foundations in evolution and systematics was one of the funnest classes i took
deletedover 8 years
Well, the argument I guess is that the larger the frontal lobe is the more intelligent the creature. If you look at brains of Neanderthals, they severely lacked in the frontal lobe area, and yet they had the same brain size (or bigger?) But there are other parts of the brain that are attributed to the intelligence of humans
I said it in the heat of the moment when you were on a football alt saying you were smarter than me and I thought you were a stranger. I have an intelligence complex and I immensely regretted saying it afterwards when you schooled me and I regret saying it now.
I do appreciate your point of view on all this though.
I just admitted that I knew literally nothing about evolutionary biology, these are just my random thoughts coming through.
To clarify on why I called it absurd: You get more intelligent and more knowledgeable and more skilled at virtually anything simply by trying, and part of that is being wrong. Are the best debaters the ones who read the most about the subject, the ones who practice debate the most, or the ones who have done a combination of the two? Do you expect to get sharper and more capable in anything, but in this case discussion, discussion by not participating with anyone you perceive as higher than you?
Critical thinking and learning are the same way. The worst thing that happens is that you're wrong, and that's okay.
"since himiko, cody, and tatami are all part of it, and they clearly know things that I, as a lazy, spoiled teenager who just soaks up information by osmosis, do not"*?
i have studied evolutionary biology and tatami is better than cody and there's probably not enough research that's been done on evolutionary neuroscience to make most of these claims
I'm very skeptical of this. This distinction is very difficult to make at some point-dolphins have their own "signature" whistle, not just theirs but for other dolphins as well. Does the association of this whistle to another dolphin serve as a kind of "mental model" to which the name refers? Other animals at least recognize and have stored in their memory a variety of others, be they owners or companions, and the feelings associated with them. What qualifies as a higher level "mental model"? (see: referentialism, internalism in linguistics)
Humans are without a doubt the best at it, but the distinction is odd. You're suggesting a kind of "jump" in cognition, not just one in skill but one in inherent capability. There were more borderline cases in history than in the present day. Go down our evolutionary tree and try to make the distinction at which man was able to make these mental models and predictions you were suggesting. At the species level, some might have been capable of such models, some may not have, some may have been in between.
I recognize that you're arguing for difference in level of complexity in present day, but the criteria you're using to make that distinction is very suspect in my eyes.
Disclaimer: I have studied virtually no evolutionary biology, but this is my best guess.
deletedover 8 years
Please move Pam farther towards negative, she is one of the most toxic players in guns & hookers when the cop gets n1'd
I should have anticipated this would be an advanced argument I can't participate in since cody was part of it
but as far as I know, science currently indicates that many animals are capable of rational thought and simple observation indicates they experience sympathy and, presumably, the other primary emotions we like to call "humane." I guess I'll have to keep to my word and start looking into neuroscience before I can have any fantasies in this belief dispelled.
