SamCogar

The “day-to-day food supply” has always been a “limiting” factor in controlling the increase in animal population numbers. Especially the land based animals that acquire 97+% of their daily food needs from land-based sources ….. simply because most plant-based food sources are produced on a “seasonal cycle” and thus are not available 24/7/365. So, its “feast or famine” on a daily or a seasonal “cycle”. No Garden-of-Eden to be found anywhere. And droughts, severe storms and/or natural disasters just adds “insults to injury” making survival more haphazardly. And don’t forget, there is tremendous competition, for suitable real estate, between the various “food producing” plants, be they the same or different species. And said competition limits both the variety and quantity of food being produced, which in turn instigates tremendous competition between the different groups of “hunter-gathers” that are dependent upon said “food source”.

You wish. YaDinghus, if that is what you want to believe, ….. then that’s OK with me. But ya see, Dinghus, I have a problem with your above stated claim of “average 2-4 hours a day” for gathering all the food that the small groups of human hunter/gatherers needed to keep from any member being hungry. My problem is the fact that all population increases in “social animal” groups (aka: human hunter/gathers) are directly correlated to/with the “food supply” said groups have access to. And human populations never really began increasing until after the hunter/gatherers settled down to become herders, farmers and fishermen.

Yes I have. I was awarded an AB Degree with a Major in the Biological Sciences and a Minor in the Physical Sciences, ….. @ GSC in 63'. That doesn't impress me in the least. "Consensus of opinions" is neither science fact or evidence. Now that's a prime example of why there would be no need or desire for "inventing" something to "get the job done quicker". Don't be fergettin that western Europeans have been given credit for inventing things ….. that the Chinese had been using for hundreds of years. (paper making, printing press. gunpowder, the compass, mechanical clocks)

And you accepted that as a literal fact without questioning your instructor's wild accusations that he/she would have no knowledge whatsoever about the daily life of Neolithic hunter/gathers. Iffen those Neolithic hunter/gathers were hunting and gathering their daily food needs from an aquatic habitat (rivers, lakes, tidal zones) then 2-4 hours per day would surely be sufficient time. "HA", you just proved me correct. Your Uncle was far too busy just trying to survive to even think about paying any attention to someone like you who didn't have to work to survive and had plenty of free time for thinking up what your Uncle considered crazy ideas.

In actuality, there is not much difference in the “climate of inventions” over the last 5,000 years (or 50K years for that matter) than there is in today’s “climate of inventions”. Like the people of yesteryears, the people of today who are forced to spend most of their awake hours just trying to stay alive, ….. really don’t have any idle time to be thinking about inventing something. Those persons who didn’t/don’t have to work for a living have plenty of free time to be inventing, painting, researching, sculpturing, etc., etc. Iffen one had a rich benefactor ….. or was a sailor in olden times, pre-19th Century, …. then one had considerable “free time” for thinking n’ inventing. Great point, a small metallic iron meteorite would surely make a great hammerstone for napping flint, ……. which would surely cause "sparks" to fly every now n' then.

I’m kinda sorta curious as to what were the credentials of the person or persons who created the IQ Tests for “testing” the various animal species that resulted in the scientifically factual claim that, …. to wit: “The RATIO of brain mass to body mass is a reliable guide to the intelligence of the members of a specific animal species.” And just how was it possible for the aforesaid person or persons to create a reliable IQ Test for testing a member or members of the aforesaid animal species without being capable of “intelligently” communicating directly with the different test subjects? Members of several different animal species are not only capable of common sense thinking, logical reasoning and intelligent deductions ……. but are also capable of abstract thinking. But the aforenoted mental attributes pretty much have to be recognized when observed by a person, ….. they can’t really be tested for. Crows, squirrels, dogs, horses, orcas, etc., etc. are extremely intelligent animals.

Iffen Sapiens sapiens emigrants traveled as far as Israel sometime between 200,000 and 180,000 YBP ……. then there is no reason to believe that they couldn‘t have migrated as far west as present day France by 175,000 YBP. To wit:

Given the fact that the stalagmite structure was situate at a distance of 336 meters (1,102 feet) from the entrance of the cave, its intended purpose could very well have been a cistern. Cave living by Neanderthals seemed to be the norm, especially during the brutal ice age winters, but establishing their living quarters 1,100 feet back in a cave would pose a horrendous problem of transporting a sufficient supply of wood for burning 24/7 for weeks at a stretch. But a per se, in-house (in-cave) water cistern situate 1,100 feet back in their cave would be a “luxury” worth having during those aforesaid “brutal ice age winters” when most every water source outside the cave was either frozen solid or buried under snow and ice. Iffen Neanderthals were smart enough to make stone axes and to be tool-making “flint nappers”, then surely they were smart enough to be cistern builders, whether it was inside of a cave or outside at the site of a natural spring.

YUP, I thought so too. Only problem was, I wasn’t using a different definition. I just applied it to something that apparently no one had ever considered before. No I didn’t, my bad. When replying to your "See Sayonara. You didn't ..…" remark I just included another “no” and cited one of those sources. Lucas, I Googled “abstract thought” and checked the context of at least 3 url's for said definitions to CMA before I posted and not in any of them did I read a disclaimer stating …… “except in the case of a dog”. The hell you say. Trying to “pull rank on me”, huh, … that won’t work. Like my College Physics Instructor was always saying when he was shortchanged on supplies he needed, ….. “Rank before Frank.” Lucas, there is no problem citing a Wiki source as long as it agrees with other sources, and especially as long as one agree with it them self. Bottom line is, they damn well better be able to support and/or justify their claim. A Merriam-Webster source is not “cast in stone” ya know, ….. they add, revise and modify said definitions bout every year. Which reminds of the story I heard about someone asking “the authority” which of two (2) pronunciations of “Elizabethan” (beeth -beth) was correct. Supposedly his answer was, … “Which do you prefer, ..... I’ll see that it is changed.” Lucas, I am an “original thinker”, … not a “mimic”, …. that is relegated and conditioned to only believing and citing “authorized sources” from “selected experts”, no matter how long the “alphabet” is following their printed name. And neither was this fellow who was cited in a “post” in this Forum. So Lucas, be careful when you discredit what I post based solely on the “source of my source”, ….. or the fact that it is in disagreement with an “authorized source”. Or that you are unable to find a “verifiable source” for said …….. because I just might be the “only source”. But in doing so you missed the context of my comments. The thread had already been taken out of science by the poster who said "I believe all animals have souls ..." What you specifically objected to was what you considered denigration of the intelligence of dogs. Lucas, you are absolutely right in what I objected to. And no, I did not “miss the context” of your comments, I just thought that they were unprofessional. And what concerned me the most was the possibility that 10, 100, 500 other persons who are “just learning” would read said post and 50%+- just might accept and/or believe them as “fact”. If that is the case, then you have destroyed the only basis for your claim that dogs dream! Sam, you need to remember what the claims were. It was your claim that dogs dream: "GEEEZE, dogs even have dreams ya know." Now you have just destroyed 1) your own claim and with it 2) a major basis for your claim of canine intelligence! Thank you for backing my position and destroying yours, but in the future you might want to keep track of what you are doing a bit better. You wish, Lucas, you wish, ….. but those wishes are only in your wildest dreams. I will apologize for not using quote marks, to wit, “REM sleep” or including the word “during”, to wit: “REM during sleep”. GEEEZE, even you “professionals” never state it as being “REM during sleep” ….. and herein you are criticizing me for not doing it. Huuummm, “rank before Sam”, huh? So how do you know those are "dreams"? Yes, you "call" it, but this is a science forum. What data do you have to back your opinion? I at least was relating the correlation between REM sleep and dreams in humans – which data you deny! PHOOEY, I denied no such thing. I defined REM as to what it exactly was, to wit: “REM sleep is nothing more that a “normal reaction” by the eyes as a result of receiving “repositioning instructions” from the subconscious mind.” GEEEZE, that is the source for all said instructions, asleep or awake. And I was relating the correlation between “REM sleep and dreams in humans” ….. and ….. “REM sleep and dreams in dogs”, which I believe is an accepted scientific practice in evolutionary biology. And Lucas, my data was derived from “direct observations” and correlating the two (2) events, human dreams – canine dreams: sleep walking vrs. sleep running, …. sleep talking vrs. sleep barking, … sleep punching your spouse in the snotlocker vrs. sleep biting a rabbit in der arse. Which was more scientifically creditable than your data, to wit: (Post# 110) They appear to in that they have REM sleep. However, without the ability to communicate, you don't know whether those dreams involve concrete sense impressions or the more symbolic, abstract dreams that humans have. Lucas, in that you agree dogs “appear to” have REM during sleep, ……. why do you discredit their ability to have “abstract dreams” when all the “observational data” suggests that they do? Lucas, you forgot to include ….. “and/or recognizing when the data DOES allow conclusions”. Lucas, I have been pretty good at “reaching logical conclusions” all of my life. Good enough to be hired as a Logical Designer of computers and their peripherals back in 63’ …. even though I knew nothing about or had an EE Degree. And good enough to survive 20+ years in that industry with “new jobs” that came looking for me rather than me looking for “new jobs”. And I did not state the above to impress you, …….. but only to remind you to …… “criticize or attack the message, …… but not the messenger”, …. and we will probably get along just fine. Again, Piffle. You sure don’t know much about animals, do you. And "play", ..... how about the "wilderness clowns". Lucas, with about 100 acres fenced in those deer didn’t have to “jump back across the fence” each time to do their “checking”, ….. now did they? But being they did, ….. do ya pose they knew there was a reason that fence was there, ….. or that they knew that none of those cows would jump the fence and/or charge right through it? Most cows can do both, ya know, …. iffen they decide to. Well Lucas, I was about to cite you a "dog story" but that other post was getting quite long, like this one is. And besides, there are thousands of “such stories” told by dog owners that the media reports, ….. tells you about. But I got a couple “good ones” that I experienced first hand …. and will tell you if you are interested. Just say so and I will do that in a new post. Cheers, …. SC

Ha, not intending to mark your posts for spelling and grammar at all Well now, …… you sure fooled me. I think maybe you misinterpret slightly. We may not fully understand the brain mechanisms behind abstract thought (and I use "may not" there because I honestly don't know how well it is understood; not my field), but as long as we all subscribe to the same definition then we can discuss it in a consistent manner. It's the same for any technical term in any given field. And “DUH”, you are telling me I might have misinterpreted something! Sayonara, one of my most favorite topics is "brain, brain stem and spinal cord mechanisms" which I have thought long and hard about for years and years. Not the "physical" parts, .... but how they are "programmed" via our "senses" (sight, smell, etc.) to perform the functions they perform, both mental and mechanical in nature. Sayonara, I do not need or require a “Science Lesson” of such, …… but maybe a “Forum Lesson” for this particular Forum is advised. Sayonara, I scanned back over this “thread” to see what exactly prompted me to post my comment. Below you will see conjoined “posts” that triggered my reaction. To wit: How do you know that a dog doesn't have the intelligence to understand its own soul? You and I are not dogs. How do you or djmacarro know dogs have souls to begin with? How do we objectively and intersubjectively identify a soul? Part of our discussion of soul is based upon the ability to conceive and verbalize abstract thoughts. Dogs certainly don't have the ability to verbalize. If the ability to have abstract thoughts is dependent on brain size (and much evidence suggests it is), then dogs don't have large enough brains. Sayonara, I considered Hypertilly’s reply a logical statement. And I didn’t “read into it” that he/she was implying that dogs “have souls” or “thought that dogs have souls”, but only the fact that us humans are not dogs and can not converse with dogs so therefore we don’t know what all they think about. But I do know they “think”, ……. and with “reasoning” that is coherent and logical. And dogs also have the ability to “verbalize” (express: articulate; either verbally or with a cry, shout, or noise;), …… but not via human speech. But I ignored Lucas’s statement on said, but not his “disclaimer” based on “brain size”. Sayonara, I guess it just “concerned me” that Lucas cited two (2), ….. in my learned opinion, …. untruths, ….. regardless of what his “intent” for doing said was. To me, that was akin to ….. “citing the Bible ….. to prove the literal truth of the Bible”. Now when I looked back over this “thread” I also found the following which I probably should have paid closer attention to ...... and because the second paragraph therein I wholeheartedly agree with, to wit: Somewhat. However, whenever areas of science that are in conflict with creationism are discussed, I submit the forum needs to allow space to discuss the interaction of science and religion. You have tried to shove these discussions off to other boards or close them entirely Sayonara, you can't treat or limit science to simply a collection of facts. Collecting facts are the most boring and trivial part of science. What is really important in science is formulating and evaluating hypotheses/theories. This is the exciting part of science. And whenever this is done, some theories are going to be extrapolated beyond science to other areas of our lives. ...... etc., etc. Sam, aka: “the Devil’s Advocate”

No problem Sayonara, but you will sure have fun if you are going to be correcting my word usage. I "fire for effect" and am too old to worry about it ..... and don't have an airplane to catch. I attribute it to my reverting back to my Hillbilly heritage here in WV and posting on a newspaper Forum. They would give me ell for usin big ole fancy words because they couldn't find them in their dictionary or spellchecker. You don't know how happy I was to find this Forum with hopes of being able to discuss subjects intelligently ....... instead of opinionally. And therein lies the problem. Thanks Sayonara, as an old computer Dinosaur I figured (see, I was about to key 'figgered' ) as much ... and posted the 3rd one. And saved my reply to Lucas for this morning and will just tack it on the bottom of this one. You will surely have fun with it. :-) ======== Reply to Lucas =================================== See Sayonara. You didn't post a source for your definition but it seems you got it here: wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn. This uses a non-standard definition of "abstract". "1 a: disassociated from any specific instance " Merriam-Webster As I have seen the term used in scientific papers, abstract thought involves the use of symbols and concepts that don't exist in a concrete form or are dissociated from a concrete form. "soul" is an example, which is what we were talking about in the post you quoted me from. "soul" is not any specific instance and is dissociated from anything physical. Coherent and logical thinking can, and often does, involve specific instances. No and No. ..... Not Sayonara …… and not there, but here: Lucaspa, I ignored the comments about “soul” because I never address religion thoughts as being related in any way whatsoever to science. But now the Flying Spaghetti Monster …….. They appear to in that they have REM sleep. However, without the ability to communicate, you don't know whether those dreams involve concrete sense impressions or the more symbolic, abstract dreams that humans have. Lucas, in my opinion, REM sleep is nothing more that a “normal reaction” by the eyes as a result of receiving “repositioning instructions” from the subconscious mind. The eye has two basic functions, ….. point and focus on “command”, …… and transmit “streaming video” to the subconscious mind. Thus, in your “dreams” ….. you “see” the same as you do when you are awake: here n’ there, …. near n’ far, …. up n’ down, …. back n’ forth ….. and those “movements” get transmitted to the muscles controlling the eyes. And dreams, …… that is another good topic. Lucas, I have watched dogs lying on their side on the floor sound asleep nice and peaceful like ….. when all of a sudden they will make a couple little “woofs”, their nose will twitch and they will be “running in place” with all 4 legs justa gettin it and after several more louder “barks” it all ceases and they continue sleeping quietly. Now you can call it whatever you want but I’ll call it “hot on the trail” of that rabbit it was dreaming about catching I have. They are capable of quite impressive problem solving skills. That still doesn't translate to abstract thought. Now octupi, OTOH, do seem capable of the abstract concept "play". But then they have pretty complex brains. Right on, I watched the Documentary on the “mimic” octopus. Lucas, I could tell you “real life” stories for a couple hours about such things. Like the time I watched 3 spike buck deer “bug” my beef cows by jumping over the fence, prance around among them, jump back across the fence and watch what the cows would do. Then do it again, ….. and again (3 times) before they decided they had enough fun, … I guess, and left. Or that wild rabbit that use to pester the hell out of my neighbor’s Beagle by slipping under the fence that enclosed the backyard, search ole Trig out, even go right up to his “doggy door” if necessary and ….. “YEOOOOOOW” the race was on. Down through the garden, round the garage, here n’ there and ole Trig a bugling all the time. And when that rabbit got tired of playing it would slip back under the fence a couple feet, turn around and sit there watching ole Trig a barking n’ a badlooking him. That’s enough for now Lucas, next time I might tell you about my step-daughter’s horse when she (the mare) got a nose-full of porcupine quills. That one made a "believer" out of me. cheers

Now Alien, surely you don't believe that, ......... do you? I wasa thinking that science itself did the defining and we just try to do the understanding. Of course, anyone applying said would surely have "control" of the conversation/discussion, ...... right. Just joshing, I know what you are saying. Alien, I am not a “specialist” in any discipline, ….. but I am also not unfamiliar with the different Sciences. I am a stickler for truths and facts ……. and my wild imagination, reasoning’s and logical deductions will surely bedazzle and/or confuse at times. Alien, I checked the definition of “abstract thought” before I posted because being a “newbie” I didn’t want to “jump in” and then get slapped in the ole snotlocker for making stupid statements. Anyway, I did not find a definition that negated what I was going to post. Alien, I was only questioning the accusation that “dogs were incapable of abstract thought” because no one knows for sure what any one dog is capable of "thinking of" ........ anymore than I know what you are capable of thinking of or vice versa. But I am sure if I remain a member of this forum we will both learn some things each is capable of. Just as I have learned a couple things that dogs, crows, horses, etc. …. are capable of thinking of and which I associate with abstract thought. That excludes Basset Hounds because the one I knew of was incapable of thinking. Remind me to tell you about a horse I once owned. cheers HA, are you trying to impress me, .... or what? In the case under discussion, ..... it matters little what definition is "picked" because you can not exclude dogs of being capable of "abstract thinking" based solely on "brain size". Maybe on "bias", but not on brain size. GEEEZUS, are there not humans that are incapable of abstract thinking? Sayonara, I did not realize this thread was dealing with or limited to "behavioural or cognitive psychology" comments. But you comment just "ads insult to injury" per say, ..... because psychologists don't even understand how they themselves "think" ...... while trying to convince others that they know how they "think". cheers Well now, I didn't mean to "merge multiple posts". Did I somehow do it or is it a "glitch" in the Forum software? I'll see if it does it again.

Well now, if you are going to "limit it" to that definition, ....... speaking on behalf of the dog or a crow, ......... you do not know that, ..... do you?

lucaspa, I just joined this Forum today and was reading through this thread and noted that you are pretty adament that dogs are not capable of abstract thought. So, unless you are using a different definition than this one, to wit: abstract thought - thinking that is coherent and logical I will have to disagree with you. GEEEZE, dogs even have dreams ya know. And phooey on your "large and complex brain" as a requirement for my posted definition of "abstract thought", ....... you should read up on crows and their "bird brains". cheers