Yes, the artificial selection is true. There was a study that showed dogs understand human social cues (i.e. pointing) significantly better than wolves or even chimps. (Note: properly controlled experiment: all animals were naive, i.e. they weren't raised around humans so that they would have had a chance to learn what humans do.)
Most non-human primates have great reasoning ability.
For example, researchers make lots of recordings and splice it such that it sounds like infant A gave an alarm call. The entire troops looks at Mom A. They know who's kid is whose in a social system. How about if they play a recording of infant A being a misery to infant B. What happens? Mom B attacks Mom A. Great fun. Various experiments have shown that chimps know that other chimps don't have the same information that they do (theory of mind), and reason their actions accordingly (That big dominant chimp doesn't know about this hidden stash of food...).
And there are dolphins who understand semaphore (really complicated stuff, like swim through this hoop then do that loop-the-loop thing, then catch this target and defuse the bomb type of stuff). Does that count as reading?
Ummm... I'd argue that this is not how the brain works. (Non-computer) memory is largely associative, and no single variable stores anything -- it is the overall network that carries information.
For example, when an Alzheimer's patient loses an individual neuron or a synapse, memory doesn't get deleted or disappear. It just gets harder to access and you need more of a stimulus to pull something out. It's like the times you think "what is the name of that guy -- oh yeah! that's it!" only the "that's it" moment comes later and with more effort.
As far as there being "more to the human than that science gives us" -- obviously science is an ongoing process and we don't know everything, but there is certainly more to the human that science *does* give us, that is not taught in public education.
As for understanding, can we define understanding first? A lot of old experiments "showed" that non-human primates didn't understand transitivity (A>B, B>C, therefore A>C), when they tested the apes with containers and volumes, etc. More recent studies show they understand transitivity perfectly, only in a different context -- the social system of the species (A is dominant to B, B is dominant to C, therefore A dominates C).
Context is important -- more important than we often think.
6) If at all possible GET A COMPANY TO FUND YOUR PHD! This is harder now than it used to be, but it is THE way to go.
That's what fellowships are for. Any program worth its salt will fund your way through a PhD. (That means tuition AND stipend.) Yes, getting a little bit of money while investing heavily in your brain --
No wonder all the grad students wear bike helmets.
Right. That's why we have Homeland Security. And why we "elected" GWB.
Remember the marches in Hong Kong a while back about new Beijing legislation that would curb people's freedoms? The laws being protested don't hold a CANDLE to Homeland Security or its recent brethren.
You were saying?
Slashdot Mirror
I have a friend whose dog only understands Russian. She just sorta looks at you funny if you speak English.
Yes, the artificial selection is true. There was a study that showed dogs understand human social cues (i.e. pointing) significantly better than wolves or even chimps. (Note: properly controlled experiment: all animals were naive, i.e. they weren't raised around humans so that they would have had a chance to learn what humans do.)
For example, researchers make lots of recordings and splice it such that it sounds like infant A gave an alarm call. The entire troops looks at Mom A. They know who's kid is whose in a social system. How about if they play a recording of infant A being a misery to infant B. What happens? Mom B attacks Mom A. Great fun. Various experiments have shown that chimps know that other chimps don't have the same information that they do (theory of mind), and reason their actions accordingly (That big dominant chimp doesn't know about this hidden stash of food...).
And there are dolphins who understand semaphore (really complicated stuff, like swim through this hoop then do that loop-the-loop thing, then catch this target and defuse the bomb type of stuff). Does that count as reading?
What is a soul, after all?
For example, when an Alzheimer's patient loses an individual neuron or a synapse, memory doesn't get deleted or disappear. It just gets harder to access and you need more of a stimulus to pull something out. It's like the times you think "what is the name of that guy -- oh yeah! that's it!" only the "that's it" moment comes later and with more effort.
As far as there being "more to the human than that science gives us" -- obviously science is an ongoing process and we don't know everything, but there is certainly more to the human that science *does* give us, that is not taught in public education.
As for understanding, can we define understanding first? A lot of old experiments "showed" that non-human primates didn't understand transitivity (A>B, B>C, therefore A>C), when they tested the apes with containers and volumes, etc. More recent studies show they understand transitivity perfectly, only in a different context -- the social system of the species (A is dominant to B, B is dominant to C, therefore A dominates C).
Context is important -- more important than we often think.
6) If at all possible GET A COMPANY TO FUND YOUR PHD! This is harder now than it used to be, but it is THE way to go. That's what fellowships are for. Any program worth its salt will fund your way through a PhD. (That means tuition AND stipend.) Yes, getting a little bit of money while investing heavily in your brain -- No wonder all the grad students wear bike helmets.
It's very pretty. You should be proud.
Right. That's why we have Homeland Security. And why we "elected" GWB. Remember the marches in Hong Kong a while back about new Beijing legislation that would curb people's freedoms? The laws being protested don't hold a CANDLE to Homeland Security or its recent brethren. You were saying?