Re: Genome

On Jun 20, 1:38 am, Stephen Trapani <fahgetabou...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
AC wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:39:21 -0700,
Stephen Trapani <fahgetabou...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
AC wrote:
TomS wrote:
"On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:05:03 GMT, in article
<zBfdi.4543$bP5....@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bobby Bryant stated..."
In article <1cddi.14$Y%7...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Stephen Trapani <fahgetabou...@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

The percent difference responsible for the difference in mental
ability of humans and apes is not really as significant as the
outcome. In other words, there is a vast difference between humans
and all other animals. This difference is humans' ability to
reason. Humans have it, no other creatures we know of do.
Correction: no other creatures have it _to the same degree_ that we
do.

It is interesting how small of a genetic difference causes the huge
difference in mental ability, but that's all it is, interesting.
Of course, it may be 2% overall, but more than 2% in some areas and
less in others.

However, I think the trend has been to vastly overestimate the
differences in mental capacity between ourselves and our nearest kin.

And if mental ability is taken as a criterion for being human, this
has "interesting" consequences for some of our very closest kin.
Infants, for example.
It also raises the questions about humans themselves. Ten thousand
years ago, there wasn't a human on the planet who could build a Toyota
Corolla. A hundred thousand years ago, you couldn't find a human who
could forge iron. Five hundred thousand years ago you couldn't find a
human who could make a bow and arrow.

It's the difference between quantitative and qualitative comparisons.
Stephen is (unfairly) picking examples that prove his point, while
simply handwaving away counter-examples that show similar capabilities
in other animals. He offers no actual reason that we should draw the
lines in the sand that he clearly feels make us so different.

I always find it troubling that people will make such assertions, and
then prove so unwilling to actually demonstrate them, beyond some form
of fallacious reasoning or another.
You should then be troubled about arguing that animals create ideas.

I have yet to see you define what an "idea" is. Observations show that
many animals have reasoning capabilities.

Every bit of supposed reasoning of animals by anthropomorphisers is
grasping for straws where there are none.

Care to provide some citations for this rather extraordinary claim?

This is easily demonstrated.
Look around. There will *never* be another animal that builds a Corolla,
or forges iron, or makes a bow and arrow unless that animal someday
evolves a different type of mind. This is a qualitative difference.

Whether or not any other animal can do these particular things, we do
know animals can innovate, some possess the rudiments of culture and
some have at least primitive linguistic abilities.

Demonstration complete.

Here's where you need to actually justify your position. I'm afraid
your word simply isn't good enough. You have been provided examples
which you just handwave away. You don't even try to explain them,
save with some vague "programming" nonsense, which behaviorial
researchers clearly don't agree with you on.

So why isn't a chimp using a stick or a monkey washing the dirt off
of a fruit examples of behaviors similar to what we find in humans?
By why, I don't mean endlessly repeating "it's different". I mean
an actual critique here.

After this I am done repeating myself. It's relatively easy to make a
program that can recognize non-food on food and then wash it off. There
are plenty of existing examples of such programs. Same with using simple
tools.

However there are no examples of programs that can, say, argue about
humanity as we are doing. Or that can design and build a bow and arrow.
These require the ability to create *new* ideas, create new *knowledge*
rather than just running a program.

Stephen- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Wait guys, I think I know where he's coming from. Please correct me if
I'm wrong Stephen, but by 'program' I think he's likening nonhuman
minds to artificial, human-built computers rather than just
programming in general.

If this is the case, the central argument is 'human beings are smart
enough to build computers that can mimic many animal behaviours,
therefore animals cannot reason'. this makes no sense of course, since
it is really comparing our ingenuity with that of other animals.
Nobody is arguing that we don't have the best reasoning or creative
abilities, but that isn't saying they're nonexistent in animals. Our
computers aren't as smart as us because they were designed by us.

If I understand Stephen's argument correctly, it's akin to saying "If
I had $3 million, I'd have practically nothing compared to Bill Gates,
therefore I have no money." There is a difference between a
qualitative and a quantitative difference, Stephen.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Reasons for apparent Technological Superiority of West over East?
    ... >> domisticated plants or animals when they settled in Australia. ... but Australia didn't have plants and animals which suited well ... >> plants, animals, cultural achievements and ideas until humans had the ... People also needed a REASON to overcome obstacles. ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: Reasons for apparent Technological Superiority of West over East?
    ... >>> domisticated plants or animals when they settled in Australia. ... >>> plants, animals, cultural achievements and ideas until humans had the ... People also needed a REASON to overcome obstacles. ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: Sweating is a dryland, not an aquatic adaptation in humans.
    ... > Animals migrate to where they can survive in competition with other ... How long have humans lived in the namib, ... > specific desert adaptations. ... wet, relatively lush lowlands by the coasts, water holes and rivers. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Genome
    ... Stephen Trapani wrote: ... there is a vast difference between humans ... and all other animals. ... This difference is humans' ability to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Genome
    ... there is a vast difference between humans ... and all other animals. ... This difference is humans' ability to ... ...and I might note that asserting that animals innovate ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading