WJ

All!

Re: How do both humans and birds dodge falling objects without knowledge of the mathematical laws of gravity?

I await your reply.


Could some one with intelligence please answer the question? All the responses thus far relate to perceptial knowledge, not abstract knowledge, which in turn confers no biological advantages onto humans.

I'm beginning to believe that some atheists are either ignorant or perhaps are simple politicians who seemingly enjoy hearing themselves talk. I think Samhain was right; mental masturbation.

Theli

WJ...
I don't think it matters for either the human or the bird if the object is falling down, right, up or flies around in a circle. As long as the object is moving towards them, they react.

The basic knowledge that things fall down they learn. Just like they learn to fear certain things. You shouldn't expect much mathematical predictions made by a bird.

WJ

Theli!

Exactly!


"You shouldn't expect much mathematical predictions made by a bird."


And neither are human's expected or required to know this. So the question remains why did humans, thru darwinism, posses the ability to compute the laws of gravity when it is not needed to dodge falling objects; by either species?

Maybe the Dr. can anwer that one?

Mageth

You shouldn't expect much mathematical predictions made by a bird.

Is it not true that birds, humans and other animals do, in a sense, make "mathematical" predictions, for example when they calculate trajectories when chasing and catching, or avoiding, prey, leaping, diving, throwing, etc?

Example: an outfielder, when throwing a baseball to home plate, makes a "mathematical prediction." S/he has to calculate distance, speed, and launch angle. This has to be done in an instant, and sometimes while moving, so the calculations include adjusting for movement. A good outfielder can consistently make extraordinarily accurate throws.

Similarly, a good quarterback can throw a football to where a receiver will be (most definitely a prediction).

Similar scenarios apply to other animals.

I know there's no formal mathematics going on (the outfielder or quarterback may be a mathematical illiterate), but the calculations, and predictions, are most definitely happening.

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Dr S

(Jobar) IMO shortly after protohumans became able to ask questions- "Why? What? How?"- some wily ape-man came up with the notion of the super-powerful ape-man in the sky who cast down lightning bolts, whose breath was the wind, whose eye was the sun.
(S) Interesting, but I think you aren't looking early enough in man's development.
Your scenario would require a larger brain and the ability to postpone gratification. Inducing fear/giving comfort carries with it instant gratification. And it is observable in chimps
It also implies self-delusion rather than simple deceit. We know through interspecies communication that bonobos, chimps and gorillas all lie (but not orangutans for some reason, although so few of them can sign that we can't really say for sure.)
Also your scenario is pretty complicated which would imply that it already had a history. That would make it work just fine for early man. But if we can judge from the other primates the behavior possibly extends back to pre-humans.

(J) Ever notice how many god-men, even today, are old? And that many religions use the term 'elder' as a synonym for priest?
(S) Sure, that's the "Silverback."
In troops of gorillas the Alpha male is called the Silverback because the fur on their backs turns light gray. These guys are the leaders, what they say goes. They get the food first. They get preferential sex. In return for all of these job benefits they protect the troop. The group will run from danger while the huge Silverback stays behind to confront it. If need be he will give his life so that the others can be safe.
This is why we all love to hear stories about heroes and saviors because it is built into us to admire the silverback.
The pseudo-alpha (priest) gets all the perks of being a silverback while never putting themselves in danger. Unfortunately the rest of the troop pays the price.

Dr S

(W)And neither are human's expected or required to know this. So the question remains why did humans, thru darwinism, posses the ability to compute the laws of gravity when it is not needed to dodge falling objects; by either species?
Maybe the Dr. can anwer that one?
(S) If I'm going to fill in the gaping holes in your education I'll have to start charging you by the credits.

Evolution does not have a plan. It is not working towards a known end.
Every time you see a strange adaptation in size or color in an animal it is for one thing--sex.
Peacocks have a huge tail during the mating season. It's so big they can hardly walk and they can't fly worth a damn. It makes them easy pry to predators but it attracts the females.
Mandrills have bright blue and red swollen faces and butts. These serve no purpose except to attract the opposite sex.

Humans have huge over-sized brains for simply that reason-to attract the opposite sex. (Note how many women break up with men they found handsome because he was an idiot, a jerk). These brains are big trouble because babies over-sized heads don't fit through women's primate pelvises. All babies are therefore born premature-compare the development of puppies and human babies born the same day. All human babies are born with there skulls is separate pieces instead of fused--yuch!

You don't need this freakishly over-sized head to get along on this planet just fine. The rest of the animals have no problem with their intellectual abilities. It's just to attract a mate of this species. Ask yourself if you would date a girl who had a brain and skull the size of an average bonobo's, our closest relative on this planet. Or one who had a bright blue butt for that matter. Species specific secondary sexual characteristics.

However once our brains got to a certain size, with all those extra synapses and spare neurons there were all sorts of unplanned for benefits. Art, music, language, mathematics, all sorts of perks. Just because we wanted to get laid.

Ab_Normal

WJ:
Are you arguing that there is no competitive advantage to intelligence? Try running purely by instinct for a bit and see how well that works for you.

snatchbalance

DrS

I think that the primary human sexual attractants remain physical; body type, sound of voice, phemerones, etc.

I also think it is very intersting that alpha status, at least in humans, does not appear to depend on physical prowess.

In other words, a physically attractive human can remain sexually attractive without achieving a high social status, and without being particularly intelligent. And, an itelligent but physically weak person can be attrative sexually, but only after achieving high social status.

These factors would seem to make intelligence a survival trait in and of itself; not primarily a sexual attractant.(He/she would have to be intelligent enough to survive and gain social status.)

Also, next generation alphas, normally come from the beta ranks. I think there is real pressure to be a real alpha, as opposed to a pseudo alpha.
How does this observation fit into your hypotheses?

sb

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

snatchbalance

WJ,

Why have you chosen to be confrotational on this subject?

SB

Devilnaut

I'm beginning to believe that you are seriously retarded. These lamebrained insults are making you look like a raving jackass, especially when you ask a question, have it answered, then ignore the answers and call everyone stupid.

Perceptial knowledge? Which confers no biological advantages? What the hell are you talking about?

If both birds AND humans are able to dodge falling objects, why should we expect the reason they are able to do this be of great benefit to humans alone??