Back to General Discussion

posted to be rated on positivity

deletedover 8 years

be rated on positivity but if i dont know you eh

NEGATIVE

lilin

roadman

groundhogday

Discordia

izzy

Cody

Sincerely

Zhourb

SimplyPam

Tatami

harod

Ariel

trolleyz

xSoniaNeverMindx

edark

Matt12

ChilledOut

POSITIVE


POSITIVE-NEGATIVE DICHOTOMY DOES NOT APPLY

Winx

Himiko

Should other's means be used for your means
13
Yes
6
No
over 8 years
can I be positive
deletedover 8 years
and it will be a pity because u are funny dude, i enjoy u
deletedover 8 years
u are going to be a doctor ian, statistically speaking u are gonna suicide
over 8 years
a lot of people who clicked yes are listed as more positive than me
deletedover 8 years
what about this dog trolling a pup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1BhAH1T2OY

qed
over 8 years

groundhogday says

cite ur consensus sources dog eater

deletedover 8 years

Cody says

there has never been evidence of a pigeon being able to conceptualize that idea.


you troll yourself bro.

but sure things flee before pain, but then that's hardly instinct as commonly conceived of
over 8 years

Cody says

you just described exactly what i was talking about with behavior reading. the dolphins learn each others' whistles through experience and apply that to their decision making processes.


The question is asking for clarification on what constitutes a mental model. These whistles are not just instinctual but associated with another animal or object. I get that you're arguing decisionmaking here, and very little decisionmaking is associated with whistles, but the "model" seems to be a bit more than that. It is also unclear what constitutes a deeper level of influence on decisions than straightforward behaviorism.

Himiko pointed me towards the false belief test as perhaps a better illustration of the same principle, but I am still skeptical of this kind of "hard" distinction for the reasons listed in the post.
deletedover 8 years
rate me
over 8 years

Cody says

i'll entertain you for one more serious post because i don't think you're necessarily trolling me yet.

1. you're anthropomorphizing the pigeon - you're framing its actions from the point of view of a human doing what it did in its position. there is no reasonable argument to be made that the pigeon was "trolling" the cat. there has never been evidence of a pigeon being able to conceptualize that idea.

2. i will grant that it did not do the instinctive thing at first. but everything after it landed on the other side of the cat fits well within a standard deviation of conditioned stimulus/response behavior


B-B-B-BUT I SAW ITS SOUL THROUGH ITS DARK SMALL EYES
over 8 years

Matt12 says

You're trash, Cody. All your points are absolute garbage. Step down as admin.



Click the button, Matt.
over 8 years
i'll entertain you for one more serious post because i don't think you're necessarily trolling me yet.

1. you're anthropomorphizing the pigeon - you're framing its actions from the point of view of a human doing what it did in its position. there is no reasonable argument to be made that the pigeon was "trolling" the cat. there has never been evidence of a pigeon being able to conceptualize that idea.

2. i will grant that it did not do the instinctive thing at first. but everything after it landed on the other side of the cat fits well within a standard deviation of conditioned stimulus/response behavior
deletedover 8 years
what i meant by 'raw' btw, is that there is no instinct in what that pigeon did, it was just intelligence. there are no special modes of reaction between species, it's all intelligence
deletedover 8 years

Cody says


veryniceboy says

look at this video and tell me it's not just raw intelligence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah2mHjwv7DM


raw intelligence would have the pigeon flying away because that would be the decision that leads to the highest chance of survival.

even if you're trying to make the argument that this behavior demonstrates higher intelligence in pigeons, law of small numbers makes your stance weaker because in these conditions far more pigeons than not would have just flown away.

re: bsing on wanting to eat animals or be special
- what?
- i stated scientific consensus and made a point to avoid subjectivity in my posts


that pigeon is literally a genius and trolled that cat hard
over 8 years
cite ur consensus sources dog eater
over 8 years
I'm furious you would even think this way.
over 8 years
You're trash, Cody. All your points are absolute garbage. Step down as admin.
over 8 years

veryniceboy says

look at this video and tell me it's not just raw intelligence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah2mHjwv7DM


raw intelligence would have the pigeon flying away because that would be the decision that leads to the highest chance of survival.

even if you're trying to make the argument that this behavior demonstrates higher intelligence in pigeons, law of small numbers makes your stance weaker because in these conditions far more pigeons than not would have just flown away.

re: bsing on wanting to eat animals or be special
- what?
- i stated scientific consensus and made a point to avoid subjectivity in my posts
over 8 years
rate me.
deletedover 8 years

peach says

i lve u lilin



keri says

heyyy




my gfs are here, welcome
deletedover 8 years
look at this video and tell me it's not just raw intelligence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah2mHjwv7DM
deletedover 8 years

groundhogday says


Edark says

I think our good old pal satan should know quite a lot about this subject.


if there was adequate understanding on half of this it'd be common knowledge


world-building suffices. the rest of it is just people bulshtting around their wanting to eat animals, or wanting to be special, like you called cody on
over 8 years
heyyy
over 8 years

Edark says

I think our good old pal satan should know quite a lot about this subject.


if there was adequate understanding on half of this it'd be common knowledge
over 8 years
Rate me pwease ~~~\