Jump to content

SamCogar

Senior Members
  • Posts

    149
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SamCogar

  1. iNow, being an avid fisherman for most all my life I know what the words troll, trolled, troller and trolling means in respect to “dragging a bait”, plus the other common definitions for “troll”, but I am naïve about a lot of Internet “language and jargon” so therefore I was not sure why you posted this, to wit: “Troll.” Therefore I Googled “define troll” and “clicked on” this url and first found these two (2) definitions which I thought you might be inferring by your post. Now I discounted this one, to wit: Because I do not deliberately post false information/data, nor do I post controversial messages to gain attention. Therefore I guessed the 2nd definition, to wit: Was what you “had in mind” when you posted said “Troll.” And thus the reason my “reply” was what it was. And “Yes”, based on that premise, a good Teacher will oftentimes “incite an argument” amongst their students to teach them to “think and express their opinions”, a Debating Class is a perfect example of said. But then, iNow, you stated “Uhhmmm... No.”, therefore I re-Googled, looking for another definition and found this one which apparently is the applicable one, to wit: Well, “sorry about that”, iNow, ……. you can accuse me of such if that makes you feel good, ..... or better, …… but you would be wrong in doing so. I do not, and never have, “trolled the Internet” looking for said Forums to do what you, as per said definition, imply that I am guilty of. As a matter of fact …… this Science Forum is only the 3rd such Forum I have ever “signed on to” and posted to said. The 1st two (2) were both Charleston Gazette Newspaper Forums. Version 1 was terminated and new Forum Software was installed on their Server for Version 2 which I had to “re-sign on to”. Last month, Jan 08, the Gazette decided “No more Forums” and abruptly terminated said without any notice whatsoever. And it was then, “I went looking”, ……. not trolling, ….. but “looking”, via Google, for science related “content” to read to entertain myself ….. because after an hour of “playing Solitaire” it gets boring and watching TV is even worse, especially since I have basically memorized all the Science, Discovery, etc. programs they keep repeating. iNow, it was during said “looking” that Google found this SFN Forum …… apparently, …. just a wild guess though, ……. because the word “science” appears in the “”name. And furthermore Mr/Mrs/Miss iNow, …… I do not, ……. and I repeat “do not”, …. “intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding.” iNow, I only post and DEFEND what I personally believe to be the honest and factual “truths”, be they my learned opinions, my observations or quoted/referenced data/information. If another Poster presents/posts something I disagree with, and I am so inclined, I will “voice” my disapproval of said and provide my reasons for do so. And I expect and welcome the “same reaction” from others if they disagree with the content or context of my postings. But if they disapprove or disagree with the content/context of what I post, solely on the basis that it was “I” who posted it and/or of who I am or am not, it really PO’s me because that is a “feminist trait” employed to CTA so that they will not have to defend their beliefs or actions and will still be able to maintain their “position”. And I base that premise primarily on the fact that I have been married three (3) times. So I am a “Redneck” or a ”Wildcatter”, ….. but there have been far more important inventions and discoveries made by them, than there ever has by those who follow around in lock-step behind their mentors or leaders. iNow, such as this “spindletop” one, Years of frustration followed, with most members of the petroleum and geologic communities proclaiming Higgins's ideas to be silly nonsense. Now if I joined the "wrong Forum" for expressing and presenting new thoughts and ideas for discussion that are in conflict with "accepted beliefs" of other members or that violates "hierarchial protocol" and/or "ruffles the feathers" of other members, ....... then I apologize for said and will cease forthwith. cheers Samuel C Cogar
  2. thedarkshade, I apologize for not keying your screen name correctly, it was not intentional, I assure you. If it had been I would have used something more “original” like ……. oops, better not do that. thedarkshade, what you describe therein, ........ I myself would call "pain avoidance". Ya know, like "stay away from it", ...... "avoid it", ........ and then it won't hurt ya. .
  3. Someone has to be, ……. otherwise some individuals will continue “down the same path they are on” forever and ever ……. without ever considering any alternatives. I guess a really good Teacher or Professor would be labeled a Classroom Troll, …… right? :D .
  4. Now Darkside, if "it does hurt", ........ but you do not "feel the pain", ..... then it is apparent that your body and/or your brain somehow "turned the pain off". Which proves to me that humans and other animals are capable of "involuntary pain management". Now if we could just figure out how to voluntarily (consciously) do that, ….. we could save a fortune in “pain medications”. In that “pain” almost has to be classified as a “survival trait” that came about due to evolution’s “survival of the species” thingy, then one almost has to assume that all animals that suffer a bodily injury that could be “life threatening” would also “feel the pain” of that injury or any injury. A localized group of “injured” cells could not very well be selective in knowing if the injury to them would be “life threatening” to the organism as a whole, the individual animal. All should be able to “feel pain” except those species that evolved an extremely high “reproduction strategy” as their survival trait, such as fish, frogs, crabs, etc. (multiple live birthers or egg producers) Given said, then one has to assume that each species of said animals evolved their own “pain management” techniques when an injury occurs. Thus, an animal, including humans, only experience the “hurt” or “pain” of an injury because the injured cells transmit a chemical/electrical “signal” via the nerves to the spinal cord, then and/or the brain stem, then and/or the brain. (I worded the aforesaid as such because I do not know for a fact that all the nerves in one’s body are directly connected to the spinal cord.) And said “pain” will only continue to be “felt” by the animal as long as: 1) the injured cells keep transmitting said “signal”, 2) until said cellular transmission is halted by another process, and/or 3) if the nerve itself transmits “false pain signals”. (# 3) is sometimes experienced by people who have had all or a portion of an arm or leg amputated.) And given that each species has “evolved their own ‘pain management’ technique”, …. their means of curtailing said “pain” is anyone’s guess. Orcas are also “pack animals” and I will have to assume they also feel pain, ….. or so they imply that Orcas do, to wit: ”The pod members protect the young, the sick and the injured.” .
  5. It is my opinion that animals can "control" the pain (turn it off) much, much better than humans can. They sense the pain when the injury occurs (a dog will yelp and even bite when the injury occurs) but then they "turn it off". Humans can do this in at least two (2) instances that I am aware of. One is when a really traumatic injury occurs, they will "turn everything off", ..... a condition described as "being in shock". The other one occurs when one is in a "highly exicited state" (adrenalin rush) or when they are "intentely concentrating" on something physically they are doing. This occurs quite often, ...... like when you look at someone, ..... or they look at you ....... and blood is streaming down one's arm or leg and when ask "What did you do?", ...... the answer oftentimes is, ..... "DUH, I don't know, .... it doesn't hurt." .
  6. And thus you discredit any and all things that I present ...... based solely on that premise. And I betcha you don't watch Fox "Fair & Balanced" News, either. Paralith, the ones you are partial to have been working long, hard and furiously for years n' years n' years to increase their knowledge and understanding how thought processes work ....... and they haven't figured out much of anything yet. And they never will with their NIH mindset. (Not Invented Here) The Class hierarchy structure of the Scientific Community will prevent it from happening. Like Dr. Ward told us, Jonas Salk didn’t discover anything, the two researchers working under him did, Salk just took credit for it. HA, are you serious, ..... very few people actually tell another "what they are thinking", ....... they tell them ONLY what they want them to hear. Except in the case of some drunks, aka:..... "A drunk man's words are a sober man's thoughts". Paralith, I can guarantee you that there are THOUSANDS of your own "thoughts and dream content" that you would never tell another living soul. No one will. Dreams are the only "window" into one's subconscious mind and people will not tell you what "all" they see happening there. And that "window" is the key to "unlock" the mystery of our "conscious thoughts" ........ because it is our subconscious mind that controls and directs all of our conscious thoughts. Paralith, one's dreams are "assembled" from bits n' pieces of stored memories .... just like a Video Editor creates a "sports flashback" by extracting "bits n' pieces" from various old videos that are stored in their Video Library archives. DUH, how else could it be possible for say, that your spouse, your father or your "wannabe lover" ....... could appear in one of your dreams with you in a place (at work, fishing, in a motel) .... that you absolutely know for sure that that person had never ever been there with you. GEEEZE, even long dead "friends" walk around talking to you ....... in your "dreams". Even in "places" that didn't exist when they were alive. Ask one of your "expert in the field" researchers to explain that to you. Or better yet, you might better first ask if they have ever considered or pondered that part of "brain activity". We know that it occurs as I described it, ...... so someone must be investigating it other than me, ....... right? :-p .
  7. We both know what your point was. Paralith, and your requirements and parameters that defines what a “research scientist is”, ….. are what? Please list “said”, …….. if you please. Paralith, I do not believe I stated so, or even inferred, that any results from fMRI work supported the statements I made about animals dreaming, other than maybe an MRI scan would confirm that “dreaming causes REM”. Paralith, please tell me, ….. about the work that was performed, where it was performed, what scientific teniques, procedures, instruments, etc. were used/required ……. to support the currently accepted belief that humans are capable of abstract and conscious thought? I mean like what your next statement states, to wit: Paralith, ……. where is “out there”, …….. and why are you gathering “support” instead of “data”, are you having an “election” or what. Is it because there really is no data to gather other than …….. one’s own conscious and subconscious thoughts. Now you can gather your own thoughts, but not someone else’s, …… because they only exist in each person’s mind unto them self. And that person is the only one that can “present them, define them, make them known” to other individuals, …….. and then and only then, can the “gathering of support” commence and the “voting” begin. Yup, Hawkins uses the observed data and resolves what it means and uses mathmatics to prove his results are possible. Paralith, ya can’t have good thinkers trying to resolve things if they are biased against that which they are attempting to resolve …….. and if they don’t understand their own thought processes they can’t very well compare them to the thought processes of other animals. Paralith, pick say a food item that you truly dislike or hate the taste/smell of with a passion, …….. and then tell me why you dislike or hate it. Can you do that? Have you ever thought about it? Or, pick one that you really like or love the taste/smell of and then tell me why you like or love it. And Paralith, to prove to yourself that your conscious mind is in control of what you do, ……. whichever one of those foods you selected, whether it is one you love the taste of, or one you hate the taste of, ……. you tell yourself that tomorrow you are going to “love the one you hated today” and/or are going to “hate the one you loved today”. Then you be sure to tell me how it worked out when you took a "bite" of that food the next day. .
  8. This article appears in Discover Magazine http://discovermagazine.com/ I found it really quite interesting and not knowing if it already has a “thread” of it’s own I will post an exert from said ……. and await opinions from the more learned on the subject than myself.
  9. Psyber, where I now live my neighbors, long dead now, were a frugal couple who raised a big garden, etc. Now leftover edibles they did not throw into the trash but instead carried them way down to the back of their property and throw them over the fence and down on the river bank to feed a large group of Mallard ducks that resided there on the river. If said neighbor lady forgot to feed them for a day or two, I would hear this gawd awful quacking and upon looking out my window there would be upwards of 25 head of ducks, ….. which had walked 150 yards up the alleyway from the river, ….. huddled there in a group at the neighbor’s fence. And they would stay there “a quacking” until she came outside and headed toward the river with a pail of food. And those ducks could not see that house from there on the river but somehow they knew which house she lived in. But now my best “actual event” story is about a horse I once took care of when I was living in the Utica area of Upstate New York. It belonged to the daughter but you know how that is when it comes to feeding. Anyway, I had a herd of about 25 beef cattle and them and said horse, a small Pinto mare, all shared the same pasture and a small barn where they could get in out of the weather. The barn had a wide open doorway where they all could come n’ go at their pleasure, a watering tank and two rows of feeding troughs with about 6 stanchions on one of said rows which I used for “locking-up” a cow when necessary. I would only feed and water them during the winter months. Now that Pinto mare hated men …. and I mean that literally. Now the wife and daughter could walk up and pet her, bridle her, ….. anytime, anywhere. But me or any other males could not get within 20 yards of her unless she was being held. Now whenever the Pinto and the cows were in the barn when I enter through my doorway, …… WHOOOSH, ….. out the big doorway that Pinto would go like a flash. No exceptions, winter or summer, she would do it every time. Except one morning I went down to feed them and when I opened the door I could see that Pinto right there in front of me, ….. with her head through one of those stanchions ….. and a looking straight back at me. Well now, I expected her to go “WHOOOSH”, … but she didn’t. So I ignored her and began filling those troughs with hay, …. not once looking directly at her ….. but I could see she was watching every move I made. Finally, I said out loud, …. “What’s the matter bitch, ….. get yourself locked-in that stanchion, huh.” And to my surprise she replied with a soft sounding but pleading like “snort” ……. and it was only then that I looked directly at her and seen ………. about seven (7) porcupine quills of about 8” in length embedded in the end of her nose. Damn, they must have hurt, …. and she must have been hungry also because she couldn’t eat with them stuck there. It was then I said something like ….. “So bitch, you got nosey and now you got big troubles don’t you, and now you want to be friends. Just wait there until I get a pair of pliers and I will help you out.” And she gave me another little snort and I did. ….. I got the pliers and as I snipped each quill off at the center …….. and then “jerked” the rest of it out of her nose, ….. she gave out with a loud snort and the quivers and shakes started at her ears and went clear to her tail …….. but she stood right there with her nose out and looking me right in the eyes. That is until the last quill came out and …….. “WHOOSH”, ….. out of the stanchion and out the big door like a flash. HA, ….. just like a female, …… she still hated my arse even though I was really nice to her. Intelligent reasoning, logical deducting, abstract thinking, ……… you tell me. One thing I do know for sure, that Pinto mare was standing there patiently waiting for me to come to the barn that morning.
  10. Not quite. Some mutations shorten the life of the individual -- like Duchenne's muscular dystrophy. These are "detrimental" by the terminology used in evolutionary biology. However, only 0.002% of mutations fit this category. The rest are either "neutral" -- having no effect on differential reproduction -- or "beneficial". True, but it is that individual who "sees it as being detrimental", ..... not the gene itself. I am peafamiliar with Mendelian genetics but not the Hardy-Weinberg Principle. And again, it is the "you" who "sees it as being detrimental". Now it is one thing to assign a “personality” to something ….. but that in no way implies intelligence. At least it shouldn’t, but I guess too many people take such comments literally. Now whether or not Dawkins is commenting literally or figurally, I do not know. Now in reference to Dawkins’s statement, …. I do know that there are a few people desperately searching for a “queer gene”, which if found, is already assumed to be a mutation. Now I wonder what “entity” within one’s body would desire such a trait as homosexuality? :doh: Ya see whatta mean. Now assigning something a “personality” is oftentimes a good “teaching aide” because many students can more readily “associate/relate” to the subject, but one should insure they don’t take it literally. Such is the cause of the Evolutionist’s major problem. Too many people are being taught that “man evolved from a monkey”. I don't see how you can say that. PCR is one of the most useful tools ever to be introduced in biology. It's applications are numerous and of tremendous importance. If the DNA had any intelligence it wouldn’t be hanging around to be collected. It is the lab person executing the PCR that has the intelligence. Now the ingredients for “creating” aspirin, eosin dyes or a birthday cake do not have the intelligence to do so. But if said ingredients are subjected to “the right things” at “the right time” in “the right environment” then that is what they will become. aka - PCR Lucas, now this is “hot” off the presses, so read it and then tell me, wherein do you “see” intelligence. “the right things” at “the right time” in “the right environment” Intelligent Design is Creationism in drag. .
  11. Paralith, now you done bruised my ego by making such a judgment call when you know very little about me, but as you stated, it's only natural to show some skepticism when confronted with someone who “popped in” off the street a mouthing a lot of weird claims and radical ideas. OK, if I must “toot my own horn” I will, to wit: Now I am retired now, but after graduating from College with an AB in Physical and Biological Science, a short 4 month stint of High School teaching, I spent the next 20 years at what you might call a “practicing research scientists who was working in the field to gather knowledge that was not, at the time, known”. That began, I believe, in February 63’ and that field was computers. Research and Development of new computers and their associated peripherals. Those years were spent in Design Engineering of new products, ….. firmware/software development including loader ROMS, system programs and application programs. I also worked with Manufacturing Engineering and Manufacturing itself to assist and improve their processes. Now I never became famous like my older brother George but I did kinda follow behind him a couple steps a doing “my thing” and I like to think I helped a little bit in his success. (Now that was a Wikii reference but I will attest to its accuracy if that helps.) Some of the “First Evers” that I like to think of myself as being a “party to” their creation are as follows (with included hyperlinks and url’s for verification if required by the reader): The “1st Ever” commercially available key-to-tape device (MDS 1100 Data Recorder) that literally “killed” the punched card business. Probably the “1st Ever” stand-alone word processor that was designed for Frieden Corp. by Cogar Corp. but never became commercially available. (Frieden Corp. was bought by Singer Corp.) The “1st Ever” stand-alone mini-computer (Intelligent Terminal), the Cogar C4, that was commercially available. It was in size and looks of a typewriter, had a keyboard, 4” CRT, 2 mini-cassette tape drives expandable to 8, a 128 Address Coaxial I/O Interface, 100K of MOS programmable memory supplied by the Technology Division of Cogar Corp. I designed and programmed the “1st Ever” manufacturing Materials Requirement Planning (MRP) program that ever ran on a mini-computer, the Cogar C4. I also designed and programmed an Engineering Bill-of-Materials/Costing Processor program that ran on said. The “1st Ever” Point of Sale (POS) terminal (electronic cash register) that was built by Singer Corp. (The Engineering & Development Division of Cogar Corp. was bought by Singer Corp.) To wit: Singer Corp. then sold the old Cogar division to ICL (International Computers Limited). To wit: Now I am tired of looking up and citing references so I will cease with “tooting my horn”. Now I realize my “tooting” doesn’t prove a damn thing relative to what I have been “spouting off” about in these Forums, ….. but it should prove that ”I have been there and done that” which some of you seem to think that I have no frigging idea in the world about how things are done or work. But, as I stated above, my Degree is in Biology and which is my “first love” and which I have always held a deep affection for. Reading, researching, observing, learning, thinking, contemplating and keeping “in touch” with all the advancements and discoveries that interested me over the past 45 years. The primary one being “evolution” and specifically human evolution relative to “which way they went” when our ape ancestors first came down out of the trees. And also of equal importance and interest to me is the human mind (brain, brain stem and spinal cord) and their relationship to our Input/Output Sense Organs (eyes, ears, nose). How these I/O devices program the mind and how then said programmed mind controls said I/O devices. In short: the learning, the remembering and the functioning of one’s mind. I can visualize a “parallel” between a Personal Computer (PC) and the human body relative to “components and functions”. Of course the big difference is, a PC is “programmed” in one fell swoop when it is “born”, whereas a human requires years and years to be “programmed” after it is born. And that is because each human is “self programmed”. Having said the above, I do not think it is a prerequisite or necessary to be “out there somewhere in a designated field or laboratory somewhere” working on gathering information ….. because said information is everywhere …… if you know what to look for and recognize what it is when you see it. And all one needs are “the tools” and test subjects to gather evidence and analyze said. And my “tools” are: my education, my learned experiences, my intelligence, the Internet and my above average ability of recall, reasoning and logical deduction. In the past couple years I have read published reports of researchers using the results of MRI scans of the brain as their basis for determining “how a body part works”. I do not require an MRI scan of a test subject’s brain activity to tell me what I need to look for because the only thing that MRI scan will tell you is what region of the brain is active. As I stated before, if one has no inkling how their own mind works relative to their own sense organs, …. then a CT or MRI scan, or observation of a test subject is not going to tell them what they are looking for. Using an MRI scan to determine how the mind processes information is akin to using a volt/amp meter to test the current flow in the AC wiring in your house to determine how all your appliances work. GEEEZE, I betcha you wouldn’t be telling Stephen Hawking that. And he is less capable than I am in the “gathering” part of it. But we are alike in one respect in that we both just sit around and “think about things”. Now wait a minute, only the ignorant, liars and deceivers make claims they are not willing to support. I do not demand that anyone believe my claims, I post them because I believe them to be true and factual ……. and request and welcome any rebuttal that proves my ideas are wrong. And telling me they are wrong ……. just because I am not in the right place or doing it right …… won’t get it. But now, it appears that two Forum members sorta kinda supported my claim about “abstract thinking”. Were they being honest or just being nice? Would it benefit my stature on this Forum if I prefaced all of my “weird claims and radical ideas” with a disclaimer of “My theory is, … ta dah ta dah” so that they will not be looked upon with complete and utter condemnation? Paralith, I was not implying that it was “Science” that was pulling that “box trick”. And I understand the difficulty about accepting new ideas. To cite one example, it was back in bout 71’ or 72’ that I fought long and hard to get the “video boys” to design the electronics for a 15” CRT monitor that permitted “full color graphics” to be displayed. My boss didn’t laugh, he just kept saying “too expensive”. But it wouldn’t have been because it would have been almost 10 years ahead of any competition. I was a wanting to “revive” that word processor, ya know. OK, I apologize, …. and will try to be more specific as to how I word things. I type way too slow with one (1) finger to be explaining my actions via these long posts. That is if I am not to “gun shy” to be posting any more of my radical unapproved ideas. And some that are even more radical and weirder. Cheers, Sam C
  12. Lucaspa, now that was quite a rant, but you see, I got a “tough hide” for fending off such critiques involving protocol and irrelevant accusations …….. because I learned from an “expert”. Now I only selected two (2) parts of your post to comment on, which should be enough to cover it all and define my position on said. To wit: If you do that, and it hasn't undergone peer-review, then you really are "using the Bible to prove the Bible". You are using you to prove your own claims. That isn't acceptable in science. The hell you say. Me thinks you are trying to force me into "your box" and that ain't gonna happen ..... anymore than you could convince me to start arguing/discussing sports with you. I would rather watch paint dry. Lucas, I do not like being confined “within a box”, …… it is extremely unproductive you know. Now Lucas, I sure appreciate you taking that time, but it appears to me you are fixated (hung up) on “teaching n’ lecturing” students of Science ….. based solely on what you were taught and/or how you were taught to teach it. Regardless of which, that is not good. And neither is that above that you are attempting to teach me. Lucas, me thinks your above “rules” are telling me that I must first serve an apprenticeship, doing exactly as I am told, ……. or you all will ignore and discredit any and all things that I propose or suggest. DUH, it is no wonder that America is now “sucking hind tit in the Sciences”. Our Colleges and Universities are not teaching the younger generation to be “thinkers, imaginers and curiosity seekers”, ……… they are teaching them to do only what they are told to do, ….. and if they don’t, …. they will never be accepted in any profession. Lucaspa, if the following people had “adhered to your Rules”, ….. what then? What would they have accomplished in life? That is, other than being an educated “flunkie” incapable of thinking for themselves. Lucas, that “expert” I was telling you about was my biology teacher at a little ole non-famous College in Glenville, WV. Now Dr. Max Ward (magna cum laude) was telling us that when he was studying mosses at Harvard he discovered that they “reproduced sexually”, but when he told his Professor what he had observed, ……. his Professor laughed and jeered, saying no way in hell ….. because there was “no supporting literature confirming any such thing.” Dr. Ward said he had to borrow an 8mm movie camera, jury rig it to a microscope and film said “sexual act”, then show it to his Professor before that “in-the-box thinker” (my description) would even consider that it was possible. Dr. Ward also showed us students that “movie”. And another such example, … for 7 years, starting in 1964, every one you “in-the-box thinkers” gave Brian Harland the same “objection treatment” you are now laying on me and it wasn’t until the ”first of these objections began to fade in the late 1970s” that his “ideas” were given serious thought. And here it is, 44 years later, and instead of all you “in-the-box thinkers” laughing at and publicly criticizing Harland for his “snowball idea”, ….. apparently because he could not cite an “approved, peer reviewed, published, scientific, authorized, accepted, etc., etc. source” , ……. the pendulum has swung and now there are a few who are doing their damnest to prove Harland wrong. And another of the many that have suffered a similar wrath is Eugene N. Parker who everyone thought was “just blowing wind” instead of describing it. Lucaspa, I am not an “in-the-box thinker” (mimic) because it limits one to ONLY CONSIDERING that which another person has previously presented as factual or possible. And thus any discussions are limited to “dueling” with quotes, references, citations, etc., …… which in the end really accomplishes nothing other than maybe “converting” one’s opponent to a different “box” to do their mimicking in. Lucaspa, do I need to provide you "evidence" or a "reference" to prove you can "see" what is happening in your dreams ..... even though you know damn well those "images" are not being transmitted via your eyes? But after today, ..... it wouldn't surprse me if you requested said just so you wouldn't be violating your own "rules". Cheers And ps: My statement still stands "that REM has nothing to do with dreams". Lucas, my statement was to "deny cause" and not to "deny association". REM does not cause one to dream. Dreaming causes REM. The same as "farting does not cause digestion of food" ...... nor does "the hair on one's head cause the brain to generate heat energy". .
  13. Because the ancestors of birds were carnivorous dinosaurs. Therefore they are the ones doing the eating. Although, as small carnivorous dinos, they could have been prey to larger carnivorous dinos, ..... Well now Lucas, if that is the "why" answer to my question then maybe the researchers on the "evolution of flight" should really get out of that "rut" and consider a different "road" to explore. Because wind is not constant enough nor from the right direction to provide a selection factor. Remember, for the wind to provide the airspeed, it must be blowing toward the animal. ..... Yes Lucas, ..... and you should remember that ... using running up an inclined plane to reach a "refuge" and avoid being eaten ..... there has to be inclined slopes everywhere and those proto birds always had to be at the bottom of them when the predator came running. Lucas, I would think that the "wind" along the shores of lakes and oceans could be depended on as a reliable aid for excaping a predator ..... moreso than always being at the bottom on an inclined plane of some sorts. Are you saying that feathers are better protection from ground based predators than are scales? If so, please explain. An ostrich has feathers, .... so what "evolutionary advantage" do said feathers afford them from being eaten by predators? Lucas, in several species those non-flight "fuzzy feathers" are useful in just getting the young birds ..... to the ground without being killed in their decent. Lucas, I question many of the "accepted" beliefs concerning some of the evolved traits and physical features of specific species such as "bird flight" and "human origin environment". aka: I am a proponent of the Aquatic Ape Theory and to paraphrase a famous quote, "Nothing makes sense about H sapiens evolution other than a water environment". I question said "accepted" beliefs because it seems to me that many researchers pick a “trait or feature” of a specific species and then “look backwards” to resolve from whence it evolved, ….. rather than, …… starting back in time and “looking forward” to resolve how it might have evolved. A proto bird evolving feathers for flight because of a needed advantage for running up an inclined slope is “looking backward” to justify a predetermined conclusion. Mutations, the primary “driving force” of evolutionary changes, …… are random and unplanned or accidental if you chose to note them as said. They are neither “good” nor ”bad” unto themselves, but only to the “life form” in which they occur with “good” meaning advantageous, etc. Thus, mutations do not occur because of a “need based” change (running up a slope) that benefits the “life form”, ….. but rather the “life form” benefits by taking advantage of the changes caused by the mutation. Thus, stating or implying a mutation is a “need based” change is again “looking backward” to justify a predetermined conclusion. And those who are always “looking backwards”, …. are usually afraid of “losing their way” ….. and never seem to make much forward progress. cheers
  14. 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
  15. Is not hunger a survival strategy? And newborns of most suckling animals have to know to do it when they are born, even know where to find the tit. Not humans of course, they are born too premature. And showing fear when parents do …. a learned behavior? How does the baby know it is fear, anger, whatever the parent is expressing? But I’ll give you that one and then say “the instinct” is to “check” parental reaction when they are subjected to an external stimuli, say loud noise or parental voice like when a parent gets into a “shouting match”. What could possibly be different about it ……. other than one is not in a “natural” sleep state when the “dream” occurs. When one wakes up during “natural” sleep during a REM phase of “dreaming” (my conjecture in that I have never read about the correlation) …… they will remember what they were dreaming about …….. but, in that they knew for absolutely sure that they were “just dreaming” they do not associate it with something “supernatural”. Their conscious mind tells them it was “normal”. Lucas, the next time you wake up during a “dreaming” cycle, don’t be thinking about what your dream was about, ……….. think about how you were “seeing” what was happening in your dream …. iffen your eyes were closed and your conscious mind was not functioning at the time you were having your dream. “Know thy self”. Lucas, in my opinion, "dreams" is the only "window" our conscious mind has for "seeing" what our subconscious mind is doing or capable of doing. Like creating "live action fictional videos" using bits n' pieces of our stored memories. Maybe, but food seems to be the driving force for many species, I believe. Many birds will only migrate as far south as required to “find food”. But, if the eating is good, it wouldn’t explain why they would migrate back north. But one way to find out is incubate the eggs, raise them in isolation and see if they will “go it” on their own.
  16. 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”
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. 'Good', .... 'bad', .... 'mistake' .... 'accident', ....... gene mutations are like beauty, ....... it is all in the eye of the beholder. Me thinks too much intelligence is being bestowed upon an inanimate object. SC
  20. 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?
  21. I have a question. Why does it seem to me that most all discussions on the evolution of “flight” are centered around the increased advantage of acquiring food …… rather than escaping from being eaten as food? And another one, why does it seem to me that said discussion is about the dino (proto-bird) moving fast enough to gain airspeed …… and not entertaining the possibility that the wind provided the required airspeed? The young of most all species have more of a problem keeping from being eaten …… than they do at finding something to eat, right?
  22. 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
  23. Right you are that "any line you draw will be pretty much arbitrary" because most all individuals are nurtured from birth to think of all their "like kind" as being "human" and all other creatures as being "animals". Only later in life do some learn "that is not so". Creationists never do or will never admit doing. But, as everyone knows, "Old habits (and beliefs) die hard" ..... so, their "early nurturing thoughts" are forever present. Now a Creationist can easily define "like kind", .... but an Evolutionist has trouble doing said.
  24. Hi altdemention, I stumbled upon this forum and your question and decided to "join" and offer my thoughts to answer your questions. Now I've never heard it referred to as Cellular memory in that all memory is "cellular" by definition. Calling "inherited memory". ..... Genetic memory, .... is ok by me but I prefer calling it "instinctual memory" ….. because all humans and animals inherit certain traits (instincts) from their parent(s). I also refer to said as “pre-programmed memory”, ….. akin to the Loader ROM “Bios” in your PC. (Your PC “is born” with said Bios memory which permits the Revolving memory (hard drive) to be down-loaded with all sorts of programs and data.) alterdem, all humans are born with specific instincts, such as: to nurse when hungry, to cry when they don’t get fed or when they feel pain, to show fear when their parent shows fear, etc. These are all “survival instincts” to get them “started” in life as soon as they are born. After that, it is “one day at a time” that their subconscious and conscious memory develops via the stimuli and/or experiences they encounter in their environment. The sounds, sights, smells and feelings they experience, …… they are nurtured. Thus, …… “You are what you are nurtured to be”. Now altde, to acknowledge your specific questions: “NO”, people believe they have lived in past lives – because their subconscious memory is “playing tricks” on their conscious memory. Like those who claim to have an “out-of-body experience”. GEEEZE, I have one of those “thingys” every time I wake up remembering what I was dreaming about. “Yes”, birds know where to migrate – they learn from their elders and they have a “built in” compass. Sunlight, temperature, food and/or urge to reproduce triggers the migration. “True”, the Galapagos animals show no fear of man – and humans show no fear ….. until they learn to fear something. Remember altde, the third word a baby is taught after “ma” or ”pa” is …. “NO, NO, NO”. Those are some of my thoughts on the subject, …. hope they were worthwhile. Cheers, Sam
×
×
  • 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.