Due to a security update, you may have to reset your password. Don’t panic, nothing has gone wrong and your password is safe. If you don’t have access to that email, send Tube a message at [email protected] More info here: https://status.vanillaforums.com/incidents/2zdqxf3bt7mj
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Large [chat]dron Collider

15657585961

Posts

  • MorninglordMorninglord Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Is the paper talking about universal grammar?

    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.
  • NocturneNocturne Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    This story cracked me up
    So yesterday I ended up trying to convince a girl not to commit suicide

    When I leave I hear one of my friends say to another "how did he get so good at convincing people not to commit suicide" and the other friend goes

    "you ever hear about a site called Penny Arcade?"

    Nocturne on
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    God damn it my nose has been bothering me all day, its like that one time I snorted coke off thantos's moobs.

    Preacher on
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Nocturne wrote: »
    This story cracked me up
    So yesterday I ended up trying to convince a girl not to commit suicide

    When I leave I hear one of my friends say to another "how did he get so good at convincing people not to commit suicide" and the other friend goes

    "you ever hear about a site called Penny Arcade?"

    Man if anything the positions should be reversed on that.

    Preacher on
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Dread Pirate ArbuthnotDread Pirate Arbuthnot OMG WRIGGLY T O X O P L A S M O S I SRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    OM NOM NOM PASTA

    I'm pretty delighted by the title of the last paper I wrote: "Germanotta's Game of Telephone: What Message does Lady Gaga Send?"

    Dread Pirate Arbuthnot on
  • deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Organichu wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    sarksus do you prefer a bathtub or a standalone shower

    I don't mind either, so long there is a shower head.

    I don't take baths.

    ON THIS POINT WE ALIGN

    *marks check on list*

    are you dudes still thinking about moving to boston?

    deadonthestreet on
  • SarksusSarksus JUST PRINTRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Organichu wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    sarksus do you prefer a bathtub or a standalone shower

    I don't mind either, so long there is a shower head.

    I don't take baths.

    ON THIS POINT WE ALIGN

    *marks check on list*

    are you dudes still thinking about moving to boston?

    I dunno, maybe.

    Somebody pick apart my afterlife thing.

    Sarksus on
  • OrganichuOrganichu jacobkosh Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Organichu wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    sarksus do you prefer a bathtub or a standalone shower

    I don't mind either, so long there is a shower head.

    I don't take baths.

    ON THIS POINT WE ALIGN

    *marks check on list*

    are you dudes still thinking about moving to boston?

    i am giving it some not unserious thought

    Organichu on
  • Orochi_RockmanOrochi_Rockman __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2010
    Stand alone showers are better for sex though, unless the tub is like one of those larger tubs with the jets and what not.

    Orochi_Rockman on
  • DasUberEdwardDasUberEdward Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Organichu wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    sarksus do you prefer a bathtub or a standalone shower

    I don't mind either, so long there is a shower head.

    I don't take baths.

    ON THIS POINT WE ALIGN

    *marks check on list*

    are you dudes still thinking about moving to boston?

    i am giving it some not unserious thought

    you will.

    DasUberEdward on
    steam_sig.png
  • OrganichuOrganichu jacobkosh Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    sorry nerdgasmic i don't think that elendil wants any photographs of him

    Organichu on
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Sarksus wrote: »

    I dunno, maybe.

    Somebody pick apart my afterlife thing.

    You wrote it, QED.

    Preacher on
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Donkey KongDonkey Kong I resent your generic comment and will report it Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Do either of you have any job prospects in Boston at all?

    Donkey Kong on
    Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
  • RustRust __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2010
    have to read daniel pink's A Whole New Mind

    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

    Rust on
  • Dread Pirate ArbuthnotDread Pirate Arbuthnot OMG WRIGGLY T O X O P L A S M O S I SRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Dread Pirate Arbuthnot on
  • OrganichuOrganichu jacobkosh Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Do either of you have any job prospects in Boston at all?

    nope!

    Organichu on
  • SarksusSarksus JUST PRINTRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Do either of you have any job prospects in Boston at all?

    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.

    Sarksus on
  • Dread Pirate ArbuthnotDread Pirate Arbuthnot OMG WRIGGLY T O X O P L A S M O S I SRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Rust wrote: »
    have to read daniel pink's A Whole New Mind

    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

    Woman On The Edge of Time

    Dread Pirate Arbuthnot on
  • MorninglordMorninglord Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    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.
  • SarksusSarksus JUST PRINTRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Man, you guys suck.

    I am never thinking about the afterlife again.

    Sarksus on
  • Squirminator2kSquirminator2k Toys, ports, and Time Lords North Hollywood, CARegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Man, you guys suck.

    I am never thinking about the afterlife again.
    Good. Focus on things that are real.

    Edit: Whoa, this was actually kind of a dickish trolly post. I apologise.

    Squirminator2k on
    The Game of Rassilon - a Doctor Who Roleplaying Game podcast
    PortsCenterThe Life Toyetic with Ben and Molly
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    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?

    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.

    Feral on
    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.
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2010
    Is Tube the guy that talks people down from the edge of buildings?

    Sheep on
    QlBGc.jpg
  • RustRust __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2010
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Man, you guys suck.

    I am never thinking about the afterlife again.

    good, cuz there isn't one (nyuck nyuck nyuck)

    Rust on
  • JamesJames Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Sarks the philosophy thread is that way

    NO WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS HERE.

    Your argument assumes that you must remember an experience in order for it to have ever existed, right?

    James on
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    I had a dog that used to bark at you when you sneezed, when you got a cold he was obnoxious.

    Preacher on
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Dread Pirate ArbuthnotDread Pirate Arbuthnot OMG WRIGGLY T O X O P L A S M O S I SRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    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.

    Dread Pirate Arbuthnot on
  • RustRust __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2010
    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

    this i believe

    Rust on
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    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.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    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.

    RiemannLives on
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    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?

    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.

    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.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • EchoEcho Moderator mod
    edited March 2010
    Echo on
    Echo wrote: »
    Let they who have not posted about their balls in the wrong thread cast the first stone.
  • MorninglordMorninglord Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    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?

    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.

    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.
  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Feral wrote: »
    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?

    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.

    I've heard that from sources I would consider highly credible on the subject. EG: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10468

    RiemannLives on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Feral on
    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.
  • Dread Pirate ArbuthnotDread Pirate Arbuthnot OMG WRIGGLY T O X O P L A S M O S I SRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Hahaha Echo who is that? Is that Tube?

    Dread Pirate Arbuthnot on
  • SarksusSarksus JUST PRINTRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    James wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Sarks the philosophy thread is that way

    NO WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS HERE.

    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?

    Sarksus on
  • RustRust __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2010
    Feral wrote: »

    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

    Rust on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    and it's a hypothesis he's putting forward, not a truth claim.

    ooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

    Feral on
    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.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD along with you if I get drunk well I know I'm gonna be gonna be the man whoRegistered User regular
    edited March 2010
    Okay as a hypothesis I'll nod my head and say "Okay, possible, I don't believe it, but not unreasonable."

    As a truth claim I have to go "Where's your evidence, mister sassypants!"

    Feral on
    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.
This discussion has been closed.