Recently I read a post that got me thinking. How would you define a stupid person?
P.S. I didn’t want to post this question under the topic that got me thinking about this, because I didn’t want to detract form the original point of the topic.
Someone who is incapable of learning, or someone who intentionally will not learn.
Stupidity takes many forms.
Getting handed a daily report and not asking about it until six months after a project failed due to to failure to read the report might be an example.
Getting handed a daily report and not asking about it until six months after a project failed due to to failure to read the report might be an example.
Hmmm.... that sounds like a real world event...
Anyone who answers such an inane question...................damn guess that means me.
QUOTE (Geoff Mollusc+Jul 12 2009, 11:49 AM)
Example A
Example B
("Example B" being the act of posting "Example A" in order to "prove a point" that is not supportable)
Example B
("Example B" being the act of posting "Example A" in order to "prove a point" that is not supportable)
QUOTE (Bummerstinky+Jul 12 2009, 11:01 PM)
Anyone who answers such an inane question...................damn guess that means me.
Apparently me too, Bummerstinky.
Apparently me too, Bummerstinky.
QUOTE
Anyone who answers such an inane question...................damn guess that means me.
What’s that say about the person that posted the topic? LOL.
Really I ask because I feel a bit like a stupid person on this forum, because of my shear lack of knowledge of all the subjects posted. And if there’s a discussion about kicking stupid people off the forum I want to make sure I don’t fit the definition of a stupid person.
hi all
every person is stupid when compared to another whose knowledge surpasses thier own. This is as true for brilliant scientists who, may know everything about everything , except perhaps humility, in which they may look stupid.
Cheers
Iseason
every person is stupid when compared to another whose knowledge surpasses thier own. This is as true for brilliant scientists who, may know everything about everything , except perhaps humility, in which they may look stupid.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (Nihilist+Jul 13 2009, 12:14 AM)
What’s that say about the person that posted the topic? LOL.
Really I ask because I feel a bit like a stupid person on this forum, because of my shear lack of knowledge of all the subjects posted. And if there’s a discussion about kicking stupid people off the forum I want to make sure I don’t fit the definition of a stupid person.
Many quite bright people have been kicked off this forum, Nihilist. Tongue in cheeck, obviously, but I suggest you take a more archaic mystical stance and simply assume that you are either one of "The Select" or one of "The Reprobate."
Far more seriously, though, I suggest you not base how you present yourself on the basis of what others will think.
To wit: my ex-girfriend was publicly ridiculed by her 4th grade teacher for insisting that, no, there are not 48, but 50 States in the United States of America. But hey, what did she know? She also thought, way back then, in the Dark Ages of the 1970's that there were 9 planets, not 8, in our Solar System.
Best,
Raphie
=============================================================
P.S. My personal correlate to that 4th grade teacher? The numerous "responsible" physicists and mathematicians who have ridiculed any upon this very forum, myself included, for making "absurd" propositions such as that Natural Law can be profitably applied to human dynamic. To wit:
Bose–Einstein condensation: a network theory approach
via Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=8337948
In the late 1990s, Ginestra Bianconi was a graduate student, working with Dr. Albert-László Barabási, a noted network theorist[1] . At his request, she began investigating the fitness model, and realized that if each node in the network were thought of as an energy level, and each link as a particle, then a perfect analogy could be drawn between the mathematics of the network and the mathematics of a Bose gas. In particular, she found that under certain conditions, a single node could acquire most, if not all of the links in the network, resulting in the network analog of a Bose–Einstein condensate. These results have implications for any real situation involving random graphs, including the world wide web, social networks, and financial markets.
Related Book: "Linked," by Albert-László Barabási
Should I get booted off this forum, at least in part, for sticking to my guns in the face of such ignorance, I cannot say I will be happy, but at the very least I will have maintained my own sense of personal integrity.
Really I ask because I feel a bit like a stupid person on this forum, because of my shear lack of knowledge of all the subjects posted. And if there’s a discussion about kicking stupid people off the forum I want to make sure I don’t fit the definition of a stupid person.
Many quite bright people have been kicked off this forum, Nihilist. Tongue in cheeck, obviously, but I suggest you take a more archaic mystical stance and simply assume that you are either one of "The Select" or one of "The Reprobate."
Far more seriously, though, I suggest you not base how you present yourself on the basis of what others will think.
To wit: my ex-girfriend was publicly ridiculed by her 4th grade teacher for insisting that, no, there are not 48, but 50 States in the United States of America. But hey, what did she know? She also thought, way back then, in the Dark Ages of the 1970's that there were 9 planets, not 8, in our Solar System.
Best,
Raphie
=============================================================
P.S. My personal correlate to that 4th grade teacher? The numerous "responsible" physicists and mathematicians who have ridiculed any upon this very forum, myself included, for making "absurd" propositions such as that Natural Law can be profitably applied to human dynamic. To wit:
Bose–Einstein condensation: a network theory approach
via Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=8337948
In the late 1990s, Ginestra Bianconi was a graduate student, working with Dr. Albert-László Barabási, a noted network theorist[1] . At his request, she began investigating the fitness model, and realized that if each node in the network were thought of as an energy level, and each link as a particle, then a perfect analogy could be drawn between the mathematics of the network and the mathematics of a Bose gas. In particular, she found that under certain conditions, a single node could acquire most, if not all of the links in the network, resulting in the network analog of a Bose–Einstein condensate. These results have implications for any real situation involving random graphs, including the world wide web, social networks, and financial markets.
Related Book: "Linked," by Albert-László Barabási
Should I get booted off this forum, at least in part, for sticking to my guns in the face of such ignorance, I cannot say I will be happy, but at the very least I will have maintained my own sense of personal integrity.
QUOTE
Far more seriously, though, I suggest you not base how you present yourself on the basis of what others will think.
Well to be honest I'm fairly conceded and overconfident with my own ideas, but it's one of my goals in life not to become someone that is unreasonable. The only shot I have in developing into a person that can compete on the level of a great mind it allow my self to change and grow as rapidly as possible. This includes finding out how to work with and learn from others, by understanding what others do and don’t respond to.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Far more seriously, though, I suggest you not base how you present yourself on the basis of what others will think. |
Well to be honest I'm fairly conceded and overconfident with my own ideas, but it's one of my goals in life not to become someone that is unreasonable. The only shot I have in developing into a person that can compete on the level of a great mind it allow my self to change and grow as rapidly as possible. This includes finding out how to work with and learn from others, by understanding what others do and don’t respond to.
She also thought, way back then, in the Dark Ages of the 1970's that there were 9 planets, not 8, in our Solar System.
Not to be a jerk but there really are only 8 planets in our solar system now (Pluto is now considered and asteroid). Just thought that was funny - not that she wasn’t right at the time.
I had bad experiences with teachers too but I never considered any of them great minds.
I guess a parallel to the question of how do you define a stupid person is: how do you define a brilliant one?
Intelligence is like Relativity. It is all based on the perspective of the observer. There is no real measurable quantity for intelligence, it is just defined by different people to mean different things. Intelligence quotient for example, is one method they use to measure intelligence, but that method does not measure creativity or social awareness.
Lets just look at it in this perspective. Everyone has something they are extremely good at, and something they are extremely bad at. By that definition, you can't really say, someone is more intelligent, they are just different from you or I.
Take for example some of the people who have the condition of being an idiot savant. Some of these people can do some amazing things like come up with calculations faster than some of us can. Is that intelligence?
Lets just look at it in this perspective. Everyone has something they are extremely good at, and something they are extremely bad at. By that definition, you can't really say, someone is more intelligent, they are just different from you or I.
Take for example some of the people who have the condition of being an idiot savant. Some of these people can do some amazing things like come up with calculations faster than some of us can. Is that intelligence?
Intelligent, Knowledgeable, Ignorant, Stupid.
I have seen and been all 4 in a single day and sometimes in the same sentence.
I once helped an accountant open his own restaurant.
Both of us are intelligent and knowledgeable in our own fields.
As I explained the steps to a profitable restaurant he failed to separate his ego from his ignorance and ordered changes that would cause small profit today and no profit next month.
He fired me when I asked him his opinion of someone who hired him to do their finances and then refused to take his advice.
"They are damn stupid" was his reply.
"How should I classify YOU for hiring a restaurant expert and not taking his advice?"
He fired me!
4 months before he closed and nearly lost his accounting business too!
Bruce
I have seen and been all 4 in a single day and sometimes in the same sentence.
I once helped an accountant open his own restaurant.
Both of us are intelligent and knowledgeable in our own fields.
As I explained the steps to a profitable restaurant he failed to separate his ego from his ignorance and ordered changes that would cause small profit today and no profit next month.
He fired me when I asked him his opinion of someone who hired him to do their finances and then refused to take his advice.
"They are damn stupid" was his reply.
"How should I classify YOU for hiring a restaurant expert and not taking his advice?"
He fired me!
4 months before he closed and nearly lost his accounting business too!
Bruce
QUOTE (MoonDragn+Jul 13 2009, 01:02 PM)
Intelligence is like Relativity. It is all based on the perspective of the observer.
Wrong.
There is no perspective from which an insect will seem more intelligent than a human.
Wrong.
There are multiple, measurable quantities associated with intelligence, in addition to some unmeasurable ones.
Wrong.
There are multiple, measurable quantities associated with intelligence, in addition to some unmeasurable ones.
Intelligence quotient for example, is one method they use to measure intelligence, but that method does not measure creativity or social awareness.
I just love it when someone states something in one sentence, then contradicts it in the very next.
Wrong. There are people who are good at many different things. There are people who are not good at anything. There is no inherent, biological equality in mankind.
Wrong. There are people who are good at many different things. There are people who are not good at anything. There is no inherent, biological equality in mankind.
Take for example some of the people who have the condition of being an idiot savant. Some of these people can do some amazing things like come up with calculations faster than some of us can. Is that intelligence?
In some cases. In most, it's simply a matter of one side of the brain not interfering with the other side to the extent which is normal in human beings. Experiments have shown that a normal person is capable of idiot-savant type mathematics and observational skills when the left side of their brain is temporarily 're-booted' with a strong magnetic field.
Wrong.
There is no perspective from which an insect will seem more intelligent than a human.
QUOTE
There is no real measurable quantity for intelligence, it is just defined by different people to mean different things.
Wrong.
There are multiple, measurable quantities associated with intelligence, in addition to some unmeasurable ones.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is no real measurable quantity for intelligence, it is just defined by different people to mean different things. |
Wrong.
There are multiple, measurable quantities associated with intelligence, in addition to some unmeasurable ones.
Intelligence quotient for example, is one method they use to measure intelligence, but that method does not measure creativity or social awareness.
I just love it when someone states something in one sentence, then contradicts it in the very next.
QUOTE
Lets just look at it in this perspective. Everyone has something they are extremely good at, and something they are extremely bad at. By that definition, you can't really say, someone is more intelligent, they are just different from you or I.
Wrong. There are people who are good at many different things. There are people who are not good at anything. There is no inherent, biological equality in mankind.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Lets just look at it in this perspective. Everyone has something they are extremely good at, and something they are extremely bad at. By that definition, you can't really say, someone is more intelligent, they are just different from you or I. |
Wrong. There are people who are good at many different things. There are people who are not good at anything. There is no inherent, biological equality in mankind.
Take for example some of the people who have the condition of being an idiot savant. Some of these people can do some amazing things like come up with calculations faster than some of us can. Is that intelligence?
In some cases. In most, it's simply a matter of one side of the brain not interfering with the other side to the extent which is normal in human beings. Experiments have shown that a normal person is capable of idiot-savant type mathematics and observational skills when the left side of their brain is temporarily 're-booted' with a strong magnetic field.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 20 2009, 11:36 AM)
In some cases. In most, it's simply a matter of one side of the brain not interfering with the other side to the extent which is normal in human beings. Experiments have shown that a normal person is capable of idiot-savant type mathematics and observational skills when the left side of their brain is temporarily 're-booted' with a strong magnetic field.
hmmmm, what are the side effects?
hmmmm, what are the side effects?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 20 2009, 11:38 AM)
hmmmm, what are the side effects?
I don't remember off the top of my head, but the effects seemed limited to imposing a slight state autism on the subject, which lasted for about 15 minutes.
I don't remember off the top of my head, but the effects seemed limited to imposing a slight state autism on the subject, which lasted for about 15 minutes.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 20 2009, 04:36 PM)
Wrong.
There is no perspective from which an insect will seem more intelligent than a human.
Wrong.
There are multiple, measurable quantities associated with intelligence, in addition to some unmeasurable ones.
I just love it when someone states something in one sentence, then contradicts it in the very next.
Wrong. There are people who are good at many different things. There are people who are not good at anything. There is no inherent, biological equality in mankind.
In some cases. In most, it's simply a matter of one side of the brain not interfering with the other side to the extent which is normal in human beings. Experiments have shown that a normal person is capable of idiot-savant type mathematics and observational skills when the left side of their brain is temporarily 're-booted' with a strong magnetic field.
Wrong. Why do you even bother to reply? You are always wrong.
insects possess several skills that can be perceived as "intelligent". Ants for example, care and tend Aphids, which in turn produce something they need. There is really nothing that proves Ants or other lower lifeforms cannot make "intelligent" decisions. It is just that us Humans cannot accept that they may even possess intelligence. Dolphins were thought to be very intelligent at one point.
Obviously you just can't read, because I didn't contradict myself, you just misread what I said. You didn't even understand what I said before blathering on about how I was wrong. There are multiple measurable quantities associated with intelligence, yes, but scientists have agreed that they are mostly social criterias and may not define the actual intelligence for a person.
Because you can't read, you thought there was a contradiction, but there isn't. Does that prove you're an idiot? I think so.
Research has shown that Kim Peek, the guy they based Rainman on, has no connection at all between the left and the right hemispheres of his brain. The guy has phenomenol memory and can even keep up a conversation, but he just can't seem to understand the concept of metaphore. He was evaluated to be retarded as a child. Yet most of us would have a hard time being able to remember things he can.
There is no perspective from which an insect will seem more intelligent than a human.
Wrong.
There are multiple, measurable quantities associated with intelligence, in addition to some unmeasurable ones.
I just love it when someone states something in one sentence, then contradicts it in the very next.
Wrong. There are people who are good at many different things. There are people who are not good at anything. There is no inherent, biological equality in mankind.
In some cases. In most, it's simply a matter of one side of the brain not interfering with the other side to the extent which is normal in human beings. Experiments have shown that a normal person is capable of idiot-savant type mathematics and observational skills when the left side of their brain is temporarily 're-booted' with a strong magnetic field.
Wrong. Why do you even bother to reply? You are always wrong.
insects possess several skills that can be perceived as "intelligent". Ants for example, care and tend Aphids, which in turn produce something they need. There is really nothing that proves Ants or other lower lifeforms cannot make "intelligent" decisions. It is just that us Humans cannot accept that they may even possess intelligence. Dolphins were thought to be very intelligent at one point.
Obviously you just can't read, because I didn't contradict myself, you just misread what I said. You didn't even understand what I said before blathering on about how I was wrong. There are multiple measurable quantities associated with intelligence, yes, but scientists have agreed that they are mostly social criterias and may not define the actual intelligence for a person.
Because you can't read, you thought there was a contradiction, but there isn't. Does that prove you're an idiot? I think so.
Research has shown that Kim Peek, the guy they based Rainman on, has no connection at all between the left and the right hemispheres of his brain. The guy has phenomenol memory and can even keep up a conversation, but he just can't seem to understand the concept of metaphore. He was evaluated to be retarded as a child. Yet most of us would have a hard time being able to remember things he can.
This is just my thoughts, but I’ve always thought of smart people as people whose brain functions abnormally. The idea being that if you consider the average persons IQ to be around 100, then everyone above or below that must be abnormal.
Not that I put much stock in IQ. I do think it’s a good loose guide line but I think it’s far from an accurate measure of ones intelligence.
So from my perspective it would seem that smart people and stupid people are just two opposite extremes.
Edit: and In the case of a savant, both extremes at the same time.
Not that I put much stock in IQ. I do think it’s a good loose guide line but I think it’s far from an accurate measure of ones intelligence.
So from my perspective it would seem that smart people and stupid people are just two opposite extremes.
Edit: and In the case of a savant, both extremes at the same time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MT3CihStFQ
Forest Gump
"Stupid is as stupid does sir."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wijlLEriWYg
Forest Gump
"Stupid is as stupid does sir."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wijlLEriWYg
QUOTE (MoonDragn+Jul 20 2009, 11:56 AM)
Wrong. Why do you even bother to reply? You are always wrong.
Quoth the man who can't even present a coherent argument... Prove me wrong. I dare you, dumbass.
Instinct != Intelligence, dumbass.
Instinct != Intelligence, dumbass.
It is just that us Humans cannot accept that they may even possess intelligence.
Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_cognition
They still are, dumbass.
They still are, dumbass.
Obviously you just can't read, because I didn't contradict myself, you just misread what I said.
Obviously, you can't put together a coherent stream of thought. You said there is no measurable quantity to intelligence. You then mentioned IQ, a measurable quantity of intelligence. You contradicted yourself. If you'd had the common sense to say something like "There's no absolute measure of general intelligence." I'd not have called you out on it, but you didn't. You made a stupid claim that was vaguely similar to a true claim, and then contradicted yourself in the very next sentence.
No. Scientists agree that IQ is not a definitive measure of G (general intelligence). They most certainly do not agree that it is based on social criteria, and they most certainly do not agree that it does nothing towards defining the intelligence of a person.
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.html
No. Scientists agree that IQ is not a definitive measure of G (general intelligence). They most certainly do not agree that it is based on social criteria, and they most certainly do not agree that it does nothing towards defining the intelligence of a person.
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.htmlIntercorrelations among Tests. Individuals rarely perform equally well on all the different kinds of items included in a test of intelligence. One person may do relatively better on verbal than on spatial items, for example, while another may show the opposite pattern. Nevertheless, subtests measuring different abilities tend to be positively correlated: people who score high on one such subtest are likely to be above average on others as well. These complex patterns of correlation can be clarified by factor analysis, but the results of such analyses are often controversial themselves. Some theorists (e.g., Spearman, 1927) have emphasized the importance of a general factor, g, which represents what all the tests have in common; others (e.g., Thurstone, 1938) focus on more specific group factors such as memory, verbal comprehension, or number facility. As we shall see in Section 2, one common view today envisages something like a hierarchy of factors with g at the apex. But there is no full agreement on what g actually means: it has been described as a mere statistical regularity (Thompson, 1939), a kind of mental energy (Spearman, 1927), a generalized abstract reasoning ability (Gustafsson 1984), or an index measure of neural processing speed (Reed & Jensen, 1992). There have been many disputes over the utility of IQ and g. Some theorists are critical of the entire psychometric approach (e.g., Ceci, 1990; Gardner, 1983; Gould, 1978), while others regard it as firmly established (e.g., Carroll, 1993; Eysenck, 1973; Hermstein & Murray, 1994; Jensen, 1972). The critics do not dispute the stability of test scores, nor the fact that they predict certain forms of achievement-especially school achievement--rather effectively (see Section 2). They do argue, however, that to base a concept of intelligence on test scores alone is to ignore many important aspects of mental ability. Some of those aspects are emphasized in other approaches reviewed below.
Of course you think so. You're one of those idiots whose convinced that anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot. You're also one of those idiots who doesn't think that any evidence which supports an opposing position must be invalid, simply by vitue of it not supporting his position.
Of course you think so. You're one of those idiots whose convinced that anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot. You're also one of those idiots who doesn't think that any evidence which supports an opposing position must be invalid, simply by vitue of it not supporting his position.
Research has shown that Kim Peek, the guy they based Rainman on, has no connection at all between the left and the right hemispheres of his brain. The guy has phenomenol memory and can even keep up a conversation, but he just can't seem to understand the concept of metaphore. He was evaluated to be retarded as a child. Yet most of us would have a hard time being able to remember things he can.
Is that suppose to prove something contrary to anything I've said? If so, you're stupider than I originally thought.
That was eye opening.
What Moon means is that he always understands what he's saying.
What Moon means is that he always understands what he's saying.
Well Alex, do you understand what I was saying?
Quoth the man who can't even present a coherent argument... Prove me wrong. I dare you, dumbass.
QUOTE
insects possess several skills that can be perceived as "intelligent". Ants for example, care and tend Aphids, which in turn produce something they need. There is really nothing that proves Ants or other lower lifeforms cannot make "intelligent" decisions.
Instinct != Intelligence, dumbass.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| insects possess several skills that can be perceived as "intelligent". Ants for example, care and tend Aphids, which in turn produce something they need. There is really nothing that proves Ants or other lower lifeforms cannot make "intelligent" decisions. |
Instinct != Intelligence, dumbass.
It is just that us Humans cannot accept that they may even possess intelligence.
Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_cognition
QUOTE
Dolphins were thought to be very intelligent at one point.
They still are, dumbass.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Dolphins were thought to be very intelligent at one point. |
They still are, dumbass.
Obviously you just can't read, because I didn't contradict myself, you just misread what I said.
Obviously, you can't put together a coherent stream of thought. You said there is no measurable quantity to intelligence. You then mentioned IQ, a measurable quantity of intelligence. You contradicted yourself. If you'd had the common sense to say something like "There's no absolute measure of general intelligence." I'd not have called you out on it, but you didn't. You made a stupid claim that was vaguely similar to a true claim, and then contradicted yourself in the very next sentence.
QUOTE
There are multiple measurable quantities associated with intelligence, yes, but scientists have agreed that they are mostly social criterias and may not define the actual intelligence for a person.
No. Scientists agree that IQ is not a definitive measure of G (general intelligence). They most certainly do not agree that it is based on social criteria, and they most certainly do not agree that it does nothing towards defining the intelligence of a person.
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There are multiple measurable quantities associated with intelligence, yes, but scientists have agreed that they are mostly social criterias and may not define the actual intelligence for a person. |
No. Scientists agree that IQ is not a definitive measure of G (general intelligence). They most certainly do not agree that it is based on social criteria, and they most certainly do not agree that it does nothing towards defining the intelligence of a person.
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.htmlIntercorrelations among Tests. Individuals rarely perform equally well on all the different kinds of items included in a test of intelligence. One person may do relatively better on verbal than on spatial items, for example, while another may show the opposite pattern. Nevertheless, subtests measuring different abilities tend to be positively correlated: people who score high on one such subtest are likely to be above average on others as well. These complex patterns of correlation can be clarified by factor analysis, but the results of such analyses are often controversial themselves. Some theorists (e.g., Spearman, 1927) have emphasized the importance of a general factor, g, which represents what all the tests have in common; others (e.g., Thurstone, 1938) focus on more specific group factors such as memory, verbal comprehension, or number facility. As we shall see in Section 2, one common view today envisages something like a hierarchy of factors with g at the apex. But there is no full agreement on what g actually means: it has been described as a mere statistical regularity (Thompson, 1939), a kind of mental energy (Spearman, 1927), a generalized abstract reasoning ability (Gustafsson 1984), or an index measure of neural processing speed (Reed & Jensen, 1992). There have been many disputes over the utility of IQ and g. Some theorists are critical of the entire psychometric approach (e.g., Ceci, 1990; Gardner, 1983; Gould, 1978), while others regard it as firmly established (e.g., Carroll, 1993; Eysenck, 1973; Hermstein & Murray, 1994; Jensen, 1972). The critics do not dispute the stability of test scores, nor the fact that they predict certain forms of achievement-especially school achievement--rather effectively (see Section 2). They do argue, however, that to base a concept of intelligence on test scores alone is to ignore many important aspects of mental ability. Some of those aspects are emphasized in other approaches reviewed below.
QUOTE
Because you can't read, you thought there was a contradiction, but there isn't. Does that prove you're an idiot? I think so.
Of course you think so. You're one of those idiots whose convinced that anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot. You're also one of those idiots who doesn't think that any evidence which supports an opposing position must be invalid, simply by vitue of it not supporting his position.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Because you can't read, you thought there was a contradiction, but there isn't. Does that prove you're an idiot? I think so. |
Of course you think so. You're one of those idiots whose convinced that anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot. You're also one of those idiots who doesn't think that any evidence which supports an opposing position must be invalid, simply by vitue of it not supporting his position.
Research has shown that Kim Peek, the guy they based Rainman on, has no connection at all between the left and the right hemispheres of his brain. The guy has phenomenol memory and can even keep up a conversation, but he just can't seem to understand the concept of metaphore. He was evaluated to be retarded as a child. Yet most of us would have a hard time being able to remember things he can.
Is that suppose to prove something contrary to anything I've said? If so, you're stupider than I originally thought.
QUOTE
you're stupider
That was eye opening.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jul 20 2009, 06:12 PM)
Quoth the man who can't even present a coherent argument... Prove me wrong. I dare you, dumbass.
Instinct != Intelligence, dumbass.
Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_cognition
They still are, dumbass.
Obviously, you can't put together a coherent stream of thought. You said there is no measurable quantity to intelligence. You then mentioned IQ, a measurable quantity of intelligence. You contradicted yourself. If you'd had the common sense to say something like "There's no absolute measure of general intelligence." I'd not have called you out on it, but you didn't. You made a stupid claim that was vaguely similar to a true claim, and then contradicted yourself in the very next sentence.
No. Scientists agree that IQ is not a definitive measure of G (general intelligence). They most certainly do not agree that it is based on social criteria, and they most certainly do not agree that it does nothing towards defining the intelligence of a person.
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.html
Of course you think so. You're one of those idiots whose convinced that anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot. You're also one of those idiots who doesn't think that any evidence which supports an opposing position must be invalid, simply by vitue of it not supporting his position.
Is that suppose to prove something contrary to anything I've said? If so, you're stupider than I originally thought.
That was my point dumbass, you dismissed something as instinct, when it could be a sign of intelligence. Take the case of the Savant who cannot relate yet can do all these computations. Is that intelligence or instinct? If you define lifeforms having some form of central processing unit, then their "instinct" is their programming. In essence then, Humans have a more complex program, but it is still their "Programming" that determines their thought processes.
That definition of Cognition is our definition, that doesn't mean it is true. Just means we interpreted this way. You can't know if insects have intelligence, you just assume it is all instinct, this is why you're an idiot. Again, it is a link for a definition on the WIKI, which seems to be the source of all of your information. Realize that the Wiki can be written by ANYONE, and sometimes not the foremost expert on the subject.
But lets use an example used in that wiki entry:
Notice it specifically mentions Ants and bees. They obviously possess spatial cognition.
My arguments are always coherent. It just doesn't make sense to stupid people.
I don't think everyone that doesn't agree with me are idiots. Only those that post here for their personal pleasure to antagonize other people instead of adding intelligence and thought to the conversation, which so far you have shown none of.
An intelligent person doesn't immediately dismiss other people's ideas, he considers them and determines if there are any flawed arguments based on FACTS.
You're just stupid period. I don't have to prove anything.
You brought up the facts, but it is apparent from your responses, that you didn't bother to read them.
Your last quote shows exactly what I was explaining. So how much did you actually understand from my posts if you didn't even understand what you posted?
Regurgitating links and quotes from the web is not intelligence.
Instinct != Intelligence, dumbass.
Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_cognition
They still are, dumbass.
Obviously, you can't put together a coherent stream of thought. You said there is no measurable quantity to intelligence. You then mentioned IQ, a measurable quantity of intelligence. You contradicted yourself. If you'd had the common sense to say something like "There's no absolute measure of general intelligence." I'd not have called you out on it, but you didn't. You made a stupid claim that was vaguely similar to a true claim, and then contradicted yourself in the very next sentence.
No. Scientists agree that IQ is not a definitive measure of G (general intelligence). They most certainly do not agree that it is based on social criteria, and they most certainly do not agree that it does nothing towards defining the intelligence of a person.
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/apa_01.html
Of course you think so. You're one of those idiots whose convinced that anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot. You're also one of those idiots who doesn't think that any evidence which supports an opposing position must be invalid, simply by vitue of it not supporting his position.
Is that suppose to prove something contrary to anything I've said? If so, you're stupider than I originally thought.
That was my point dumbass, you dismissed something as instinct, when it could be a sign of intelligence. Take the case of the Savant who cannot relate yet can do all these computations. Is that intelligence or instinct? If you define lifeforms having some form of central processing unit, then their "instinct" is their programming. In essence then, Humans have a more complex program, but it is still their "Programming" that determines their thought processes.
That definition of Cognition is our definition, that doesn't mean it is true. Just means we interpreted this way. You can't know if insects have intelligence, you just assume it is all instinct, this is why you're an idiot. Again, it is a link for a definition on the WIKI, which seems to be the source of all of your information. Realize that the Wiki can be written by ANYONE, and sometimes not the foremost expert on the subject.
But lets use an example used in that wiki entry:
QUOTE
Spatial Cognition
The ability to properly navigate and search through the environment is a critical task for many animals. Research in this area (Brown & Cook, 2006[1]) has focused on such diffuse topics as landmark and beacon use by ants and bees, the encoding and use of geometric properties of the environment by pigeons, and the ability of rats to represent a spatial pattern in either radial arm mazes or pole box mazes. Sometimes included under the envelope of Spatial Cognition is work in humans and other animals in visual search tasks, which aim to experimentally address questions about searching through one's environment for a particular object.
The ability to properly navigate and search through the environment is a critical task for many animals. Research in this area (Brown & Cook, 2006[1]) has focused on such diffuse topics as landmark and beacon use by ants and bees, the encoding and use of geometric properties of the environment by pigeons, and the ability of rats to represent a spatial pattern in either radial arm mazes or pole box mazes. Sometimes included under the envelope of Spatial Cognition is work in humans and other animals in visual search tasks, which aim to experimentally address questions about searching through one's environment for a particular object.
Notice it specifically mentions Ants and bees. They obviously possess spatial cognition.
My arguments are always coherent. It just doesn't make sense to stupid people.
I don't think everyone that doesn't agree with me are idiots. Only those that post here for their personal pleasure to antagonize other people instead of adding intelligence and thought to the conversation, which so far you have shown none of.
An intelligent person doesn't immediately dismiss other people's ideas, he considers them and determines if there are any flawed arguments based on FACTS.
You're just stupid period. I don't have to prove anything.
You brought up the facts, but it is apparent from your responses, that you didn't bother to read them.
Your last quote shows exactly what I was explaining. So how much did you actually understand from my posts if you didn't even understand what you posted?
Regurgitating links and quotes from the web is not intelligence.
QUOTE
My arguments are always coherent. It just doesn't make sense to stupid people.
What Moon means is that he always understands what he's saying.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 20 2009, 07:56 PM)
What Moon means is that he always understands what he's saying.
Well Alex, do you understand what I was saying?
I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it.
One thing about the definition of intelligence that nobody has yet brought up is the ability to learn in response to changes outside of the normal environment. Insects fail that criteria.
One thing about the definition of intelligence that nobody has yet brought up is the ability to learn in response to changes outside of the normal environment. Insects fail that criteria.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 20 2009, 08:07 PM)
I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with it.
One thing about the definition of intelligence that nobody has yet brought up is the ability to learn in response to changes outside of the normal environment. Insects fail that criteria.
No I disagree, Insects adapt very well to changes. One would question whether that is intelligence or evolution but they certainly do adapt.
Bees have a complex language based on "dance" that communicates the location of pollen they have discovered. How can that be pure instinct? I think all animals have at some point certain "cognition".
Now, in the case of Intelligence, insects are sorely lacking in comparison with some of the criteria to humans, but insects do have the ability to use scent to navigate, something we are unable to do. They use that ability to create a sort of mental map of the places they have visited.
Some species of ants have learned to hide under leaves just before a rainstorm starts. Is that intelligence? Isn't instinct a response based on stimulus? What is the stimulus in this case?
Ants can also create boats out of leaves to cross water ways. How do you explain that?
One thing about the definition of intelligence that nobody has yet brought up is the ability to learn in response to changes outside of the normal environment. Insects fail that criteria.
No I disagree, Insects adapt very well to changes. One would question whether that is intelligence or evolution but they certainly do adapt.
Bees have a complex language based on "dance" that communicates the location of pollen they have discovered. How can that be pure instinct? I think all animals have at some point certain "cognition".
Now, in the case of Intelligence, insects are sorely lacking in comparison with some of the criteria to humans, but insects do have the ability to use scent to navigate, something we are unable to do. They use that ability to create a sort of mental map of the places they have visited.
Some species of ants have learned to hide under leaves just before a rainstorm starts. Is that intelligence? Isn't instinct a response based on stimulus? What is the stimulus in this case?
Ants can also create boats out of leaves to cross water ways. How do you explain that?
QUOTE (MoonDragn+Jul 20 2009, 02:12 PM)
That was my point dumbass, you dismissed something as instinct, when it could be a sign of intelligence.
So you're arguing that ants are or could be sentient beings?
Intelligence, dumbass, just not used in the same fashion as normal people.
Intelligence, dumbass, just not used in the same fashion as normal people.
If you define lifeforms having some form of central processing unit, then their "instinct" is their programming. In essence then, Humans have a more complex program, but it is still their "Programming" that determines their thought processes.
You should really pay attention to what you're typing, you complete retard.
Tautological much? This is just beyond retarded. Cognition is exactly what we define it to be. Every word in existence is exactly what it's defined to be. That's what "definition" means.
Tautological much? This is just beyond retarded. Cognition is exactly what we define it to be. Every word in existence is exactly what it's defined to be. That's what "definition" means.
You can't know if insects have intelligence, you just assume it is all instinct, this is why you're an idiot.
Then I guess every veterinary neurologist who ever lived is an idiot too. You see, they judge an animal's intelligence based not just on their behavior, but upon the relative size and complexity of their brains. There's a very strong correlation between large, complex brains and high intelligence in the animal kingdom. Whodathunkit?
Anytime you criticize a non-disputed wiki article, you're in effect criticizing the sources from which the information is gleaned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_cognition#References
So go ahead, prove those sources wrong. I'm waiting with baited breath...
Anytime you criticize a non-disputed wiki article, you're in effect criticizing the sources from which the information is gleaned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_cognition#References
So go ahead, prove those sources wrong. I'm waiting with baited breath...
Notice it specifically mentions Ants and bees. They obviously possess spatial cognition
OH MY GOD!!!!
Well, this just destroys my entire argument, right? I mean, this proves that insects are every bit as intelligent as humans, doesn't it? We'd better watch out, or they'll start a war and take over, and the next thing we know we'll all be trapped in pods like in the Matrix, being fed intravenously just so we can produce poop for the dung beetle elite.
Yet you can't come up with anything even resembling an explanation of your prior contradictions, or even a single source to support anything you've said which I haven't already said or implied...
Hell, for that matter, you can't even respond to any specific point I've made.
Yet you can't come up with anything even resembling an explanation of your prior contradictions, or even a single source to support anything you've said which I haven't already said or implied...
Hell, for that matter, you can't even respond to any specific point I've made.
I don't think everyone that doesn't agree with me are idiots.
Prove it, then. Show me that you can acknowledge having made erronious claims by doing so.
Check your feedback score. Then check mine. When it comes down to it, the intelligent people here think much more highly of me than you. You say you're smart and I'm stupid, and I say I'm smart and you're stupid. Well guess what? Smart people tend to agree with me far more often than they agree with you. In fact, you've only got 1 positive feedback from any reasonably intelligent person. Why is that, I wonder?
Check your feedback score. Then check mine. When it comes down to it, the intelligent people here think much more highly of me than you. You say you're smart and I'm stupid, and I say I'm smart and you're stupid. Well guess what? Smart people tend to agree with me far more often than they agree with you. In fact, you've only got 1 positive feedback from any reasonably intelligent person. Why is that, I wonder?
An intelligent person doesn't immediately dismiss other people's ideas, he considers them and determines if there are any flawed arguments based on FACTS.
That is exactly what I've done. Just because I call you a dumbass when the fact is that you're a dumbass doesn't change a damn thing.
Find me a single reputable source which disagrees with anything I've said. I dare you. I double -no, triple- dog dare you.
Find me a single reputable source which disagrees with anything I've said. I dare you. I double -no, triple- dog dare you.
Your last quote shows exactly what I was explaining. So how much did you actually understand from my posts if you didn't even understand what you posted?
I understand you completely. That doesn't make you any less of an idiot, however.
No, but when those links agree with my claims, and disagree with yours, it's evidence that I'm right, which in turn, evinces intelligence.
No, but when those links agree with my claims, and disagree with yours, it's evidence that I'm right, which in turn, evinces intelligence.
No I disagree, Insects adapt very well to changes.
Give us an example.
Oh my god! You've discovered a previously unknown link between intelligence and a keen sense of smell!
Oh my god! You've discovered a previously unknown link between intelligence and a keen sense of smell!
Ants can also create boats out of leaves to cross water ways. How do you explain that?
Ant's don't create anything. They ride the leaves, they don't fashion them into galleons.
I don't know about that ... that are smart enough to make a compass. So, debunked. Do monkeys do that? That would definitely qualify as tool usage in my book. So .. how do they know that by doing this it will help them navigate?
http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55697/
I don't know about that ... that are smart enough to make a compass. So, debunked. Do monkeys do that? That would definitely qualify as tool usage in my book. So .. how do they know that by doing this it will help them navigate?
http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55697/
News:
Magneto-ants pump ironPosted by Elie Dolgin
[Entry posted at 20th May 2009 12:39 AM GMT]
View comments(4) | Comment on this news story
Researchers have discovered the basis for the magnetic personalities of migratory ants. These social insects integrate magnetic soil nanoparticles into their antennae to help them navigate the forests of South America, according to a study published online today (May 20) in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface.
A Pachycondyla marginata ant
attacking a termite
Image: Alex Wild
The study is a "great integration of physics and biology," Robert Srygley, a physiological ecologist with the USDA-Agricultural Research Service in Sidney, Montana, who did not participate in the research findings, told The Scientist.
Most ants communicate through pheromones and other chemical signals to find their way. But some ant species map-read by responding to geomagnetic forces. Pachycondyla marginata, a black, inch-long, termite-hunting ant that ranges from Bolivia to southern Brazil, is one such species. During the cold and dry season, which spans from April to September, P. marginata ants migrate at a 13º angle askew from the magnetic north-south axis. Based on behavioral and magnetic measurements, researchers had suggested that the ants carry a "magnetoreceptor" in their antennae, but it wasn't known what magnetic materials gave the animals their compass bearings.
Using light microscopy and transmission electron microscopy imaging techniques, Jandira Ferreira de Oliveira and her colleagues at the Brazilian Center for Physics Research in Rio de Janeiro found that the ants collect ultra-fine-grained iron oxide and aluminum silicate crystals from the soil and incorporate them into three main joints of their antennae. The researchers then devised a theoretical model of the antennae's magnetic sensitivity, and concluded that the amount of magnetic nanoparticles the ants pick up is sufficient to underlie their migratory sixth sense.
"They finally localized where [the magnetoreceptor] might be," said Srygley, although the researchers still need to pin down which of the three antennal joints holds the magnetic sensor, he added. Oliveira noted that the second antennal segment is home to the Johnston's organ, which is known to detect motion and might be responsible for sensing magnetic fields, too.
The next step, said Oliveira, is to show how the magnetic sensors in the antennae hook up to the nervous system. The iron oxide particles "should be coupled to mechanosensitive structures so as to transmit the information on the geomagnetic field in the form of a torque or force into the nervous system," she wrote in an email.
In a hotel atm, didn't feel like setting up camp after driving for 16 hours. So, I won't be around for too long! What is intelligence really though? Lets just imagine for 1 minute that Einstein never went to school and was in-fact the same exact Einstein we know, would his intelligence not be on the same exact level it always had, and just his "working" knowledge would be different? If knowledge were intelligence, autistic kids with photographic memories would rule the world.
Idiot.
Having a magnetic sensing organ built in doesn't mean 'smart enough make a compass'.
Although all evidence does point to ants being smarter than you.
I don't know about that ... that are smart enough to make a compass. So, debunked. Do monkeys do that? That would definitely qualify as tool usage in my book. So .. how do they know that by doing this it will help them navigate?
http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55697/
In a hotel atm, didn't feel like setting up camp after driving for 16 hours. So, I won't be around for too long! What is intelligence really though? Lets just imagine for 1 minute that Einstein never went to school and was in-fact the same exact Einstein we know, would his intelligence not be on the same exact level it always had, and just his "working" knowledge would be different? If knowledge were intelligence, autistic kids with photographic memories would rule the world.
So the ants have a factory in which they build these magnetic particles?
Yeesh, you guys are so stupid. Do you think that another example of the same damn behavior I already showed wasn't what you're claiming it to be somehow invalidates my response?
Jesus, you guys run around in circles trying to prove a point that any two-year old could tell you is wrong: Ants are not as intelligent as people, no matter how you argue. They never have been, they never will be.
No, more like a bird swallowing small stones so their gizzard can grind up food. Like the ants, they have to add something external to their physiology. Also like the ants, it is instinctive, no intelligence needed.
They are born with antenna which can incorporate and react to the magnetic particles.
They are born with antenna which can incorporate and react to the magnetic particles.
Their antennae do not naturally react to magnetic particles. Would you agree? But as the research suggests, they might ... but then why do they add the magnetic nanoparticles if they already react to magnetism? Do whey "want" to increase their sensitivity? I don't know ... can further reasearch "reveal anything?"
They incorporate magnetic particles with their antennae so they can react to the magnetic particles, would you agree?
If you disagree, you should put a paper together and disagree with actual physicists, that actually studied the ants in question. If you have not study these ants, how can you disagree on the observations, and possbile conclusions of without any research, or degree of education in the field to make your opinion any more valid then what has been put forth in this study?
Where are your credentials?
I just really don't understand how you can honestly say, that harvesting the nanoparticles does not qualify as tool usage. I won't argue that any further.
And a birds gizzard does not naturally contain stones. No one teaches the bird to eat stones, it does so instinctively. No one teaches the ant to pick up magnetic particles, it does so instinctively. There's no intelligence involved.
So you're arguing that ants are or could be sentient beings?
QUOTE
Take the case of the Savant who cannot relate yet can do all these computations. Is that intelligence or instinct?
Intelligence, dumbass, just not used in the same fashion as normal people.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Take the case of the Savant who cannot relate yet can do all these computations. Is that intelligence or instinct? |
Intelligence, dumbass, just not used in the same fashion as normal people.
If you define lifeforms having some form of central processing unit, then their "instinct" is their programming. In essence then, Humans have a more complex program, but it is still their "Programming" that determines their thought processes.
You should really pay attention to what you're typing, you complete retard.
QUOTE
That definition of Cognition is our definition, that doesn't mean it is true. Just means we interpreted this way.
Tautological much? This is just beyond retarded. Cognition is exactly what we define it to be. Every word in existence is exactly what it's defined to be. That's what "definition" means.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That definition of Cognition is our definition, that doesn't mean it is true. Just means we interpreted this way. |
Tautological much? This is just beyond retarded. Cognition is exactly what we define it to be. Every word in existence is exactly what it's defined to be. That's what "definition" means.
You can't know if insects have intelligence, you just assume it is all instinct, this is why you're an idiot.
Then I guess every veterinary neurologist who ever lived is an idiot too. You see, they judge an animal's intelligence based not just on their behavior, but upon the relative size and complexity of their brains. There's a very strong correlation between large, complex brains and high intelligence in the animal kingdom. Whodathunkit?
QUOTE
Again, it is a link for a definition on the WIKI, which seems to be the source of all of your information. Realize that the Wiki can be written by ANYONE, and sometimes not the foremost expert on the subject.
Anytime you criticize a non-disputed wiki article, you're in effect criticizing the sources from which the information is gleaned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_cognition#References
So go ahead, prove those sources wrong. I'm waiting with baited breath...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Again, it is a link for a definition on the WIKI, which seems to be the source of all of your information. Realize that the Wiki can be written by ANYONE, and sometimes not the foremost expert on the subject. |
Anytime you criticize a non-disputed wiki article, you're in effect criticizing the sources from which the information is gleaned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_cognition#References
So go ahead, prove those sources wrong. I'm waiting with baited breath...
Notice it specifically mentions Ants and bees. They obviously possess spatial cognition
OH MY GOD!!!!
Well, this just destroys my entire argument, right? I mean, this proves that insects are every bit as intelligent as humans, doesn't it? We'd better watch out, or they'll start a war and take over, and the next thing we know we'll all be trapped in pods like in the Matrix, being fed intravenously just so we can produce poop for the dung beetle elite.
QUOTE
My arguments are always coherent. It just doesn't make sense to stupid people.
Yet you can't come up with anything even resembling an explanation of your prior contradictions, or even a single source to support anything you've said which I haven't already said or implied...
Hell, for that matter, you can't even respond to any specific point I've made.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My arguments are always coherent. It just doesn't make sense to stupid people. |
Yet you can't come up with anything even resembling an explanation of your prior contradictions, or even a single source to support anything you've said which I haven't already said or implied...
Hell, for that matter, you can't even respond to any specific point I've made.
I don't think everyone that doesn't agree with me are idiots.
Prove it, then. Show me that you can acknowledge having made erronious claims by doing so.
QUOTE
Only those that post here for their personal pleasure to antagonize other people instead of adding intelligence and thought to the conversation, which so far you have shown none of.
Check your feedback score. Then check mine. When it comes down to it, the intelligent people here think much more highly of me than you. You say you're smart and I'm stupid, and I say I'm smart and you're stupid. Well guess what? Smart people tend to agree with me far more often than they agree with you. In fact, you've only got 1 positive feedback from any reasonably intelligent person. Why is that, I wonder?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Only those that post here for their personal pleasure to antagonize other people instead of adding intelligence and thought to the conversation, which so far you have shown none of. |
Check your feedback score. Then check mine. When it comes down to it, the intelligent people here think much more highly of me than you. You say you're smart and I'm stupid, and I say I'm smart and you're stupid. Well guess what? Smart people tend to agree with me far more often than they agree with you. In fact, you've only got 1 positive feedback from any reasonably intelligent person. Why is that, I wonder?
An intelligent person doesn't immediately dismiss other people's ideas, he considers them and determines if there are any flawed arguments based on FACTS.
That is exactly what I've done. Just because I call you a dumbass when the fact is that you're a dumbass doesn't change a damn thing.
QUOTE
You're just stupid period. I don't have to prove anything. You brought up the facts, but it is apparent from your responses, that you didn't bother to read them.
Find me a single reputable source which disagrees with anything I've said. I dare you. I double -no, triple- dog dare you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You're just stupid period. I don't have to prove anything. You brought up the facts, but it is apparent from your responses, that you didn't bother to read them. |
Find me a single reputable source which disagrees with anything I've said. I dare you. I double -no, triple- dog dare you.
Your last quote shows exactly what I was explaining. So how much did you actually understand from my posts if you didn't even understand what you posted?
I understand you completely. That doesn't make you any less of an idiot, however.
QUOTE
Regurgitating links and quotes from the web is not intelligence.
No, but when those links agree with my claims, and disagree with yours, it's evidence that I'm right, which in turn, evinces intelligence.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Regurgitating links and quotes from the web is not intelligence. |
No, but when those links agree with my claims, and disagree with yours, it's evidence that I'm right, which in turn, evinces intelligence.
No I disagree, Insects adapt very well to changes.
Give us an example.
QUOTE
Now, in the case of Intelligence, insects are sorely lacking in comparison with some of the criteria to humans, but insects do have the ability to use scent to navigate, something we are unable to do.
Oh my god! You've discovered a previously unknown link between intelligence and a keen sense of smell!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Now, in the case of Intelligence, insects are sorely lacking in comparison with some of the criteria to humans, but insects do have the ability to use scent to navigate, something we are unable to do. |
Oh my god! You've discovered a previously unknown link between intelligence and a keen sense of smell!
Ants can also create boats out of leaves to cross water ways. How do you explain that?
Ant's don't create anything. They ride the leaves, they don't fashion them into galleons.
QUOTE
Ant's don't create anything. They ride the leaves, they don't fashion them into galleons.
I don't know about that ... that are smart enough to make a compass. So, debunked. Do monkeys do that? That would definitely qualify as tool usage in my book. So .. how do they know that by doing this it will help them navigate?
http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55697/
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Ant's don't create anything. They ride the leaves, they don't fashion them into galleons. |
I don't know about that ... that are smart enough to make a compass. So, debunked. Do monkeys do that? That would definitely qualify as tool usage in my book. So .. how do they know that by doing this it will help them navigate?
http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55697/
News:
Magneto-ants pump ironPosted by Elie Dolgin
[Entry posted at 20th May 2009 12:39 AM GMT]
View comments(4) | Comment on this news story
Researchers have discovered the basis for the magnetic personalities of migratory ants. These social insects integrate magnetic soil nanoparticles into their antennae to help them navigate the forests of South America, according to a study published online today (May 20) in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface.
A Pachycondyla marginata ant
attacking a termite
Image: Alex Wild
The study is a "great integration of physics and biology," Robert Srygley, a physiological ecologist with the USDA-Agricultural Research Service in Sidney, Montana, who did not participate in the research findings, told The Scientist.
Most ants communicate through pheromones and other chemical signals to find their way. But some ant species map-read by responding to geomagnetic forces. Pachycondyla marginata, a black, inch-long, termite-hunting ant that ranges from Bolivia to southern Brazil, is one such species. During the cold and dry season, which spans from April to September, P. marginata ants migrate at a 13º angle askew from the magnetic north-south axis. Based on behavioral and magnetic measurements, researchers had suggested that the ants carry a "magnetoreceptor" in their antennae, but it wasn't known what magnetic materials gave the animals their compass bearings.
Using light microscopy and transmission electron microscopy imaging techniques, Jandira Ferreira de Oliveira and her colleagues at the Brazilian Center for Physics Research in Rio de Janeiro found that the ants collect ultra-fine-grained iron oxide and aluminum silicate crystals from the soil and incorporate them into three main joints of their antennae. The researchers then devised a theoretical model of the antennae's magnetic sensitivity, and concluded that the amount of magnetic nanoparticles the ants pick up is sufficient to underlie their migratory sixth sense.
"They finally localized where [the magnetoreceptor] might be," said Srygley, although the researchers still need to pin down which of the three antennal joints holds the magnetic sensor, he added. Oliveira noted that the second antennal segment is home to the Johnston's organ, which is known to detect motion and might be responsible for sensing magnetic fields, too.
The next step, said Oliveira, is to show how the magnetic sensors in the antennae hook up to the nervous system. The iron oxide particles "should be coupled to mechanosensitive structures so as to transmit the information on the geomagnetic field in the form of a torque or force into the nervous system," she wrote in an email.
In a hotel atm, didn't feel like setting up camp after driving for 16 hours. So, I won't be around for too long! What is intelligence really though? Lets just imagine for 1 minute that Einstein never went to school and was in-fact the same exact Einstein we know, would his intelligence not be on the same exact level it always had, and just his "working" knowledge would be different? If knowledge were intelligence, autistic kids with photographic memories would rule the world.
QUOTE
that are smart enough to make a compass
Idiot.
Having a magnetic sensing organ built in doesn't mean 'smart enough make a compass'.
Although all evidence does point to ants being smarter than you.
apparently, you don't know how to read. So I will try to help you read it again.
they weren't born with magnetic antennae, idiot. They made them.
QUOTE
Jandira Ferreira de Oliveira and her colleagues at the Brazilian Center for Physics Research in Rio de Janeiro found that the ants collect ultra-fine-grained iron oxide and aluminum silicate crystals from the soil and incorporate them into three main joints of their antennae.
they weren't born with magnetic antennae, idiot. They made them.
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 22 2009, 08:42 AM)
they weren't born with magnetic antennae, idiot. They made them.
They were born with the instinct to create magnetic antennae.
Touche!
They were born with the instinct to create magnetic antennae.
Touche!
That doesn't seem very provable to me, and if it applies to ants, then I guess it applies to people as well perhaps? Intelligence, some people are born with it some people aren't. It is not dependent on who or what you know ... and do, but more so on what you are capable of? I don't know, are people or ants born with knowledge on how to do certain things? Navigating isn't something very easily done. How large is an ant's brain? Is it something the ants teach themselves and others to do? Get some ant larvae from these certain ants and keep them isolated from "birth" and see what they do? Could be interesting to find out. 
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 22 2009, 12:32 PM)
That doesn't seem very provable to me, and if it applies to ants, then I guess it applies to people as well perhaps? Intelligence, some people are born with it some people aren't. It is not dependent on who or what you know ... and do, but more so on what you are capable of? I don't know, are people or ants born with knowledge on how to do certain things? Navigating isn't something very easily done. How large is an ant's brain? Is it something the ants teach themselves and others to do? Get some ant larvae from these certain ants and keep them isolated from "birth" and see what they do? Could be interesting to find out.
Humans rely on the ability to learn instead of relying on instinct. Instinct does not allow for the possibility of creating new tools and behaviors. Ants are extremely simple. Their sense of smell basically controls their brain. If they smell a certain compound, their brains automatically carry out a certain function. There is not teaching or learning. An ant's brain is more similar to a computer program than it is to a human being's.
In my opinion, intelligence is a measure of two things:
Natural talent and Willpower
It's true that talent can vary, but a dumb person with enough willpower to learn can outsmart someone with natural talent who is lazy. The ability to learn is the greatest tool that the human mind has. It doesn't matter if you are a genius if you won't learn.
Humans rely on the ability to learn instead of relying on instinct. Instinct does not allow for the possibility of creating new tools and behaviors. Ants are extremely simple. Their sense of smell basically controls their brain. If they smell a certain compound, their brains automatically carry out a certain function. There is not teaching or learning. An ant's brain is more similar to a computer program than it is to a human being's.
In my opinion, intelligence is a measure of two things:
Natural talent and Willpower
It's true that talent can vary, but a dumb person with enough willpower to learn can outsmart someone with natural talent who is lazy. The ability to learn is the greatest tool that the human mind has. It doesn't matter if you are a genius if you won't learn.
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 22 2009, 01:10 AM)
I don't know about that ... that are smart enough to make a compass. So, debunked. Do monkeys do that? That would definitely qualify as tool usage in my book. So .. how do they know that by doing this it will help them navigate?
http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55697/
In a hotel atm, didn't feel like setting up camp after driving for 16 hours. So, I won't be around for too long! What is intelligence really though? Lets just imagine for 1 minute that Einstein never went to school and was in-fact the same exact Einstein we know, would his intelligence not be on the same exact level it always had, and just his "working" knowledge would be different? If knowledge were intelligence, autistic kids with photographic memories would rule the world.
So the ants have a factory in which they build these magnetic particles?
Yeesh, you guys are so stupid. Do you think that another example of the same damn behavior I already showed wasn't what you're claiming it to be somehow invalidates my response?
Jesus, you guys run around in circles trying to prove a point that any two-year old could tell you is wrong: Ants are not as intelligent as people, no matter how you argue. They never have been, they never will be.
So, you're saying they were born with magnetic antennae too? You would also say, that isolating a nanoparticle and using it wouldn't qualify as tool usage. Like a chimp putting a twig into an ant/termite mound to get food? It's known and accepted as simple tool usage. Are you arguing against that?
And if you want to keep running around in circles, don't answer the simple questions, but put up a smoke screen and start talking about something else other than the issue presented. You like Army acronyms, here's one for you KISS.
Keep it simple stupid.
And if you want to keep running around in circles, don't answer the simple questions, but put up a smoke screen and start talking about something else other than the issue presented. You like Army acronyms, here's one for you KISS.
Keep it simple stupid.
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 23 2009, 11:33 AM)
So, you're saying they were born with magnetic antennae too? You would also say, that isolating a nanoparticle and using it wouldn't qualify as tool usage. Like a chimp putting a twig into an ant/termite mound to get food? It's known and accepted as simple tool usage. Are you arguing against that?
And if you want to keep running around in circles, don't answer the simple questions, but put up a smoke screen and start talking about something else other than the issue presented. You like Army acronyms, here's one for you KISS.
Keep it simple stupid.
You should follow your own advice... Adding imaginary claims to my list of arguments doesn't do anything but muddy the waters and prove your own dishonesty.
I never said one word about tool use. I've never mentioned it at all in this whole discussion. What I talked about was tool making. There's a whole world of difference there that you're just too stupid to see.
The ants don't make the magnetic particles, or the leaves. They simply find them and use them. It takes no more intelligence than does hunting.
And if you want to keep running around in circles, don't answer the simple questions, but put up a smoke screen and start talking about something else other than the issue presented. You like Army acronyms, here's one for you KISS.
Keep it simple stupid.
You should follow your own advice... Adding imaginary claims to my list of arguments doesn't do anything but muddy the waters and prove your own dishonesty.
I never said one word about tool use. I've never mentioned it at all in this whole discussion. What I talked about was tool making. There's a whole world of difference there that you're just too stupid to see.
The ants don't make the magnetic particles, or the leaves. They simply find them and use them. It takes no more intelligence than does hunting.
So, adding the nanoparticles to the joints in their antennae do not make them a tool to navigate which they then use? If that is what you're saying, I would have to disagree. I don't think that makes me any smarter than you, or you any smarter than me. Do you think it does? I mean, we could change the argument into what qaulifies a tool ... a tool.
Poor stupid meem. Poor poor meem.
What does that have to do with the discussion? I am stupid, so what's your point captain obvious? Do you have a vaild opinion on the magneto-ants, or just me?
The topic is on how to define a stupid person. I am using you as an example of a stupid person, based on your post history.
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 23 2009, 11:48 AM)
So, adding the nanoparticles to the joints in their antennae do not make them a tool to navigate which they then use? If that is what you're saying, I would have to disagree. I don't think that makes me any smarter than you, or you any smarter than me. Do you think it does? I mean, we could change the argument into what qaulifies a tool ... a tool.
Meem, do you consider your arm to be a tool? Your foot? If it comes as a direct result of genetic programming, it's not a tool, no matter whether it was added before or after the development stage.
Meem, do you consider your arm to be a tool? Your foot? If it comes as a direct result of genetic programming, it's not a tool, no matter whether it was added before or after the development stage.
I do consider them tools, (simple ones- what could you do without your arms/hands/legs/or feet?) and I would consider them an altered tool, if say I added something to them to modify their natural function. The ants are modifying their natural "tools" that they are born with genetically. If I added nanoparticles/machines to my arm that made me stronger, would that be my natural arm or "tool?" I am not trying to be argumentative, I am saying to can't really simply dismiss the facts. They are not born with magnetic sensitive antennae. They find magnetic nanoparticles and incorporate them into the joints of their antenna. That is not a birth/natural given "function" of their antennae.
Again, not trying to be "prickish" but Flying, do you realize how much this sounds like "intelligent design" or "destiny?"
Is the brain a tool? "it's not a tool, no matter whether it was added before or after the development stage. (?)"
Again, not trying to be "prickish" but Flying, do you realize how much this sounds like "intelligent design" or "destiny?"
QUOTE
If it comes as a direct result of genetic programming, it's not a tool, no matter whether it was added before or after the development stage.
Is the brain a tool? "it's not a tool, no matter whether it was added before or after the development stage. (?)"
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 23 2009, 12:23 PM)
That is not a birth/natural given "function" of their antennae.
How would you know this? The difference is that the ants have evolved the instinct to augment themselves. A tool has to be invented and re-learned by every generation.
How would you know this? The difference is that the ants have evolved the instinct to augment themselves. A tool has to be invented and re-learned by every generation.
QUOTE
Like a chimp putting a twig into an ant/termite mound to get food?
No, more like a bird swallowing small stones so their gizzard can grind up food. Like the ants, they have to add something external to their physiology. Also like the ants, it is instinctive, no intelligence needed.
How do I know that they were not born with magnetic antennae,, and that they do not have to add magnetic nanoparticles to them to make them sensitive to magnetism? The article? I mean, I really don't understand what you're asking here. They are not born with magnetic antennea. That is what I am saying as "fact," what are you saying as "fact?"
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 23 2009, 12:45 PM)
How do I know that they were not born with magnetic antennae,, and that they do not have to add magnetic nanoparticles to them to make them sensitive to magnetism? The article? I mean, I really don't understand what you're asking here. They are not born with magnetic antennea. That is what I am saying as "fact," what are you saying as "fact?"
I was commenting on the "natural" part of your statement. Also, read AlexG's post. Gizzard stones are a much better analogy.
I was commenting on the "natural" part of your statement. Also, read AlexG's post. Gizzard stones are a much better analogy.
QUOTE
They are not born with magnetic antennea
They are born with antenna which can incorporate and react to the magnetic particles.
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 23 2009, 11:48 AM)
So, adding the nanoparticles to the joints in their antennae do not make them a tool to navigate which they then use? If that is what you're saying, I would have to disagree. I don't think that makes me any smarter than you, or you any smarter than me. Do you think it does? I mean, we could change the argument into what qaulifies a tool ... a tool.
1. That's not what I'm saying, you're stupidly trying to maintain your idiotic strawman argument. I've explained myself clearly already.
2. You're wrong. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tool
1. That's not what I'm saying, you're stupidly trying to maintain your idiotic strawman argument. I've explained myself clearly already.
2. You're wrong. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tool
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 23 2009, 12:53 PM)
They are born with antenna which can incorporate and react to the magnetic particles.
Their antennae do not naturally react to magnetic particles. Would you agree? But as the research suggests, they might ... but then why do they add the magnetic nanoparticles if they already react to magnetism? Do whey "want" to increase their sensitivity? I don't know ... can further reasearch "reveal anything?"
They incorporate magnetic particles with their antennae so they can react to the magnetic particles, would you agree?
If you disagree, you should put a paper together and disagree with actual physicists, that actually studied the ants in question. If you have not study these ants, how can you disagree on the observations, and possbile conclusions of without any research, or degree of education in the field to make your opinion any more valid then what has been put forth in this study?
QUOTE
Jandira Ferreira de Oliveira and her colleagues at the Brazilian Center for Physics Research in Rio de Janeiro
Where are your credentials?
I just really don't understand how you can honestly say, that harvesting the nanoparticles does not qualify as tool usage. I won't argue that any further.
QUOTE
Their antennae do not naturally react to magnetic particles. Would you agree?
And a birds gizzard does not naturally contain stones. No one teaches the bird to eat stones, it does so instinctively. No one teaches the ant to pick up magnetic particles, it does so instinctively. There's no intelligence involved.
How can you actually say that though? Where's the proof of no intelligence? The make "homes," they have "societal structure," they "communicate," they breed, eat, hunt, kill, protect, and they use tools ... they might not be as complicated as ours but never the less, it is a tool. So are we just a instinctual process too? We have no intelligence or a certain level of? I am not willing to say they do not have any intelligence what so ever. Maybe we should develop "ant IQ" tests to find proof?
If we go by evolution ( am not saying this negatively- don't take it that way), where do "we" say that "intelligence" starts? At what stage does intelligence "pop" into the picture? What is the first stage of a developing intelligence? all people have a certain "measure" of intelligence, just because one is "more intelligent" than another ... does that mean the lesser has no intelligence?
If we go by evolution ( am not saying this negatively- don't take it that way), where do "we" say that "intelligence" starts? At what stage does intelligence "pop" into the picture? What is the first stage of a developing intelligence? all people have a certain "measure" of intelligence, just because one is "more intelligent" than another ... does that mean the lesser has no intelligence?
If there is no learning, there is no intelligence, just instinct.
If you hatch out a generation of ants and prevent any contact with previous generations, the new generation will exhibit the same behaviors, without anyone teaching them. The ants are hatched 'knowing' what to do.
Buy yourself an ant farm and study them for yourself.
If you hatch out a generation of ants and prevent any contact with previous generations, the new generation will exhibit the same behaviors, without anyone teaching them. The ants are hatched 'knowing' what to do.
Buy yourself an ant farm and study them for yourself.
I am not trying to be a smartass, but you really didn't answer any of my questions.
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 23 2009, 01:46 PM)
I am not trying to be a smartass, but you really didn't answer any of my questions.
You are being a smartass. Think about the definition of intelligence. Self awareness? The ability to learn? (not adapt, that's different) Ant colonies are very complex, but they aren't intelligent, either on a collective or individual basis. If ants were intelligent, they should be able to recognize individuals, which they haven't.
You are being a smartass. Think about the definition of intelligence. Self awareness? The ability to learn? (not adapt, that's different) Ant colonies are very complex, but they aren't intelligent, either on a collective or individual basis. If ants were intelligent, they should be able to recognize individuals, which they haven't.
More to my point, since the thread has been jumping between humans and ants.
Flying, if Albert Einstein never went to school, and never learned anything ... would he have had no intelligence? All person needs is ability to be "intelligent," not to actually learn or adapt to anything? Can we say without question this is a fundamental truth that ants (or any insects) do not adapt or learn "new" tricks? Cockroaches adapt all the time?
You can think I am being a smartass if you want, that's your prerogative I'm not here to take that from you. All I can say, that is not my intention, but I am well aware that is often how I will be perceived.
QUOTE
Think about the definition of intelligence. Self awareness? The ability to learn?
Flying, if Albert Einstein never went to school, and never learned anything ... would he have had no intelligence? All person needs is ability to be "intelligent," not to actually learn or adapt to anything? Can we say without question this is a fundamental truth that ants (or any insects) do not adapt or learn "new" tricks? Cockroaches adapt all the time?
You can think I am being a smartass if you want, that's your prerogative I'm not here to take that from you. All I can say, that is not my intention, but I am well aware that is often how I will be perceived.
Why do you keep saying such idiotic things?
You think learning can only happen in school? If a baby never learned anything, it wouldn't be able to walk, talk, or anything else. It would die. If by some miracle it survived, it would fit every definition of a non-intelligent animal.
QUOTE
Flying, if Albert Einstein never went to school, and never learned anything ... would he have had no intelligence?
You think learning can only happen in school? If a baby never learned anything, it wouldn't be able to walk, talk, or anything else. It would die. If by some miracle it survived, it would fit every definition of a non-intelligent animal.
Ok, before I go I would like to point out this major reversal.
In another thread, you seemed to agree with Alpha and other when he said,
"Avoid educating yourself, and ignoring all and everyone who has educated themselves." Or something very close to that. Now, you seem to say, you don't have to go to school to be "smart" but before you were agreeing with Alpah in saying you have to go to school to prove your smart or to be smart? It's a little confusing.
Seriously, not trying to be a smartass, just pointing out what I "see."
In another thread, you seemed to agree with Alpha and other when he said,
"Avoid educating yourself, and ignoring all and everyone who has educated themselves." Or something very close to that. Now, you seem to say, you don't have to go to school to be "smart" but before you were agreeing with Alpah in saying you have to go to school to prove your smart or to be smart? It's a little confusing.
Seriously, not trying to be a smartass, just pointing out what I "see."
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 23 2009, 02:33 PM)
Ok, before I go I would like to point out this major reversal.
In another thread, you seemed to agree with Alpha and other when he said,
"Avoid educating yourself, and ignoring all and everyone who has educated themselves." Or something very close to that. Now, you seem to say, you don't have to go to school to be "smart" but before you were agreeing with Alpah in saying you have to go to school to prove your smart or to be smart? It's a little confusing.
Seriously, not trying to be a smartass, just pointing out what I "see."
You're not even trying. Your definitions of words move around with each post. Maybe YOU should define "intelligence", "learning", "education" and "smart" and then I can answer your question.
In another thread, you seemed to agree with Alpha and other when he said,
"Avoid educating yourself, and ignoring all and everyone who has educated themselves." Or something very close to that. Now, you seem to say, you don't have to go to school to be "smart" but before you were agreeing with Alpah in saying you have to go to school to prove your smart or to be smart? It's a little confusing.
Seriously, not trying to be a smartass, just pointing out what I "see."
You're not even trying. Your definitions of words move around with each post. Maybe YOU should define "intelligence", "learning", "education" and "smart" and then I can answer your question.
Mine or yours? I haven't really defined any of those terms as you would make claim. I have given certain indications on what I "feel" about some of those terms, but no absolute definition .. because I really don't think we are "qualified" to determine these words, absolutely, but that does not never-the-less take away from their meanings and usage.
Are you willing to say that you have not reversed in any way with what has been previously said? This is not about me "trying to win," I think that's where people make their first mistakes in assumptions about me.
Later on.
(p.s.)
I am not even trying what .... ??
Are you willing to say that you have not reversed in any way with what has been previously said? This is not about me "trying to win," I think that's where people make their first mistakes in assumptions about me.
Later on.
(p.s.)
I am not even trying what .... ??
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 23 2009, 02:43 PM)
Mine or yours? I haven't really defined any of those terms as you would make claim. I have given certain indications on what I "feel" about some of those terms, but no absolute definition .. because I really don't think we are "qualified" to determine these words, absolutely, but that does not never-the-less take away from their meanings and usage.
Your definitions should not change based on your feelings. No wonder you have problems with arguments. Decide what YOUR definitions are and stick to them.
I don't think that I made any contradictions. If your definitions make it seem that way, it's your fault, not mine.
I don't think that I made any contradictions. If your definitions make it seem that way, it's your fault, not mine.
I am not even trying what .... ??
To think.
Alex, you are aware you just said that you're an idiot, right? Because you suggested that the thermal stripper was equivalent? I mean, you do realize that?
The article said,
Alex, you are aware you just said that you're an idiot, right? Because you suggested that the thermal stripper was equivalent? I mean, you do realize that?
The article said,
To learn more about this faint visible light, scientists in Japan employed extraordinarily sensitive cameras capable of detecting single photons.
Then you said ..
I was under the impression this was something you believed to be valid not idiotic. Perhaps you could better explain what you mean exactly, because I am a stupid person that clearly doesn't understand.
Alex, you are aware you just said that you're an idiot, right? Because you suggested that the thermal stripper was equivalent?
Meem, you're an idiot. Thermal imaging has nothing to do with detecting single photons.
How can you be so stupid? Didn't you get any education, at any level?
When S. I. Hayakawa was asked to define red, he said all you could do was point at a fire engine.
When you define stupid, all you need do is point at Meem.
Idiot,
you asked for a study showing that the face was warmer than the rest of the body, including the crotch. I pointed you to a thermal imaging video which showed the face to be warmer than the rest of the dancers body.
There are any number of images on the web showing the face is warmer, but I chose that one for obvious reasons.
It has nothing to do with single photons being detected, it has to do with infrared imaging.
Are you really that retarded? (rehtorical question, we already know the answer)
What do you think light is?
Are you truly this stupid? Or are you just trolling?
Alex, you are aware you just said that you're an idiot, right? Because you suggested that the thermal stripper was equivalent? I mean, you do realize that?
The article said,
Then you said ..
I was under the impression this was something you believed to be valid not idiotic. Perhaps you could better explain what you mean exactly, because I am a stupid person that clearly doesn't understand.
1. The light was postulated to be caused by heat, therefore, the video is very appropriate.
2. The video was posted in response to the question of whether the crotch is warmer than the face.
Pay attention, jackass.
Your definitions should not change based on your feelings. No wonder you have problems with arguments. Decide what YOUR definitions are and stick to them.
QUOTE
Are you willing to say that you have not reversed in any way with what has been previously said? This is not about me "trying to win," I think that's where people make their first mistakes in assumptions about me.
I don't think that I made any contradictions. If your definitions make it seem that way, it's your fault, not mine.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Are you willing to say that you have not reversed in any way with what has been previously said? This is not about me "trying to win," I think that's where people make their first mistakes in assumptions about me. |
I don't think that I made any contradictions. If your definitions make it seem that way, it's your fault, not mine.
I am not even trying what .... ??
To think.
Flying, it's good that you're aware of your problem, that means there is hope that someday something will happen and maybe it will change. "Nuttin but love. "
"QUOTE
I don't think
idiot troll
Would I be an idiot if I said a thermal image is comparable to camera capable of capturing a single photon?
Thermal vision scopes/cameras "see" photons?
Thermal vision scopes/cameras "see" photons?
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 24 2009, 03:21 PM)
Would I be an idiot if I said a thermal image is comparable to camera capable of capturing a single photon?
Thermal vision scopes/cameras "see" photons?
What are you even asking? Are an image and a camera comparable? What can you "see" that aren't photons?
Thermal vision scopes/cameras "see" photons?
What are you even asking? Are an image and a camera comparable? What can you "see" that aren't photons?
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 24 2009, 03:21 PM)
Would I be an idiot if I said a thermal image is comparable to camera capable of capturing a single photon?
Yes.
Yes.
Again: Define a Stupid Person... Topic title, right?
Remember? Someone who keeps doing the same thing over and over, even if it doesn't work.
Jesus, I can't get new posters on my board that have the balls to 'grasp' that! If they do, they can't read half the words my other members use in their daily vocabulary.
Why do you cater to fools?
Not you Alex... dammit, sometimes I get disgusted.
Remember? Someone who keeps doing the same thing over and over, even if it doesn't work.
Jesus, I can't get new posters on my board that have the balls to 'grasp' that! If they do, they can't read half the words my other members use in their daily vocabulary.
Why do you cater to fools?
Not you Alex... dammit, sometimes I get disgusted.
Intelligence should allow one to see into the future and understand the past better. So I guess if someone has almost no understanding of the past or insight they are probably stupid.
An example is like say if someone living on an island that could support there life for about 90 years decides they want a house... So they chop down all the trees to build a house while at the same time changing the eco system on the island that reduces the amount of years it can support them for by 40 or so years. Such is humanity in general...
An example is like say if someone living on an island that could support there life for about 90 years decides they want a house... So they chop down all the trees to build a house while at the same time changing the eco system on the island that reduces the amount of years it can support them for by 40 or so years. Such is humanity in general...
QUOTE (magpies+Jul 25 2009, 12:40 AM)
Intelligence should allow one to see into the future and understand the past better. So I guess if someone has almost no understanding of the past or insight they are probably stupid.
An example is like say if someone living on an island that could support there life for about 90 years decides they want a house... So they chop down all the trees to build a house while at the same time changing the eco system on the island that reduces the amount of years it can support them for by 40 or so years. Such is humanity in general...
There are inherent risks in progress.
An example is like say if someone living on an island that could support there life for about 90 years decides they want a house... So they chop down all the trees to build a house while at the same time changing the eco system on the island that reduces the amount of years it can support them for by 40 or so years. Such is humanity in general...
There are inherent risks in progress.
QUOTE
When you feel like giving up, remember why you held on for so long in the first place.
Anonymous
It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer.
Albert Einstein
Never give up, for that is just the place and time that the tide will turn.
Harriet Beecher Stowe
Never, never, never give up.
Winston Churchill
Anonymous
It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer.
Albert Einstein
Never give up, for that is just the place and time that the tide will turn.
Harriet Beecher Stowe
Never, never, never give up.
Winston Churchill
Alex, you are aware you just said that you're an idiot, right? Because you suggested that the thermal stripper was equivalent? I mean, you do realize that?
The article said,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When you feel like giving up, remember why you held on for so long in the first place. Anonymous It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer. Albert Einstein Never give up, for that is just the place and time that the tide will turn. Harriet Beecher Stowe Never, never, never give up. Winston Churchill |
Alex, you are aware you just said that you're an idiot, right? Because you suggested that the thermal stripper was equivalent? I mean, you do realize that?
The article said,
To learn more about this faint visible light, scientists in Japan employed extraordinarily sensitive cameras capable of detecting single photons.
Then you said ..
QUOTE
I was under the impression this was something you believed to be valid not idiotic. Perhaps you could better explain what you mean exactly, because I am a stupid person that clearly doesn't understand.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Jul 24 2009, 08:25 PM)
There are inherent risks in progress.
QUOTE
Only those who dare to fail greatly can achieve greatly.
Robert F. Kennedy
Our greatest glory is not in never falling but in rising every time we fall.
Confucius
Robert F. Kennedy
Our greatest glory is not in never falling but in rising every time we fall.
Confucius
Meem,
I'm so glad that you find solace by comparing yourself to our forefathers.
I'm so glad that you find solace by comparing yourself to our forefathers.
QUOTE (magpies+Jul 24 2009, 07:40 PM)
Intelligence should allow one to see into the future and understand the past better. So I guess if someone has almost no understanding of the past or insight they are probably stupid.
An example is like say if someone living on an island that could support there life for about 90 years decides they want a house... So they chop down all the trees to build a house while at the same time changing the eco system on the island that reduces the amount of years it can support them for by 40 or so years. Such is humanity in general...
Does this mean that the said person, smart enough to build a house, is not smart enough to replant trees? Does one have to chop down all the trees to build a house? I think we need more specifics for this example. How many trees does the island have, how many are actually required to build a suitable home? Are there any rocks that could be used instead? Perhaps adobe?
An example is like say if someone living on an island that could support there life for about 90 years decides they want a house... So they chop down all the trees to build a house while at the same time changing the eco system on the island that reduces the amount of years it can support them for by 40 or so years. Such is humanity in general...
Does this mean that the said person, smart enough to build a house, is not smart enough to replant trees? Does one have to chop down all the trees to build a house? I think we need more specifics for this example. How many trees does the island have, how many are actually required to build a suitable home? Are there any rocks that could be used instead? Perhaps adobe?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 24 2009, 09:20 PM)
Meem,
I'm so glad that you find solace by comparing yourself to our forefathers.
I think it's unfortunate you seem to think looking to "good" men of the past is a fault, or makes me crazy. I find solace in MY ability to see good things, even in some of the worst situations.
If we are not trying for something better, what are we trying for?
I'm so glad that you find solace by comparing yourself to our forefathers.
I think it's unfortunate you seem to think looking to "good" men of the past is a fault, or makes me crazy. I find solace in MY ability to see good things, even in some of the worst situations.
If we are not trying for something better, what are we trying for?
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 24 2009, 09:28 PM)
I think it's unfortunate you seem to think looking to "good" men of the past is a fault, or makes me crazy. I find solace in MY ability to see good things, even in some of the worst situations.
If we are not trying for something better, what are we trying for?
It means that you have illusions of grandeur.
You still refuse to accept that genius requires work. Just because you can dream up some bullsh*t theory and post it on a forum doesn't mean that you are being "revolutionary." If Einstein were alive today, he would steer clear of this forum, unless of course he enjoys the LULZ of telling off idiot cranks.
If we are not trying for something better, what are we trying for?
It means that you have illusions of grandeur.
You still refuse to accept that genius requires work. Just because you can dream up some bullsh*t theory and post it on a forum doesn't mean that you are being "revolutionary." If Einstein were alive today, he would steer clear of this forum, unless of course he enjoys the LULZ of telling off idiot cranks.
What would you say someone that is interested in sociology more than physics should do? Sit back and watch?
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 24 2009, 09:53 PM)
What would you say someone that is interested in sociology more than physics should do? Sit back and watch?
What are you talking about now?
What are you talking about now?
Nothing you would understand. I thought it was clear enough the first time I said it.
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 24 2009, 10:01 PM)
Nothing you would understand. I thought it was clear enough the first time I said it.
You have a habit of asking questions without context. I can't answer your question unless I know who/what you are talking about. Specifically, "Sit back and watch?" watch what?
This is a physics forum. Do you see a sociology section?
You have a habit of asking questions without context. I can't answer your question unless I know who/what you are talking about. Specifically, "Sit back and watch?" watch what?
This is a physics forum. Do you see a sociology section?
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 24 2009, 09:06 PM)
Alex, you are aware you just said that you're an idiot, right? Because you suggested that the thermal stripper was equivalent?
Meem, you're an idiot. Thermal imaging has nothing to do with detecting single photons.
How can you be so stupid? Didn't you get any education, at any level?
When S. I. Hayakawa was asked to define red, he said all you could do was point at a fire engine.
When you define stupid, all you need do is point at Meem.
Wow, so kind of you.
But you really do fail to realize that you came in to defend that very idea by giving an example of thermal imaging that everyone was arguing is the same thing as the single photon capture/capable camera ... I must be stupid to think you were doing something else?
AlexG Posted: Yesterday at 1:52 PM Report this post · Quote
QUOTE (Meem @ Jul 23 2009, 01:08 PM)
I'm not trying to be asinine/prickish or w/e, I would just like to know where your basis for saying the face is warmer than say the forehead or crotch? Are there any studies you could point me to?
A thermal image video of a nude dancer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKPUanQ4sxw
Stop trying to explain me to me, and explain yourself to me ... in this instance.
Or are you saying that you agree, simple body heat/thermal imaging is not the same as viewing photons ... even if there is some relation ... not the same. humming bird (got buzzed by one two days ago) is not an eagle, even though they are both birds? Does that not make any sense either?
But you really do fail to realize that you came in to defend that very idea by giving an example of thermal imaging that everyone was arguing is the same thing as the single photon capture/capable camera ... I must be stupid to think you were doing something else?
AlexG Posted: Yesterday at 1:52 PM Report this post · Quote
QUOTE (Meem @ Jul 23 2009, 01:08 PM)
I'm not trying to be asinine/prickish or w/e, I would just like to know where your basis for saying the face is warmer than say the forehead or crotch? Are there any studies you could point me to?
A thermal image video of a nude dancer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKPUanQ4sxw
QUOTE
At the very beginning of the video, the dancer's face clearly shows up warmer than the rest of the body, including the crotch.
Stop trying to explain me to me, and explain yourself to me ... in this instance.
Or are you saying that you agree, simple body heat/thermal imaging is not the same as viewing photons ... even if there is some relation ... not the same. humming bird (got buzzed by one two days ago) is not an eagle, even though they are both birds? Does that not make any sense either?
QUOTE
But you really do fail to realize that you came in to defend that very idea by giving an example of thermal imaging that everyone was arguing is the same thing as the single photon capture/capable camera ... I must be stupid to think you were doing something else?
Idiot,
you asked for a study showing that the face was warmer than the rest of the body, including the crotch. I pointed you to a thermal imaging video which showed the face to be warmer than the rest of the dancers body.
There are any number of images on the web showing the face is warmer, but I chose that one for obvious reasons.
It has nothing to do with single photons being detected, it has to do with infrared imaging.
Are you really that retarded? (rehtorical question, we already know the answer)
Are you saying faces are warmer then crotchs?
So, my question still remains, how does thermal imaging = seeing photons, which is what the article was about, not thermal imaging? You're still defending it by the way. Even-though you say the are totally different ... which is what I think.
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 25 2009, 12:04 AM)
So, my question still remains, how does thermal imaging = seeing photons, which is what the article was about, not thermal imaging? You're still defending it by the way. Even-though you say the are totally different ... which is what I think.
Thermal imaging is detecting photons. It is just like any other photography, using filters and film emulsions and detectors which are sensitive to infra-red light .
What exactly are you talking about?
Thermal imaging is detecting photons. It is just like any other photography, using filters and film emulsions and detectors which are sensitive to infra-red light .
What exactly are you talking about?
Wait a second ... now you are saying a thermal image is the same kind of view as the research in the article mentioned in the OP? So when I take a picture with any camera, I can see a photon? Or do I need one which is like what is in the article?
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 25 2009, 12:19 AM)
Wait a second ... now you are saying a thermal image is the same kind of view as the research in the article mentioned in the OP? So when I take a picture with any camera, I can see a photon? Or do I need one which is like what is in the article?
This is all elementary physics. Why would it not occur to you that ALL acts of observing light are observing photons? Obviously our eyes cannot see photons of the infrared wavelength, but other creatures can. I want to believe that you know SOMETHING, ANYTHING, but you instill no confidence.
This is all elementary physics. Why would it not occur to you that ALL acts of observing light are observing photons? Obviously our eyes cannot see photons of the infrared wavelength, but other creatures can. I want to believe that you know SOMETHING, ANYTHING, but you instill no confidence.
QUOTE
So when I take a picture with any camera, I can see a photon?
What do you think light is?
Are you truly this stupid? Or are you just trolling?
So, then you're saying to see a single photon, A photon, I can use my plain old cannon? Because that is what I think you're saying.
Ina normal human body, the body temperature, in normal conditions should be the same everywhere, right?
Ina normal human body, the body temperature, in normal conditions should be the same everywhere, right?
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 25 2009, 12:35 AM)
So, then you're saying to see a single photon, A photon, I can use my plain old cannon? Because that is what I think you're saying.
Where is this single photon crap coming from?
If your film emulsion was fine enough, or your detector sensitive enough, then your Canon could detect a single photon.
There are detectors sensitive enough to detect single photons. But you don't have one.
No.
Where is this single photon crap coming from?
If your film emulsion was fine enough, or your detector sensitive enough, then your Canon could detect a single photon.
There are detectors sensitive enough to detect single photons. But you don't have one.
QUOTE
Ina normal human body, the body temperature, in normal conditions should be the same everywhere, right?
No.
Apparently you still fail to read what the article said.
Not some stripper on youtube?
So, my camera can't see single photons, but theirs can, and it is different from body heat, or thermal imaging.
Do you agree or not?
QUOTE
(This visible light differs from the infrared radiation - an invisible form of light - that comes from body heat.)
To learn more about this faint visible light, scientists in Japan employed extraordinarily sensitive cameras capable of detecting single photons.
To learn more about this faint visible light, scientists in Japan employed extraordinarily sensitive cameras capable of detecting single photons.
Not some stripper on youtube?
So, my camera can't see single photons, but theirs can, and it is different from body heat, or thermal imaging.
Do you agree or not?
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 25 2009, 12:44 AM)
Apparently you still fail to read what the article said.
Not some stripper on youtube?
So, my camera can't see single photons, but theirs can, and it is different from body heat, or thermal imaging.
Do you agree or not?
You really are an idiot Meem.
Thermal imaging uses infrared light, which is the same as visible light except it's a lower wavelength. There's no difference between the photons which make up visible light and infrared except the wavelength.
I haven't read your article, and I'm not responding to your article. I supplied thermal imaging showing that the face was warmer than the rest of the body, including the crotch.
And whatever the japanese scientist have detected, if it's electromagnetic radiation,(light of any wavelength) it's composed of photons.
Not some stripper on youtube?
So, my camera can't see single photons, but theirs can, and it is different from body heat, or thermal imaging.
Do you agree or not?
You really are an idiot Meem.
Thermal imaging uses infrared light, which is the same as visible light except it's a lower wavelength. There's no difference between the photons which make up visible light and infrared except the wavelength.
I haven't read your article, and I'm not responding to your article. I supplied thermal imaging showing that the face was warmer than the rest of the body, including the crotch.
And whatever the japanese scientist have detected, if it's electromagnetic radiation,(light of any wavelength) it's composed of photons.
Sure, but maybe you should write to the guys that published this article for how stupid they are, and the guys for doing this experiment for how stupid they are.
If a photon has a dual nature, could this not be another example of it? I guess for thinking light behaves both as wave and particle, I am stupid. But anyhow, who cares.
You still didn't answer the question.
[Moderator: Suspended 21 days.]
If a photon has a dual nature, could this not be another example of it? I guess for thinking light behaves both as wave and particle, I am stupid. But anyhow, who cares.
You still didn't answer the question.
QUOTE
So, my camera can't see single photons, but theirs can, and it is different from body heat, or thermal imaging.
Do you agree or not?
Do you agree or not?
[Moderator: Suspended 21 days.]
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 24 2009, 09:06 PM)
Alex, you are aware you just said that you're an idiot, right? Because you suggested that the thermal stripper was equivalent? I mean, you do realize that?
The article said,
Then you said ..
I was under the impression this was something you believed to be valid not idiotic. Perhaps you could better explain what you mean exactly, because I am a stupid person that clearly doesn't understand.
1. The light was postulated to be caused by heat, therefore, the video is very appropriate.
2. The video was posted in response to the question of whether the crotch is warmer than the face.
Pay attention, jackass.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.