excreationist

I guess Ierrellus was talking about how intelligent (and creative) the species can be.

Andy G

There is no evolutionary scale. It is a common trait for humans to try to reify diversity into a heirarchical scale by which comparisons can be made - however this is often a fallacious step, as in this case (and the IQ scale for another example).

Evoultion does not proceed along a scale of each adaptation somehow taking the organism higher up the tree. Rather, the adaptation (if it is beneficial) will simply make that organism more suited to the environment in which it lives.

We as humans are neither higher or lower on any scale than bats. Nor are we more evolved. We have simply followed a different evolutionary path than have bats. Therefore we are different.

As was previously mentioned, you cannot remove human cognitive processes from our understanding of any phenomena. Any understanding we have of echo location is just that - our understanding. We cannot even comprehend the mechanisms by which bats brains process their sensory data, let alone how it must feel to have those experiences.

Ierrellus

Tronvillain,

Well, I guess researchers should immediately stop probing into rat brains to find cortexial sites of emotions. The researchers could never tell anyway what the rat's emotions really are. And I guess we should discard all scales of comparison of objects by subjects, since the scales are all subjective. The color spectrum for example is an artifice.

And we should assume that all creatures were individually created by a diety, since there is no proof these creatures share any type of genetic continuity.

Where Do I get this crap? From the latest science an philosophy papers on the subject.

Ierrellus,

PAX

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

Ierrellus

Nial,

If Nim Chimpsky had told me in sign language that he was thirsty, should I have believed him?

Ierrellus,

PAX

Ierrellus

excreationist,

Exactly! The chimps that communicate with humans via sign language, refer to themselves by their given names. None says "I'. At two years, human child Cody may say, "Cody want water". There are many other parallels between human toddler and chimp reactions to what is other than themselves.

Yes, by lower and higher levels I meant intensity and sophistication, not merit.

Ierrellus,

PAX

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

Ierrellus

barbelle,

Welcome! I read all of Kafka's paranoia in the 1980s. OMYGOD! I became confused about my own confusion.

If interested in human-animal communication, you might want to look up Alex, the Parrot on your favorite search engine.

Ierrellus,

PAX

Ierrellus

Andy G.,

I thoroughly agree with you on IQ tests. Believe it or not, I was once a teacher. IMO, then and now, all tests grade situations. If I gave a test, I could be grading anything from menstral periods to conflicts with boyfriends, girlfriends, parents, etc. I was not one to believe that excellence in intelligence can be the measure of performance under extreme pressures.

But we do not toss out all scales of measurement because one is faulty. Only a couple of centuries ago, it was believed that light could not be broken down into colors. With a prism, this was done. With further mechanical devices it was possible for us to find infrared and ultraviolet beyond the spectrum.


Ierrellus
PAX

tronvillain

barbelle:
No, I am afraid that it is not. Simply being more sophisticated or intelligent does not imply the ability to understand "lesser" beings completely or at all. A Ferrari does not understand a Model-T and a cat does not understand a fish. That is not to say that understanding is impossible, it is simply not implied by being higher on an "evolutionary scale" (defined as a measure of intelligence or sophistication apparently).

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

tronvillain

Ierrellus:
Perhaps you would like to show where I said or implied anything of the sort? Nowhere did I say that some degree of understanding is impossible.

I said that there is no "main tree trunk" to the tree of life, not there is no genetic continuity between species - the lack of one does not imply the lack of the other. Perhaps you chose your metaphor poorly.

Interesting, except that I did not ask "Where do you get this crap?" What I did ask was "Do you write these things simply because they sound good at the time or do you intend for them to have content as well?"

NialScorva

If I had told you that I'm thirsty, should you have believed me?