is not a bad way to reach a lot of people who might only watch Fox news and never hear any position other than that of the right, especially for those of us that don't have as big a microphone as Palin. And while you're giving her such credit for standing up and "speaking her mind", remember that she quit 1/2 way through her term because "she arrived at her decision in part to protect her family, which has faced withering criticism and occasional mockery, and to escape ethics probes that have drained her family's finances and hampered her ability to govern". Yea, that "withering criticism and occasional mockery" thing - I'm sure that'd never happen if she became POTUS. Most likely she really quit because she had offers for more $$$ from book deals and TV shows.
Contrary to how this discussion has gone, I don't have any ill will toward Palin and wish her success in her career as a reality show star and Fox news analyst. But as the leader of the free world? GMAFB! Is she really the best the right wing can come up with? It's important for POTUS to make good decisions, be able to communicate effectively (without offending everyone around them) and to not quit when things get tough. IMO, Palin fails on all three counts.
You are certainly entitled to your opinions as am I. I understand that intelligent people can have differing opinions on public policy and lean right or lean left. However, what baffles me is that, when it comes to picking the leadership in this country, the right always seem to value how "average" the person is, rather how "exceptional" they are (in terms of intelligence, perseverance and general leadership qualities).
In any case, thanks for a good discussion.
If intelligence basically means thriving & succeeding in *your environment*, then yes, she is more intelligent than most people.
By that definition of intelligence, the fungus growing around the waste water pond is intelligent. No, I think intelligence has a more formal definition than that:
1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
2. manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit.
3. the faculty of understanding.
Fungus is not intelligent, ergo neither is ("We must stand by our North Korean allies") Palin.
Good try though.
Can they really be construed as stupid, though?
From what I've seen, yes, unequivocally yes - stupid as a rock.
Now their agents/handlers/promoters? Brilliant.
Actually, it's more accurate to say you can get it if you know how to git it.
It's open source isn't it. There's no such thing as "coming real soon now". You can get it NOW if you know how to use git.
Will it work? Maybe. Would it be better to wait until the official full release ? Probably, if you want a somewhat bug free version.
The point is, it is available for Android in pre-release and will eventually be available in general release form. It will not (ever) be available for iOS.
Self admission? I mean, I assume since you posted here that you consider yourself a "Slashdotter".
Posted from my ENIAC.
VLC was developed under the GPL long before the was an app store. It's not like they can just change the license to suit Apple.
I don't think they really care enough either way to try. Seems to me they are working toward devices that cannot be programmed at all by outside developers so all apps must be purchased from Apple. Once they have everything locked down, they'll probably start charging out the ass for the development tools if not stop providing them to third parties at all.
Android +1, iOS -1 http://www.intomobile.com/2010/12/27/vlc-player-android/
This is not just a Wikipedia article or my idea. This is a widely accepted measure in the sciences, as long as you understand what it is, a very crude generalization (and no, it does not apply to electronic devices, although intelligence does not really apply at all to either of your two examples). The brain to body mass ratio is a very "rough" estimate and is mainly useful when comparing similar species, but when used as a rough "rule of thumb" estimate it does correlate in most cases. Obviously there are more precise measurements that take into account the relative size of the neocortex and the organization of it's various components.
The reasoning goes something like this;
The amount of body mass is relevant because (again generally) larger bodies have more and larger muscles and organs that require more neurons than smaller bodies. Therefore, a large animal (such as an elephant) has a larger overall brain mass than a human, but they have much larger muscles and organs (including skin surface area) so a larger percentage of their brains are devoted to motor and sensory areas as opposed to cognition.
Another factor that bears on this ratio has to do with how the brain is organized. Humans have a "ridiculously" large amount of brain mass (neocortex specifically) devoted to executive functions (such as reasoning, prediction and abstract thought), while other mammals, such as the dolphin, have a larger proportion devoted to spatial awareness, location memory and specialized senses such as sonar. This is exactly why the term "intelligence" is a relative term. It is thought that dolphins can remember every place in the ocean they've ever been, while some humans have trouble finding their way back home from work. Does that mean dolphins are more intelligent than humans? No. It means that they can exceed humans in certain specific abilities and therefore have a "different" intelligence, but intelligence nonetheless.
The point is, none of this is new and this is really not a productive discussion when placed in a philosophical context. Neuroscience, cognitive psychology, brain physiology, anthropology and a host of other disciplines have been studying this for years and have a far better understanding than you or I on what constitutes intelligence.
You are certainly within your rights to hold the views you do, but I think I'll go with the folks who've put more than 5 minutes of thought into this topic.
second in mass only to the human brain when corrected for body size
And how is that supposed to be relevant? Even if brain mass closely correlates with intelligence, that doesn't mean that the ratio of brain mass to body size does.
Ummm, actually it does. Brain mass alone does not correlate to intelligence (if it did, elephants would be our overlords). Intelligence generally (although not precisely) correlates to the ration of brain to body mass. Sorry, but it does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-to-body_mass_ratio
And what position would that be? 1/2 term governor of the least populated (and least educated http://www.adn.com/2008/05/06/398390/alaskas-bent-learning-curve.html) states in the union, or mayor of Wasilla?
Well, excuuuuuse me! Move over Einstein.
I doubt it. Haven't you seen Flipper?
Like chicken.
I might remind you that humans didn't develop these capabilities until the last 10,000 years or so after around 2 billion years of evolution. Dolphins are/were quite content with their lives in the ocean being at the top of the food chain. What need did they have to develop civilization (although they are social animals), science or inventions? Humans were forced to come up with these to survive. That doesn't make humans better, just different.
These guys will never accept that there is any other living being, except for humans, that has all the characters of a person.
I reiterate... unless they are a corporation.
they should be treated as 'non-human persons.'
Corporations are, so why not dolphins...
Would it be impolite to point out that she has accomplished far more in life than you or I have, or probably ever will? If Sarah Palin is dumb, therefore, there's a significantly greater than zero chance that you and I are even dumber.
That is based on the ridiculous notion that intelligence equates to fame. To make this point, I only have two words - "Jersey Shore".
Does posting on /. while driving count as textin!@#!.........
has introduced a bill the have the name of the state changed from Florida to Oceania.