tjohnson

Ghs What would be a real life example of an "evil man is the one who, knowing that sex is good, takes pleasure in forbidding it and thus causing men to suffer"?

The problem as I see it is that using 'true' and 'false' with respect to a complex model is inappropriate. You have to introduce levels of "truthness" and I don't think the formulation lends itself to this. There is, however, well developed formulations in probability and statistics to handle this situation.

LOL, My God what a creative bunch we have here.

Holy crap! I'm not a Rand scholar by any means but this is one message I got from her. Isn't it ironic that this author is saying it about Kant whom Rand seemed to despise?

Hi Ian, There has to be a criteria for determining the value of a given theoretical construct but my point is this criteria is given by statistical methods and not a simple "true or false". This is a quantum leap in epistemology and not one that is easily made and I mean "quantum" in a literal sense because it is in QM that this has become apparent.

Might not improvements be thought of as finding out what's true or false about something? For instance, when I think of my model of, say, a physical system, such as a volcano, I make an improvement to this because I believe something in my current model -- or its structure (if using "structure" here is believed to add value) -- is incorrect -- e.g., doesn't capture some relevant feature of the real physical system -- or, in other words, is false. Merely using another word -- structure or whatever you care to come up with next -- only seems to hide this, don't you think? Well, if we know something about the structure of events, but not all, then our calculations will always be approximate. This is why probability theory is so important because it replaces 2-valued logic with infinite valued logic. As we learn more about a given system our calculations get more and more accurate and probability of "correct structure" increases.

GS, This must have been my subconscious kicking into overdrive. ~ Shane LOL

I like this definition of 'knowledge' - structure. To know is to know structure. It is not a question of what's true or false it is a question improving our symbolic models of what is going on. Then you don't need a contextual theory of knowledge because at any given time your model can always be improved when further structure becomes apparent.

My first suggestion would be to not have it in a thread named "Animals' Right to Privacy". It should be in another thread maybe called "Ways to Increase your Sexual Pleasure", or something. PS. I just thought of something, maybe this IS related to animal's privacy. :0

Vitamin C is good for hangovers too - take to bowel tolerance and get lots of fresh air,

I'm sure the child has been dead for years anyway.

I like the pictures in the chinese characters, its like before and after the renovations.

I think the electoral authorities should have figured out if Obama was eligible to be President BEFORE the election??

I honestly don't know what we are arguing about anymore. Suffice it to say that I believe the idea of convergent evolution has merit and I think it applies to evolution of planets and ecosystems as well. Of course we can't verify this until we actually get to a planet (or they get here ) and see for ourselves.

I think I addressed that in my post to Christopher somewhat. If you are asking is it possible that scientists could evolve from bird-like animals then my answer would be yes, BUT, there wings would have to morph into arms and they would have to evolve fingers to make tools etc. etc. I'm not sure what would be reused were something bird-like to become more of a tool-using animal than currently. As you're probably aware, birds do use tools. Aside from the more stunning recent findings of tool-making and use in crows, many birds already build nests, which involves gathering materials and, often refashioning them to build a complicated structure. This is done, in examples I've seen, mostly using the beak with the claws usually being used merely to hold and transport rather than pick or reshape. Were I to speculate on further refinements of this, I imagine that the wings would NOT "morph into arms." I think the likely path might be more along the lines of the beak evolving further and maybe better coordination with the legs and claws. This might leverage, in some birds, a very flexible kneck (compared with humans, that is). But this is just my guess. It's not meant so much as a knockdown proof of how evolution of bird-like animals toward technological civilization will actually take place, but more to show that your view seems wanting. In other words, I don't expect ET to have hands and look basically human -- even if they might be covered in feathers. I ask you the same thing I asked Christopher - what do you think lead to the evolution of the highly specialized human nervous system?

Well, I think the dolphin example suggests brains can get bigger even with relatively limb-less bodies. I could also imagine a snake beginning to use its body to achieve tasks by wrapping and squeezing things. Now, whether on another planet there are cold climates and it is necessary to hunt animals... that itself implies a system similar to Earth, and you cannot make that assumption. Perhaps just nosing things would be sufficient to release heat from plants that exist in the wild. And then we could even go further and ask whether the use of tools and fine motor skills is the primary contributor to brains, or if it is a socializing/cultural aspect that allows teamwork and carry-over of environmental knowledge. If teamwork, similar to dolphins and other primates, is a focal point for cognitive growth, then brains could evolve in just about anything. It is a tough pickle. But on other planets, they don't know what a pickle is. The question is, is it still tough for them without the pickle? Well why haven't dolphins and primates evolved the specialized brain tissue that we humans have? What have we done that encouraged this to evolve?

I think I addressed that in my post to Christopher somewhat. If you are asking is it possible that scientists could evolve from bird-like animals then my answer would be yes, BUT, there wings would have to morph into arms and they would have to evolve fingers to make tools etc. etc.

But if these companies had their own private military what would stop them from doing just that?

But an animal without limbs, like a snake, does not need a complex nervous system to survive, Basically it just needs to recognize food, strike and swallow it. Compare this to living in a cold climate where you have to hunt animals, use their skins as clothing, build shelters, make fires, etc. None of this is possible without not only hands, but fingers and thumbs that allow very fine movements and use of objects. Intelligent aliens would have to manipulate objects and so would need hands and fingers, unless they can do it with telekinesis but we all know thats impossible right??

Yeah well you gotta go with what you know. I don't see too many bird scientists here on earth.

I'm sure you have seen some of the wild and crazy creatures invented in SF movies etc. Whenever I see one I say to myself "what kind of environment did they evolve in that would result in those features giving them adaptive advantage?" Well humans have the highest proportion of cerebral cortex to total brain size which is why are heads are so big. We have to be born at 9 months because if it took any longer our heads wouldn't fit through the birth canal. Our nervous systems continue to develop into our 20's, possibly longer. If I was looking at an alien planet and trying to guess which species was going to become technological I would definitely be looking at the size of the cortex. You mentioned brain size but it not simply brain size - some animals have huge brains, it's the ratio of cortex to brain size that is important. The question is what leads to evolution of cortical brain tissue? I believe it started with tool use and more recently language use.

Are you neglecting the importance of the middle finger in human communication? Hrrmmmmmmm... ok, more seriously: the suggestion is that brain evolution follows the ability to use tools, so an alien blob which could operate stuff in an environment would also develop likewise. Therefore, it seems that thumbs are not the issue so-much as opportunity for utility-based interaction with the environment. That could come with anything (physical, etc.) that has high-resolution control. Actually, it goes back even further - to when our ancestors were able to walk on 2 limbs. Now we had 2 limbs free to do other things - like make and use tools. Also it isn't simply "utility-based interaction with the environment" its something that leads to increased survival like the ability to get more food.

Excuse me?? When was the last time you saw an elephant sewing some clothes, for example?

In two words: convergent evolution. LOL, I was not familiar with that formulation.

Did you know that the evolution of our cerebral cortex is related to having opposable thumbs? If an alien life form is a carbon based, protein in water type of life then it would most likely have to evolve similarly. For example, you would not expect to see a highly technological race that does not have fine motor control of their limbs like humans. They would also need highly evolved circuitry in the brain (cortex) and language including mathematics. I can think of many reasons why aliens would be similar to us.