Because if it's talking about universal grammar it's not psychology, it's philosophy.
nope
its saying there is a functional difference between human and nonhuman cognition, and putting forth a model it thinks can help explain both why this currently happens and how this might have plausibly evolved
so it pokes holes in the idea that there is a continuum between humans and animal intelligence at the present time. while also saying "but naturally, humans must have evolved from animals along a continuum even though there is a difference now, the question is how?"
so you can see why saying "darwin's mistake" is just basically title trolling. he doesn't really say anything against darwin.
the whole thing is written incredibly vaguely though, it took me a very long time and a lot of study to be able to sum it out to you so easily.
So if you're describing it as "model" I assume they have some solid evidence to that effect, with specific examples of human reasoning that animals appear to be incapable of?
yeah he does a pretty good analysis of a lot of the current evidence.
they also have a computational neural model "Lisa" as a demonstration of how their proposal is plausible biologically.
the only thing he's saying is that animals can't do relational reasoning between two relations. or understand relations that don't have an observable component (for example, gravity)
ie, dog to kennel. bird to nest. the similarity here is that it is the animals home or nesting place, where it returns to.
if you taught a human this relation, then gave them say....a ball and a bucket and asked them about the similarity, you'd expect them to abstract that relation to "oh i guess the bucket is the balls home" and pop it in there.
it's perceptually dissimilar "ball is not like an animal, bucket is not like a nest or kennel" but the relationship "one returns to the other" is analogous.
similar with gravity. you cannot see, taste, touch, hear or in any way perceive gravity...you can only perceive it's effects. yet we can handle gravity as an entity and also if we needed to, take this gravity concept and apply it to another unperceivable entity.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
if i had a job where i had to do nothing but fire books like this and regina herzlinger's Who Killed Health Care? into the sun, then that would be a dream come true
if i had a job where i had to do nothing but fire books like this and regina herzlinger's Who Killed Health Care? into the sun, then that would be a dream come true
Morninglord: How could you possibly defend that paper though? There is very little archeologicial evidense on the subject what what little there is seems (from everything I have read) to show no discontinuities. There are times when the pace of change seems to be very slow (almost none for hundreds of thousands of years) and times when the pace of change seems to be very fast but not a discontinuity. Just a faster pace.
Course it's damn hard to infer anything about psychology from the subset of tools that survive plus the few intact skulls that show some impressions of what the brain was like.
But again, the evidense that I have seen related to his case seems to be either non-existant or against him.
There's two different discontinuities.
One is a slice across time. Take animals now. Right now. Take humans now. Right now. Compare them. You see a huge functional difference.
Second discontinuity.
Across timespans. To say there is this second discontinuity is to say humans did not evolve their better reasoning through time and evolutionary pressures
He's saying the first one. He's not saying the second one.
This is why I complain that he is vague, because I did not realise this until he was accused of what you accused him off and he clarified it in his authors reply to commentaries.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
0
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
yeah he does a pretty good analysis of a lot of the current evidence.
they also have a computational neural model "Lisa" as a demonstration of how their proposal is plausible biologically.
the only thing he's saying is that animals can't do relational reasoning between two relations. or understand relations that don't have an observable component (for example, gravity)
ie, dog to kennel. bird to nest. the similarity here is that it is the animals home or nesting place, where it returns to.
if you taught a human this relation, then gave them say....a ball and a bucket and asked them about the similarity, you'd expect them to abstract that relation to "oh i guess the bucket is the balls home" and pop it in there.
it's perceptually dissimilar "ball is not like an animal, bucket is not like a nest or kennel" but the relationship "one returns to the other" is analogous.
similar with gravity. you cannot see, taste, touch, hear or in any way perceive gravity...you can only perceive it's effects. yet we can handle gravity as an entity and also if we needed to, take this gravity concept and apply it to another unperceivable entity.
Okay, so basically what he's saying is that humans can reason in analogies and animals cannot?
I'm not sure how I'd experimentally test this null hypothesis, but in the absence of an actual test I wouldn't be comfortable declaring prima facie that this distinction between human and non-human animals is true. I imagine it might be possible to test it using a dolphin and a keypad or a gorilla and sign language.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I think I have this enormous pyschological problem wherein when I am waiting for the subway I have very vivid visions of throwing myself on the tracks.
Which is fucked up as I don't feel suicidal in any other way.
I think I have this enormous pyschological problem wherein when I am waiting for the subway I have very vivid visions of throwing myself on the tracks.
Which is fucked up as I don't feel suicidal in any other way.
everyone casually thinks about killing themselves, all the time
I think I have this enormous pyschological problem wherein when I am waiting for the subway I have very vivid visions of throwing myself on the tracks.
Which is fucked up as I don't feel suicidal in any other way.
5 5 dollar foot long?
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Morninglord: How could you possibly defend that paper though? There is very little archeologicial evidense on the subject what what little there is seems (from everything I have read) to show no discontinuities. There are times when the pace of change seems to be very slow (almost none for hundreds of thousands of years) and times when the pace of change seems to be very fast but not a discontinuity. Just a faster pace.
Course it's damn hard to infer anything about psychology from the subset of tools that survive plus the few intact skulls that show some impressions of what the brain was like.
But again, the evidense that I have seen related to his case seems to be either non-existant or against him.
There's two different discontinuities.
One is a slice across time. Take animals now. Right now. Take humans now. Right now. Compare them. You see a huge functional difference.
Second discontinuity.
Across timespans. To say there is this second discontinuity is to say humans did not evolve their better reasoning from animals
He's saying the first one. He's not saying the second one.
Aaaah. Ok. That makes more sense.
But also kind of ... trivial. Because I bet you could find a huge number of discontinuities between different species as they are right now. And only looking at one slice of time means what he is talking about is completely unlrelated to evolution.
EG: Compare how one of the great apes interacts with a mirror over time compared to any other animal. There are tons of such discontinuities between contemporary species.
yeah he does a pretty good analysis of a lot of the current evidence.
they also have a computational neural model "Lisa" as a demonstration of how their proposal is plausible biologically.
the only thing he's saying is that animals can't do relational reasoning between two relations. or understand relations that don't have an observable component (for example, gravity)
ie, dog to kennel. bird to nest. the similarity here is that it is the animals home or nesting place, where it returns to.
if you taught a human this relation, then gave them say....a ball and a bucket and asked them about the similarity, you'd expect them to abstract that relation to "oh i guess the bucket is the balls home" and pop it in there.
it's perceptually dissimilar "ball is not like an animal, bucket is not like a nest or kennel" but the relationship "one returns to the other" is analogous.
similar with gravity. you cannot see, taste, touch, hear or in any way perceive gravity...you can only perceive it's effects. yet we can handle gravity as an entity and also if we needed to, take this gravity concept and apply it to another unperceivable entity.
Okay, so basically what he's saying is that humans can reason in analogies and animals cannot?
I'm not sure how I'd experimentally test this null hypothesis, but in the absence of an actual test I wouldn't be comfortable declaring prima facie that this distinction between human and non-human animals is true.
That's what I thought too. It seems to be taking a popular idea of animal thought. I've seen studies that would contradict this, and seen animals do this kind of thing personally.
yeah he does a pretty good analysis of a lot of the current evidence.
they also have a computational neural model "Lisa" as a demonstration of how their proposal is plausible biologically.
the only thing he's saying is that animals can't do relational reasoning between two relations. or understand relations that don't have an observable component (for example, gravity)
ie, dog to kennel. bird to nest. the similarity here is that it is the animals home or nesting place, where it returns to.
if you taught a human this relation, then gave them say....a ball and a bucket and asked them about the similarity, you'd expect them to abstract that relation to "oh i guess the bucket is the balls home" and pop it in there.
it's perceptually dissimilar "ball is not like an animal, bucket is not like a nest or kennel" but the relationship "one returns to the other" is analogous.
similar with gravity. you cannot see, taste, touch, hear or in any way perceive gravity...you can only perceive it's effects. yet we can handle gravity as an entity and also if we needed to, take this gravity concept and apply it to another unperceivable entity.
Okay, so basically what he's saying is that humans can reason in analogies and animals cannot?
I'm not sure how I'd experimentally test this null hypothesis, but in the absence of an actual test I wouldn't be comfortable declaring prima facie that this distinction between human and non-human animals is true. I imagine it might be possible to test it using a dolphin and a keypad or a gorilla and sign language.
yeah, they accused him of that too. he produced a big fat list of ways of testing the hypothesis in a falsifiable manner.
and it's a hypothesis he's putting forward, not a truth claim. As he said himself, the point of producing hypothesis is that people go out and try to disprove it. And he's quite happy for people to do that.
i have problems with some of the details of his hypothesis, but I can't really dispute that he's going about it in a healthy way. He's produced falsifiable ways of testing it, a computational model supporting it and a good argument for why current animal testing hasn't currently ruled this hypothesis out.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
yeah he does a pretty good analysis of a lot of the current evidence.
they also have a computational neural model "Lisa" as a demonstration of how their proposal is plausible biologically.
the only thing he's saying is that animals can't do relational reasoning between two relations. or understand relations that don't have an observable component (for example, gravity)
ie, dog to kennel. bird to nest. the similarity here is that it is the animals home or nesting place, where it returns to.
if you taught a human this relation, then gave them say....a ball and a bucket and asked them about the similarity, you'd expect them to abstract that relation to "oh i guess the bucket is the balls home" and pop it in there.
it's perceptually dissimilar "ball is not like an animal, bucket is not like a nest or kennel" but the relationship "one returns to the other" is analogous.
similar with gravity. you cannot see, taste, touch, hear or in any way perceive gravity...you can only perceive it's effects. yet we can handle gravity as an entity and also if we needed to, take this gravity concept and apply it to another unperceivable entity.
Okay, so basically what he's saying is that humans can reason in analogies and animals cannot?
I'm not sure how I'd experimentally test this null hypothesis, but in the absence of an actual test I wouldn't be comfortable declaring prima facie that this distinction between human and non-human animals is true. I imagine it might be possible to test it using a dolphin and a keypad or a gorilla and sign language.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Your argument assumes that you must remember an experience in order for it to have ever existed, right?
Well, there are two ways to look at it.
You could say that of course it exists, even if you don't experience it.
Or you could say that if no one experiences it then how do you know it exists?
But I think what I'm getting at is regardless of whether or not it really exists from your perspective you never experienced it and it's because it was destroyed and not saved. I mean can you describe what it's like to experience something in the present with the knowledge that you will not remember it in the future? I don't know what that feels like. So if you die then how is that different from forgetting something? Shouldn't those experiences be saved in something like an afterlife?
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Posts
yeah he does a pretty good analysis of a lot of the current evidence.
they also have a computational neural model "Lisa" as a demonstration of how their proposal is plausible biologically.
the only thing he's saying is that animals can't do relational reasoning between two relations. or understand relations that don't have an observable component (for example, gravity)
ie, dog to kennel. bird to nest. the similarity here is that it is the animals home or nesting place, where it returns to.
if you taught a human this relation, then gave them say....a ball and a bucket and asked them about the similarity, you'd expect them to abstract that relation to "oh i guess the bucket is the balls home" and pop it in there.
it's perceptually dissimilar "ball is not like an animal, bucket is not like a nest or kennel" but the relationship "one returns to the other" is analogous.
similar with gravity. you cannot see, taste, touch, hear or in any way perceive gravity...you can only perceive it's effects. yet we can handle gravity as an entity and also if we needed to, take this gravity concept and apply it to another unperceivable entity.
Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
Man if anything the positions should be reversed on that.
Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
I'm pretty delighted by the title of the last paper I wrote: "Germanotta's Game of Telephone: What Message does Lady Gaga Send?"
are you dudes still thinking about moving to boston?
I dunno, maybe.
Somebody pick apart my afterlife thing.
i am giving it some not unserious thought
you will.
You wrote it, QED.
Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
oh lordy, this book
if i had a job where i had to do nothing but fire books like this and regina herzlinger's Who Killed Health Care? into the sun, then that would be a dream come true
provided they gave me adequate sound protection
nope!
No, because we have only gotten to the "I want to do this" stage and we haven't bothered to do any real work towards achieving the goal.
I still sort of want to move to the west coast.
I dunno.
Woman On The Edge of Time
There's two different discontinuities.
One is a slice across time. Take animals now. Right now. Take humans now. Right now. Compare them. You see a huge functional difference.
Second discontinuity.
Across timespans. To say there is this second discontinuity is to say humans did not evolve their better reasoning through time and evolutionary pressures
He's saying the first one. He's not saying the second one.
This is why I complain that he is vague, because I did not realise this until he was accused of what you accused him off and he clarified it in his authors reply to commentaries.
I am never thinking about the afterlife again.
Edit: Whoa, this was actually kind of a dickish trolly post. I apologise.
PortsCenter • Jump Leads • The Life Toyetic with Ben and Molly
Okay, so basically what he's saying is that humans can reason in analogies and animals cannot?
dog:kennel::bird:nest::ball:bucket::resident:residence
I'm not sure how I'd experimentally test this null hypothesis, but in the absence of an actual test I wouldn't be comfortable declaring prima facie that this distinction between human and non-human animals is true. I imagine it might be possible to test it using a dolphin and a keypad or a gorilla and sign language.
good, cuz there isn't one (nyuck nyuck nyuck)
Your argument assumes that you must remember an experience in order for it to have ever existed, right?
Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
Which is fucked up as I don't feel suicidal in any other way.
everyone casually thinks about killing themselves, all the time
this i believe
5 5 dollar foot long?
Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
Aaaah. Ok. That makes more sense.
But also kind of ... trivial. Because I bet you could find a huge number of discontinuities between different species as they are right now. And only looking at one slice of time means what he is talking about is completely unlrelated to evolution.
EG: Compare how one of the great apes interacts with a mirror over time compared to any other animal. There are tons of such discontinuities between contemporary species.
That's what I thought too. It seems to be taking a popular idea of animal thought. I've seen studies that would contradict this, and seen animals do this kind of thing personally.
yeah, they accused him of that too. he produced a big fat list of ways of testing the hypothesis in a falsifiable manner.
and it's a hypothesis he's putting forward, not a truth claim. As he said himself, the point of producing hypothesis is that people go out and try to disprove it. And he's quite happy for people to do that.
i have problems with some of the details of his hypothesis, but I can't really dispute that he's going about it in a healthy way. He's produced falsifiable ways of testing it, a computational model supporting it and a good argument for why current animal testing hasn't currently ruled this hypothesis out.
I've heard that from sources I would consider highly credible on the subject. EG: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10468
hahahahahahahahaha
Well, there are two ways to look at it.
You could say that of course it exists, even if you don't experience it.
Or you could say that if no one experiences it then how do you know it exists?
But I think what I'm getting at is regardless of whether or not it really exists from your perspective you never experienced it and it's because it was destroyed and not saved. I mean can you describe what it's like to experience something in the present with the knowledge that you will not remember it in the future? I don't know what that feels like. So if you die then how is that different from forgetting something? Shouldn't those experiences be saved in something like an afterlife?
this would end every argument
unless maybe that argument involved yar, on account of the speaker keeling over dead from dehydration before they could finish
ooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
As a truth claim I have to go "Where's your evidence, mister sassypants!"