Jump to content

someguy

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    284
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Neutral

About someguy

  • Rank
    Atom
  1. someguy

    Animal Rights

    you don't need to be such an ass*hole. why you would name me like that? you want to start a verbal war with me? even if i was missing the point, there is no reason to call me out like that unless you wish to pick a fight. if that's what you want, i will defend myself. and i don't think you will enjoy the experience. notice i said as you quoted: first of all i have indeed been with and observed dolphins. it might surprise you to know but i am capable of traveling to other countries. furthermore, i said i got animals. i didn't say i got all the animals that were used in every experi
  2. someguy

    Animal Rights

    I see what you mean, i don't think we are free of emotions. different people free to different degrees, but none of us completely free. I agree that human beings often take offense if they seem stupid in a situation, and they can also feel strong or important if the opposite happens and thus sometimes seek to make others look stupid, so certainly there are emotional connotations with the use of logic. emotions are evolved to be, the emotion of desire to use logic would have needed to come after logic itself. once logic exists it is less necessary for nature to evolve a desire to use it, i
  3. someguy

    Animal Rights

    well the way i see it, by definition logic and emotion are different. i don't think emotion drove humans to think, i think evolution did. by my rules chickens are blank minded and we are not. chickens cannot think and we can. it is not still just an emotion, it is inherently different. it is the capacity to know. emotions don't have this feature. thus they are different and require separate names. though they are different in more ways than just that. a dolphin can count, not a chicken. that test i think contradicts your statement. emotions cannot provide the ability to have langua
  4. someguy

    Animal Rights

    i agree. i never meant that it is true because you would not find contradictory evidence. I meant you would not find contradictory evidence because it is true. i am convinced of it at least. my reasoning that arrived to my conclusion is independent of the fact you would not find evidence of the contrary. i found evidence of the fact itself, i feel i have at any rate, it is how i thought the thing in the first place. if you do not believe what i present is evidence, that's ok, you are free to agree with me or not. but i feel that if you have a specific reason why you disagree then i would
  5. someguy

    Animal Rights

    not arbitrarily. acting differently than emotion suggests is only capable by few animals. those agreed upon to be intelligent by the majority of scholars who studied the subject. I cannot provide any reference other than myself. i could cite tests that have been done, everything i mentioned as fact is fact, not my conclusions, things like tests, observations, you could verify those, my conclusions are my own. if all we could do to prove anything was cite references nothing new would ever be discovered. i'm not saying nobody else thinks like i do, i'm just saying that i don't know of any. mayb
  6. someguy

    Animal Rights

    i think i see what you mean, you are proposing that the dog realises the future connotations that its friend is dead. i'm not sure if that is correct. the dog can be used to experiencing the presence of a friend in a certain place, just like its food in the food dish, and when it is missing, would mope. also if it sees the dead animal it would be disappointed that the animal does not react anymore. the realization that the animal is dead is actually quite advanced. if death was never explained to me i probably would never realize the connotations of death, i wouldn't realize the animal is dead
  7. someguy

    Animal Rights

    I disagree, i don't think that is an indication that dogs are self-aware. certianly they can detect a lost being, the absence of a being they were accustomed to finding. but i'm not certain why this would require awareness and yet running to a food dish when the dog hears the sound of food pouring does not. a dog may just as well mope when it goes to its food dish and finds it empty. i don't think that is proof that the dog is self aware. these are emotional responses. i don't think that elephants are self-aware because they miss relatives. there is more. but i think that some of their soc
  8. you can fake a 4 dimensional graph on a piece of paper using the same logic as a topographical map faking 3 dimensions. computers are capable of graphing a 4d object, just a moving 3d object. i've often wanted to see a simple example of the faking of a 5 dimensional graph in the same way but i have never been able to find one. if the fifth dimension was acceleration, the faking would look like many of the same 3d object following the same trajectory, or moving the same way, but each would be doing it at a different speed. i think this would be the best way to test your idea. but i don't have t
  9. agreed, but i think that more neurons does not necessarily indicate more intelligence. memories are made of neurons also, so it would be necessary i think if i'm not mistaken, that a mouse isolated in a dark room since birth, and a mouse that experiences many stimuli, not just music, or even not music at all, but all sorts of smells and touches and visual things, would have a more complex brain structure the same way they discovered. or is what they found known to be different in some way? but they seem to specify young ages, when you could provide an old human being with an equal amount o
  10. personally i'm very skeptical of that also. i don't think doing anything or showing anything to an infant can make it smarter. maybe it can make it something else, but to me, smartness is genetic. education is not. but people often say smart when in my opinion they mean knowledgeable. so i guess it would depend on what you define smart to be. but... I guess its possible that in the construction phase of the brain that something about the music causes the brain to grow in a manner that is smartness... but i tend to think not. if it did, why mozart? why not some other music? if it were
  11. someguy

    Demensions

    what does abjuridical or abduridical mean?
  12. someguy

    YouTube

    certain web sites can rip the files but they record them as a rare filetype. in my opinion the best video player is a korean program called kmplayer. it is a similiar program to winamp. it will play all filetypes, from DVD to realplayer to quicktime to wmv. its the only video player i have installed on my computer and it will play those files recorded from youtube by the websites that rip them.
  13. someguy

    Animal Rights

    i see what you're getting at. i think here we disagree only in definitions. i would term that as reflex. it is an indication that even for us thinking animals we can have an emotional response such as those i claim to be in control of all animals before even we have time to be aware of them. i have withdrawn my hand from a surface before even knowing whether it was hot or cold, only after my hand was withdrawn could i digest the sense and figure it was hot or cold. what i meant to say was, the fact we know of our emotions the fact we are aware of them, the fact that we therefore
  14. well.. sine comes from the fact that a triangle with a right angle has always the same proportion of length of sides for a given angle, in relation to that angle. they made the radius 1 because by the law of similar triangles, that way you can multiply sin (theta) by the length of the hypotenuse of the triangle you are working with and get the correct proportion of sin (theta) for the angle x theta since 1 multiplied by any number gives that number. i'm not sure if this is exactly what you mean, but if you wanted to do this but a dimension up you would have a kind of right angle
  15. someguy

    Animal Rights

    what is the difference? isn't it possible that the simple fact of knowing of our emotions and the possibility that due to our ability to know, can disobey our emotions, the fact we are self aware. isn't it possible that those things mislead us into thinking that these two things are separate? what if we could not know? what if you could not know about nutrition? how would you know what to eat? wouldn't you just smell a thing and get hungry and feel like eating it? incidentally that's why i would recommend the diet of eating only foods that do not contain artificial flavours, because
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.