Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.
 Human behaviour - my thinking on it

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Feb 14, 2002
 Comments:
Im not pretending to be an expert or anything - in fact what im about to write will probably prove im not lol. This is just the accumulation of years of me thinking about this on and off. Its what *I* believe human behaviour is all about. In no way am I trying to brainwash or force my views on others.
diaries

More diaries by PotatoError
Hackers: Misunderstood
To all you Windows Criminals
The financial time bomb
Too controversial for Adequacy
A big HI! from Linuz Zealot
Linux Zealot Tells a Story
Why the GNU licence is a good thing
Why copying copyrighted music isnt wrong.
Okay I'll pay for music
Poz techie seeks same. T-count above 10000.
Patenting of hyperlinks
Question
The little things
What is god?
awww
Iraq, Israel, Palestine and Afghanistan
The consequences of Determinism
I think nuclear weapons are good
What IS adequacy all about????
Where are we going?
Secret World Conspiricy Revealed!!!
Diary Entry 24/05/02
The Internet - where is it heading?
Terrifying and Shocking news
w0w I must be 1337 h4X0r
An Introduction to Online Gaming
Why Al-Qeada isn't responsible for the WTC
Linux Zealot - My thoughts about him
How many Adequacy members are there?
Why Internet Piracy is Moral
Trees and Grass. Two more lies of society.
Why US bombs should be banned
The Hunt for God
My vacation to America and what I found there
Are you an Enemy Combatant?
Rock vs Pop
Why we should make all guns illegal
Invasion: America
One Year since 9/11 and Americans haven't changed
I am looking at the context of behaviour as how a person chooses to act.

At any moment there are many possible actions available to us. But which action shall we pick? We have to make a decision and from these decisions our behaviour is developed.

A large influence on our decision process is the environment surrounding us. We are constantly monitoring what we see, hear, smell and feel. From this we generate a perception of our current situation. We then use this perception of ourself and environment to generate goals. We arent random creatures - we constantly have specific needs and desires no matter how trivial. These are our goals - even if they are subconcious. We will pick actions that lead us to satisfy these goals that we have set.

In order to make the best decision, we predict the outcome of possible actions in order to decide the one which helps further our goals. In order to do this more effectively we make good use of another factor involved in the decision process - our past experience; the memories stored in our brain.

Understand that im not saying that this decision process happens foremost, but that it is happening on a subconcious level all the time. There is no need for us to do much thinking about simple decisions and accordingly, these are done subconciously. For example you walk out of your house to go shopping. I bet you dont even think which direction to walk in - its a subconcious decision that you dont need to think about.

Therefore how we act isnt down to any form of magic - its just a very complex logical process. I belive that human behaviour can be explained as a cause-action model; that every person's actions could theoretically be predicted in advance from any situation.

Many people will site the fact that we cant actually do this as a reason for this being incorrect.

An easy counter-argument is to use the weather system as an example. The weather system is also unpredictable but we know for sure that its a cause-action model - that theoretically we could predict the weather 100% if only we had all the information.
But of course the weather system is just too complex for us to model accurately - we can never hope to be able to know the exact position of every water droplet in the atmosphere at any given time and according to chaos theory this is what we would have to do in order for our predictions to be accurate.

So you see, the fact that we cant possibly predict something doesnt mean it isnt predictable and its workings ilogical. The human brain is even more complex than the global weather system so its no wonder that we havent been able to predict human behaviour. But this alone doesnt mean the workings of the brain are any form of magic. On the contrary, the fact that the brain is there and that we know there are complex electrical networks inside it, that people with damaged brains display damaged thought processes - these all provide evidence - even though not conclusive at all - that the brain is of a logical, physical design.

Another main argument against human behaviour being logical or explainable is to site that emotions are a magical force that science cannot explain. A common assertion is that love is the most complex emotion and cannot be explained as logic - in fact love is a very simple emotion. Emotions such as love and hate are simple, low level emotions.

We could assume that most species on earth feel some form of love emotion which acts as instinctive force which leads animals to seek out mates. We cant turn love off or help it so it must be instinctive. It probable that most animal species only feel lust - the instinct to mate. But in some species (such as ours) love exists - many male mammals feel a form of love which binds them to protecting their mate just as humans do. Female mammals feel a form of love which binds them to protecting their offspring. So it could be argued that love is a simple, logical mechanism that aids survival. That the human species has taken love further to mean something more - such as marriage and "rules of engagement", is simply down to the beliefs enforced by our society.

Hate is an emotion of defense. By hating something that threatens you in some way, your body can over-ride the fear of confronting that threat - to be able to stand your ground or force your way. This also is very useful in survival. Its hard to imagine that when two rival males of a species are fighting each other over territory or a mate, that they are feeling anything other than hate for each other.
Now, humans are obviously more intelligent than other species and we have developed the love emotion further - its a critical emotion for us as we are social creatures. But it is difficult to see why fundamentally our emotion of love is really much different than the emotion of love that dolphins or apes feel for example.

I said that love and hate are basic emotions - examples of more complex emotions are embarassment and guilt. I doubt many other species on earth will feel these emotion apart from humans. Embarassment is a social emotion which makes you feel bad if you do something out of place of the community.

Maybe this is a safeguard against us doing stupid things that would get us kicked out of a community. Its sure harder to explain embarassment logically than it is to explain love or hate.

So I conclude that human emotion and behaviour is in no way a unique ability and that many other animals share our most valued emotions. That just because these emotions seem strong to us that doesnt make them ilogical. That human behaviour is logical but too complex for us to ever be able to predict. A good thing I think.


So fucking wrong (none / 0) (#1)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 05:09:59 PM PST
I really had a difficult time reading all the way through this one. At evey other line, at least, I wanted to stop and post a reply. It was tough to resist, but I did. All the way up until:

We could assume that most species on earth feel some form of love emotion which acts as instinctive force which leads animals to seek out mates.

I can't continue. I want to, but I can't. I feel like the longer I read the more I unlearn every single thread of philosophy I have ever known, let alone what little I know about biology, physics, chemistry, economics, politics, nature....the list could continue forever.

I've heard that there were some really odd people on the internet but I had no idea there was someone this galactically ignorant.

This entire diary is perfect evidence of why geeks should be banned from Adequacy. And virtually every other place intelligent individuals frequent.


okay (none / 0) (#2)
by PotatoError on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 05:16:07 PM PST
i never said it was the truth - just my opinion.

"I feel like the longer I read the more I unlearn every single thread of philosophy I have ever known"
Can you tell me what the truth really is - or your view of it at least? and what its got to do with economics and politics?

What do you think animals are feeling when seeking out mates? and what do you base this assertion on?

At least do some contructive critism. Im open to changing my mind.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

I dont see whats wrong with it (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 14th, 2002 at 09:53:22 PM PST
It all makes perfect sense, even that line, unless you believe that animals cant think to any extent at all.

Everything i know about biology, physics, chemistry, economics, politics, nature etc. only helps to prove the author's opinion, i cannot find any flaw what so ever


 
Its just so horrible (none / 0) (#8)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 03:37:40 AM PST
and what its got to do with economics and politics?

Thats the essence of it, it doesn't have anything to do with economics or politics but its tentacles of ignorance reach so far and so wide that they can pluck nuggets of entirely unrelated knowledge from my mind.

As for my view of the truth, I don't think I could put it into words that you would understand. I certainly couldn't exlain it in the confines of this forum because I am not a gifted wordsmith.


oh please (none / 0) (#9)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 03:59:36 AM PST
If you cant give me a critism I must assume you dont have one and that you are talking poo.

At least you could make one point - just one argument based on biology or politics or whatever suits you. I dont care whether you are a wordsmith - im sure not one anyway. You're pretty good with metaphors though.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Criticism, criticism (none / 0) (#14)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 06:27:18 AM PST
Ok, lets look at the line I quoted in my original post:

We could assume that most species on earth feel some form of love emotion which acts as instinctive force which leads animals to seek out mates.

I will grant you that we could assume that, we could assume anything if we wanted. In light of the evidence of why animals choose the mates they do I don't think you can use that assumption to make any sort of viable argument. There are literally reams of documentation as to why animals choose particular mates, and it varies by species or even locality. I know of no text that claims that the process invloves love in any way, nor does it involve any emotion at all. We humans are very similar, except that we are 'thinking animals'. For certain, we go through an arduous process when we select a mate but the reasons why are totally different. Lower animals care only about propagating their genetic material and thus choose mates that appear most likely to ensure that happens. When a quail puffs himself up and stuts around a wheat field, he is merely displaying his ability to provide food for his offspring in the manner that thousands of years of evolution have accorded to his species. He is not attempting to get a female bird to fall in love with him. The females will select a mate by listening to their drumming and watching their little dances. What this has to do with providing for offspring isn't exactly clear but it obviously doesn't involve anything as worthless to survival as love.

You could attempt to make the case that love is merely a facet of some logical process (and you may have in the latter half of your article, I didn't read it all), but you would be incorrect. Many human beings make choices in mates that are entirely wrong, regardless of what measure you use. We feel love because we have constructed the emotion of love, and it is often almost completely illogical.

By the way, have you been reading anything by Peter Singer lately?


see, this is what I mean (none / 0) (#21)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 12:39:36 PM PST
that is a good argument. One which I dont have any specific facts to use against.

I at least stated that I was assuming. I just think along these lines:

There are other highly intelligent social creatures on this planet - namely dolphins and apes. The process they go through to find mates and the feelings involved cannot be that different from ours simply because 20,000 years ago we were not that much different from them socially. I doubt any animal on this planet is actually thinking about propagating their genetic material. More likely they actually find more fit individuals of the opposite sex more attractive. So a feeling of lust rather than a functional need to pass on their genes.

I would argue that where human mate selection differs from animal mate selection is down to the fact that humans no longer have to fight for survival. Even the most weakest human is guaranteed survival in our society - therefore any prerequisite a female has for a strong male mate no longer need apply to humans.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Ok (none / 0) (#34)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 06:13:27 PM PST
namely dolphins and apes

Uh oh. Not doplphins and apes.

The process they go through to find mates and the feelings involved cannot be that different from ours simply because 20,000 years ago we were not that much different from them socially.

20,000 years ago we were quite a bit different from them socially.

I doubt any animal on this planet is actually thinking about propagating their genetic material.

You are right. The desire to propagate is instinctual, so they don't have to think about it. I would imagine that if you could get inside of the minds of most animals, apes, dolphins, frogs, chickens, whatever, you would find something along the lines of "Gotta find food.....don't get killed.....gotta find food.....don't get killed". Of course that is entirely conjecture on my part but it fits with their behavior.

More likely they actually find more fit individuals of the opposite sex more attractive.

If by 'attractive' you mean 'fit'.

So a feeling of lust rather than a functional need to pass on their genes.

No. Consider the Australian redback spider. Females of the species often mate with three of four males during the breeding season and the one who's sperm actually fertilizes the egg sac is usually the one who can deposit the most in the female. Similar to the black widow, the females often consume the male shortly after mating is complete. You would think, if driven by love, or cold logic, or anything like that, the male would try to escape so that he could preserve his own life. Not in this case, the males actually encourage the females to eat them! They do this becuase it prolongs copulation and allows them to deposit greater amounts of sperm inside the female. Amazing, but the drive to continue the lineage is even stronger than the spider's desire to live.

any prerequisite a female has for a strong male mate no longer need apply to humans.

This is untrue. While I agree that many, many humans (mostly Western ones) make terrible choices when choosing mates, there is still a very strong desire, conscious or not, to choose the fittest mate. Western cultures demonstrate fitness by buying expensive cars, diamonds, homes. In Africa, women make slits in their lips and insert clay plates. The larger the plate the more desirable the woman. Maybe there is logic in there somewhere, I don't know, but it is definitely an attempt to seduce another person into the social construct humans call love or, more likely, to obtain the best possible mate.


If we have free will then so do apes (none / 0) (#63)
by PotatoError on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 10:52:10 AM PST
Why do you think that the thinking pattern of apes is simply "Gotta find food.....don't get killed.....gotta find food.....don't get killed"?
You imply that they think like some sort of robots. Just because they are less intelligent than us?
If we made contact with a more intelligent alien species couldnt they think we have no free will? After all they would probably argue that we only show the most basic behaviour.

An chimpanzee can learn, it can socially interact, it can communicate, It can use tools, they can play (unnecessary for survival!), they are sad when a close relative dies.
Just because they dont build things doesnt make them automatically disqualified for having free will. Just because their behaviour or emotions can be considered just basic versions of our own doesnt mean they dont have free will - it just means they are less intelligent.

A grown up chimpanzee has the IQ of a young human child. Are you arguing that children think like robots too? "must eat, dont get killed"
All the evidence points to the conclusion that if humans have free will then so do other highly intelligent animals. Unless you believe the bible in which case you believe animals have no free will regardless.

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Free Will is not Intelligence. (none / 0) (#64)
by tkatchev on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 10:58:39 AM PST
I realize that Mr. Potato has some sort of deficiency that prevents him from listening to other people, but perhaps this will be interesting to some other readers:

Free will is not correlated to intelligence in any way. Free will is anything that is not completely deterministic.


--
Peace and much love...




Why do you think apes are deterministic?.. (none / 0) (#74)
by PotatoError on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 12:55:42 PM PST
..when you are saying that humans arent.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Empirical evidence. (none / 0) (#79)
by tkatchev on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 01:26:38 PM PST
Empricial evidence shows us that apes probably do not have free will. (i.e. they don't laugh at stupid jokes, for example.)


--
Peace and much love...




Check this: (none / 0) (#82)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 02:07:00 PM PST
http://directory.google.com/Top/Science/Social_Sciences/Anthropology/Enculturated_Apes/

Take special attention to the results of experiments with teaching chimpanzees the sign language.

Experiments show also that monkeys have numerical abilities.

Human and primate brains are constructionally way too similar to suggest their function is fundamentally different.

I am curious about your comments.


Your point?... (none / 0) (#90)
by tkatchev on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 12:44:43 AM PST
My calculator has even better "numerical abilities"; that doesn't mean my calculator is intelligent!

Show me a monkey that laughs at practical jokes, and I'll believe you. Consider it a sort of "litmus test".


--
Peace and much love...




havent you just contradicted yourself? (none / 0) (#97)
by PotatoError on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 10:42:44 AM PST
"My calculator has even better "numerical abilities"; that doesn't mean my calculator is intelligent!"
True.

But then you imply that just because monkeys dont possess humour that they lack free will.

Just as numerical ability has nothing to do with intelligence neither does humour have anything to do with free will.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

You are right. (none / 0) (#99)
by tkatchev on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 11:09:42 AM PST
I believe that humour is something that is tied with free will.

That means that if you can show that monkeys have humour then you could argue that they have free will.

The opposite is, of course, not true; neither does the negation of the first part of the implication imply the second part.


--
Peace and much love...




 
umm (none / 0) (#88)
by PotatoError on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 08:47:24 PM PST
"don't laugh at stupid jokes, for example"
could that be because they cant talk? or understand english?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Key word -- "stupid". (none / 0) (#89)
by tkatchev on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 12:41:19 AM PST
"Stupid" as in "humor that doesn't require any intelligence or language ability to understand".

If you've ever watched little children (i.e. pre-school or first grade) socialize, you know what I mean -- they seem to enjoy crude humor.

You don't need to understand English or even to be able to talk to understand it -- yet, chimps for all their intelligence simply do not understand humor.


--
Peace and much love...




Errrm... (none / 0) (#91)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 05:00:34 AM PST
You don't need to understand English or even to be able to talk to understand it -- yet, chimps for all their intelligence simply do not understand humor.

Errm... I am afraid the second half of your sentence is somehow untrue.

Humor in Primates (at this moment, only a bibliography)
Machiavellian Monkeys & Shakespearean Apes: The Question of Primate Language - mentions sense of humor of Koko the gorilla, and her ability to create new terms for unnamed objects
A Comparison of Primate and Dolphin Intelligence as a Metaphor for the Validity of Comparative Studies of Intelligence - brief mention of brain structure in the areas concerned with humor and creativity in dolphins
What's So Funny? Right Frontal Lobe Damage Interferes With Humor - indirectly related, confirms sense of humor depends on brain's "hardware"
I also stumbled over numerous mentions of expressions of laughter in chimps (and I don't mean Dubya now).

A nice book about the topic seems to be 'The Ape and the Sushi Master'.

Sorry.


Sorry? (none / 0) (#95)
by tkatchev on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 08:32:22 AM PST
Good job, but I don't see how this applies to the argument at hand.

Your only argument seems to be that since there are areas of the human brain that are responsible for humour, then obviously apes must understand jokes.

I am sorry, but that argument just doesn't hold under any scrutiny. It's just bad logic.

Nobody is denying that the human brain has parts that are responsible for humor; after all, humans do not have the power to generate something from nothing.

I believe that things like humour are fundamentally non-deterministic; so far, nobody has found any fallacy in that argument.

If you show me specific examples of apes making and laughing at jokes, then I might believe you. So far, all you gave me is just some very bad argumentation.


--
Peace and much love...




You want examples? (none / 0) (#96)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 10:15:52 AM PST
Your only argument seems to be that since there are areas of the human brain that are responsible for humour, then obviously apes must understand jokes.

Because the brain areas responsible for humor are principially the same both for humans, apes, and dolphins. Be accurate.

I believe that things like humour are fundamentally non-deterministic; so far, nobody has found any fallacy in that argument.

I however believe that things like humour are pretty deterministic. Further studies of the responsible brain areas will shed more light at this, and I suppose they will confirm my opinion.

If you show me specific examples of apes making and laughing at jokes, then I might believe you. So far, all you gave me is just some very bad argumentation.

Koko the gorilla, Nim the chimp. Both contain concrete examples.

Or see The Evolution of Laughter.

Comic relief - laughter and the brain - indirectly related.

See also A theory of humor.

Hey - even rats have some sense of fun.


You are illogical. (none / 0) (#100)
by tkatchev on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 11:13:19 AM PST
You said:

Because the brain areas responsible for humor are principially the same both for humans, apes, and dolphins.

Do you realize that that is a completely illogical and senseless phrase?

Do you mean that these "areas" are the same in chemical composition? Biological structure? What exactly do you mean by "principally the same"?

The cells in your finger are "principally the same" as the cells in an earthworm. Does that imply that your finger lives underground and eats dirt?


--
Peace and much love...




Anyway (none / 0) (#104)
by PotatoError on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 03:04:48 PM PST
Koko the Gorilla showed use of humour. She has also made lies and made up new phrases by joining words which implies understanding of the meaning of the words not just a robotic like association.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Not now. (none / 0) (#106)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 03:36:19 PM PST
Because the brain areas responsible for humor are principially the same both for humans, apes, and dolphins.
Do you realize that that is a completely illogical and senseless phrase?


Not if you think over it.

In systems where structure determines function - ie, brain - structural similarities suggest functional similarities.

Do you mean that these "areas" are the same in chemical composition? Biological structure? What exactly do you mean by "principally the same"?

Similar - close to identical - in structure ("wiring"), both macro- and microscopical.
Take a human brain, and an animal brain. Damage the same area of them. You will observe impairment or complete failure of a function handled by that area, the same for both species.

The cells in your finger are "principally the same" as the cells in an earthworm. Does that imply that your finger lives underground and eats dirt?

The cells themselves are similar, thus they are likely to (and are) behave similarly, use the same biochemical pathways (ie, Krebs cycle). However, the similarity ends here as my finger is part of me and earthworm is an entity of its own; my finger lacks the structures necessary for its own independent existence; you aren't comparing apples and oranges here - you are comparing apples and orange trees.


 
sigh (none / 0) (#66)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 11:24:47 AM PST
tkatchev has already pointed out to you, numerous times, that free will is not intelligence.

That said:

An chimpanzee can learn, it can socially interact, it can communicate,

So can virtually every other animal on earth. What is it about social interaction and structure that is so wonderful? Chickens in the barnlot have a very strict social hierarchy and a very definite set of rules they all must follow.

It can use tools

That means little more than having a social structure does. I have seen otters use rocks to crack open mussel shells, are they our brothers too?

they can play (unnecessary for survival!),

I admit they play but their play, like that of most other animals, is just practice for their adult life where they will need to run to escape predators, climb trees, leap from limb to limb. The young of big cats do the same thing, only they practice the skills they will need to catch prey. Virtually all mammals 'play', but it should rightly be called practice, and is by many wildlife biologists.

A grown up chimpanzee has the IQ of a young human child.

I would question the methods used to determine a chimp's IQ.

Are you arguing that children think like robots too? "must eat, dont get killed"

Very young ones, yes. That doesn't mean that they don't possess free will.

All the evidence points to the conclusion that if humans have free will then so do other highly intelligent animals.

I have yet to see the evidence of which you speak, does it exist only inside your own head?




So (none / 0) (#75)
by PotatoError on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 01:09:15 PM PST
I know that free will isnt intelligence. My reasoning is that if an animal can do everything a human can do on a basic level then this animal very similar to a human in almost all traits.
So why are you making a special exception of one trait - free will?

"So can virtually every other animal on earth"
No, chimpanzees can learn and pass information down generations by teaching. Other animals seem to do this genetically. Almost everything humans can do, chimpanzees can do but on a simpler level.
Why do you refuse to believe that this might be true? are you scared that the specialness of humanity would be eroded slightly?

Apes playing isnt anything to do with practice. They arent preditors. They dont need to play chase. If it was a purely suvival based game then you would expect it to end after many generations of captivity. But no, they are simply getting fun out of playing. It serves no purpose to them - maybe indirectly they are learning something out of playing but so is a child learning something out of their playing.

Im only arguing using chimpanzee's because its a lot easier to compare them to humans than it is to compare another species with humans.

Give me ONE thing that humans can do that hasnt been exhibited on a basic level by chimpanzees.

"Free will is anything that is not completely deterministic." -tkatchev

"Very young ones [humans], yes [think like deterministic robots]. That doesn't mean that they don't possess free will." -you

so you and tkatchev DO disagree on something

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

One point. (none / 0) (#78)
by tkatchev on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 01:24:59 PM PST
The original poster didn't claim that very young babies "behave like deterministic robots" -- I think he claimed that babies think only about survival. (Which doesn't preclude free will, I suppose.)


--
Peace and much love...




 
Further (none / 0) (#93)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 07:59:56 AM PST
So why are you making a special exception of one trait - free will?

You don't seem to grasp the importance of free will.

Almost everything humans can do, chimpanzees can do but on a simpler level.

No. Do chimpanzees make tools? Not use them, make them? I'm not talking about lab chimps who mimic their handlers, I'm talking about chimps in the wild.

are you scared that the specialness of humanity would be eroded slightly?

Not at all. I would like nothing more than for the for the inexhaustible supply of buffoons who live a life that is entirely insulated from the realities of nature to gain just a little more respect for wild animals. Maybe enough for them to stop trying to make them more endearing to the public by seeing how many human traits they can ascribe them.

Apes playing isnt anything to do with practice.

Yes it is.

They arent preditors.

That doesn't matter one whit. I gave you examples of non-predators that practice survival skills.

If it was a purely suvival based game then you would expect it to end after many generations of captivity.

I think you have a poor understanding of the pace at which natural selection results in changes in animals.

Give me ONE thing that humans can do that hasnt been exhibited on a basic level by chimpanzees.

I did that already, tkatchev gave you an even better one.

so you and tkatchev DO disagree on something

Did you fail to read the entire quote or do you just not understand it?


Look your wrong (none / 0) (#98)
by PotatoError on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 11:03:48 AM PST
Can apes make tools?
Yes they can and they do

Also Go read this. Read the section on Koko the gorilla.

This should just about prove to you how apes do have fun and dont just perform robotic like functions purely for survival. It should also show you how apes do actually think.

If you are going to make assertions like "chimps cant make tools" at least make sure that it hasnt already been proved.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Again (none / 0) (#101)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 01:17:09 PM PST
It hasn't been proven. I asked for examples of chimps making tools in the wild, not in a playpen constructed by their handlers. Actually, I wopuld prefer that the observers had not named the chimps anything as well but that is entirely optional. Before you ram furiously at your keyboard, I do not believe that Jane Goodall's observation of the blade of grass is an example of making a tool. Using yes, making no.

You should learn to be more sceptical of research done by people who have a larger agenda. Most ape tricks are concocted by people who run ape rescue operations, the same people who seek to end vivisection, at least vivisection using apes. It is of no suprise to anyone that they regularly find that apes do wonderful things that should qualify them for the same legal status as human beings.


What's bad on names? (none / 0) (#102)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 01:31:38 PM PST
Actually, I wopuld prefer that the observers had not named the chimps anything as well but that is entirely optional.

Why? What's bad on giving names to experimental subjects?


Because it is bad (none / 0) (#115)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 07:05:14 AM PST
It makes them something other than experimental subjects. It leads to things like Top Ten lists of intelligent animals, based entirely on the similarities shared with humans. If we can't accept animals for what they are then I don't see how we will ever come to respect them.

The original diary entry mentions 'many other animals'. It was then distilled down to dolphins (most likely because they are always smiling) and various primates, because they look like us. I attempted to interject that there were many other animals outside the Top Ten lists that showed quite a bit of specialized adaptation, some of it remarkable in its complexity and bordering on what many people would term intelligence. Unfortunately, as most 'animals are people too' debates go, it devloved into an excercise to determine the worth of various animals by whether or not they can be taught to sign after being stripped from their natural environment and caged up.

It is entirely possible that you, Potato, and I all share a similar goal. I would like for everyone to recognize that non-human species have value outside of the economy. They, like us, have an ecological niche to fill. The chimp exists to feed the cheetah. The cheetah exists to control the chimp population. Neither exists to stack boxes in cages and the worth of neither should be based on their ability to do so. Just because one will come when you call it 'Koko' means nothing.


animals (none / 0) (#129)
by PotatoError on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 09:05:57 PM PST
I dont particulaly care about animals. I just belive that its foolish to assume that certain species of animals dont possess free will. After all there is no evidence that they dont. Thats the key - no evidence.
So for an animal so similar and directly related to us as chimps, its remarkable that we automatically assume chimps to be hugely different from us.
Because thats what it is - saying humans have free will and chimps dont implies a huge difference.
Every other proved difference between humans and chimps is tiny in comparison.
You see why I think its such a strange assumption to make?

If people had always assumed chimps to have free will from the start and I was a lone person on this site arguing that they dont have free will would I really win easily?
More likely people would argue the other side just as effectively as you are now.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
If humans didnt have hands... (none / 0) (#103)
by PotatoError on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 02:49:46 PM PST
...how would we make tools?

Its good to be sceptical but its not good to have a closed mind.

First that research I pointed to where the apes stacked boxes and constructed sticks was done in the 1920's - maybe u noticed the photos were black and white. This was a time where there was no agenda to be had. It was pure scientific research. An ape joined to sticks together to make an extended stick without being told how! if that isnt making tools what is? Apes stacked up crates to allow them to reach food - again if that isnt construction of a tool then what is?

Wont you be satisfied until they invent the wheel?

Why are you so adament that because apes cant make complex tools they dont possess free will?
That they cant make as complex tools as humans is down to intelligence and you've already stated that intelligence doesnt equal free will.

Chimps are more like humans than like other animals. Do you disagree with this?

Thousands of years ago there were two species of human - do you believe the other species didnt possess free will?

One more question. If you believe that free will only exists in humans would you change your mind if we found a highly intelligent alien species elsewhere in the universe? and how would you react if they thought we were stupid creatures who didnt have free will?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

No. (none / 0) (#109)
by tkatchev on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 09:43:16 PM PST
Look, apes only make tools insofar as they need tools for survival -- i.e. if they want a banana, for example.

Humans make tools simply for the sake of making tools -- it's no different from art.


--
Peace and much love...




oh come on (none / 0) (#112)
by PotatoError on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 06:08:25 AM PST
"apes only make tools insofar as they need tools for survival"

You think early humans made tools for fun?

Maybe apes arent intelligent enough to make tools on a level you find acceptable but like you said intelligence doesnt equal free will. Therefore that they cant make tools to the same level as us doesnt reflect that they have no free will.

Some humans are mentally handicapped and could never make tools - doesnt mean they dont have free will does it?


<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
More (none / 0) (#114)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 06:49:59 AM PST
If humans didnt have hands......how would we make tools?

So, by your logic, chimps should have produced twice as many tools as humans, given that they have four opposable thumbs. Their world should look something like a Jetsons cartoon by now.

This was a time where there was no agenda to be had.

Yeah.

Chimps are more like humans than like other animals. Do you disagree with this?

If by 'more like' you mean that we share many morphological characteristics..

Thousands of years ago there were two species of human -

No, although maybe you need to clarify. The early Homo species (we are Homo sapeins) most likely evolved from fossils of the genus Australopithecus. Australopithecus is split into two types, gracile and robust, the gracile are probably our direct ancestors. Your post might be referring to these two 'species of human', although you would be incorrect is using those terms, two species of ape would be more correct. Your timeline is also a bit off as Homo habilis shows up in the fossil record around 2.5 million years ago. Maybe you were referring to the later descendants of Australopithecus, Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis, who appear about 300,000 years ago. If so, please discuss their respective differences and the reasons why one of them longer exists, and also show that free will was not a matter of importance between the two.

If you believe that free will only exists in humans would you change your mind if we found a highly intelligent alien species elsewhere in the universe?

I would probably not change my mind unless, in addition to being intelligent, they also demonstrated free will.

would you react if they thought we were stupid creatures who didnt have free will?

I would probably argue with them I guess. I really haven't spent much time thinking about that one (probably because I am not a fan of sci-fi) and I am not sure why anyone would bother to do so.


 
Further (none / 0) (#94)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 08:03:50 AM PST
So why are you making a special exception of one trait - free will?

You don't seem to grasp the importance of free will.

Almost everything humans can do, chimpanzees can do but on a simpler level.

No. Do chimpanzees make tools? Not use them, make them? I'm not talking about lab chimps who mimic their handlers, I'm talking about chimps in the wild.

are you scared that the specialness of humanity would be eroded slightly?

Not at all. I would like nothing more than for the for the inexhaustible supply of buffoons who live a life that is entirely insulated from the realities of nature to gain just a little more respect for wild animals. Maybe enough for them to stop trying to make them more endearing to the public by seeing how many human traits they can ascribe them.

Apes playing isnt anything to do with practice.

Yes it is.

They arent preditors.

That doesn't matter one whit. I gave you examples of non-predators that practice survival skills. I can give you a hundred more that I have personally observed in animals from the African plains to the circumpolar tundra.

If it was a purely suvival based game then you would expect it to end after many generations of captivity.

I think you have a poor understanding of the pace at which natural selection results in changes in animals.

Give me ONE thing that humans can do that hasnt been exhibited on a basic level by chimpanzees.

I did that already, tkatchev gave you an even better one.

so you and tkatchev DO disagree on something

Did you fail to read the entire quote or do you just not understand it?


 
I can't force myself to read it. (none / 0) (#4)
by tkatchev on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 12:02:39 AM PST
(It's too long)

But, one small nitpick: please don't use the word love as it is completely meaningless.

"Love" can be anything from "I've got spermotoxicosis, so I'm ready to have sex with a farm animal" to "I really like eating potato salad".

At the very leat, specify whether by "love" you mean "lust" or "friendship". If you mean "lust", then sorry to dissappoint you -- lust has a very insignificant role in determining human behaviour.


--
Peace and much love...




burn you flaming liberal! (nt) (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 01:25:29 AM PST



Liberal? (none / 0) (#6)
by tkatchev on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 02:01:52 AM PST
You might as well call me a communist, while you're at it.


--
Peace and much love...




 
good point (none / 0) (#7)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 02:56:45 AM PST
yea, thats a good point about love. I kept using "the type of love that..."
I tried to distinguish between love felt between two mates and love felt between parent and offspring but I ended up confusing myself too. Both are really love but both are different (i think). I agree that lust is different from love and I tried to make sure I wasnt talking about lust because as you said it isnt very significant.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Query (none / 0) (#31)
by hauntedattics on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 04:10:40 PM PST
Given that you had such a rough time distinguishing among the various types of love, isn't it time to rethink the notion that love and hate are "basic" emotions?



no (none / 0) (#37)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 09:45:27 PM PST
The word love seems to cover more than 1 emotion. thats the problem. As I have said, the feeling of love between two mates is different that paternal love. Noone would argue that paternal love was complex at all. And I cant see understand that just because humans can make weird choices of mates this makes this form of love complicated. Its still very basic - a feeling for someone you want to be with, a selection of a mate. Just as an intelligent enough animal would do. It doesnt matter how we pick that mate..all animals will do it differently.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Where to start... (none / 0) (#107)
by hauntedattics on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 04:14:03 PM PST
Noone would argue that paternal love was complex at all.

I'd challenge you to say that to any father you know, and get a positive (or even not entirely incredulous) response. There is more to paternal love than just supporting one's child physically so it survives...for human beings. This seems to be where you are not grasping the difference between people and animals.

And I cant see understand that just because humans can make weird choices of mates this makes this form of love complicated. Its still very basic - a feeling for someone you want to be with, a selection of a mate.

Have you ever actually been in a long-term, committed relationship?!?? Based on this sentence, apparently not. Marriage and other committed relationships are based on a complex interplay of values and emotions and are built, sometimes excruciatingly, over a period of time. I didn't just get a whiff of my husband's pheromones (sp?) in a bar and instinctively decide that he was the best genetic hope for my offspring to survive.




objection (none / 0) (#108)
by PotatoError on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 07:52:38 PM PST
"There is more to paternal love than just supporting one's child physically so it survives...for human beings."

Its amazing how you claim to be know for sure how animals think and feel. We cant have a clue how other animals think because we're human - so how can you even make that statement?
Instead we must use observed evidence to back up either side and there is a very large ammount of evidence showing that animals probably feel emotions just as humans do.

I dont believe there is a clear line between humans and animals as you are implying. I believe there is a spread - chimpanzees are much more like humans than sheep for example. If an alien race visited this planet would they really decide that humans have free will but chimps dont? More likely they would find us hard to distinguish other than intelligence.

You only say that humans have free will because you are human and observe that you have free will.
You cant possibly know without evidence whether a chimp has free will or not. And this evidence just doesnt exist. With so many similarities between us and chimps we must assume that they do also have free will like us. It would be strange to assume that they are different in this one respect when they are so similar in many others.
It should be the norm to assume that they do possess free will and the work should be to prove that they dont.

Marriage and other committed relationships are just creations of our society not a trait of the individual human. 2000 years ago there was no such thing as marriage - further back and there was no such thing as relationships. Hardly a special trait - more likely it was developed like our technology was developed.

Amazing that you think animals "get a whiff of pheromones and instinctively decide the best genetic hope for their offspring to survive.". How do you know this? how do you possibly know how animals think and feel?
In fact Chimpanzees dont emit pheromones - just like humans. Yet another of a seemingly million similarities. They must rely on something other than "instinctive decision" to find a mate.










<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

What?! (none / 0) (#110)
by tkatchev on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 09:48:06 PM PST
"Marriage is a creation of our society"?

Grow up, dude. You're laughable.


--
Peace and much love...




huh? (none / 0) (#111)
by PotatoError on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 06:05:24 AM PST
u think marriage is a human instinct??

Where did the idea of marriage come from? Rules about how we should live our lives. Where did these rules come from? We made them up - society made them up - society created the idea of marriage.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
You are right. (none / 0) (#44)
by tkatchev on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 10:35:47 PM PST
You are absolutely right -- potato is just confusing linguistics with biology.

"Love" is a basic emotion only in the sense that it's a word that is used to build other, very complex linguistic constructions that describe emotions. This doesn't mean, however, that biologically "love" is more important than any other emotion.


--
Peace and much love...




 
but, (none / 0) (#10)
by fzr on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 05:19:04 AM PST
human behaviour is logical but too complex for us to ever be able to predict.

Humans predict human behavior to a high degree of accuracy all the time.


ahh (none / 0) (#11)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 05:44:21 AM PST
bet you didnt predict that I was going to do this:


mwhahahahahaha ahahhaahahah hahahhahhh hahhahhhhh flflflflfflpflflfalalP :P :P :O :D :) :O :O
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
So? (none / 0) (#12)
by tkatchev on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 05:46:40 AM PST
Nobody in their right mind[1] would claim that humans are logical creatures.

You see, logic is easy -- it's the most primitive form of thought. Even a single-celled organism knows how to optimize the input-output conditions of energy consumption.

Learning to think irrationally, on the other hand, is among the things that really separate us from the lower animals. Only a human being can derive pleasure from "Limp Bizkit", for example.

[1] I'm not counting software g**ks, for obvious reasons.


--
Peace and much love...




 
Not very well thought out. (none / 0) (#13)
by derek3000 on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 06:25:11 AM PST
So I conclude that human emotion and behaviour is in no way a unique ability and that many other animals share our most valued emotions.

I really hope that you're a vegetarian.

That human behaviour is logical but too complex for us to ever be able to predict.

Earlier in your diary you said that we could, and used the example of weather to back it up!




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

look... (none / 0) (#15)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 08:17:50 AM PST
The difference between us and animals is intelligence. Our most valued emotion seems to be love. I argue that a lot of animals must feel this emotion. It doesnt make me feel bad about eating them however - they arent part of my species - they have less rights in our society.

Theres a difference between something being predictable and actually being able to predict something.
I used the weather as an example - the weather is predictable but the climate is so complex that we cant do it 100% accurately and never will be able to.

I make the same argument with human behaviour - that it is possible to predict it but we would never be able to get all the information required to make that prediction. by information i mean the exact state of mind of the given person and every variable existing in the environment around them.

An almighty being - such as god would be able to know all this information and so would be able to predict human behaviour.

So human behaviour is predictable - deterministic but we, ourselves are too simple to be able to predict it.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

It's my turn to be the bike cop. (none / 0) (#16)
by derek3000 on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 11:17:51 AM PST
The difference between us and animals is intelligence. Our most valued emotion seems to be love. I argue that a lot of animals must feel this emotion. It doesnt make me feel bad about eating them however - they arent part of my species - they have less rights in our society.

I think a lot of people would feel differently about eating animals if they knew they experienced emotions. What you are suggesting is that it is acceptable to kill a sentiet (and emotionally intelligent) being and eat it. I wouldn't mind having you over for dinner. Also, you state that they feel emotions, but they aren't intelligent. Does anyone else see a problem with this?




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

Animal emotions (none / 0) (#17)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 11:54:42 AM PST
I think a lot of people would feel differently about eating animals if they knew they experienced emotions.

Circuits for emotions are located in limbic area of the brain. It is possible to trigger some emotions only by electrical stimulation of the brain in this area. Because the construction details of human and animal brains are strikingly similar, and because of some related experiments, I consider it strong indication that animals have emotions.

What you are suggesting is that it is acceptable to kill a sentiet (and emotionally intelligent) being and eat it.

In some cultures it is acceptable to kill and eat members of other tribes.

I wouldn't mind having you over for dinner. Also, you state that they feel emotions, but they aren't intelligent. Does anyone else see a problem with this?

This argumentation isn't entirely consistent. How do we define intelligence here?


Defining intelligence. (none / 0) (#18)
by tkatchev on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 12:12:06 PM PST
Actually, there is no definition of "intelligence". Absolutely none.

If you aren't a liberalist, than it is pretty obvious to you that humans differ from animals only in their capacity for free will.

If you bought in whole-sale into liberalist ideology, than all you have is some vague mumbo-jumbo to the effect that "well, intelligence is this cool property that makes us intelligent".


--
Peace and much love...




Substitute: "then" for "than". (none / 0) (#19)
by tkatchev on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 12:19:29 PM PST
Sorry. I should think before posting. Or at least stop reading and posting at the same time.


--
Peace and much love...




 
A Modest Proposal <---cool, huh? (none / 0) (#20)
by derek3000 on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 12:39:21 PM PST
If you aren't a liberalist, than it is pretty obvious to you that humans differ from animals only in their capacity for free will.

Well, at least that clears it up. The only problem is, I got in trouble for trying to smuggle a retard back to my house for Thanksgiving dinner.




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

Which of you was the retard? (none / 0) (#22)
by tkatchev on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 12:49:20 PM PST
I see my point flew way over your head...

That's exactly what I mean. A typical "retard" has the "intelligence" of a large ape; but, unlike an ape, he/she still has the capacity for free will. This is why even a "retard"'s life should be cherished.


--
Peace and much love...




Why are you sure... (none / 0) (#24)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 01:09:44 PM PST
That's exactly what I mean. A typical "retard" has the "intelligence" of a large ape; but, unlike an ape, he/she still has the capacity for free will. This is why even a "retard"'s life should be cherished.

Why are you sure that apes don't have free will?


I am not. (none / 0) (#27)
by tkatchev on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 01:46:32 PM PST
Empirical evidence supports the proposition, though.

Roughly, apes are intelligent enough to accumulate technological and linguistic skills, and even to pass these skills on to succeeding generations. For some reason, though, this doesn't happen.


--
Peace and much love...




Thats not entirely true (none / 0) (#38)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 09:48:29 PM PST
I saw a documentary where a group of apes - monkeys I think had learnt to wash some kind of fruit (again I forget which) in the sea before eating them in order to remove the dirt. This method was passed down through generations and was unique to this particular community.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Yes. (none / 0) (#43)
by tkatchev on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 10:32:07 PM PST
But I meant the linguistic and social aspect of it.

(In any case, you are right; it is a difficult question.)


--
Peace and much love...




 
Raccoons (none / 0) (#49)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 05:08:31 AM PST
Raccoons do that as well, when there is water available. They wash everything.

Beaver can cut trees to build some of the most amazing dams you'll see, they can even detect the water flow through a pipe that is put through a dam to allow drainage, and dam that up as well. They are so skilled and precise that most of their trees fall all the way to the ground and don't get caught up in the other trees surrounding them.

There is a species of spider that builds a web composed of several thin, vertical strands that are under very high tension (thus break easily). It then crisscrosses the vertical strands with horizontal ones that are very loose. When a bug stumbles into the web the vertical strands break and the entire web jerks the bug off the ground and suspends it in the air.

There is an aphid that covers itself with a waxy substance secreted from the tree where the aphid lives, possibly because the wax has an extremely bitter taste that birds, a predator of aphids, don't like. Ants feed on this aphid's excrement and thus live in a symbiotic relationship with it, attacking all predators that threaten to harm their defenseless friend. Interesting for sure, but it gets better: A certain type of beetle loves to eat the aphid but it can be easily repelled by the army of ants surrounding it. To get at its most favorite food the beetle will cover its own body with the waxy substance (it even has specialized hooks molded into its exoskeleton for the purpose) and work its way into a colony of aphids incognito. There ruse is so good that the ants are even fooled, and the beetle has unfettered access to an entire colony of foodstuffs.

All of these traits I mention are passed down from generation to generation, but through the genes rather than through the teachings of the parent. Studies of beaver have indicated that when food is short the kits will often be forced to leave the lodge at the age of about 1 year. Kits this young will exhibit almost random behavior, going around chewing on trees with no real purpose. Once they mature (about 2 years) they begin showing some 'engineering skill' by constructing dams and lodges and cutting trees particularly suited for those purposes. Obviously, the parents didn't teach them these skills, it is almost as if the skills were 'awakened' in them by nature right at the time when their parents would normally send them out on their own.

You keep ascribing human characteristics to animals. We are different in ways too numerous to count. Germaine to this particular thread is free will, something you seem to be confusing with specialized behavior brought about by natural selection.


yea good point (none / 0) (#65)
by PotatoError on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 11:20:02 AM PST
maybe you should read this article The article shows evidence that chimpanzees have culture and goes into the reasons why as de Waal puts it: "Whenever their abilities are said to approach ours, the reaction is often furious"
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Intelligence != Free Will (none / 0) (#73)
by tkatchev on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 12:20:05 PM PST
Intelligence != Free Will
Culture != Free Will
Technology != Free Will


(You seem very obtuse and dogmatic for a "free thinker"...)


--
Peace and much love...




you've got the wrong idea (none / 0) (#76)
by PotatoError on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 01:17:41 PM PST
Ive agreed that Intelligence != Free Will since the start.

My argument is based on an assertion that if chimpanzees can be shown to be very similar to humans then its very strange to propose that they are very different in one trait called free will.

To show that chimpanzees are similar to this this I am showing how they have culture, technology and intelligence just like us.

As you have said, intelligence doesnt equal free will. It doesnt matter that chimpanzees have a more basic culture, technology and intelligence than us as by your statement this doesnt mean they have no free will.

Just by having basic traits as us, they are simply basic humans and we must therefore conclude that they do have free will. Even if its basic. Although how you can have *basic* free will is beyond me - its not really quantifiable. I reckon they simply have it like we have it. But they just have less intelligence for it to use.

Is this really such a absurd concept?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Come again? (none / 0) (#77)
by tkatchev on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 01:21:36 PM PST
You need to have a completely terminal case of liberalism and "free thinking" to claim that chimpanzees do not differ significantly from humans.

I think anybody with unclouded eyes will agree that chimps aren't simply "basic humans". (A statement which, by the way, is confirmed by evolutionary biology.)


--
Peace and much love...




Well (none / 0) (#86)
by PotatoError on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 06:16:19 PM PST
chimpanzees are similar enough to humans that it should be the common assertion that they do posess free will. When I say similar I mean they show signs of expressing love, sadness, fear, pain, etc. They can be taught by humans to learn.
<P>
<A HREF=http://emuseum.mnsu.edu/cultural/language/chimpanzee.html>Read this</A> to see some of the quite amazing abilities that chimps possess. Theres stuff on that page that I hadnt heard about before - like chimps actually waving their hands in a direction they want another chimp to look in. Remeber Washoe the chimp who was taught sign language - i didnt know this but the chimps at that research centre not only use this sign language to communicate to the humans but also to each other. Chimps have also been observed to pass down these signing skills to the next generation without human intervention.
There is so much observed evidence to imply that apes may be less intelligent than humans but can perform all the abilities that we do that it should be contraversial to suggest that they havent got free will - not the other way round.

I dont really see how liberalism has anything to do with it. Im sure the chimps will agree too :)
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

oops that link was: (none / 0) (#87)
by PotatoError on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 06:17:34 PM PST
here
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
I disagree (none / 0) (#23)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 12:56:45 PM PST
Sure there is no definition of intelligence and yet you can get a table of the top 10 intelligent species on this planet in rank order. There might not be a definition but it is easy to benchmark.
Obviously humans are the most intelligent.
Apes are more intelligent than dogs, dogs are more intelligent than ants, etc.

I disagree that humans are different than animals because of free will.
Frankly, if humans have free will then I expect apes and dolphins have free will too. There simply is not much difference between humans, apes and dolphins on an intelligence level. We are slightly more intelligent but their brains work similar to ours - their social habits are very closely matching to ours.
Also noone can actually prove that humans have free will. You are not only saying that this is "obvious" but also go on to assert that animals dont have free will. Do you know this from fact or implied evidence or are you reading it from some "humans are special" book?

How do you know that a dog isnt making decisions?

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Sigh. (none / 0) (#26)
by tkatchev on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 01:43:11 PM PST
Look, since you are a terminal case of liberalism, I don't expect you to understand. My post was not meant for you. Nonetheless, here's a few short tips:
  1. Which is more intelligent: dolphins or ants? Remember that ants have a highly developed social and technological culture.
  2. Just who told you that intelligence and free will are correlated???!! That's akin to saying that smart people should be taller and should have larger palms. Equally moronic, I mean.
  3. You don't have to believe in free will, but frankly, I don't see why you would want to believe in a completely deterministic universe.



--
Peace and much love...




answers (none / 0) (#40)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 10:03:05 PM PST
1. To argue whether dolphins or ants are more intelligent is fairly stupid. dolphins are more intelligent obviously. You can go and find a list of the most intelligent animals on earth and dolphins are right up in the top 10.

Dolphins can recognise their own reflection in a mirror - ants cannot. Dolphins display emotions and high level social behaviour - even fighting between rival groups, not much different from our
wars. Maybe if dolphins had limbs to build things you would change your mind. Unfortunately they are restrained to living a purely social existance.
Ants are no different to mere robots. Sure the collective of many ants is very organised and productive but it hardly proves that a single ant is more intelligent than a dolphin.

2. I dont believe in free will personally. I believe that we have a fake perception that free will exists - we believe we can make decisions.
We cannot forsee the future therefore we cannot forsee our actions. That is where the illusion of choice comes from.
But lets take this perception of free will - im sure that many other animals will also percieve free will too.
Of course many animals such as ants can be explained as robots - we dont need to explain them as having free will. But with apes is is much more difficult. Go to a zoo and watch the monkeys - see how similar they behave to children. As behaviour is the only thing we can use to judge whether an animal has free will or not, we must assume that monkeys do simply because they behave so similar to us. Ie when humans play chase you would say that the chaser and the runner both have free will over their actions. Why do you think its so different when monkeys play chase?
You seem to be assuming a massive gap between the intelligence of humans and animals which in reality isnt that big at all.

3. So you are simply believing in free will because you are scared of the alternative?





<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

You are evading the question. (none / 0) (#42)
by tkatchev on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 10:29:50 PM PST
Look, the question wasn't whether one ant is more intelligent than one dolphin -- the question was whether ants as a whole are more intelligent than dolphins.

The thing is that ants have a highly developed technological culture -- and, what's more, this culture is not predetermined biologically. In other words, the technological culture of ants constantly changes to adapt to changing environments. Ants are the only animals besides man who can (and do) use complex tools.

The fact that a single ant is less complex than a single dolphin bears little relevance to our discussion; if we were to compare honestly, we should compare by biological mass, not by some unscientific principle of "one organism".

A single ant cannot survive on its own any more than a chopped-off finger can survive on its own.

These rankings of "intelligence" of animals are simply bogus and have no scientific value whatsoever; basically, what they attempt to measure is how "close" biologically an animal is to a human. This has absoluitely no relevance to the issue of intelligence.

P.S. You, personally, don't have to believe in free will. Disbelieving in free will is one of the stupidest tenets of the liberalist faith.


--
Peace and much love...




Argh (none / 0) (#68)
by PotatoError on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 11:40:07 AM PST
You are talking about collective intelligence. I was talking about individual intelligence.

I see what you mean now. But there are millions of ways we could interpret the word intelligence. I would argue that ants are more intelligent than humans because they follow orders without question. Also they never invented weapons of mass destruction. Clearly they and all other animals on earth are more intelligent than humans on this basis.

Or, we could use the common interpretation of intelligence - ie the intelligence of an individual.
Is a single ant more intelligent than a dolphin? If you are saying that this comparison cant be done then: is a greenfly more intelligent than a human?

Wow you are admitting that animals can have culture! You also admit that some species can use tools. Add in that many species can also feel emotion (denying this is simple arogance), can use complex communication, can behave in a way not necessary for survival - ie the function of a concious creature not a robot and you must realise that animals can perform the same operations as humans - the only difference is we have advanced these operations to be more complex.

On free will:

If I made a robot which acted like an ant would you decide that ants didnt have free will after all as their behaviour could be described logically?

If an artificial intelligence was made which acted like a human would you then decide that humans dont have free will as their behaviour could then be described logically?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Re: (none / 0) (#72)
by tkatchev on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 12:16:35 PM PST
If an artificial intelligence was made which acted like a human would you then decide that humans dont have free will as their behaviour could then be described logically?

Yes. Like I said in another comment, I'm involved in AI "research", so this isn't just be blowing hot air -- I don't believe "artificial intelligence" in the sense you give the phrase will ever be developed.

The problem is precisely the lack of a formal definition of "intelligence"; most AI researchers agree that a prerequisite for true "intelligence" is self-awareness, but defining "self-awareness" is even more tricky than defining "intelligence" in the first place. That gets us nowhere.

The problem is that before we can solve any problem, the problem first needs to be formalized in a deterministic way. (I assume that's what you mean when you say "described logically".)

We've had absolutely no luck so far formalizing "intelligence" -- most people intuitively agree that the task is simply impossible.

In fact, in recent years there has been a tendency to redefine "artifical intelligence" to mean "solving tasks in problem-specific areas that require some sort of mental effort".

Quite a difference, don't you think!


--
Peace and much love...




yea (none / 0) (#80)
by PotatoError on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 01:40:30 PM PST
Yea I agree with you on AI. Most of what ive been taught and read about it is about expert systems and heuristics and using genetic algorithms to solve things. Not really intelligence so much as a complicated logical system. I most definitely have a lower understanding of the field than you.

I also made a screw up when I used the phrase "described logically". If a sentinent artificial intelligence is ever to be built it will be the construction of a processing system in which its total compexity is more than the added complexity of its parts. That is, for example, things like emotions and feelings and conciousness wouldnt be programmed but would manifest themselves as products of the working system.
Eg, Something as simple as a few rules of how water acts with air pressure and temperature can create massive unpredictable systems such as hurricanes. Sorry that I keep using the weather all the time as examples.
So no, I dont really expect the creators of a sentinent AI to have to logically explain things such as conciousness and emotion beforehand. But afterwards we would get a massive jump in understanding of these concepts.

There would also be some sort of boundary of intelligence where the AI itself could then make itself more intelligent. Scary thought that something could simply raise its intelligence to unknown levels.
Doing this is a very complex task and thats why I dont think its been accomplished yet. But I have no doubt that one day it will be.

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

"Deus ex Machina" (none / 0) (#83)
by tkatchev on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 02:12:20 PM PST
(Or something like that.)

Anyways, you are right -- the most promising developments in AI (sctrictly in my opinion, of course) are precisely those that try to harness the "god in the machine". In other words, methods that use some sort of self-developing or evolutionary methods.

The idea is that since we cannot formalize intelligence, we might try to set up some simple initial conditions and see if intelligence will spontaneously self-generate.

The idea is not as dumb as it sounds, though in my opinion it completely destroys the whole idea of a deterministic universe.


--
Peace and much love...




 
frame the question properly (none / 0) (#25)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 01:31:03 PM PST
respect it's mystery instead of reducing to something less than it is.

Circuits for emotions are located in limbic area of the brain.

Who cares about the mechanism? It's interesting, but it doesnt answer interesting questions.

It is possible to trigger some emotions only by electrical stimulation of the brain in this area.

Ah, so there's a little Lily Tomlin playing with our switchboards, as it were? I guess not. So when you arent lying on an operating table with a mad scientist hovering over your open skull, what triggers the trigger?

Think about it. Really think about it. You need a soul in the machine. Without one, your every mechanistic explanation will necessarily prove unsatisfactory. Every machine needs a "mover".


To hell with the mysteries. (none / 0) (#28)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 02:15:38 PM PST
Or, more accurately, to the labs with the mysteries.

respect it's mystery instead of reducing to something less than it is.

Respect a mystery? *laughs* Mysteries are here only to pick them apart and figure how they work. Not to respect or even worship them.

Who cares about the mechanism? It's interesting, but it doesnt answer interesting questions.

The mechanism is where the answers are hidden in.

Ah, so there's a little Lily Tomlin playing with our switchboards, as it were? I guess not.

Lily who?

So when you arent lying on an operating table with a mad scientist hovering over your open skull, what triggers the trigger?

Further research necessary; the answers will most likely to emerge from research on lower animals. When reverse-engineering, always begin with older and simpler models. But I doubt it will be any mystery.

Think about it. Really think about it. You need a soul in the machine. Without one, your every mechanistic explanation will necessarily prove unsatisfactory. Every machine needs a "mover".

What if the machine is its own mover? Until the mechanism of function of your proposed "soul" will be known, it is nothing more than another theory.

From the earliest ages, people tend to explain things whose mechanism is unknown to them with aides like gods or magic. It's not so long ago when it was thought that lightnings are the wrath of [Gg]go(d|ds), to use regexp. Now we have the concept of soul - and it is only matter of time when it will get replaced with the real explanation.


humbug. (none / 0) (#29)
by nathan on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 02:35:20 PM PST
This is reductionist crap. Even if you're able to fully manipulate the human organism, producing any action or emotion you desire[1], you've learned exactly nothing about humanity. Consider the following propositions: human beings are manipulable. The stimulating agency will be other human beings rather than the natural world.

Doesn't it follow from that that all human goals are essentially arbitrary, and relegated to the whim of the controlling agent? (Even if the controlling agent is himself controlled, there must have been a whim somewhere up the chain.)

Here's another corker for you. As the human being and his environment are not completely divisible, aren't we already constantly manipulating ourselves through selective stimulation, both of the senses and, at one remove, the sense? What difference does it make if it's through synthesized drugs and electrodes, or dancing, yoga, beer, and sex? It makes a difference in which class of people get to be in power, is what it does, and to what end the people are manipulated. I can't see anything good in this Frankensteinian vision of total control.

[1] Albeit from contrived stimuli that therefore correspond to nothing in reality outside of the mind.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Maybe. (none / 0) (#35)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 06:26:49 PM PST
This is reductionist crap. Even if you're able to fully manipulate the human organism, producing any action or emotion you desire[1], you've learned exactly nothing about humanity. Consider the following propositions: human beings are manipulable. The stimulating agency will be other human beings rather than the natural world.

More likely, the stimulus will be the sum of all the input factors, both the natural world itself and the other human beings.

Doesn't it follow from that that all human goals are essentially arbitrary, and relegated to the whim of the controlling agent? (Even if the controlling agent is himself controlled, there must have been a whim somewhere up the chain.)

Not necessarily. The possibility of something doesn't mean it has to happen all the time. Even the chain itself doesn't necessarily have to have hierarchical structure; it is most likely a complicated web full of cycles and feedbacks. Typical chaotical system.

Here's another corker for you. As the human being and his environment are not completely divisible, aren't we already constantly manipulating ourselves through selective stimulation, both of the senses and, at one remove, the sense?

Yes, we are.

What difference does it make if it's through synthesized drugs and electrodes, or dancing, yoga, beer, and sex?

None in principle, except details related to the implementation. A burning smell is perceived real regardless of it is a real smell, a result of artificial electrical stimulation, a result of hypnosis, or a result of a epileptic petit-mal.

It makes a difference in which class of people get to be in power, is what it does, and to what end the people are manipulated. I can't see anything good in this Frankensteinian vision of total control.

Good and bad are relative concepts. If I will kill you, it will be bad for you, but good for the ants.

Here's a random question. Suppose it is possible to simulate reality in the most accurate way, so virtual is absolutely indistinguishable from real. Does it then still give sense to distinguish between real and virtual?


for heaven's sake (none / 0) (#36)
by nathan on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 07:30:59 PM PST
the stimulus will be the sum of all the input factors, both the natural world itself and the other human beings

In other words, so complex, recursive, and nonlinear that you would have to have a computational capacity equivalent in complexity and address space to that of the universe. No doubt quantum computers will bridge that particular gap - and if not them, the DNA models.

I notice that you did not address my question about the arbitrariness of any human being's ideas in the face of a mechanical universe. I rephrase: "If all is contingent and without intrinsic value, by what standards could we ever say anything is good or bad?"

I also notice that you accepted my proposition that, as it stands, we constantly manipulate our own neurology. What makes you think that doing so with lasers and wires will be "better" than doing it with social interaction, internal pondering, and drugs? And, I repeat, "better" for whom?

Good and bad are relative concepts. If I will kill you, it will be bad for you, but good for the ants.

Good and bad are relative from some sort of "objective" point of view. You might be interested in knowing that the first philosophy paper I ever wrote was on the topic of this kind of "objectivity." I concluded that objectivity cannot be experienced by any human being because the ways that we perceive and think. You can't see a simple brick from every conceivable angle and distance, at every imaginable level of resolution, from within and without simultaneously, etc. In other words, all our information about the universe is extremely limited.

The only way you could make a claim to know an object "objectively" would be to know it from every possible [human] perspective, rather than simply your own. In fact, everything we know we know with a high degree of subjectivity, as any anthropologist would tell you. In other cultures, perception of space and time is known to be so different as to be almost nonsensical from a Western perspective. If these fundamentals are less easily made objective than we had thought, it raises frightening questions about the legitimacy of our claims to objective knowledge. And, once again, it raises the question of power.

Mr Mad Scientist, these ideas are not new. But they are frightening. To answer your last question, we have nothing except to induction to prove to ourselves that we're not brains in vats.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

my thoughts (none / 0) (#41)
by PotatoError on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 10:18:31 PM PST
I agree with mad scientist that the human brain is no real mystery - it will be explained one day. However if mad scientist is implying that we will be able to predict human actions using the workings of the brain then I strongly disagree.
Yes, a persons actions are manipulated by their environment - other people and the natural world.

Nathan is right - the number of variables involved to therefore calculate any accurate prediction of a persons actions are too numerous for us to ever be able to store (let alone gather). Even with DNA computers.

I also dont think there needs to be a ultimate control of a person - such as a soul. Humans can drive themselves. You may argue that there has to be some controlling body somewhere down the line but look at the weather system - where is the controlling body for that? There is none - it is completely recursive.

The weather system is such a good example of a 100% explainable, logical system which because of its complexity is unpredictable.
The human brain is probably exactly the same.

If we are brains in a vat - so what? science only goes out to explain the reality we see - which by the way is all we have. If it turns out that this reality is wrong and we are brains in a vat then science will simply adjust to trying to explain the new reality.



<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

ATTN: POTATOHEAD AND MAD CULTIST (none / 0) (#56)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 07:09:16 AM PST
I agree with mad scientist that the human brain is no real mystery - it will be explained one day.

What do you mean by explained? Your fervent hope is its mechanism will one day be described according to a wholly invented model cooked up to correlate those observations we just happened to be looking for.

Time passes.

A new model will be invented to correlate a new class of observations, a class that hitherto eluded our social distortion field.

And so on, ad infinitum.

Except that even that much might be too much to hope for. It turns out that mathematics is riddled with holes, and if that doesnt mean the available set of all scientific models[1] isnt riddled with holes as well, please explain the double standard in ontology which justifies the discrepancy between math and the "hard sciences".

[1] Rigorously speaking, a scientific model is a set of mathematical equations. Add "theory" to taste.


attention to you (none / 0) (#67)
by PotatoError on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 11:30:35 AM PST
One day when an Artificial intelligence is created which is as intelligent as ourselves - or even MORE intelligent what will you have left to argue with?

If an artificial and explained intelligence is more intelligent than us then doesnt it simply destroy the idea that we are supposedly unexplainable?

As for maths being "riddled with" holes. Rubbish.
At the end of the day 1 + 1 = 2 simple. Do you question the concept of numbers? Sure there are limits to what math can accomplish - I think thats what you are refering to.

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Re: (none / 0) (#71)
by tkatchev on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 12:08:22 PM PST
Good luck waiting for such an "artificial intelligence".

As a professional working in the field, I might tell you a little secret: you might as well be waiting for secret UFO's to beam you up into heaven. Theoretically -- yes, anything is possible. No sane person would believe in it, though.

P.S. "1 + 1 = 2"? For sufficient qualities of "1", I guess. :)

P.P.S. That's not math. It's grade-school arithmetic and bears absolutely no relationship to mathematics.


--
Peace and much love...




yea sorry (none / 0) (#85)
by PotatoError on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 05:53:25 PM PST
I could have talked about logic and proofs and stuff but as im not a mathematician im a little unqualified to argue about anything more than 1+1=2 lol. im working on 2+2 at the moment :)
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
here's an easy one. (none / 0) (#81)
by nathan on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 01:50:45 PM PST
What are the addition axioms for the real numbers? From memory, now.

(For the adequate,, I'm going to take it as far as Gödel if he'll play along.)

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

umm (none / 0) (#84)
by PotatoError on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 05:51:31 PM PST
the identity of real number addition is 0

real number addition is associtive: (x + y) + z = x + (y + z)

real number addition is commutitive:
x + y = y + x


ive probably missed some others out.

Whereever this is going im sure im going to lose :P but continue cuz im interested.

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

good job (5.00 / 1) (#121)
by nathan on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 09:49:55 AM PST
So what you're saying is that you're moderately familiar with basic definitions (for the record, the other one is the existence of some u within R such that x + u = 0 for all x within R.)

Where this is going is where it's already gone. You don't know number theory, so you don't know how to demonstrate the properties required to prove the incompleteness theorem, so you don't have a relevant clue what you're talking about. It's nothing but 19th-century-style faith in 'science.'

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

heh (none / 0) (#126)
by PotatoError on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 08:50:01 PM PST
Yea ok I forgot the axiom to do with negatives.

where your wrong is I dont need to know about number theory. Its not what im interested in.

I can safely assume that it is fact simply because there are hundreds of thousands of people out there who know first hand that it is - these people are called mathematicians - they are the ones who have to prove and test number theory not me. I am willing to accept their results as they cant possibly lie about proving something as it will be spotted by someone else. Therefore I dont have "faith" in maths but a safe assumption or trust that so many people couldnt possibly all lie at the same time. Its not even trust - its stronger than trust - its common sense based.

Believing that number theory is a lie would be to accept that every mathematician is a liar. Believing something like that would make you worse than the people who say the moon landings were faked and everyone working for NASA was in on it.

As a question, if R means real number what does N, Z and C mean?

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

N, Z, C... (none / 0) (#133)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Feb 19th, 2002 at 02:25:42 AM PST
As a question, if R means real number what does N, Z and C mean?

I'd guess that N means a set of natural numbers (positive integers, though I am not sure if 0 is included - reportedly there are two definitions, one defining N as positive (excluding 0), one as non-negative (including 0)), Z (a set of whole numbers - integers, both positive and negative), C (a set of complex numbers - like a lot of arguments here having real and imaginary part).


fffssssss (none / 0) (#136)
by PotatoError on Tue Feb 19th, 2002 at 06:31:48 AM PST
that was a question to nathan.

yea it depends - I reckon that 0 is included in N just cuz I guess that 0 should be in the lowest group. ALthough the romans didnt think like this.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Name-dropping little tart (none / 0) (#119)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 09:35:17 AM PST
I'm going to take it as far as G�del if he'll play along

Play your logic tricks and your hey-gang-I've-read-this-book games all you want, nathan. You're not going to get away with saying 2+2=5. Even the experts agree on that.

"Clearly, there's nothing more certain than the fact that two plus two is equal to four. I'm not saying that sometimes it will come out five and sometimes it's going to come out three. I'm only dealing with the whole numbers. Questions like this are clearly very easy to settle. This is probably the most solid and concrete part of mathematics." -- Chaitin.


bilious toad... (none / 0) (#120)
by nathan on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 09:42:08 AM PST
I guess all those years of study were in vain if I can't even follow Douglas Hofstadter's popular books' line of reasoning.

Nathan

PS - obviously I wasn't trying to argue that "1 + 1 is not equal to 2." What was I trying to argue?
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

To make things complicated... (none / 0) (#122)
by The Mad Scientist on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 11:19:44 AM PST
PS - obviously I wasn't trying to argue that "1 + 1 is not equal to 2." What was I trying to argue?

To make things complicated, "1+1=2" is true only for scalars. If we'll take this example to the realm of vectors, then - depending on the relative direction of the vectors, which isn't specified now - 1+1 equals to anything between 0 and 2.


for example. (none / 0) (#123)
by nathan on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 11:31:31 AM PST
Domain of definition is the key and the sticking point at the same time.

By the bye, anyone else own any Dover reprints/transaltions of Soviet math texts? They rule!

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

communist material!!! (none / 0) (#127)
by PotatoError on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 08:53:24 PM PST
Soviet math texts?!! OMG welcome to the communist hacker GNU Linux world. lol
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Yay! (none / 0) (#132)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Feb 19th, 2002 at 01:57:47 AM PST
Soviet math texts?!! OMG welcome to the communist hacker GNU Linux world. lol

Hey! Soviet science books were pretty damn good :)


 
He can read. Give the boy a lollipop. (none / 0) (#124)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 01:42:20 PM PST
I guess all those years of study were in vain if I can't even follow Douglas Hofstadter's popular books' line of reasoning.
Emphasis added for maximum pretentiousness.

PS - obviously I wasn't trying to argue that "1 + 1 is not equal to 2." What was I trying to argue?
Working backwards from the heavy-handed references, I assume you're either going to use the halting problem as some reason why we can't simulate everything, given an infinite amount of computing power, or you're going to be banging on about a mathematical representation not being applicable to reality. Either way, a minimum quota of one book or author reference per comment will be fulfiled.


the halting problem (none / 0) (#128)
by PotatoError on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 08:58:13 PM PST
the halting problem hardly "blows maths away" does it? It simply proves that some things maths will never be able to prove. A perfectly reasonable concept which I agree with.

Ever since maths at school ive half-accepted that maths will never be able to show what PI is exactly equal to so I have always accepted the limitations with maths.

But ive never accepted that maths is based on faith or lies or guesses. Its based on reality. Whether the reality we see exists or not is not relevant. If it changes - for example 2 + 2 does suddenly become 5 then we will just have to start maths over again :)
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
all that work for nothing (none / 0) (#92)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 05:26:43 AM PST
As for maths being "riddled with" holes. Rubbish. At the end of the day 1 + 1 = 2 simple.

If it only meant that. I gave you a link to make you smarter. You dont have to follow that link, but if you dont, dont express an opinion on what holes might have meant.


heh (none / 0) (#105)
by PotatoError on Sun Feb 17th, 2002 at 03:24:37 PM PST
You gave me the link to an entire Website. You think I really have over 5 hours free?
I did however read <A HREF=http://www.dc.uba.ar/people/profesores/becher/ns.html>this</A> article on it. That was what I was refering to.

If you meant me to read a different specific article then you should have linked to it.


<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

let me help you out (none / 0) (#125)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 05:17:25 PM PST
Holes doesnt mean arithmetical errors, unintuitive contradictions or theoretically unprovable statements. Holes means there exists mathematical problems -- problems that *appear* as if they can be modelled and analyzed mathematically -- without a mathematical solution or description. Since science requires models, and since models are a set of mathematical equations, there must be (ostensibly) scientific problems without a scientific "solution." (Unless, of course, you think the universe only uses discovered or discoverable mathematics, in which case I await your explanation for the double standard in ontology which justifies the discrepancy between math and scientific models.)

If you meant me to read a different specific article then you should have linked to it.

Why dont you shut up? If you dont want to read a few articles on that site, your opinion of its content ("rubbish") is irrelevant, isnt it? Furthermore, if it's too much work to understand science and mathematics, stop talking as if you understood it because you dont.


haha (none / 0) (#131)
by PotatoError on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 09:25:13 PM PST
"stop talking as if you understood it because you dont."

This reminds me so much of those little "anti-GPL" and "Linux terrorist" articles. Of course I was the one stating the above quote on those.

So in respect I will do what you say and shut up as I know how it feels to have people talking bullshit about a factual subject you know about and continuously refuse to belive they are talking bullshit. When they tell you that you're wrong although you know that you're 100% right because its a fact - just like if someone telling you that coffee is spelt with a 'k' and refused to believe you when you told them that its a 'c'. Infuriating.

So sorry again!


<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Heaven or hell? (none / 0) (#55)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 07:06:45 AM PST
In other words, so complex, recursive, and nonlinear that you would have to have a computational capacity equivalent in complexity and address space to that of the universe.

A bit overscaled proposition. As a brain is only a part - a subset - of the universe, its computational capacity and address space is only a subset of the universe's one. But this is only a nitpicking.

No doubt quantum computers will bridge that particular gap - and if not them, the DNA models.

Maybe you are closer than you think. See A. Mershin - The Quantum Brain Hypothesis.

Maybe this is our future key - or its part - to sentient machines. It could be fun to put some together - watching the philosophers babbling about their implications would be a reward on its own :)

Maybe this could be also part of the key of brain-computer interface, the ultimate objective of user interface technologies...

I notice that you did not address my question about the arbitrariness of any human being's ideas in the face of a mechanical universe. I rephrase: "If all is contingent and without intrinsic value, by what standards could we ever say anything is good or bad?"

We can't say anything is good or bad without specifying thee criteria for goodness/badness first. There are many sets of such criteria - philosophers are arguing about them for ages.

I also notice that you accepted my proposition that, as it stands, we constantly manipulate our own neurology.

Yep. And we aren't alone. Elephants are willing to walk long distances to indulge their appetite for fermented fruit, containing alcohol - de facto to inebriate themselves. Similar behavior observed in many other species, including insect.

What makes you think that doing so with lasers and wires will be "better" than doing it with social interaction, internal pondering, and drugs?

Had I said it would be better (or worse)? These are just another methods, with all their associated advantages/disadvantages.

And, I repeat, "better" for whom?

Again, define the framework for defining of better/worse.

Good and bad are relative from some sort of "objective" point of view. You might be interested in knowing that the first philosophy paper I ever wrote was on the topic of this kind of "objectivity." I concluded that objectivity cannot be experienced by any human being because the ways that we perceive and think.

Not entirely. But it should be possible to get pretty close. It also requires to know the ways we perceive and think, in order to take appropriate corrections into account.

You can't see a simple brick from every conceivable angle and distance, at every imaginable level of resolution, from within and without simultaneously, etc.

Right. Guess why there isn't an "universal" projection in an engineering, nor any universal visualisation method for scientific models. Each such projection or method is here to emphasize different aspect.

In other words, all our information about the universe is extremely limited.

Yes. But it's getting better.

The only way you could make a claim to know an object "objectively" would be to know it from every possible [human] perspective, rather than simply your own.

Hard to achieve. Second alternative is to figure out our subjective limits, and take precautions about them.

In fact, everything we know we know with a high degree of subjectivity, as any anthropologist would tell you.

I have certain prejudice against "soft sciences". Their methods allow way too much of subjectivity.

In other cultures, perception of space and time is known to be so different as to be almost nonsensical from a Western perspective. If these fundamentals are less easily made objective than we had thought, it raises frightening questions about the legitimacy of our claims to objective knowledge.

I'd suggest to leave the answers to the fundamentals of space and time to quantum physicists (they don't have conclusive answers yet, but the work is in progress).

When it comes to the subjective perception of time, the answers are in the brain structure itself. See ie. Brain Areas Critical To Human Time Sense Identified, or indirectly related Neurotheology: Which came first, God or the brain?. Here also lie the answers about the mechanisms of effects of space and time perception changing means (being it meditations or drugs).

And, once again, it raises the question of power.



Mr Mad Scientist, these ideas are not new. But they are frightening.

Why?

To answer your last question, we have nothing except to induction to prove to ourselves that we're not brains in vats.

Even the induction can fail here.


 
you're not thinking or you're plain ignorant (none / 0) (#30)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 03:01:49 PM PST
Here we go again, the cheerleading section for the cult of the scientist to our rescue with their slogans.

Not.

Further research necessary;

What kind of research -- science? Science cannot ever, by it's nature, answer the criticism I made. Either you didnt understand the point or you understand science very superficially. I vote for both.


You're blinded by faith. (none / 0) (#33)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 05:51:35 PM PST
Here we go again, the cheerleading section for the cult of the scientist to our rescue with their slogans.

Bah.

What kind of research -- science? Science cannot ever, by it's nature, answer the criticism I made.

And machines heavier than air can never fly. <sarcasm>Yes, I believe you.</sarcasm>

Either you didnt understand the point or you understand science very superficially. I vote for both.

Science will ultimately answer every question, by its very nature, given appropriate time and budget. There is no unexplainable; there is only unexplained for now.

Death to the mysteries!


what? (none / 0) (#45)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 01:54:13 AM PST
I dont know why you think I'm blinded by faith. I assume you've taken the liberty to reinvent me as some sort of Christian Fundamentalist, but the only faith I have is in your ability to remain ignorant at all cost. It's clear you understand science very poorly and your resolve to defend this poor understanding with emphatic assertions of certainty means two things (a) you're blinded by faith; (b) this thread has come to an end for me.

There is no unexplainable;

Hi! My 6 year old niece has an "explanation" for everything under the sun! I believe we've been peddling "explanations" since the dawn of our time in the Universe. Let us also hear your explanation for irony, Mr. Absolute Faith in Science, and why you cannot perceive any.


What do you want? (none / 0) (#47)
by tkatchev on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 03:04:48 AM PST
Mr. Scientist, despite the nickname, is a talented engineer, not a scientist in any way.

Like any layman, he has little idea on what science is really all about.


--
Peace and much love...




a talented engineer? (none / 0) (#53)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 06:33:48 AM PST
you have no evidence for calling him a talented engineer. Try to be a tad more scientific.


 
References (none / 0) (#48)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 05:06:14 AM PST
I assume you've taken the liberty to reinvent me as some sort of Christian Fundamentalist

Not yet; I admit, I had it as a theory, but there is not enough data to make it conclusive.

Hi! My 6 year old niece has an "explanation" for everything under the sun! I believe we've been peddling "explanations" since the dawn of our time in the Universe.

Which caused us to create the concept of gods and supernatural, which then got to be slowly and continually eroded by finding more accurate descriptions of the world.

Let us also hear your explanation for irony, Mr. Absolute Faith in Science, and why you cannot perceive any.

I will quote:

2 February 2001. Research by Dr. Donald Stuss of the Rotman Research Institute, Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care (University of Toronto, Canada) has shown that the right inferior medial prefrontal cortex brings about human "mentalizing," the basis of human socialization--our ability to feel empathy, understand humor, and detect irony, sarcasm, and deception. This is the essence of being human.
Brain: February, 2001.

These articles could be interesting for you as well:
Brain Structures in Verbal Communication: A Focus on Prosody
Functional Specialization for Semantic and Phonological Processing in the Left Inferior Prefrontal Cortex
The physiological basis of theory of mind: functional neuroimaging studies

This should be enough for you for now.


what does NOT elude you? (none / 0) (#51)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 06:23:25 AM PST
These articles could be interesting for you as well:

Oh! We exercise a sense of irony in the brain! I bet geek hubris resides in the brain too! Whodathunk? I already told you the mechanism -- how -- does not explain *why*. All that remains to tell you is that the mechanism, any mechanism, is NOT described nearly as well as you seem to believe with all your flinty heart.

This should be enough for you for now.

You got that right.


Heh. (none / 0) (#58)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 07:35:38 AM PST
These articles could be interesting for you as well:
Oh! We exercise a sense of irony in the brain!


Wrong. This wasn't irony. This was genuine offer of links to read, *then* comment on them.

I bet geek hubris resides in the brain too!

And you are most likely correct.

Whodathunk?

Ugh?

I already told you the mechanism -- how -- does not explain *why*.

"How" is often instrumental for understanding "why".

All that remains to tell you is that the mechanism, any mechanism, is NOT described nearly as well as you seem to believe with all your flinty heart.

I am well-aware about the limitations of my methods; the explanations aren't complete and are just an approximation - but the approximation is getting closer each time[1]. Still, no other method I tried gave as satisfying results. The flinty heart is just a consequence; at least I am not lying to myself.

[1] In brief example, Newtonian physics -> Einsteinian physics -> Quantum physics -> now promising Superstring theory (we'll see if it'll stay or fall).


argh (none / 0) (#62)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 08:34:52 AM PST
Wrong. This wasn't irony. This was genuine offer of links to read, *then* comment on them.

Your nick is appropriate. Anyone who attempts to communicate with you will eventually go mad. I'm at a loss for words. If just dont know what to say.

I am well-aware about the limitations of my methods; the explanations aren't complete and are just an approximation

No, see, your use of the words "complete" and "approximation" suggests you dont understand that scientific ideas are pure invention.

but the approximation is getting closer each time[1]

No. The history of science is a history of revolution in ideas, not the gradual, evolutionary approximation of any given idea to reality. Nothing you believe in today will survive; and nothing you believe today cannot be explained differently, today, by a competing theory. The latter point is very important to understand -- what is the justification for thinking otherwise? (Hint: shut up, I'm not interested in your answer, your comment history demonstrates the question is to difficult for you to even understand.)

In brief example, Newtonian physics -> Einsteinian physics -> Quantum physics -> now promising Superstring theory (we'll see if it'll stay or fall).

To quote a solid state physicist, "Fuck strings." The only reason Theory A is developped over competing theory B is institutional inertia. There is a difference between reality (singular and complete) and its ideological representations. Each representation is limited to a single thread of reality, the thread we're interested in for one sociological reason or another; and there is an infinite number of such ideological interpretations.

You can get any answer you want provided you ask the right questions. The questions you ask prompt the observations you will make. The questions you ask seek to justify the theory you already have in mind.


 
sigh (none / 0) (#46)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 02:03:34 AM PST
There is no unexplainable.

Everything we perceive eludes explanation. Everything. Science explains nothing, science invents model *descriptions*. Empirical methods cannot yield explanation on their own. Do you understand this? No, you do not.


yawn (none / 0) (#50)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 05:16:00 AM PST
Everything we perceive eludes explanation. Everything.

Oh? Howso?

Science explains nothing, science invents model *descriptions*.

If they are accurate enough to be usable - if the theoretical model fits together with the experimental results, including boundary conditions - the model description can be considered an explanation.

Empirical methods cannot yield explanation on their own.

Why? As far, for "hard sciences" it works pretty well.


what do you mean by usable? (none / 0) (#52)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 06:31:51 AM PST
If they are accurate enough to be usable.

All explanations are "useful", that's why they're called explanations. Every explanation ever written down was useful. Hai capito?

if the theoretical model fits together with the experimental results, including boundary conditions - the model description can be considered an explanation

I'd be impressed if I thought you knew what that meant.

Polly wanna cracker?


Rephrasing: (none / 0) (#59)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 07:46:22 AM PST
All explanations are "useful", that's why they're called explanations. Every explanation ever written down was useful. Hai capito?

See below.

if the theoretical model fits together with the experimental results, including boundary conditions - the model description can be considered an explanation
I'd be impressed if I thought you knew what that meant.


You have a theoretical model. You have an experiment or an observation in the "Real World". Their results have to fit together for the entire range of inputs.

Simplified example: Newtonian physics is good enough for "small" masses and speeds. But it starts to be inaccurate as the speeds get closer to c.

So Newtonian physics had to be abandoned and relativistic physics took its place. Newtonian physics is still usable where its limits don't apply.


thank you captain obvious (none / 0) (#61)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 08:02:07 AM PST
what's the point. You just dont get it.


 
"hard sciences" (none / 0) (#54)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 06:37:55 AM PST
What are they? Why do you need to distinguish hard science from soft? Does the scientific method differ between them? Sounds like you're begining to make excuses for your faith.


Hard vs soft sciences (none / 0) (#57)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 07:18:52 AM PST
Two cut/paste definitions to put a little light into the matter:

hard science: any of the natural or physical sciences, as chemistry, biology, physics, or astronomy, in which aspects of the universe are investigated by means of hypotheses and experiments.

soft science: any of the specialized fields or disciplines, as psychology, sociology, anthropology, or political science, that interpret human behavior, institutions, society, etc., on the basis of scientific investigations for which it may be difficult to establish strictly measurable criteria.


meaningless, albeit convenient, categories (none / 0) (#60)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 07:56:47 AM PST
convenient for anyone who wants to induce and reinforce their false certainties, that is. You can do that with mantras; and, in fact, definitions are mantras.

Thanks, I have a dictionary, it doesnt help. You're the one wholly infatuated with reductionist, mechanistic "explanations". Tell me why the objects of psychology (economics, anthropology, etc) arent as concrete as the objects of physics. Your optimistic comments on the brain as machine imply they are. So what gives?

What do I care about the "[difficulty of establishing] strictly measurable criteria?" That's something you should think about, if you can spare a few moments from your further self-proselytization; unlike you, I already understand the theoretical limitations of science. Start by reflecting upon what it might mean to establish criteria and ask yourself if the established criteria for measuring inanimate objects reflects the object as much as it reflects how we rank importance in our perceptions of that object. After all, objects dont have criteria.


 
There, there. (none / 0) (#116)
by hauntedattics on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 08:29:34 AM PST
Honey, if your religion gives meaning to your life and a way to get through the day, then by all means, believe whatever you want. We're all there for you.

*Nurturing pat on the head.*



hmm (none / 0) (#117)
by PotatoError on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 08:35:44 AM PST
"if your religion gives meaning to your life and a way to get through the day, then by all means, believe whatever you want"

This is a common argument.

But if thats all you want in life then why not just become a robot and be constantly happy and incapable of free thought?

It seems a shame to waste the logical reasoning capabilities that we possess. Simply believing in something without evidence to make you "happy" seems to waste much of what we can do.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Clarification. (none / 0) (#118)
by hauntedattics on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 09:03:01 AM PST
I was actually referring to Mad Scientist's view of science:

Science will ultimately answer every question, by its very nature, given appropriate time and budget. There is no unexplainable; there is only unexplained for now. Death to the mysteries!

He's welcome to claim science as his religion if it keeps him happy and comfortable. Given how you seem to be viewing 'logical reasoning capabilities' as the highest stage of the human condition, it doesn't seem like you're that far behind him.

There is more to life than science, 'proofs' and logic, you know. And people don't necessarily believe in things without 'evidence' to make themselves 'happy.'




bad religion (none / 0) (#130)
by PotatoError on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 09:18:57 PM PST
Science isnt so much a religion as a belief. I have a belief in science but I dont have faith in it. Faith doesnt require evidence or proof but I require evidence and proof in science for me to believe in it.

Humans are special because we are sentinent beings. That means we can see and think about the universe. We might as well be sheep or rats if we dont use this ability as im sure they're happy too.

"There is more to life than science, 'proofs' and logic, you know"
Not if life is logical.

As it is I think humanity is a flawed species. While we can develop technologically very fast we are socially static. We have hardly developed past such negative and damaging emotions as hate and lust - emotions we dont need anymore. We still have a need to get revenge. While we can see that scrapping revenge lust would be a good thing we are incapable of doing it.

So while we screw about on Earth fighting each other and just being content and happy without bothering to advance ourselves socially a big asteroid or climate shift with our name on is heading this way to wipe us out.

Maybe one day in our place will be a species which can advance fast socially and technologically. The ultimate species that has a chance of actually getting off this planet and colonising.




<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Good grief (none / 0) (#134)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Feb 19th, 2002 at 05:07:40 AM PST
We have hardly developed past such negative and damaging emotions as hate and lust - emotions we dont need anymore.

Oh yes, in there mere 5,000 years that we have inhabited the planet we have completely lost the need for hate and lust. Gone. Completely.

Never mind that many human behavioral scientists point toward the increasing isolation from our instinctual nature contributes considerably to mental illness. That didn't enter into Potato's mind because he is ignorant, and ignorance is bliss.


ok (none / 0) (#135)
by PotatoError on Tue Feb 19th, 2002 at 06:27:29 AM PST
"Never mind that many human behavioral scientists point toward the increasing isolation from our instinctual nature contributes considerably to mental illness"

oooh another flaw with humans. doesnt that prove my point?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Dude, check it out! (none / 0) (#32)
by RobotSlave on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 04:37:08 PM PST
You know that scene in Spike Lee's Do The Right Thing Where that guy gives Mookie the lecture about love and hate, and he's got these, like, brass knuckles on his hands that spell out "love" and "hate," and it's all about, like, love fighting against hate?

Dude, that was pretty cool. But check it out, check it out:

Like, I was over at some dude's house, and we were watching this lame black and white movie? And it had, like, exactly the same scene in it! Except the words "love" and "hate" were tattooed on the guy's hands, which is cool, and he was an evil preacher, which is also pretty cool, I guess.

But why does some dumb arty-farty film have to bite Spike Lee's shit? It's like in that geezer punk rock movie that ripped off the one scene in Girl Six.

Oh, hey, hey-- check out this song. Yeah, Paul's Boutique. That's Pink Floyd in the background, Dark Side. Isn't that cool? No, it's not in the liner notes, stupid. This was before the RIAA fucked everything up and started charging money for sampling.

Those bastards. My demo would be done already if I didn't have to figure out something to replace all those beats, dude. It sucks. Totally.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
good grief (none / 0) (#39)
by nathan on Fri Feb 15th, 2002 at 10:01:18 PM PST
I belive that human behaviour can be explained as a cause-action model; that every person's actions could theoretically be predicted in advance from any situation.

You and B F Skinner.

What do you read, Potato?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

no need to panic (none / 0) (#69)
by PotatoError on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 11:48:32 AM PST
When I said "that every person's actions could theoretically be predicted in advance from any situation"

I used the world theoretically for a reason.

It will never be possible to accurately predict a persons actions. We would first have to take account of every single influence on that person.
How many influences are there? billions billions.

Every air molecule passing by that person would have to be accurately mapped. It sounds stupid that the position of one air molecule could affect an influence on that person but under chaos theory a small change like this in a big system can cause a wildly different outcome.

Therefore humans will never be predictable :)


<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Chaos Theory! (none / 0) (#70)
by tkatchev on Sat Feb 16th, 2002 at 12:03:24 PM PST
Michael Chrighton should be officially ostracized for his ungood influence on pop mythology.

Ick.


--
Peace and much love...




huh? (none / 0) (#113)
by PotatoError on Mon Feb 18th, 2002 at 06:45:28 AM PST
ive actually been taught some stuff on chaos theory though. Im not just making quotes from jurassic park :)
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.