Explain .....

[Nashton]

How modern evolutionary biology, explains how humans surpassed other
animals in intelligence and awareness of self. Wouldn't at least one of
the myriad of mammal species display a similar level of cognitive
ability and meta-awareness/meta-cognition?

[Mike Duffy]

On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 11:46:03 -0400, Nashton wrote:

> How modern evolutionary biology, explains how humans surpassed other
> animals in intelligence and awareness of self.

This is easy. One species will end up more intelligent than others. It just
happened that on this planet it is humans.

> Wouldn't at least one of the myriad of mammal species display a
> similar level of cognitive ability and meta-awareness/meta-cognition?

The web is full of examples of different types of intelligence, such as
cetaceans, canines, elephants, parrots, and even octopi. Some of these
animals might have become dominant if they had figured out fire before we
did.

--
http://pages.videotron.com/duffym/index.htm

[John Stockwell]

No. Not necessarily.

[Greg Guarino]

1. There's nothing in evolutionary biology that requires that our
cognitive abilities would evolve more than once.

2. There's nothing in evolutionary biology that requires that our
cognitive abilities would evolve *once*.

3. How "aware" other mammals (and for that matter, some other creatures)
are is still an open question, although perhaps our abilities are
unique among *extant* creatures.

4. Among the "myriad mammals" you mention is Homo Erectus, who may have
been making simple geometric art a half-million years ago. So if your
question is "why such a huge (assuming it *is* huge) gap in abilities?",
the answer is likely that the differences started small, and a very long
time ago.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

[John Harshman]

Why? In every collection of species, doesn't there have to be one that's
the biggest, or the fastest, or in fact the smartest? Why aren't you
asking how modern evolutionary biology explains how blue whales
surpassed other animals in size, or how peregrine falcons surpassed all
other animals in speed?

Of course there are other species that have similar though lesser levels
of cognitive ability: chimps, elephants, dolphins, etc.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 11:23:06 -0500, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mike Duffy
<see_w...@signature.block>:

>On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 11:46:03 -0400, Nashton wrote:

>> How modern evolutionary biology, explains how humans surpassed other
>> animals in intelligence and awareness of self.

>This is easy. One species will end up more intelligent than others. It just
>happened that on this planet it is humans.

That's probably too simple for comprehension; for some,
there has to be some sort of guidance (from Above, I'd
assume). I'd also note that humans are the supreme
generalists in this biosphere; whether increased
intelligence preceded that trend, followed it, or worked in
lockstep with, it I have no idea.

>> Wouldn't at least one of the myriad of mammal species display a
>> similar level of cognitive ability and meta-awareness/meta-cognition?

>The web is full of examples of different types of intelligence, such as
>cetaceans, canines, elephants, parrots, and even octopi. Some of these
>animals might have become dominant if they had figured out fire before we
>did.

A bit of a chore for the cetaceans and octopi...
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[passer...@gmail.com]

For most of the last century, almost all physicists thought (Copenhagen Interpretation) that nothing exists unless a human looks at it. They thought only humans and not cats (Schrodinger's Cat Paradox) could make things real. Schrodinger and Einstein were about the only exceptions.

[jillery]

Humans are mammals, so your question as written is incoherent. It's
almost certain that you meant to say "...at least one other..."

So to answer your corrected question, the answer is "not necessarily".
Thanks for asking.

--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Mike Duffy <see_w...@signature.block> wrote in
news:md4n3s$kef$1...@dont-email.me:

> On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 11:46:03 -0400, Nashton wrote:
>
>> How modern evolutionary biology, explains how humans surpassed other
>> animals in intelligence and awareness of self.
>
> This is easy. One species will end up more intelligent than others. It
> just happened that on this planet it is humans.

It's not that easy. Neither 'intelligence' nor 'species' can be defined
rigorously enough to justify the claim that one particular species will
be more intelligent than all the others.

>> Wouldn't at least one of the myriad of mammal species display a
>> similar level of cognitive ability and meta-awareness/meta-cognition?
>
> The web is full of examples of different types of intelligence, such
> as cetaceans, canines, elephants, parrots, and even octopi.

They can't be that intelligent if they all ended up in a web. Have you
ever seen a cat or a corvid in a web? Of course you haven't. Cats and
corvids have the *good* type of intelligence. People? Not so much. From
personal observation, I can attest that people have a bad habit of
blundering into spider webs and an even worse habit of reacting to the
encounter by flailing about in a panic. What, do we think we have to free
ourselves before the spider gets us?

> Some of these animals might have become dominant if they had figured
> out fire before we did.

The notion of a single dominant species is even more problematic than
the notion of a single most intelligent species, but it's less
problematic than the notion that figuring out fire is the key to
dominance. Besides, parrots are the only animals you mentioned that might
have been able to put fire to practical uses. Dogs can pick up objects in
their mouths, and elephants can grasp objects with their trunks, but
neither has the ability to both hold an object and strike it against
another object. An octopus can do that, but starting fires presents
certain insurmountable difficulties to the average octopus: cetaceans
face the same difficulties.

A parrot could conceivably hold a flint and strike it against something
at the same time, though it's a little difficult to imagine why one would
want to. Of course, it's also a little difficult to imagine why a person
would want to do that. Boredom, perhaps?
--
S.O.P.

[raven1]

On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 18:12:10 +0000 (UTC), "Sneaky O. Possum"
<sneaky...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The notion of a single dominant species is even more problematic than
>the notion of a single most intelligent species, but it's less
>problematic than the notion that figuring out fire is the key to
>dominance. Besides, parrots are the only animals you mentioned that might
>have been able to put fire to practical uses. Dogs can pick up objects in
>their mouths, and elephants can grasp objects with their trunks, but
>neither has the ability to both hold an object and strike it against
>another object.

Aren't there examples of elephants in zoos who paint with a brush held
in their trunk? Surely they could also strike a sufficiently elongated
rock against another.

[Mike Duffy]

On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 18:12:10 +0000 (UTC), Sneaky O. Possum wrote:

> ... hold a flint and strike it against something at the same time,
> ... imagine why one would want to.

There is a mildly entertaining fiction series written by Jean Auel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_Children

The stories are full of unsubstantiated speculation regarding spiritual
beliefs of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons, but she has done enough research
to make the stories more believable than, for example, the Old Testament.

At one point, the main character discovers by accident how to make a fire
using a flintstone. It might have happened like that.

The same character also discovers animal domestication, and how to make
soap, sewing needles, spear-throwers, and pottery. I have not yet read the
last book in the series, but it looks like she dabbled in cave painting as
well.

--
http://pages.videotron.com/duffym/index.htm

[Nashton]

On 2015-03-03 12:23 PM, Mike Duffy wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 11:46:03 -0400, Nashton wrote:
>
>> How modern evolutionary biology, explains how humans surpassed other
>> animals in intelligence and awareness of self.
>
> This is easy.

Oh, pulease.

[Nashton]

On 2015-03-03 1:28 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 3/3/15, 7:46 AM, Nashton wrote:
>> How modern evolutionary biology, explains how humans surpassed other
>> animals in intelligence and awareness of self. Wouldn't at least one of
>> the myriad of mammal species display a similar level of cognitive
>> ability and meta-awareness/meta-cognition?
>>
> Why? In every collection of species, doesn't there have to be one that's
> the biggest, or the fastest, or in fact the smartest?

So you're reducing the vast array of human intellectual capacity,
(intelligence is still ill-defined), to a poor qualifier such as "smart?"

Is it me or should I have expected a deeper understanding, if not a
higher degree of rigor, from an academic?

> Why aren't you
> asking how modern evolutionary biology explains how blue whales
> surpassed other animals in size, or how peregrine falcons surpassed all
> other animals in speed?

Because it would be a horrible example/analogy for the purpose of my
question.

[Nashton]

Elephants do not draw pictures unless guided by the human that always
accompanies them.
>

[Nashton]

On 2015-03-03 1:13 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
> On 3/3/2015 10:46 AM, Nashton wrote:
>> How modern evolutionary biology, explains how humans surpassed other
>> animals in intelligence and awareness of self. Wouldn't at least one of
>> the myriad of mammal species display a similar level of cognitive
>> ability and meta-awareness/meta-cognition?
>>
> 1. There's nothing in evolutionary biology that requires that our
> cognitive abilities would evolve more than once.

Is there any evidence that this occurred (compounding of our cognitive
abilities), at least at the level of intelligence that permeates mankind?

>
> 2. There's nothing in evolutionary biology that requires that our
> cognitive abilities would evolve *once*.

Really? Where did you get this? Perhaps you need to have a chat with the
evolutionary psychology folks, they ought to get a good laugh out of
that gem.
Are you saying that intelligence, as ill defined as it is, cannot be
explained by the ToE?

>
> 3. How "aware" other mammals (and for that matter, some other creatures)
> are is still an open question, although perhaps our abilities are
> unique among *extant* creatures.

Put a chimp in front of a computer or have him use a typewriter.

>
> 4. Among the "myriad mammals" you mention is Homo Erectus, who may have
> been making simple geometric art a half-million years ago. So if your
> question is "why such a huge (assuming it *is* huge) gap in abilities?",
> the answer is likely that the differences started small, and a very long
> time ago.

I see. Can you please elaborate, step by step, on how you believe that
perception of beauty, for example, evolved from which selection pressure?

This ought to be easy, right?

[Virgil]

In article <md5fdo$7kf$1...@dont-email.me>, Nashton <no...@nana.ca> wrote:

> Are you saying that intelligence, as ill defined as it is, cannot be
> explained by the ToE?

To those who think about it unbiasedly, evolution is in no way required
to produce intelligence, though is certainly able to produce
intelligence, and quite liable to produce it occasionally.
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Virgil <VIR...@VIRGIL.com> wrote in news:VIRGIL-81EED6.16373603032015
@bignews.usenetmonster.com:

> In article <md5fdo$7kf$1...@dont-email.me>, Nashton <no...@nana.ca> wrote:
>
>> Are you saying that intelligence, as ill defined as it is, cannot be
>> explained by the ToE?
>
> To those who think about it unbiasedly, evolution is in no way required
> to produce intelligence, though is certainly able to produce
> intelligence, and quite liable to produce it occasionally.

I think poor Nashty is confusing evolution with predestination. He thinks
that intelligence exists because it had to exist, so he assumes that a
biologist thinks intelligence evolved because it had to evolve: the idea
that evolution evolved even though it didn't have to is just crazy moon-man
talk to him.
--
S.O.P.

[John Harshman]

On 3/3/15, 3:06 PM, Nashton wrote:
> On 2015-03-03 1:28 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 3/3/15, 7:46 AM, Nashton wrote:
>>> How modern evolutionary biology, explains how humans surpassed other
>>> animals in intelligence and awareness of self. Wouldn't at least one of
>>> the myriad of mammal species display a similar level of cognitive
>>> ability and meta-awareness/meta-cognition?
>>>
>> Why? In every collection of species, doesn't there have to be one that's
>> the biggest, or the fastest, or in fact the smartest?
>
> So you're reducing the vast array of human intellectual capacity,
> (intelligence is still ill-defined), to a poor qualifier such as "smart?"

No, in fact I am not. You didn't mention any vast array, you just asked
why humans surpassed all other animals in some quality. I answered the
question you asked, not the question you might have intended beyond
that. Not my problem if you don't know how to say what you mean.

> Is it me or should I have expected a deeper understanding, if not a
> higher degree of rigor, from an academic?

It's you.

>> Why aren't you
>> asking how modern evolutionary biology explains how blue whales
>> surpassed other animals in size, or how peregrine falcons surpassed all
>> other animals in speed?
>
> Because it would be a horrible example/analogy for the purpose of my
> question.

You expect anyone to read the purpose of your question from what you
said? It's your responsibility to say what you mean.

[Nashton]

On 2015-03-03 7:37 PM, Virgil wrote:
> In article <md5fdo$7kf$1...@dont-email.me>, Nashton <no...@nana.ca> wrote:
>
>> Are you saying that intelligence, as ill defined as it is, cannot be
>> explained by the ToE?
>
> To those who think about it unbiasedly, evolution is in no way required
> to produce intelligence, though is certainly able to produce
> intelligence, and quite liable to produce it occasionally.

Can you explain what that bias would be?
What are you insinuating, exactly?
>

[Nashton]

On 2015-03-03 7:57 PM, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> Virgil <VIR...@VIRGIL.com> wrote in news:VIRGIL-81EED6.16373603032015
> @bignews.usenetmonster.com:
>
>> In article <md5fdo$7kf$1...@dont-email.me>, Nashton <no...@nana.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Are you saying that intelligence, as ill defined as it is, cannot be
>>> explained by the ToE?
>>
>> To those who think about it unbiasedly, evolution is in no way required
>> to produce intelligence, though is certainly able to produce
>> intelligence, and quite liable to produce it occasionally.
>
> I think poor Nashty is confusing evolution with predestination. He thinks
> that intelligence exists because it had to exist,

You're not very good at this, are you?
Nothing I wrote even points to your erroneous assumption concerning the
motives of my question..

> so he assumes that a
> biologist thinks intelligence evolved because it had to evolve:

Wrong....

...again.

> the idea
> that evolution evolved even though it didn't have to is just crazy moon-man
> talk to him.

Well, at least I don't go around making an ass of myself claiming to
read peoples' minds... ;)






>

[Nashton]

On 2015-03-03 8:15 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 3/3/15, 3:06 PM, Nashton wrote:
>> On 2015-03-03 1:28 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 3/3/15, 7:46 AM, Nashton wrote:
>>>> How modern evolutionary biology, explains how humans surpassed other
>>>> animals in intelligence and awareness of self. Wouldn't at least one of
>>>> the myriad of mammal species display a similar level of cognitive
>>>> ability and meta-awareness/meta-cognition?
>>>>
>>> Why? In every collection of species, doesn't there have to be one that's
>>> the biggest, or the fastest, or in fact the smartest?
>>
>> So you're reducing the vast array of human intellectual capacity,
>> (intelligence is still ill-defined), to a poor qualifier such as "smart?"
>
> No, in fact I am not. You didn't mention any vast array, you just asked
> why humans surpassed all other animals in some quality. I answered the
> question you asked, not the question you might have intended beyond
> that. Not my problem if you don't know how to say what you mean.

Perhaps you're incapable of realizing the dimensions and implications of
human intelligence.

My bad ;)

>
>> Is it me or should I have expected a deeper understanding, if not a
>> higher degree of rigor, from an academic?
>
> It's you.

And yet, you're the one that boiled human intelligence down to being
"smart."

>
>>> Why aren't you
>>> asking how modern evolutionary biology explains how blue whales
>>> surpassed other animals in size, or how peregrine falcons surpassed all
>>> other animals in speed?
>>
>> Because it would be a horrible example/analogy for the purpose of my
>> question.
>
> You expect anyone to read the purpose of your question from what you
> said? It's your responsibility to say what you mean.

So now that you (hopefully) know what I mean, stop whining and answer
the question. I suspect you'll just pick nits and avoid the subject
altogether. ;)

Of course, the elephant in the room is coming out of the shadows.
It's because the ToE has nothing concrete to say about the (lack of) any
universally accepted subset of selection pressures that would begin to
explain why the quantum leap in intelligence of humans, compared to any
living thing.

I can tell it's a touchy subject from the panties in knots in this thread ;)

[Virgil]

Many beliefs about the TOE is and what it means are coloured by things
other than relevant physical evidences. To me all beliefs about
evolution not supported by relevant physical evidences is bias.

[Nashton]

Then, you're the one that's biased ;)
>

[Nashton]

Really? Care to explain why so many in science are busy trying to
elucidate the issue?

Perhaps some individuals need to buy, borrow or steal a clue, instead of
avoiding the subject altogether.

[RonO]

On 3/3/2015 11:48 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 11:23:06 -0500, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by Mike Duffy
> <see_w...@signature.block>:
>
>> On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 11:46:03 -0400, Nashton wrote:
>
>>> How modern evolutionary biology, explains how humans surpassed other
>>> animals in intelligence and awareness of self.
>
>> This is easy. One species will end up more intelligent than others. It just
>> happened that on this planet it is humans.
>
> That's probably too simple for comprehension; for some,
> there has to be some sort of guidance (from Above, I'd
> assume). I'd also note that humans are the supreme
> generalists in this biosphere; whether increased
> intelligence preceded that trend, followed it, or worked in
> lockstep with, it I have no idea.
>
>>> Wouldn't at least one of the myriad of mammal species display a
>>> similar level of cognitive ability and meta-awareness/meta-cognition?
>
>> The web is full of examples of different types of intelligence, such as
>> cetaceans, canines, elephants, parrots, and even octopi. Some of these
>> animals might have become dominant if they had figured out fire before we
>> did.
>
> A bit of a chore for the cetaceans and octopi...
>

Maybe they could harness geothermal vents or domesticate something like
the bombardier Beetle to make hydrogen peroxide so that they could burn
manganese nodules that they gathered off the ocean floor. Yes, I know,
too much science fiction in the diet.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

That's right. You use so many better ways to make an ass of yourself.

[jillery]

Your analysis is as likely correct as any other, given that Nasty
almost always posts nothing but meaningless tweets.

[John Harshman]

On 3/3/15, 4:54 PM, Nashton wrote:
> On 2015-03-03 8:15 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 3/3/15, 3:06 PM, Nashton wrote:
>>> On 2015-03-03 1:28 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 3/3/15, 7:46 AM, Nashton wrote:
>>>>> How modern evolutionary biology, explains how humans surpassed other
>>>>> animals in intelligence and awareness of self. Wouldn't at least
>>>>> one of
>>>>> the myriad of mammal species display a similar level of cognitive
>>>>> ability and meta-awareness/meta-cognition?
>>>>>
>>>> Why? In every collection of species, doesn't there have to be one
>>>> that's
>>>> the biggest, or the fastest, or in fact the smartest?
>>>
>>> So you're reducing the vast array of human intellectual capacity,
>>> (intelligence is still ill-defined), to a poor qualifier such as
>>> "smart?"
>>
>> No, in fact I am not. You didn't mention any vast array, you just asked
>> why humans surpassed all other animals in some quality. I answered the
>> question you asked, not the question you might have intended beyond
>> that. Not my problem if you don't know how to say what you mean.
>
> Perhaps you're incapable of realizing the dimensions and implications of
> human intelligence.
>
> My bad ;)

For some reason, when responding to your posts, the dimensions and
implications of human intelligence just don't strike me.

> Of course, the elephant in the room is coming out of the shadows.
> It's because the ToE has nothing concrete to say about the (lack of) any
> universally accepted subset of selection pressures that would begin to
> explain why the quantum leap in intelligence of humans, compared to any
> living thing.
>
> I can tell it's a touchy subject from the panties in knots in this
> thread ;)

I agree. We really don't know what led to our current abilities. Genomic
research may eventually help, but reconstructing the unique selection
environment hundred of thousands and millions of years ago may never be
possible. Still, is it a quantum leap? Our closest living relatives show
most of our capabilities in lesser form.

Now, I suppose you're trying to use all this to claim that evolution
doesn't happen, right? Good luck with that.

[Mike Duffy]

On Wed, 04 Mar 2015 07:57:29 -0800, John Harshman wrote:

> I agree. We really don't know what led to our current abilities.

> ... Still, is it a quantum leap? Our closest living relatives show

> most of our capabilities in lesser form.

You are both neglecting the re-inforcing effect of technological
infrastructure. (books & universities, tools & factories)

Take a few hundred of the most intelligent and/or technologically educated
people in the world and dump them naked onto a planet similar to earth
without pre-existing humans.

Priorities of seeking shelter, food and defence against predators would
preclude teaching anthing other than essential survival skills. All of the
settlers would be dead of natural causes before a tiny of fraction of their
knowledge could be passed on to the next generation.

--
http://pages.videotron.com/duffym/index.htm

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 10:00:39 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:

>For most of the last century, almost all physicists thought (Copenhagen Interpretation) that nothing exists unless a human looks at it. They thought only humans and not cats (Schrodinger's Cat Paradox) could make things real. Schrodinger and Einstein were about the only exceptions.

Yeah, and (speaking of irrelevancies, including
oversimplified and incorrect ones such as the above) how
'bout them Mets?

>On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 10:49:50 AM UTC-5, Nashton wrote:

>> How modern evolutionary biology, explains how humans surpassed other
>> animals in intelligence and awareness of self. Wouldn't at least one of
>> the myriad of mammal species display a similar level of cognitive
>> ability and meta-awareness/meta-cognition?
>

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 04 Mar 2015 06:38:41 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:

Maybe a bit... ;-)

Or they could refine sodium from NaCl, shielded by the
petroleum from underwater seeps, to yield a "fuel".

So many possibilities...

[raven1]

Missing the point. I'm talking about their ability to manipulate
objects.

[jillery]

Or you could identify some of those in science who you think are busy
elucidating the issue, just so it's clear what you're talking about.
Since you say there are so many of them, this shouldn't be a problem
for you... unless of course, you haven't a clue.

I'm betting on the latter.

[Ymir]

In article <0ngefa547khi61lf6...@4ax.com>,

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 10:00:39 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
>
> >For most of the last century, almost all physicists thought (Copenhagen
> >Interpretation) that nothing exists unless a human looks at it. They thought
> >only humans and not cats (Schrodinger's Cat Paradox) could make things real.
> >Schrodinger and Einstein were about the only exceptions.
>
> Yeah, and (speaking of irrelevancies, including
> oversimplified and incorrect ones such as the above) how
> 'bout them Mets?

He does seem to have some rather -- shall we say 'idiosyncratic' --
views on QM. In this case, though, I find myself seriously scratching my
head about where the hell he could even have gotten such a strange
notion from (the one about Schrodinger's Cat).

Andre

[Nashton]

And for some reason, you choose to respond....

....go figure. ;)

>
>> Of course, the elephant in the room is coming out of the shadows.
>> It's because the ToE has nothing concrete to say about the (lack of) any
>> universally accepted subset of selection pressures that would begin to
>> explain why the quantum leap in intelligence of humans, compared to any
>> living thing.
>>
>> I can tell it's a touchy subject from the panties in knots in this
>> thread ;)
>
> I agree. We really don't know what led to our current abilities. Genomic
> research may eventually help, but reconstructing the unique selection
> environment hundred of thousands and millions of years ago may never be
> possible. Still, is it a quantum leap? Our closest living relatives show
> most of our capabilities in lesser form.

Of course, who knows what intellectual challenges hide behind chasing an
animal or picking nuts from bushes.

<rolls eyes>

>
> Now, I suppose you're trying to use all this to claim that evolution
> doesn't happen, right? Good luck with that.

Hmmm, do you read minds now? Another one of your talents?
>

[Nashton]

Aaa, I see.
Problem solved. Elephants manipulate a stick and by extension, the
evolution of human intelligence is now elucidated.
>

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, March 3, 2015 at 6:19:49 PM UTC-5, Nashton wrote:
> On 2015-03-03 1:13 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:
> > On 3/3/2015 10:46 AM, Nashton wrote:
> >> How modern evolutionary biology, explains how humans surpassed other
> >> animals in intelligence and awareness of self. Wouldn't at least one of
> >> the myriad of mammal species display a similar level of cognitive
> >> ability and meta-awareness/meta-cognition?
> >>
> > 1. There's nothing in evolutionary biology that requires that our
> > cognitive abilities would evolve more than once.
>
> Is there any evidence that this occurred (compounding of our cognitive
> abilities), at least at the level of intelligence that permeates mankind?

Only in mankind so far. But if we give animals plenty of extensive, pristine
habitats with the absolute minimum of human interference, the same level
of everything you asked for just might evolve in about 50 million years,
not just from primates but from carnivores (especially raccoons) and
possibly other kinds of mammals as well. Non-mammals are much less promising.

And then, we would need to make friends with them. There is an old
science fiction classic, "Student Body," with the climactic line:

"This creature I think we can compete with. It's the one after this that
I do not want to face." [second sentence italicized in the original]
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/31815/31815-h/31815-h.htm

> > 2. There's nothing in evolutionary biology that requires that our
> > cognitive abilities would evolve *once*.
>
> Really? Where did you get this? Perhaps you need to have a chat with the
> evolutionary psychology folks, they ought to get a good laugh out of
> that gem.

Sorry, laughing at a hypothesis is no substitute for refuting it.
They laughed at the Big Bang, they laughed at continental drift...

> Are you saying that intelligence, as ill defined as it is, cannot be
> explained by the ToE?

No, it's just that disasters could wipe out promising species. If
dinosaurs hadn't been wiped out at the end of the Cretaceous, some
of the brainier ones might have out-competed the mammals and
developed our level of whatever-you-want-to-put.

Similarly, our ancestors and the chimp ancestors could have been wiped
out by an asteroid hitting the right part of Africa 3 million years ago.
If *Archaeolemur*, over in Madagascar, had survived, it might have developed
our level of whatever-you-want-to-put in another 50 million years. And
maybe have been a kinder, gentler species to boot.

Then again, another disaster might have hit Madagascar 20 million years
into what is now our future. And we should be so lucky as to
be still around then.

> > 3. How "aware" other mammals (and for that matter, some other creatures)
> > are is still an open question, although perhaps our abilities are
> > unique among *extant* creatures.
>
> Put a chimp in front of a computer or have him use a typewriter.

That's got nothing to do with the thorny issue of whether it is an
unconscious automaton or has subjective conscious experience like
we do. Descartes opted for the former, Hume for the latter. Hardly
anyone goes with Descartes these days, if for no other reason than
he set back humane treatment of animals by centuries. We need to
give mammals the benefit of the doubt on that score.

> >
> > 4. Among the "myriad mammals" you mention is Homo Erectus, who may have
> > been making simple geometric art a half-million years ago. So if your
> > question is "why such a huge (assuming it *is* huge) gap in abilities?",
> > the answer is likely that the differences started small, and a very long
> > time ago.
>
> I see. Can you please elaborate, step by step, on how you believe that
> perception of beauty, for example, evolved from which selection pressure?

Or the ability to grasp relativity and quantum mechanics. Or even such
a mundane ability as the ability to touch type. These are conundrums
that we are centuries if not millennia from being able to comprehend.

> This ought to be easy, right?

Don't be fooled by the confidence of anyone here that science
has made this last question a no-brainer. There is a siege mentality
permeating this newsgroup which leads to these forms of denial in
some of the more extreme cases. Milder forms include "The Cambrian
explosion is not any more of a mystery than the evolution of finch
beaks on Galapagos. Which is not a mystery according to specialists
in evolution science." Or words to that effect.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu

[raven1]

That's seriously what you took away from that?

[Peter Nyikos]

He goes way beyond what was written, but you fall to the opposite
extreme of not looking even a bit beyond what S.O.P. wrote. While
an elephant might be able to do that much with its trunk, there are
many things humans can do that require more than just one appendage
like a trunk/arm-and-hand.

I've often wished I had three hands when manipulating
some objects, and then I'm glad there are people around whose
aid I can enlist.

A cartoon illustrated one such example quite nicely. A cat had
trapped a mouse in a box and was in the process of wrapping up the
box and tying it around with a ribbon. When the overhand knot was
made, the mouse's hand came out of the box and held the knot down
while the cat tied the rest of the bow over it.

The serious side to this is that if elephants were sufficiently
intelligent and cooperative, they might put their trunks together
to do most of the physical things we can do. Their brains are
considerably bigger than ours, but whether they have the capacity
to evolve a technological species like our own is still a very
open question.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[John Harshman]

Bet you couldn't do it.

>> Now, I suppose you're trying to use all this to claim that evolution
>> doesn't happen, right? Good luck with that.
>
> Hmmm, do you read minds now? Another one of your talents?

It's easier to read minds when the text is short.

[Mike Painter]

On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 11:46:03 -0400, Nashton <no...@nana.ca> wrote:

>How modern evolutionary biology, explains how humans surpassed other
>animals in intelligence and awareness of self. Wouldn't at least one of
>the myriad of mammal species display a similar level of cognitive
>ability and meta-awareness/meta-cognition?

Some do have a similar awareness, using similar in it's normal sense.

You will have to explain what you mean by "meta" in your other
question.
I know what metadata and meta language means
Being aware that we are aware does not seem to fit and meta-cognition
seems a bit confusing.

[Mike Painter]

On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 19:17:59 -0400, Nashton <no...@nana.ca> wrote:

>
>Is there any evidence that this occurred (compounding of our cognitive
>abilities), at least at the level of intelligence that permeates mankind?
>>

>> 2. There's nothing in evolutionary biology that requires that our
>> cognitive abilities would evolve *once*.
>
>Really? Where did you get this? Perhaps you need to have a chat with the
>evolutionary psychology folks, they ought to get a good laugh out of
>that gem.

>Are you saying that intelligence, as ill defined as it is, cannot be
>explained by the ToE?
>

He said what he meant.
There is nothing in any ToE (based on science) that says anything
MUST happen.
It can be explained by theory but that is a different story.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Mike Duffy <see_w...@signature.block> wrote in
news:md7emh$caq$1...@dont-email.me:

What makes you think that? Hunter-gatherer societies are perfectly
capable of developing elaborate cosmological narratives and social
structures and passing them down through the generations. Tribal peoples
make decorative art, build musical instruments, and do lots of other
inessential things. There just aren't that many essential survival
skills, and you only have to learn them once: if your species' average
lifespan is measured in decades instead of years, your group is going to
have plenty of time for activities besides figuring out how to make a
shelter, find food, and fend off predators.

And unlike their hunter-gatherer ancestors, your modern group knows
about things like germ theory, so they know why it's important to have
clean water, and they know how to clean it. I mean, I'm not even close
to being one of the most intelligent and/or technologically-educated
people in the world, and I understand the concept of boiling water to
sterilize it.

I also know that you can use fire to make glass out of sand. I don't
know *how* to do it, but simply knowing that it can be done would
encourage me to experiment if I were in a world with plenty of sand and
no glass. Same with making pottery out of clay, paper out of plants, ink
out of fruit juice, etc.
--
S.O.P.

[Glenn]

"Mike Painter" <md.pa...@outlook.com> wrote in message news:uotgfap3mi9sfcv60...@4ax.com...

"Evolution requires genetic variation. If there were no dark moths, the population could not have evolved from mostly light to mostly dark. In order for continuing evolution there must be mechanisms to increase or create genetic variation and mechanisms to decrease it. Mutation is a change in a gene. These changes are the source of new genetic variation. Natural selection operates on this variation. "
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

[Peter Nyikos]

Thank you for supporting Mike's comment with a pro-evolution quote.
Contrast that with the fluff Harshman has posted to this thread
so far, belying his excuse for ignoring you:

___________excerpt from a reply to me______________________________
> You are implying Glenn is a creationist, based on WHAT exactly?

His tendency to snipe at random pro-evolution posts. I'll agree that
he's quite cryptic, and often it's impossible to tell what he means to
show with his citations, but I assume we can at least tell they are
supposed to be arguments against the previous, pro-evolution post.

I really would prefer to discuss the Cambrian explosion.
_________________end of excerpt from

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/PlIgn56GeN4/5j5T1gC0_EYJ
Subject: Re: Exploding Roots
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2015 11:52:41 -0800

Compare that post of Harshman's to the one to which he was replying,
and you will see how apt the following comment I did in reply to him
was:

"Anyway, you've illustrated one of the four ways in which you
cope with evidence of mine that you are ragging on me unjustly.
You delete almost everything and claim to prefer to discuss
________________ [a purely scientific topic] or just purely
scientific topics in general."

By the way, I think the REAL reason Harshman ignores you is that you
have him pegged to a t. He is like "God" in the play "Steambath,"
who could not bear to look at his reflection in a mirror.

Peter Nyikos

[Bill]

Nashton wrote:

> How modern evolutionary biology, explains how humans surpassed other
> animals in intelligence and awareness of self. Wouldn't at least one of
> the myriad of mammal species display a similar level of cognitive
> ability and meta-awareness/meta-cognition?

You can be sure that people here will explain it. In fact people here will
explain anything you might imagine. Better yet, they'll assure you that
their explanations are scientific so you get the complete package. The
downside to all this is that expressions of doubt are not welcome.

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 04 Mar 2015 15:01:01 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ymir <agi...@gmail.com>:

"Idiosyncratic" is so much nicer than "idiotic"; kudos to
you. ;-)

As to where he gets such notions, I believe that if the
process of scrubbing them off for public view, and the
subsequent treatment of their source with Preparation H and
a soothing emollient because of the damage done by the sharp
corners of so many of them are considered, that source will
become obvious...

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 09:56:21 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com>:

Be gentle; he's doing the best he can.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 09:03:10 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>:

Correct, if somewhat incomplete. Does that, along with
Mike's post, answer your question, Nashton?

[Mike Duffy]

On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 15:38:34 +0000 (UTC), Sneaky O. Possum wrote:

> And unlike their hunter-gatherer ancestors, your modern group knows
> about things like germ theory,

> ... also know that you can use fire to make glass out of sand.

I hadn't thought it out this far ahead. Yes, granted there are a large
number of things that the elders could say that the youngsters could
investigate later, like microbes which need glass first, then lenses, etc.
in order to be observed directly.

Soo..., I probably overstated my case, but I suspect things like quantum
theory would be difficult to explain in a narrative where its meaning would
endure past the first generation.

My point was that innate intelligence plus the knowledge within our heads
is not enough to maintain a civilization. Infrastructure (facories and
tools and books and entire socio-economic systems) produced by previous
generations are needed as well.

--
http://pages.videotron.com/duffym/index.htm

[Nick Roberts]

In message <mda2qk$j9b$1...@dont-email.me>

Expressions of doubt are welcome.

Claims of superior knowledge disguised as expressions of doubt, and
with no evidence to back them up, are not.

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

[Nick Roberts]

In message <agisaak.spamblock-0CBAE3.15005904032015@shawnews>

He's not the first creationist I've come across who thinks that
"observer" means "a thinking, conscious, observer". That may be either
the source of his confusion, or a contributing factor to it.

[Bill]

Nick Roberts wrote:

> In message <mda2qk$j9b$1...@dont-email.me>
> Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Nashton wrote:
>>
>> > How modern evolutionary biology, explains how humans surpassed
>> > other animals in intelligence and awareness of self. Wouldn't at
>> > least one of the myriad of mammal species display a similar level
>> > of cognitive ability and meta-awareness/meta-cognition?
>>
>> You can be sure that people here will explain it. In fact people here
>> will explain anything you might imagine. Better yet, they'll assure
>> you that their explanations are scientific so you get the complete
>> package. The downside to all this is that expressions of doubt are
>> not welcome.
>
> Expressions of doubt are welcome.
>
> Claims of superior knowledge disguised as expressions of doubt, and
> with no evidence to back them up, are not.
>

Maybe you can explain how explanations about the origins and development of
our existence are without doubt. Since our existence has only been correctly
explained in the last couple of years or so (depending on which science
channel documentaries are considered au courant), there is much to be
discarded or painted over.

What would be especially satisfying would be an explanation for the
appearance of apparent design in nature. Since every explanation of nature
includes, inescapably, dependence on appearance (biological adaptations for
instance or descent with modification or the acquisition of this or that
fortuitous feature like feathers or webbed feet), is there any way to
explain nature that doesn't imply teleology?

Why are appearances explained away in some contexts and inevitable in
others? If one infers design in appearances and someone else infers
accident, by what means can we decide which appearances are merely apparent
and which are factual? How does one even compare appearances? I await your
explanations.

Bill

[A Nony Mouse]

In article <mdaot0$jp7$1...@dont-email.me>, Bill <fre...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Nick Roberts wrote:
>
> > In message <mda2qk$j9b$1...@dont-email.me>
> > Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Nashton wrote:
> >>
> >> > How modern evolutionary biology, explains how humans surpassed
> >> > other animals in intelligence and awareness of self. Wouldn't at
> >> > least one of the myriad of mammal species display a similar level
> >> > of cognitive ability and meta-awareness/meta-cognition?
> >>
> >> You can be sure that people here will explain it. In fact people here
> >> will explain anything you might imagine. Better yet, they'll assure
> >> you that their explanations are scientific so you get the complete
> >> package. The downside to all this is that expressions of doubt are
> >> not welcome.
> >
> > Expressions of doubt are welcome.
> >
> > Claims of superior knowledge disguised as expressions of doubt, and
> > with no evidence to back them up, are not.
> >
>
> Maybe you can explain how explanations about the origins and development of
> our existence are without doubt. Since our existence has only been correctly
> explained in the last couple of years or so (depending on which science
> channel documentaries are considered au courant), there is much to be
> discarded or painted over.

No scientific statements can ever be totally without doubt, but many of
them are beyond any practical or reasonable amount of doubt.

Much of Newton's original law of gravity, regardless of recent
relativistic revision, remains reliable.

[Bill]

Newtonian explanations are usable without being correct in any absolute
sense. Which makes a good example of what I meant about appearances: what
appears to be true may only be provisionally true. The explanations work in
a practical sense regardless of their truth content. Which must beg the
question, "Why do we care?" As long as things work, do the explanations even
matter? Apparently so because everything is exhaustively explained in
excruciating detail. What seems to matter is the explanation rather than the
thing being explained.

Bill

[Nashton]

Contrary to Harshman, I don't claim to read minds. ;)
If you wanted me to take away something from your post, elaborate on
something that was a propos to my OP.

[Nashton]

On 2015-03-05 11:36 AM, Mike Painter wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 19:17:59 -0400, Nashton <no...@nana.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>> Is there any evidence that this occurred (compounding of our cognitive
>> abilities), at least at the level of intelligence that permeates mankind?
>>>
>>> 2. There's nothing in evolutionary biology that requires that our
>>> cognitive abilities would evolve *once*.
>>
>> Really? Where did you get this? Perhaps you need to have a chat with the
>> evolutionary psychology folks, they ought to get a good laugh out of
>> that gem.
>> Are you saying that intelligence, as ill defined as it is, cannot be
>> explained by the ToE?
>>
> He said what he meant.

Hopefully. And so did I.

> There is nothing in any ToE (based on science) that says anything
> MUST happen.

When did this become a discussion about teleology? WTF, do you guys have
any clue? Can you point to something *I* wrote that would make you
believe that?

> It can be explained by theory but that is a different story.

Oh brother..

[Nashton]

<pulling out hair>

[Nashton]

On 2015-03-05 2:01 PM, Nick Roberts wrote:
> In message <mda2qk$j9b$1...@dont-email.me>
> Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Nashton wrote:
>>
>>> How modern evolutionary biology, explains how humans surpassed
>>> other animals in intelligence and awareness of self. Wouldn't at
>>> least one of the myriad of mammal species display a similar level
>>> of cognitive ability and meta-awareness/meta-cognition?
>>
>> You can be sure that people here will explain it. In fact people here
>> will explain anything you might imagine. Better yet, they'll assure
>> you that their explanations are scientific so you get the complete
>> package. The downside to all this is that expressions of doubt are
>> not welcome.
>
> Expressions of doubt are welcome.
>
> Claims of superior knowledge disguised as expressions of doubt, and
> with no evidence to back them up, are not.

Even though I agree with you, how is this relevant?

>

[Ymir]

In article <7a3ab59f...@bc63.orpheusinternet.co.uk>,

Nick Roberts <tig...@orpheusinternet.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <agisaak.spamblock-0CBAE3.15005904032015@shawnews>
> Ymir <agi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <0ngefa547khi61lf6...@4ax.com>,
> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 10:00:39 -0800 (PST), the following
> > > appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
> > >
> > > > For most of the last century, almost all physicists thought
> > > > (Copenhagen Interpretation) that nothing exists unless a human
> > > > looks at it. They thought only humans and not cats
> > > > (Schrodinger's Cat Paradox) could make things real. Schrodinger
> > > > and Einstein were about the only exceptions.
> > >
> > > Yeah, and (speaking of irrelevancies, including
> > > oversimplified and incorrect ones such as the above) how
> > > 'bout them Mets?
> >
> > He does seem to have some rather -- shall we say 'idiosyncratic' --
> > views on QM. In this case, though, I find myself seriously scratching
> > my head about where the hell he could even have gotten such a
> > strange notion from (the one about Schrodinger's Cat).
>
> He's not the first creationist I've come across who thinks that
> "observer" means "a thinking, conscious, observer". That may be either
> the source of his confusion, or a contributing factor to it.

That part I get. It's the new twist that QM treats cats and people
differently, and that this was somehow the point of Schroedinger's Cat.

André

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 11:16:17 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

Doubt is always welcome; it's the fuel of scientific
progress. Carping denial of evidence based on "I believe X"
is not, although as you note it will usually be answered.
And, based on many observations, the answers will be
rejected, usually because they contradict personal beliefs.

[Peter Nyikos]

You may have me doing that, if you keep ignoring my reply to you. :-)

But seriously, be sure to look up my reply to Mike; it has a general
message at the top, and some questions for Mike. See if
he answers.

Either way, you might be able to use the same questions elsewhere, to get
unreflective materialists thinking in ways to which they never
thought of thinking before.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

DIG sure picked a bad time (for me, anyway) to upgrade Darwin.

Today begins our Spring Break, lasting all next week. Such times,
my family takes priority over everything, and I don't know
how much time, if any, I can spare for posting to Usenet.

I'm not sure this post will show up once Darwin is back up.
If not, I'll squeeze out a bit of time to repost it early next week.

Nashton is not very good at expressing himself, as you saw
from his reply. Perhaps the following questions will make you
think twice about your generalization "similar awareness". You
might realize, for instance, that you have unwittingly narrowed
the term "normal sense" to mere externally observable behavior.
Here we go:

What is the subjective experience bats have of sonar echoes like?

Is it like our subjective experience of visual perception?

Or is it more like our subjective experience of sound?

Or is it like no subjective experience we have ever had, but is as different
from any experience we have ever had as our experience of what we see in a movie
when the sound is muted is different from what we hear in the movie with the
sound on and our eyes shut?

Or was Descartes right in thinking that bats have no subjective experience
at all?

Until you can give some good reason for thinking that ONE of these
alternatives is TRUE, you are missing out on a dimension of bat
experience that science has no inkling of how to explain.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

nyikos @ math.sc.edu

[Nashton]

On 2015-03-06 7:05 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 6:39:42 AM UTC-5, Nashton wrote:
>> On 2015-03-05 11:31 AM, Mike Painter wrote:
>>> On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 11:46:03 -0400, Nashton <no...@nana.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How modern evolutionary biology, explains how humans surpassed other
>>>> animals in intelligence and awareness of self. Wouldn't at least one of
>>>> the myriad of mammal species display a similar level of cognitive
>>>> ability and meta-awareness/meta-cognition?
>>>
>>> Some do have a similar awareness, using similar in it's normal sense.
>>>
>>> You will have to explain what you mean by "meta" in your other
>>> question.
>>> I know what metadata and meta language means
>>> Being aware that we are aware does not seem to fit and meta-cognition
>>> seems a bit confusing.
>>>
>>
>> <pulling out hair>
>
> You may have me doing that, if you keep ignoring my reply to you. :-)

Sorry if I gave you that impression, I read it and agreed with most of
what you stated, in the context of my OP.

>
> But seriously, be sure to look up my reply to Mike; it has a general
> message at the top, and some questions for Mike. See if
> he answers.
>
> Either way, you might be able to use the same questions elsewhere, to get
> unreflective materialists thinking in ways to which they never
> thought of thinking before.

Well, my stance is the following and my reasoning (feel free to poke
holes in it, if you disagree), is as follows:

We all agree that intelligence, however ill-defined (and it is quite
ill-defined, it seems), is a trait.

Traits appear out of nowhere, according to the ToE and are propagated if
it is an advantage to the species.

I would like to know, what the fine folks in here think could have been
the selective pressure to produce a species with the hyper-advanced
capabilities of humans, when survival and reproduction do not require
the advanced cognition observed in humans.

Instead of an answer to the question that is more a propos to t.o. than
most of the jillery-isms that pollute this forum, I get fluff from the
likes of Harshman and "oh that's easy" type of answers from the utterly
clueless. And all this in the face of the fact that the research and
literature of the evolution of human intelligence is vast and, may I
note, far from even being close to being conclusive.






>
> Peter Nyikos
>

[Mark Isaak]

There is a recent treatment for blindness where optical signals from a
camera are encoded in real time into tactile stimuli presented to the
patient's tongue. (In an earlier version, the tactile pad was placed on
one's back, but apparently the tongue has more nerves in it.) After a
learning curve, these people have the ability to see with their tongue,
literally.

It seems to me that these people's experience is not too far removed
from the bat's experience.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[deadrat]

Well, let's start here with your "reasoning." What makes you think that
traits "appear out of nowhere"?

> and are propagated if it is an advantage to the species.

and sometimes when they're neutral, and sometimes even when they have
some disadvantages.

> I would like to know, what the fine folks in here think could have been
> the selective pressure to produce a species with the hyper-advanced
> capabilities of humans, when survival and reproduction do not require
> the advanced cognition observed in humans.

Could we have some evidence that advanced cognition doesn't enhance the
survival of the species?

> Instead of an answer to the question that is more a propos to t.o. than
> most of the jillery-isms that pollute this forum, I get fluff from the
> likes of Harshman and "oh that's easy" type of answers from the utterly
> clueless. And all this in the face of the fact that the research and
> literature of the evolution of human intelligence is vast

My guess is that your knowledge of this literature, on the other hand,
is half-vast.

Could you give us a review of this literature and what you find wanting?

> and, may I note, far from even being close to being conclusive.

And your point?

What are you looking for, a videotape of the base pair by base pair
genetic changes led to "advanced cognition"?

Bear in mind that it's possible that a certain level of cerebral
complexity conveys an advantage in some traits, say, tool making or
foresight, and once the brain reached that level, other traits are an
inevitable consequence, say, musical ability or advanced mathematical
abstraction. Buy the former, in other words, and the others are free.

>> Peter Nyikos
>>
>

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

El martes, 3 de marzo de 2015, 23:09:50 (UTC), Nashton escribió:
> On 2015-03-03 2:35 PM, raven1 wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 18:12:10 +0000 (UTC), "Sneaky O. Possum"
> > <sneaky...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The notion of a single dominant species is even more problematic than
> >> the notion of a single most intelligent species, but it's less
> >> problematic than the notion that figuring out fire is the key to
> >> dominance. Besides, parrots are the only animals you mentioned that might
> >> have been able to put fire to practical uses. Dogs can pick up objects in
> >> their mouths, and elephants can grasp objects with their trunks, but
> >> neither has the ability to both hold an object and strike it against
> >> another object.
> >
> > Aren't there examples of elephants in zoos who paint with a brush held
> > in their trunk? Surely they could also strike a sufficiently elongated
> > rock against another.
>
> Elephants do not draw pictures unless guided by the human that always
> accompanies them.
> >

humans also need to learn from other humans to have an intelligence.
All our intelligence, except the "respondent behavior" is a learned
intelligence. You cannot learn a language, a common feature among
humans, unless you are taught to speak.
Eri

[passer...@gmail.com]

Never heard of the Schrodinger's Cat Paradox, huh? Well, of course you haven't? You figure it's about cat toilet training?

The cat is alive and dead at the same time, something the cat has no control over, and it stays that way until a hairless ape takes a look. Only hairless apes have that magical ability.

Yeah, it's nonsense, but that was Schrodinger's point.

On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 5:04:47 PM UTC-5, Ymir wrote:
> In article <0ngefa547khi61lf6...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 10:00:39 -0800 (PST), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:
> >
> > >For most of the last century, almost all physicists thought (Copenhagen
> > >Interpretation) that nothing exists unless a human looks at it. They thought
> > >only humans and not cats (Schrodinger's Cat Paradox) could make things real.
> > >Schrodinger and Einstein were about the only exceptions.
> >
> > Yeah, and (speaking of irrelevancies, including
> > oversimplified and incorrect ones such as the above) how
> > 'bout them Mets?
>
> He does seem to have some rather -- shall we say 'idiosyncratic' --
> views on QM. In this case, though, I find myself seriously scratching my
> head about where the hell he could even have gotten such a strange
> notion from (the one about Schrodinger's Cat).
>

> Andre

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

El martes, 3 de marzo de 2015, 23:59:49 (UTC), Sneaky O. Possum escribió:
> Virgil <VIR...@VIRGIL.com> wrote in news:VIRGIL-81EED6.16373603032015
> @bignews.usenetmonster.com:

>
> > In article <md5fdo$7kf$1...@dont-email.me>, Nashton <no...@nana.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> Are you saying that intelligence, as ill defined as it is, cannot be
> >> explained by the ToE?
> >

> > To those who think about it unbiasedly, evolution is in no way required
> > to produce intelligence, though is certainly able to produce
> > intelligence, and quite liable to produce it occasionally.
>
> I think poor Nashty is confusing evolution with predestination. He thinks
> that intelligence exists because it had to exist, so he assumes that a
> biologist thinks intelligence evolved because it had to evolve: the idea
> that evolution evolved even though it didn't have to is just crazy moon-man
> talk to him.
> --
> S.O.P.

or by teleology. This is an old religious myth that we were put in a path
to be the higher in intelligence among all animals of the planet.
Eri

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

El martes, 3 de marzo de 2015, 23:19:49 (UTC), Nashton escribió:
> On 2015-03-03 1:13 PM, Greg Guarino wrote:

> > On 3/3/2015 10:46 AM, Nashton wrote:
> >> How modern evolutionary biology, explains how humans surpassed other
> >> animals in intelligence and awareness of self. Wouldn't at least one of
> >> the myriad of mammal species display a similar level of cognitive
> >> ability and meta-awareness/meta-cognition?
> >>

> > 1. There's nothing in evolutionary biology that requires that our
> > cognitive abilities would evolve more than once.

>
> Is there any evidence that this occurred (compounding of our cognitive
> abilities), at least at the level of intelligence that permeates mankind?
> >
> > 2. There's nothing in evolutionary biology that requires that our
> > cognitive abilities would evolve *once*.
>
> Really? Where did you get this? Perhaps you need to have a chat with the
> evolutionary psychology folks, they ought to get a good laugh out of
> that gem.

> Are you saying that intelligence, as ill defined as it is, cannot be
> explained by the ToE?
>
>
> >

> > 3. How "aware" other mammals (and for that matter, some other creatures)
> > are is still an open question, although perhaps our abilities are
> > unique among *extant* creatures.
>
> Put a chimp in front of a computer or have him use a typewriter.

We are talking here about some capacity to memorize. All animals have
a memory, but they are limited when compared to human memory. Human
memory in general is many orders of magnitude greater than in most
animals.

I had seen some animals performing weird tasks, like parrots riding a
a bicycle, or a rat performing a series of different and sequential
tasks quite easily. But this was possible using techniques of behavior
conditioning.

The great differences in intelligence that exist among the humans,
in language and scholastic abilities are the result of very different
ways of conditioning at home. The school plays not any role in those
differences. The children go to school with great differences
of abilities to learn. These differences are caused by the different
procedures of educating the children at home.
Understanding that in my language to educate is a way to use operant
conditioning in teaching a boy some basic abilities that are the
precursors of human intelligence in general.

Eri







> >
> > 4. Among the "myriad mammals" you mention is Homo Erectus, who may have
> > been making simple geometric art a half-million years ago. So if your
> > question is "why such a huge (assuming it *is* huge) gap in abilities?",
> > the answer is likely that the differences started small, and a very long
> > time ago.
>
> I see. Can you please elaborate, step by step, on how you believe that
> perception of beauty, for example, evolved from which selection pressure?
>
> This ought to be easy, right?
> >
> > ---
> > This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
> > protection is active.
> > http://www.avast.com
> >

[Nick Roberts]

In message <mdc3f5$gbq$3...@dont-email.me>

Perhaps the relevance lies in the fact that it was a response to the
claim that "expressions of doubt are not welcome" in that paragraph
immediately above my response. It may also lie in the fact that Bill
has, for several months, being pushing an ID agenda without ever
provinding any evidence for it, while simultaneously claiming that
those who disagree aren't being scientific.

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

El miércoles, 4 de marzo de 2015, 17:19:48 (UTC), Mike Duffy escribió:
> On Wed, 04 Mar 2015 07:57:29 -0800, John Harshman wrote:
>
> > I agree. We really don't know what led to our current abilities.
> > ... Still, is it a quantum leap? Our closest living relatives show
> > most of our capabilities in lesser form.
>
> You are both neglecting the re-inforcing effect of technological
> infrastructure. (books & universities, tools & factories)
>
> Take a few hundred of the most intelligent and/or technologically educated
> people in the world and dump them naked onto a planet similar to earth
> without pre-existing humans.
>
> Priorities of seeking shelter, food and defence against predators would
> preclude teaching anthing other than essential survival skills. All of the
> settlers would be dead of natural causes before a tiny of fraction of their
> knowledge could be passed on to the next generation.
>
> --
> http://pages.videotron.com/duffym/index.htm

it is worse than this. Put the most extraordinary humans in range of
scholastic intelligence in the desert of Kalahari with a bow, some arrows
with some poisoned points, and a gourd with two litters of water, and some
solar protector cream.
My bet is that of 100 intelligent people like this all would be dead of
starvation in less than a week. For the word intelligence has many
different meanings. To have an intelligence means to be able to profit of
some abilities we had stored in our brain, as to be able to survive with
information.
Depending on which environment you are you will need a different set of
knowledge. To pass some examinations in the MIT you must have different
instruments in your brain than to succeed and thrive living in a gang
of mafiosi or as a hunter in the desert of Kalahari.
You must have all you need to know well stored in your brain and ready
to used it easily.
Eri

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

El sábado, 7 de marzo de 2015, 21:00:00 (UTC), passer...@gmail.com escribió:
> Never heard of the Schrodinger's Cat Paradox, huh? Well, of course you haven't? You figure it's about cat toilet training?
>
> The cat is alive and dead at the same time, something the cat has no control over, and it stays that way until a hairless ape takes a look. Only hairless apes have that magical ability.
>
> Yeah, it's nonsense, but that was Schrodinger's point.

Schrödinger was making a parable. Like in the gospels. You must
ask a priest of physics to understand what he meant.

[erik simpson]

It takes much longer than a week to die of starvation. But that's plenty of
time to die of thirst (even with the two liters of water). Even so, you might
be surprised. Lots of people (even intelligent ones) have some interest in
elemental survivability. I'd bet on at least two or three surviving the week.

[erik simpson]

Shroedinger wasn't really providing a parable, it was an attack on the version
of the 'Copenhagen interpretation' ca. 1935. Other competing interpretations,
(many-worlds, etc.) have different takes on the cat problem. In turn, this has
led to the 'shut-up-and-calculate' school of quantum physics.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

An Inexplicably Sapient Hairball <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote in
news:mdfdm5$lie$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 3/6/15 2:59 PM, an Inexplicably Sapient Fruit Bat wrote:
[snip]

>> Until you can give some good reason for thinking that ONE of these
>> alternatives is TRUE, you are missing out on a dimension of bat
>> experience that science has no inkling of how to explain.
>
> There is a recent treatment for blindness where optical signals from a
> camera are encoded in real time into tactile stimuli presented to the
> patient's tongue. (In an earlier version, the tactile pad was placed
> on one's back, but apparently the tongue has more nerves in it.)
> After a learning curve, these people have the ability to see with
> their tongue, literally.
>
> It seems to me that these people's experience is not too far removed
> from the bat's experience.

And yet, it is. Bats are perfectly capable of seeing with their eyes
under normal light conditions. Like a normally-sighted human being,
though, a bat can't see in the dark. The camera you mentioned is
functioning as an eye, registering variations in light levels: it would
be minimally useful on a dark night, just as a bat's eyes are. People
typically cope with dark nights by producing light artificially;
nowadays they can also use special equipment that expands the eye's
spectral range or intensity range (e.g., night-vision goggles).

Bats aren't doing anything comparable to that when they navigate via
reflected soundwaves. If people could navigate the way bats do, you
could run through an obstacle course in the dark and find your way by
interpreting variations in the sound of your own whistling. Even better,
you could *catch moving objects* while running and avoiding obstacles,
because you could tell the difference between the sound of your whistle
bouncing back to you from a moving object and the sound of it bouncing
back from a stationary one. And you could do all that without having the
slightest idea what any of it looked like.

And of course that would still be very little like a bat's experience,
since you'd be running, not flying, and you'd instinctively catch the
objects with your hands, not your mouth.

And that's just what bats do when they're feeding. If you can imagine
what it would be like to be somebody who sleeps while hanging upside
down from the ceiling of a cave with hundreds of his neighbors, while
everybody shits on the floor, and sometimes somebody falls into the shit
and drowns, well, you're more imaginative than I am.
--
S.O.P.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Leopoldo Perdomo <leopoldop...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:cf4bd65c-209f-4ffe...@googlegroups.com:

> El miércoles, 4 de marzo de 2015, 17:19:48 (UTC), Mike Duffy
> escribió:
>> On Wed, 04 Mar 2015 07:57:29 -0800, John Harshman wrote:
>>
>> > I agree. We really don't know what led to our current abilities.
>> > ... Still, is it a quantum leap? Our closest living relatives show
>> > most of our capabilities in lesser form.
>>
>> You are both neglecting the re-inforcing effect of technological
>> infrastructure. (books & universities, tools & factories)
>>
>> Take a few hundred of the most intelligent and/or technologically
>> educated people in the world and dump them naked onto a planet
>> similar to earth without pre-existing humans.
>>
>> Priorities of seeking shelter, food and defence against predators
>> would preclude teaching anthing other than essential survival skills.
>> All of the settlers would be dead of natural causes before a tiny of
>> fraction of their knowledge could be passed on to the next
>> generation.
>>
>> --
>> http://pages.videotron.com/duffym/index.htm
>
> it is worse than this. Put the most extraordinary humans in range of
> scholastic intelligence in the desert of Kalahari with a bow, some
> arrows with some poisoned points, and a gourd with two litters of
> water, and some solar protector cream.
> My bet is that of 100 intelligent people like this all would be dead
> of starvation in less than a week.

Oh, come on. They might think they're too good for the dining scene in
Windhoek, but they're not gonna starve themselves to death just because
they've had better falafel than the stuff at Yaeli's.
--
S.O.P.

[Nashton]

On 2015-03-07 5:20 PM, Leopoldo Perdomo wrote:
> El sábado, 7 de marzo de 2015, 21:00:00 (UTC), passer...@gmail.com escribió:
>> Never heard of the Schrodinger's Cat Paradox, huh? Well, of course you haven't? You figure it's about cat toilet training?
>>
>> The cat is alive and dead at the same time, something the cat has no control over, and it stays that way until a hairless ape takes a look. Only hairless apes have that magical ability.
>>
>> Yeah, it's nonsense, but that was Schrodinger's point.
>
> Schrödinger was making a parable. Like in the gospels. You must
> ask a priest of physics to understand what he meant.

Excuse me, say what?

[Bill]

No, that doesn't sound right. Misrepresenting my posts as an
ID agenda is just a guilt-by-association distraction. Since
I am not speaking for or against any particular point of
view, any agreement with one is purely coincidental. Since
you see intent where there is none, your misunderstanding
must be deliberate.

Bill

[jillery]

Cite?

>I would like to know, what the fine folks in here think could have been
>the selective pressure to produce a species with the hyper-advanced
>capabilities of humans, when survival and reproduction do not require
>the advanced cognition observed in humans.

First, the above is a different question from your OP. Are you
interested in the cognitive development of other species as well, as
implied by your OP, or just humans, as implied here?

Second, you haven't identified your basis for claiming that advanced
cognition isn't a requirement for human survival and reproduction.

Third, keep in mind that the strongest selective pressures are
intra-species, especially among humans. It's almost certain that much
of human cognition is used to live successfully within complex human
societies.

>Instead of an answer to the question that is more a propos to t.o. than
>most of the jillery-isms that pollute this forum, I get fluff from the
>likes of Harshman and "oh that's easy" type of answers from the utterly
>clueless. And all this in the face of the fact that the research and
>literature of the evolution of human intelligence is vast and, may I
>note, far from even being close to being conclusive.

However you care to characterize other posters' replies, if you want
better replies, try posting something that's at least coherent, and
shows a minimal interest in the topic. Just sayin'.

--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[passer...@gmail.com]

If a tree, with a cat in in, falls in a forest, and there's no one there to see it, does it make a sound when it kills the cat?

Copenhagen says the cat is alive and dead at the same time, smeared out in space like Casper the Friendly Ghost. 5% chance of being here dead, 15% chance of being there dead, 10% chance of being up there alive, etc. But when an hairless ape takes a look, the cat becomes one or the other, dead or alive.

How the cat feels about being dead and alive at the same time, and why only hairless apes have this magical ability is the Paradox.

Duuh.

Many Worlds resolves the paradox. It says there are worlds with dead cats and worlds with live cats and you have your feet in both. When you look, you put both feet in worlds with only live cats or worlds with dead cats. The cat never has the trauma of being alive and dead at the same time, and Cats and rocks have the same ability to do it, nothing special about hairless apes.

[deadrat]

On 3/7/15 9:41 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
worthless nonsense
</snip>

Before anyone reads your posts they have the combined superimposed
states of being both stupid and insightful. The first reader collapses
each post's wave function to the former.

Paradox or conundrum?

[passer...@gmail.com]

It's called the Quantum Theory and it's dominated all science for the last century.

[Burkhard]

passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> It's called the Quantum Theory and it's dominated all science for the last century.
>

WOOOOSH

[Ymir]

In article <4706a2cf-fedd-4a3c...@googlegroups.com>,

passer...@gmail.com wrote:

> Never heard of the Schrodinger's Cat Paradox, huh? Well, of course you
> haven't? You figure it's about cat toilet training?
>
> The cat is alive and dead at the same time, something the cat has no control
> over, and it stays that way until a hairless ape takes a look. Only hairless
> apes have that magical ability.
>
> Yeah, it's nonsense, but that was Schrodinger's point.

Surely not even you can be this dense.

You do realise that in every single QM-related experiment performed to
date, the observer has been neither feline nor hominid, but some sort of
inanimate measuring instrument.

While admittedly cats are superior beings, I doubt that even they have
the visual acuity to observe quantum events any more than people do.

With respect to Schroedinger, the fact that he had the cat inside the
box and the scientist outside the box was not relevant to his point. The
same point could have been made with the roles reversed.

Also note that your top-posting is bad enough. In future please try to
respond to the correct message so your replies are at least threaded
properly.

Andre

[Nick Roberts]

In message <mdg6et$t8m$1...@dont-email.me>

Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Nick Roberts wrote:
>
> > In message <mdc3f5$gbq$3...@dont-email.me>
> > Nashton <no...@nana.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2015-03-05 2:01 PM, Nick Roberts wrote:
> >> > In message <mda2qk$j9b$1...@dont-email.me>
> >> > Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >

> >> >> Nashton wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> How modern evolutionary biology, explains how humans
> >> >>> surpassed other animals in intelligence and awareness
> >> >>> of self. Wouldn't at least one of the myriad of
> >> >>> mammal species display a similar level of cognitive
> >> >>> ability and meta-awareness/meta-cognition?
> >> >>

Who do you think you are kidding? When you insist that the Earth is
unique because there is no evidence of life anywhere else (flaw the
first), and hence there must be some reason for it (flaw the second)?

[passer...@gmail.com]

Your problem is that no one has killed a cat? Yeah, you can put the human in the box and the cat outside, or you could put both in a box etc. no difference.

[Nick Roberts]

In message <p4udnQ65cpXMZWbJ...@giganews.com>

deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

> On 3/7/15 9:41 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> <snip>
> worthless nonsense
> </snip>
>
> Before anyone reads your posts they have the combined superimposed
> states of being both stupid and insightful. The first reader
> collapses each post's wave function to the former.
>
> Paradox or conundrum?

But QM is essentially a probabilistic theory. Observations to date
would indicate that the probability that any of passerpi's posts being
insightful is zero; which would mean that you are describing a
superposition of 2 states, one with probability 1 and one with
proabability 0.

I think they some pre-collapsed.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 23:52:01 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:

>It's called the Quantum Theory and it's dominated all science for the last century.

There's no problem with QM; the problem resides in your
failure to understand Schrodinger's paradox, which you think
requires a human as "observer" to collapse the wave
function.

>On Sunday, March 8, 2015 at 3:25:00 AM UTC-4, deadrat wrote:
>> On 3/7/15 9:41 PM, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>> <snip>
>> worthless nonsense
>> </snip>
>>
>> Before anyone reads your posts they have the combined superimposed
>> states of being both stupid and insightful. The first reader collapses
>> each post's wave function to the former.
>>
>> Paradox or conundrum?

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 10:05:03 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 11:16:17 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>
>>Nashton wrote:
>>
>>> How modern evolutionary biology, explains how humans surpassed other
>>> animals in intelligence and awareness of self. Wouldn't at least one of
>>> the myriad of mammal species display a similar level of cognitive
>>> ability and meta-awareness/meta-cognition?
>>
>>You can be sure that people here will explain it. In fact people here will
>>explain anything you might imagine. Better yet, they'll assure you that
>>their explanations are scientific so you get the complete package. The
>>downside to all this is that expressions of doubt are not welcome.
>

>Doubt is always welcome; it's the fuel of scientific
>progress. Carping denial of evidence based on "I believe X"
>is not, although as you note it will usually be answered.
>And, based on many observations, the answers will be
>rejected, usually because they contradict personal beliefs.

[And silence reigns...]

[passer...@gmail.com]

One more time. I think Copenhagen is absurd. That was Schrodinger's point.

He put a cat in the box, not a human for a reason. The absurdity that the cat has no effect, but the hairless ape does.

Yeah, I know, eternally too complicated.

[Bill]

People disputed the points but never refuted them. Merely
disagreeing doesn't count. The Earth is unique because there
is no evidence that it isn't and, if unique, it is as
reasonable to attribute its uniqueness to intent as anything
else.

Until this obvious conclusion from obvious fact is fully and
sensibly accounted for by other explanations, it remains as
credible as any other.

Bill

[Vincent Maycock]

On Sat, 7 Mar 2015 19:41:11 -0800 (PST), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

Hello, passerby.

You've made a number of errors in your post.

You said,

"If a tree, with a cat in in, falls in a forest," but you have to
realize that the paradox you're referring to has long since been
resolved by anyone with a knowledge of basic acoustics in physics, and
its resolution does not involve quantum mechanics.

A tree that falls in the forest when no one is around definitely makes
a sound, because "sound" is defined as a pressure disturbance in the
air -- it has nothing to do with whether or not there are humans
around to experience those pressure waves as "sound."

Also, the Schrodinger's Cat paradox is *independent of the type of
animal* involved!

They just call it the "cat" paradox, because Schrodinger arbitrarily
selected that cat out of any number of animals that he could have
selected -- maybe because he was just thinking about cats the day that
he thought up this idea, not because the paradox indicates that
there's anything special about *cats per se.*

In other words, it could just as well have been called the
Schrodinger's Mouse Paradox.

Also, the active ingredient in the Schrodinger's famous thought
experiment is the presence of *a quantum system* like a radioactive
decay source, which is of course entirely missing from your
tree-in-the-forest scenario.

And when the experiment is properly constructed, with the radioactive
source in place, the cat is *never alive and dead at the same time,*
regardless of how confused Schrodinger was in the 1930's about the
nature of quantum reality.

In fact, the interaction of the radioactive decay particles' wave
function with the bottle of poison collapses that wave function before
the cat ever goes into any kind of superposition with that wave
function; and even if it didn't, the cat's physiology is a complex
enough macroscopic system to collapse the wave function of the
radioactive decay particle as well, meaning that the wave function
would collapse rather than incorporating the cat into a new
multi-particle wave function with the cat waving around in it.

Then you said "only hairless apes have this magical ability," which is
wrong because human beings are not special in this way; their
*technological instruments* are also complex enough (i.e., have enough
degrees of freedom that the wave function can interact with) to
collapse the wave function of the radioactive particle in the
experiment before it ever interacts with "the cat."

As an aside, I'll refer again to Schrodinger's confused understanding
of quantum mechanics, at least when evaluated from a modern
perspective, because the cat has no coherent wave function that can go
into superposition with the wave function of any subatomic particle,
whether from a radioactive decay source or from anywhere else.

So that's why I keep referring to "the cat" rather than "the cat's
wave function" -- the cat has no such wave function, Schrodinger
should not have been thinking about such a thing, and so instead of
just repeatedly saying "what wave function?!" throughout my reference
to this experiment, I just say "the cat," following Schrodinger's
primitive understanding of quantum reality -- one which you have
fuzzified even further in your explanations of your sub-primitive
attempts to "comprehend" quantum mechanics.

Also, you said "Many Worlds resolves the paradox," which is wrong
because standard quantum mechanics is quite capable of resolving this
paradox (as explained above) without the help of the moronicity of
Many Worlds Theory.

I should also note that we've talked about this before, although
according to my records the last time you posted about your inability
to comprehend Schrodinger's Paradox, your last bumbling attempt on
this matter was less expansive and error-ridden than this one.

Specifically, when I saw your recent post, I was like, "Didn't I talk
to passerby about this over at alt.atheism a long time ago?"

And sure, enough in my Forte Agent Sent File, I found the following
reply to you:

It went:

<REPOST from alt.atheism January 2014>

True, but that doesn't imply a lack of objective reality.

>and Schrodinger's Cat is dead and alive at the same time.

That's not true. The interaction of the radioactive system with the
macroscopic system of the cat and detection sensor collapses the wave
function before the cat ever gets a chance to be alive and dead at the
same time.

</REPOST>

Do you repost your misunderstandings of this part of quantum mechanics
at a frequency of one year^-1, or a frequency of two reciprocal years?
Or, to rephrase so it'll be easier for you to understand, given you
inability, as a non-atheist, to understand basic algebra and math,

Is the period of time that it takes you to repost your
misunderstandings this part of quantum mechanics equal to one year or
one-half year?

[Bill]

One of you cannot be taken seriously but I can't be sure
which so I'll just believe you're both part of some obscure
parody of overly serious posters.

Bill

[passer...@gmail.com]

Nope, until you look the tree had fallen and not fallen. Copenhagen it's a cloud of probability in space. Can't make a sound if it hasn't fallen.

[Ymir]

In article <f537a0fe-b031-4b42...@googlegroups.com>,

passer...@gmail.com wrote:

> Your problem is that no one has killed a cat? Yeah, you can put the human in
> the box and the cat outside, or you could put both in a box etc. no
> difference.

Was there a point in there somewhere?

[passer...@gmail.com]

Too complicated, huh? Knock me over with a feather. It was claimed you couldn't do the experiment with the cat and you most certainly can. Easy to kill a cat.

[Ymir]

In article <435036b3-53ea-4382...@googlegroups.com>,

passer...@gmail.com wrote:

> Too complicated, huh? Knock me over with a feather. It was claimed you
> couldn't do the experiment with the cat and you most certainly can. Easy to
> kill a cat.

Claimed where? And by whom?

All I claimed was that for the purposes of the thought experiment, it
was irrelevant whether the one who opened the box was a human, a cat, a
robot, or whatever -- QM assigns no special status to humans, contrary
to what you were claiming.

You do understand that Schroedinger's Cat was a thought experiment, not
an actual experiment? It would not actually work in reality, though not
for the reasons which you seem to believe.

Any idea why your replies are not threading properly?

Andre

[Mark Isaak]

The fact that you do not accept a refutation does not mean it does not
exist.

> Merely
> disagreeing doesn't count. The Earth is unique because there

> is no evidence that it isn't ...

You like probability, so here is a probability question for you. I have
two bags, each with 20 marbles. I tell you that the bags have blue,
red, and black marbles, but no more than two colors in one bag. I take
one marble from the first bag; it is blue. You take one marble from the
second bag. What is the probability that it is also blue?

> ... and, if unique, it is as

> reasonable to attribute its uniqueness to intent as anything
> else.

A couple days ago, I found a single piece of gravel on the floor of my
car. I attribute its being there to my accidentally having tracked it
in from a gravelly parking lot or roadside sometime since I last cleaned
that floor. Is that a reasonable conclusion? Why or why not?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[passer...@gmail.com]

ONE MORE TIME PINHEAD, I DON'T AGREE WITH COPENHAGEN. Rocks, cats, hairless apes, none of them are any different.

I'm pointing Schrodinger's point, why it's a cat not a person, and yes, I'm absolutely certain you will remain eternally ignorant of it.