I think we can enquire as to whether intelligence is relevant to the size of the brain.
There is growing evidence that it is not about 'bulk', but about proportion. Thus, a small creature may have the capacity to become as 'intelligent' as a large one...
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/261
g.
Interesting. Thanks for the link.
I think that the relative size is super important: not just because bigger brains are usually better, but that a larger relative brain means that the brain has experienced some type of runaway selection. It means that the brain has developed a series of traits which are actually selected FOR.
TED talks are invaluable. I really enjoyed the entire Africa series.
TED talks are invaluable. I really enjoyed the entire Africa series.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+May 17 2008, 12:22 AM)
I think that the relative size is super important: not just because bigger brains are usually better, but that a larger relative brain means that the brain has experienced some type of runaway selection. It means that the brain has developed a series of traits which are actually selected FOR.
TED talks are invaluable. I really enjoyed the entire Africa series.
Good point! However, there are many creatures with brains much bigger than the Crow, that do not appear anywhere near as 'intelligent' to us. Creative intelligence, such as the Crows show, seems to be an especially rare thing.
Also, it was a strange array of creatures that Joshua Klein pointed out as benefitting from co-habitation with Humans...Crows, Dogs, Rats and Cockroaches (Bird, Mammal, Rodent and Insect!)
I agree the TED talks are wonderful.
g.
TED talks are invaluable. I really enjoyed the entire Africa series.
Good point! However, there are many creatures with brains much bigger than the Crow, that do not appear anywhere near as 'intelligent' to us. Creative intelligence, such as the Crows show, seems to be an especially rare thing.
Also, it was a strange array of creatures that Joshua Klein pointed out as benefitting from co-habitation with Humans...Crows, Dogs, Rats and Cockroaches (Bird, Mammal, Rodent and Insect!)
I agree the TED talks are wonderful.
g.
Culture And Intelligence
From:
Culture And Intelligence
22-10-2006
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLB..._Q--?cq=1&p=247
(1) Culture is a biological entity. It is an elaboration/extension of the cell's manipulation beyond its outer membrane. It has been selected for survival of the genome by means of manipulating/adjusting the cell's outer circumstances, in addition to the cell's outer membrane which was selected much earlier for controlling the inner cell's circumstances.
(2) Being a biological entity culture is definitely a general ubiquitous trait of all living systems, all, regardless of size or of extent of cellularization of the organism, from mono to multi-celled. This is obviously and simply the next complexing evolution level up from celling.
For the genome's survival, i.e. proliferation, it is required first to control the in-cell living atmosphere, and consequently next to control the out-of-cell circumstances. Elementary.
(3) You see endless phenomena of culture in monocelled communities and in multi-celled organisms (google animals/birds courtings f.e.). You also see a large variety of phenotypic cultures within the culture of each genotype.
(4) The core (wordnet.princeton) definition of "intelligence" is "the ability to comprehend, to understand and profit from experience". These surviving abilities are different for the different phenotypes within a genotype, therefore each phenotype has its own meaning of "intelligence".
(5) Intelligence is to culture approximately as essential amino acids are to proteins. Culture evolves in response to circumstances only by use of intelligence and to the extent and scope feasible by the extent and scope of intelligence.
(6) Ergo the branching evolution of humans from other primates per my earlier suggestions.
(7) And if you can reckon what might be the next up level (above genome celling and culture) for further ascertaining survivability of humans, you might guesstimate the future course of human evolution.
I think and suggest,
Dov
From:
Culture And Intelligence
22-10-2006
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLB..._Q--?cq=1&p=247
(1) Culture is a biological entity. It is an elaboration/extension of the cell's manipulation beyond its outer membrane. It has been selected for survival of the genome by means of manipulating/adjusting the cell's outer circumstances, in addition to the cell's outer membrane which was selected much earlier for controlling the inner cell's circumstances.
(2) Being a biological entity culture is definitely a general ubiquitous trait of all living systems, all, regardless of size or of extent of cellularization of the organism, from mono to multi-celled. This is obviously and simply the next complexing evolution level up from celling.
For the genome's survival, i.e. proliferation, it is required first to control the in-cell living atmosphere, and consequently next to control the out-of-cell circumstances. Elementary.
(3) You see endless phenomena of culture in monocelled communities and in multi-celled organisms (google animals/birds courtings f.e.). You also see a large variety of phenotypic cultures within the culture of each genotype.
(4) The core (wordnet.princeton) definition of "intelligence" is "the ability to comprehend, to understand and profit from experience". These surviving abilities are different for the different phenotypes within a genotype, therefore each phenotype has its own meaning of "intelligence".
(5) Intelligence is to culture approximately as essential amino acids are to proteins. Culture evolves in response to circumstances only by use of intelligence and to the extent and scope feasible by the extent and scope of intelligence.
(6) Ergo the branching evolution of humans from other primates per my earlier suggestions.
(7) And if you can reckon what might be the next up level (above genome celling and culture) for further ascertaining survivability of humans, you might guesstimate the future course of human evolution.
I think and suggest,
Dov
In my experience
The "reality processor" that encodes the perceived reality is rather small
The most outstanding difference between different creature "intelligences" is the memory size, the bigger the memory the greater the capacity to predict
and then above that there is the capacity to abstract that data to form algorithms that build massive inter-correlated mathematical trees.
It is in the trees that the secret of AI resides
QUOTE
a small creature may have the capacity to become as 'intelligent' as a large one...
The "reality processor" that encodes the perceived reality is rather small
The most outstanding difference between different creature "intelligences" is the memory size, the bigger the memory the greater the capacity to predict
and then above that there is the capacity to abstract that data to form algorithms that build massive inter-correlated mathematical trees.
It is in the trees that the secret of AI resides
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 17 2008, 09:49 AM)
In my experience
The "reality processor" that encodes the perceived reality is rather small
The most outstanding difference between different creature "intelligences" is the memory size, the bigger the memory the greater the capacity to predict
and then above that there is the capacity to abstract that data to form algorithms that build massive inter-correlated mathematical trees.
It is in the trees that the secret of AI resides
Some of what you say does have a bearing on intelligence however, pigeons have a much better memory than Humans do in certain areas, particularly in mapping a landscape for instance. I believe Humans have a very well rounded form of intelligence (jack of all trades) or (many trades) 'Smaller' brained animals however often specialize and exceed Humans at certain 'trades'.
The "reality processor" that encodes the perceived reality is rather small
The most outstanding difference between different creature "intelligences" is the memory size, the bigger the memory the greater the capacity to predict
and then above that there is the capacity to abstract that data to form algorithms that build massive inter-correlated mathematical trees.
It is in the trees that the secret of AI resides
Some of what you say does have a bearing on intelligence however, pigeons have a much better memory than Humans do in certain areas, particularly in mapping a landscape for instance. I believe Humans have a very well rounded form of intelligence (jack of all trades) or (many trades) 'Smaller' brained animals however often specialize and exceed Humans at certain 'trades'.
Interesting.
The 'bulk' may be a container (storage area) of memory, where the action(motion) of the organism(brain) would be the 'intelligence', or the momentary, experiential usage of what there is.
In this way, all 'animated' creatures would show a degree of what we call 'intelligence', but those which are capable of storing and recalling experiences (larger 'bulk' of brain matter) would show a larger capacity for 'intelligent thought', as they would also be capable of juxtaposing more past experience with momentary experience.
g.
The 'bulk' may be a container (storage area) of memory, where the action(motion) of the organism(brain) would be the 'intelligence', or the momentary, experiential usage of what there is.
In this way, all 'animated' creatures would show a degree of what we call 'intelligence', but those which are capable of storing and recalling experiences (larger 'bulk' of brain matter) would show a larger capacity for 'intelligent thought', as they would also be capable of juxtaposing more past experience with momentary experience.
g.
That 'container' really does seem to be the cortex.
My earlier point about relative size was that a brain will tend to grow along with the rest of the animal: as the species becomes larger, there's more brain. There might not be a mechanism to increase the efficiency of the brain since the brain could be growing for other reasons (i.e., to get a bigger heart, the bigger brain might be a side effect).
But with larger relative size, we're seeing a mutation which results in a specifically larger brain, concomittant with reproductive success. And once one of those mutations click in, we can see more and more of those mutations.
A good example is the DUF1220 protein in primates. The DUF1220 protein is common in all mammals, but only in primates has this mutation 'successfully' duplicated itself. And once it starts duplicating itself, it continues adding more and more copies (which is why different primates have different numbers).
But it's a brain specific mutation, clearly under some type of selection pressure for itself.
My earlier point about relative size was that a brain will tend to grow along with the rest of the animal: as the species becomes larger, there's more brain. There might not be a mechanism to increase the efficiency of the brain since the brain could be growing for other reasons (i.e., to get a bigger heart, the bigger brain might be a side effect).
But with larger relative size, we're seeing a mutation which results in a specifically larger brain, concomittant with reproductive success. And once one of those mutations click in, we can see more and more of those mutations.
A good example is the DUF1220 protein in primates. The DUF1220 protein is common in all mammals, but only in primates has this mutation 'successfully' duplicated itself. And once it starts duplicating itself, it continues adding more and more copies (which is why different primates have different numbers).
But it's a brain specific mutation, clearly under some type of selection pressure for itself.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+May 17 2008, 07:38 PM)
That 'container' really does seem to be the cortex.
My earlier point about relative size was that a brain will tend to grow along with the rest of the animal: as the species becomes larger, there's more brain. There might not be a mechanism to increase the efficiency of the brain since the brain could be growing for other reasons (i.e., to get a bigger heart, the bigger brain might be a side effect).
But with larger relative size, we're seeing a mutation which results in a specifically larger brain, concomittant with reproductive success. And once one of those mutations click in, we can see more and more of those mutations.
A good example is the DUF1220 protein in primates. The DUF1220 protein is common in all mammals, but only in primates has this mutation 'successfully' duplicated itself. And once it starts duplicating itself, it continues adding more and more copies (which is why different primates have different numbers).
But it's a brain specific mutation, clearly under some type of selection pressure for itself.
How does all of that help to understand the apparent 'intelligence' of the Crow? - Or that it appears to be...cleverer(?)...than creatures much larger than it?
g.
My earlier point about relative size was that a brain will tend to grow along with the rest of the animal: as the species becomes larger, there's more brain. There might not be a mechanism to increase the efficiency of the brain since the brain could be growing for other reasons (i.e., to get a bigger heart, the bigger brain might be a side effect).
But with larger relative size, we're seeing a mutation which results in a specifically larger brain, concomittant with reproductive success. And once one of those mutations click in, we can see more and more of those mutations.
A good example is the DUF1220 protein in primates. The DUF1220 protein is common in all mammals, but only in primates has this mutation 'successfully' duplicated itself. And once it starts duplicating itself, it continues adding more and more copies (which is why different primates have different numbers).
But it's a brain specific mutation, clearly under some type of selection pressure for itself.
How does all of that help to understand the apparent 'intelligence' of the Crow? - Or that it appears to be...cleverer(?)...than creatures much larger than it?
g.
The 10 smartest animals
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24628983/?pg=1...animals_science
QUOTE
We humans have the ability to learn, to reason and solve problems. We're self-aware, and we’re also conscious of the presence, thoughts and feelings of others. We make tools and practice the art of deception. We're creative. We think abstractly. We have language and use it to express complex ideas. All of these are arguably signs of intelligence. Scientists may not agree on the best and fullest definition of intelligence – but they generally agree that humans are highly intelligent.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24628983/?pg=1...animals_science
Nice link...
Here's another from the same source...
"Chimps more evolved than Humans"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18154408/
g.
Here's another from the same source...
"Chimps more evolved than Humans"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18154408/
g.
It's because the crow (and many birds in its ancestry) had experienced some type of 'brain enhancing' mutation way in the past, and this mutation lead to reproductive success: the success was due to the enhancement of intelligence. And once intelligence is selected for, it can lead to greater and greater levels of brain density and brain size. Runaway selection.
Like the peacock tail, once it starts on the pathway it keeps on growing. And it's growing because the growth provides a benefit, and thus the unsymmetrical size of their brains is due to additional benefit at each stage.
A disproportionate brain means more than just a 'large' brain because it's been selected for specifically: and a brain that's been selected for is quite likely to be intelligent.
Like the peacock tail, once it starts on the pathway it keeps on growing. And it's growing because the growth provides a benefit, and thus the unsymmetrical size of their brains is due to additional benefit at each stage.
A disproportionate brain means more than just a 'large' brain because it's been selected for specifically: and a brain that's been selected for is quite likely to be intelligent.
QUOTE
And once intelligence is selected for, it can lead to greater and greater levels of brain density and brain size.
Are you saying that the intelligence comes first, and then the size? - Is it the other way around, a combination of both, or that Intelligence has no relation to size?
Now density...yes, I can see how that might play a significant role.
Compare the creative intelligence of the Crow with that of, say, a Cow.
g.
Another level on top of the point covered in discussion is
processor speed
Birds in general have a very fast processor, and that includes featherless bipeds.
processor speed
Birds in general have a very fast processor, and that includes featherless bipeds.
QUOTE (Zarkov+May 18 2008, 12:45 AM)
Another level on top of the point covered in discussion is
processor speed
Birds in general have a very fast processor, and that includes featherless bipeds.
I wonder if that is related to density?
g.
processor speed
Birds in general have a very fast processor, and that includes featherless bipeds.
I wonder if that is related to density?
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+May 18 2008, 12:10 AM)
Are you saying that the intelligence comes first, and then the size? - Is it the other way around, a combination of both, or that Intelligence has no relation to size?
Now density...yes, I can see how that might play a significant role.
Size needn't have a correlation to intelligence, that's the trick. A mass of poorly integrated neurons is no more useful than a smaller mass of poorly integrated neurons.
"Density" is a funny concept, really. Our brains are much more dense than invertebrates because we evolved a way to make our neurons smaller (myelin sheaths). The real thing that's needed is proper integration, proper connections, and a proper balance between learning and instinct.
Once there are good connections, then more size is a benefit. So that's what I think happened in our past, certain brains evolved 'better' connections and then experienced runaway selection (where size did matter).
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-52...296535100\
Here's an excellent talk about the brains of birds, it's from a fairly famous neuroscientist at UC San Diego. You'll probably recognise part of his talk.
Ok, yes that seems very sensible. Thanks for that! I agree.
The Octopus is also considered to be very intelligent.
(Your link above isn't working, by the way)
g.
The Octopus is also considered to be very intelligent.
(Your link above isn't working, by the way)
g.
Yeah, they're crazy intelligent. Their intelligence is really interesting to me, because it has evolved over a very different pathway than the warm-blooded animals. Intelligence is obviously a useful trait, and it might be inevitable once we get cells communicating with each other.
Sorry about the link, take off the last slash (\); must've been a slip 'o me fingers.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5258937710296535100
That should work. Thanks for clicking on it.
Sorry about the link, take off the last slash (\); must've been a slip 'o me fingers.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5258937710296535100
That should work. Thanks for clicking on it.
Excellent thread, guys.
Maybe we've heard this before, but size doesn't matter as much as one may think. It's definitely all about how well it works, and how well you can use it. Yes, I'm referring to brains, perverts.
Einstein's brain weighed 87% as much as the average adult males.
Trainnnn that brainnnn!
Maybe we've heard this before, but size doesn't matter as much as one may think. It's definitely all about how well it works, and how well you can use it. Yes, I'm referring to brains, perverts.
Einstein's brain weighed 87% as much as the average adult males.
Trainnnn that brainnnn!
It is apparent that the brain is compartmentalised
there is spacial ability, logic, language (symbols), co-ordination and reaction
"intuition" and maybe "ROM (innate knowledge ie baby rearing) and more
Now these are often available at different levels for different brains
Women has good intuition, language and (baby) but poor spacial ability
whereas men have good spacial ability etc...
So intelligence has to be multi-faceted, as well as processor speed dependent, as well as storage and abstraction...... add to this list
Intelligence is therefore a very difficult trait to measure IMO.
there is spacial ability, logic, language (symbols), co-ordination and reaction
"intuition" and maybe "ROM (innate knowledge ie baby rearing) and more
Now these are often available at different levels for different brains
Women has good intuition, language and (baby) but poor spacial ability
whereas men have good spacial ability etc...
So intelligence has to be multi-faceted, as well as processor speed dependent, as well as storage and abstraction...... add to this list
Intelligence is therefore a very difficult trait to measure IMO.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+May 19 2008, 06:45 PM)
Yeah, they're crazy intelligent. Their intelligence is really interesting to me, because it has evolved over a very different pathway than the warm-blooded animals. Intelligence is obviously a useful trait, and it might be inevitable once we get cells communicating with each other.
Sorry about the link, take off the last slash (\); must've been a slip 'o me fingers.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5258937710296535100
That should work. Thanks for clicking on it.
Thanks for that, it's a great link!
Birds are very interesting. I have sat and watched many different species and they are quite obviously intelligent. I also think they have endured an even more 'rapid' evolution than Humans (changed in more drastic ways) - as they evolved out of the reptilian mould.
And it is not just 'intelligence' that is amazing in these creatures. Has anyone ever seen swifts picking flies out of the air? Do we have any idea of the kind of precision, eyesight and reaction times involved in the process? They all have great eyesight and hearing...but hardly any ears! Amazing!
All energy/matter is interconnected, so yes, 'inevitable' is a good word to use for cells communicating with each other!
g.
Sorry about the link, take off the last slash (\); must've been a slip 'o me fingers.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5258937710296535100
That should work. Thanks for clicking on it.
Thanks for that, it's a great link!
Birds are very interesting. I have sat and watched many different species and they are quite obviously intelligent. I also think they have endured an even more 'rapid' evolution than Humans (changed in more drastic ways) - as they evolved out of the reptilian mould.
And it is not just 'intelligence' that is amazing in these creatures. Has anyone ever seen swifts picking flies out of the air? Do we have any idea of the kind of precision, eyesight and reaction times involved in the process? They all have great eyesight and hearing...but hardly any ears! Amazing!
All energy/matter is interconnected, so yes, 'inevitable' is a good word to use for cells communicating with each other!
g.
I knew an African Grey that would screech "shut up" when the room got too loud.
Ok so that isn't extremely impressive.
But there was one guy that would be BSing when suddenly you would hear a Rahh HAHA from the other room.
And I dont' think the bird learned that with that particular guy.
And I read about one that learned how to count, recognize colours, textures, and some objects.
For example the experimenter would put six red fuzzy keys on the table and the parrot would say six red fuzzy keys.
Ok so that isn't extremely impressive.
But there was one guy that would be BSing when suddenly you would hear a Rahh HAHA from the other room.
And I dont' think the bird learned that with that particular guy.
And I read about one that learned how to count, recognize colours, textures, and some objects.
For example the experimenter would put six red fuzzy keys on the table and the parrot would say six red fuzzy keys.
Alex.
He died not too long ago, and I miss him. He'd have made a better President for the US than W, because he understood zero.
As a matter of fact, when W needs a new job, maybe he can have DavidD's position here! It might be an improvement...
He died not too long ago, and I miss him. He'd have made a better President for the US than W, because he understood zero.
As a matter of fact, when W needs a new job, maybe he can have DavidD's position here! It might be an improvement...
QUOTE (Gorgeous+May 20 2008, 03:43 AM)
The Octopus is also considered to be very intelligent.
They are my pick for any sea-based creature to evolve advanced intelligence.
But if they ever did develop technology, they would have to be pretty advanced before they discovered fire.
They are my pick for any sea-based creature to evolve advanced intelligence.
But if they ever did develop technology, they would have to be pretty advanced before they discovered fire.
QUOTE (N O M+May 20 2008, 02:07 AM)
They are my pick for any sea-based creature to evolve advanced intelligence.
But if they ever did develop technology, they would have to be pretty advanced before they discovered fire.
Yeah, but they'd be pretty good at table-tennis!
g.
But if they ever did develop technology, they would have to be pretty advanced before they discovered fire.
Yeah, but they'd be pretty good at table-tennis!
g.
Remarkable footage of a flying fish...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7410421.stm
Can't say if this is related to intelligence, but it must be an advantage to be able to leave the water where a predator might be lurking.
g.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7410421.stm
Can't say if this is related to intelligence, but it must be an advantage to be able to leave the water where a predator might be lurking.
g.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+May 20 2008, 08:18 PM)
Remarkable footage of a flying fish...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7410421.stm
Can't say if this is related to intelligence, but it must be an advantage to be able to leave the water where a predator might be lurking.
g.
Hi g.
Great link.
(IMO) It absolutely is linked to intelligence. Some lifeforms evolve what I call 'Biological Intelligence' like the mole's that barely detect light but who's feet are among the most sensitive appendages in the animal kingdom, so sensitive that they virtually 'see' the ground and tunnels where they mainly dwell. What good would keen eyesight be underground where there is virtually no light to detect? Seems intelligent to me.
In regards to Human Intelligence, again I believe the great breakthrough (which (IMO) is not given the credit or attention it deserves) was the fact that we took on our more familiar Modern appearance before our brain size developed. This demonstrates an important aspect of evolutionary intelligence as in; The body of the organism is not always given due consideration when we examine it's intelligence. When we consider programming AI, the most famous examples of tend to have a very Computer based intellect. How would they develop the necessary awareness of the environment without a sufficiently sensitive body?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7410421.stm
Can't say if this is related to intelligence, but it must be an advantage to be able to leave the water where a predator might be lurking.
g.
Hi g.
Great link.
(IMO) It absolutely is linked to intelligence. Some lifeforms evolve what I call 'Biological Intelligence' like the mole's that barely detect light but who's feet are among the most sensitive appendages in the animal kingdom, so sensitive that they virtually 'see' the ground and tunnels where they mainly dwell. What good would keen eyesight be underground where there is virtually no light to detect? Seems intelligent to me.
In regards to Human Intelligence, again I believe the great breakthrough (which (IMO) is not given the credit or attention it deserves) was the fact that we took on our more familiar Modern appearance before our brain size developed. This demonstrates an important aspect of evolutionary intelligence as in; The body of the organism is not always given due consideration when we examine it's intelligence. When we consider programming AI, the most famous examples of tend to have a very Computer based intellect. How would they develop the necessary awareness of the environment without a sufficiently sensitive body?
QUOTE
How would they develop the necessary awareness of the environment without a sufficiently sensitive body?
The body is hard wired for input
however you have hit the proverbial nail.. for AI
To really know anything you must be able to code it via sensors... a hard task so far for artificial systems.
Description is just not a sufficient "experience"
QUOTE (N O M+May 20 2008, 02:07 AM)
But if they ever did develop technology, they would have to be pretty advanced before they discovered fire.
Yanno, if you think about it, the development of fire could be a very important thing. It marks the turning point, from eating whatever you can find/kill however it is when you find/kill it to actually planning and preparing food, and primitive folks spend a awful lot of time worrying about, getting, and preparing food...
Yanno, if you think about it, the development of fire could be a very important thing. It marks the turning point, from eating whatever you can find/kill however it is when you find/kill it to actually planning and preparing food, and primitive folks spend a awful lot of time worrying about, getting, and preparing food...
QUOTE
It marks the turning point, from eating whatever you can find/kill however it is when you find/kill it to actually planning and preparing food,
Controlling FIRE basically marks the rise of civilisation
BUT it also marks the end of civilisation.... extinction
because with "knowing better ( as if LOL )" came the poisons that have corrupted the minds of every earthling
from cooking to cooking pots to....
that marks the END.
because earthling only can learn from hindsight... and that comes too late to save the dead.
QUOTE (Gorgeous+May 20 2008, 10:05 PM)
Yeah, but they'd be pretty good at table-tennis!
Imagine one playing the guitar
... of course you'd need to stop it trying to shag the bagpipes
Imagine one playing the guitar
... of course you'd need to stop it trying to shag the bagpipes
QUOTE
Alex.
He died not too long ago, and I miss him. He'd have made a better President for the US than W, because he understood zero.
He died not too long ago, and I miss him. He'd have made a better President for the US than W, because he understood zero.
But I believe he had a compatriot who is well more than half way there. You can't Quite have the same dialog with him, but dinosa....uh I mean birds do learn well!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Alex. He died not too long ago, and I miss him. He'd have made a better President for the US than W, because he understood zero. |
But I believe he had a compatriot who is well more than half way there. You can't Quite have the same dialog with him, but dinosa....uh I mean birds do learn well!
because earthling only can learn from hindsight... and that comes too late to save the dead.
Now apply it to the most pathetic whining sociopath you know.
I should keep up better. Good response, hertz! 
QUOTE (N O M+May 21 2008, 01:11 AM)
Imagine one playing the guitar
... of course you'd need to stop it trying to shag the bagpipes
...as you do all current Scotsmen!
g.
... of course you'd need to stop it trying to shag the bagpipes
...as you do all current Scotsmen!
g.
QUOTE (Zerkoff+)
Controlling FIRE basically marks the rise of civilisation
No it doesn't. Man had the use of fire for many thousands of years before we could be considered civilised. Yes fire is an essential technology, but that's all.
Agriculture is far more likely to be the defining technology for civilisation.
And Zerky, quit with the pathetic doomsday predictions. Noone is impressed.
Agriculture is far more likely to be the defining technology for civilisation.
And Zerky, quit with the pathetic doomsday predictions. Noone is impressed.
It's quite a bit of fun arguing about what essential breakthrough was necessary for civilization (animal husbandry? agriculture? fire? symbolic language?). A mark of actual intelligence would be seeing what is necessary for maintaining a civilization. They're easy to name (peace, environmental sustainability, educational systems), but they're pretty hard to implement.
I say it half jokingly, but only half...
Beer!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...4_kurtbeer.html
http://beeradvocate.com/articles/673
Beer!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...4_kurtbeer.html
http://beeradvocate.com/articles/673
QUOTE (El_Machinae+May 22 2008, 12:37 PM)
It's quite a bit of fun arguing about what essential breakthrough was necessary for civilization (animal husbandry? agriculture? fire? symbolic language?).
I'd say government. Even a durn simple form like the fuedal system, or even simpler, bully rule would be the mark of civilization.
Of course, that's accepting the given that civilizations throughout history ain't never been very civilized...
I'd say government. Even a durn simple form like the fuedal system, or even simpler, bully rule would be the mark of civilization.
Of course, that's accepting the given that civilizations throughout history ain't never been very civilized...
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+May 22 2008, 02:31 PM)
I'd say government. Even a durn simple form like the fuedal system, or even simpler, bully rule would be the mark of civilization.
Of course, that's accepting the given that civilizations throughout history ain't never been very civilized...
Human beings are very self-deceptive!
g.
Of course, that's accepting the given that civilizations throughout history ain't never been very civilized...
Human beings are very self-deceptive!
g.
QUOTE
bully rule would be the mark of civilization.
Bully-rule has been always present to some degree
But there have been South American Continental cultures that never knew warfare...
Bully-rule is alive and well today... politics, and in forums....etc
Most people think sophistication =civilisation
however most people are "sophisticated" (artificially embellished, mentally and physically...false)
whereas very few people are civilised.
When Captain Cook arrived in Tahiti he described the inhabitants as "noble"... a "primitive" civilised group of people..... from then on the sophistication of metal poisoning destroyed their fragile way of life.
All sophisticated people just want to make everyone "sophisticated consumers" so parasitism can be unashamedly practiced.
Go into Burma/China and spread Christianity.... LOL... creeps
rather than giving unbiased help
earthlings you suck
Man, I wish you would give up on the 'Earthling' crap. You occasionally make sense, then spoil it with something like that.
NOM has is right, agriculture was essential for nomadic tribes to settle and create cities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization
QUOTE
A civilization or civilisation is human society or culture group normally defined as a complex society characterized by the practice of agriculture and settlement in cities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization
No disagreement, but perhaps a caveat in judging the 'chicken v. egg' question: I believe I read recently that agriculture may have been a response to climate change, or the population pressure of humans on the local environment. So many variables...
I will try to be prepared when I visit this thread again.
I will try to be prepared when I visit this thread again.
QUOTE (xtrmn8r+May 23 2008, 10:44 AM)
NOM has is right, agriculture was essential for nomadic tribes to settle and create cities.
I'm starting to be swayed to gmilam's point, that beer is the defining technology for civilisation.
That does put the US at a disadvantage, since American beer sucks
I'm starting to be swayed to gmilam's point, that beer is the defining technology for civilisation.
That does put the US at a disadvantage, since American beer sucks
QUOTE (N O M+May 21 2008, 08:25 PM)
Agriculture is far more likely to be the defining technology for civilisation.
This gets my vote.
As we've all heard before, agriculture allowed a constant food source, and eventually led to a surplus. This surplus freed up some folks (hopefully/naturally the more intelligent ones) and allowed for the development of specialization in different professions. Without the need to chase beasts with spears or forage for berries all day, people could sit around and think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_revolution
This gets my vote.
As we've all heard before, agriculture allowed a constant food source, and eventually led to a surplus. This surplus freed up some folks (hopefully/naturally the more intelligent ones) and allowed for the development of specialization in different professions. Without the need to chase beasts with spears or forage for berries all day, people could sit around and think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_revolution
QUOTE (N O M+May 22 2008, 07:17 PM)
I'm starting to be swayed to gmilam's point, that beer is the defining technology for civilisation. That does put the US at a disadvantage, since American beer sucks
You certainly know your American beer!
That does put the US at a disadvantage, since American beer sucks You certainly know your American beer!
American beer sucks? I BEG your pardon!
http://www.thestar.com/living/article/424975
QUOTE
The idea of weak American suds is being laid to rest by the boom in indie ales, stouts and pilsners
http://www.thestar.com/living/article/424975
When I lived in Massachusetts I brewed my own, but it's too hot to get good beer aged properly down here. My cousin has a dying fridge that I may resurrect for lagers...
Y'all wish me luck!
Y'all wish me luck!
QUOTE
Y'all wish me luck!
Good luck and good brewing!
The drink of choice to make here is wine. Some awsome fermented grape juce comes from a friend of mine.
THIS from someone who knocks American beer. You guys actually eat this stuff?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegemite
http://www.cockeyed.com/inside/vegemite/vegemite.html
QUOTE
Vegemite is made from leftover brewers' yeast extract, a by-product of beer manufacture, and various vegetable and spice additives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegemite
http://www.cockeyed.com/inside/vegemite/vegemite.html
QUOTE (xtrmn8r+May 23 2008, 01:17 PM)
THIS from someone who knocks American beer. You guys actually eat this stuff?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegemite
I knew I'd get a bite or two out of the beer comment
I prefer Marmite to Vegemite, but it's pretty much the same thing.
On the brewing front. I make brandy from my own grapes, and I've just started brewing my own rum from mollasses. It's not bad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegemite
I knew I'd get a bite or two out of the beer comment
I prefer Marmite to Vegemite, but it's pretty much the same thing.
On the brewing front. I make brandy from my own grapes, and I've just started brewing my own rum from mollasses. It's not bad
QUOTE (xtrmn8r+May 22 2008, 08:10 PM)
Good luck and good brewing!
The drink of choice to make here is wine. Some awsome fermented grape juce comes from a friend of mine.
I mentioned somewhere, my Joint or here, a friend of mine who 'stills his own whiskey. His wine is too sweet, and sucks like Mogen-David, but his bourbon is better than most five year olds.
Hoyt Tolliver! You rock!
QUOTE
On the brewing front. I make brandy from my own grapes, and I've just started brewing my own rum from mollasses. It's not bad
Australians make some great Shiraz, what do you have?
NZ is best known for its Savignon Blanc.
QUOTE (xtrmn8r+May 23 2008, 01:33 AM)
Australians make some great Shiraz, what do you have?
I couldn't agree more.
I think the climate the grapes are grown at.
I personally have been to Australia to visit my sister a couple of times.
Winter there is also not very cold. (In comparison to where I live)
QUOTE (Sapo+May 23 2008, 01:23 PM)
a friend of mine who 'stills his own whiskey. but his bourbon is better than most five year olds.
Is he calling it a Michael Jackson special?
I also do vodka. The point is no flavour at all. It's a bit too easy, just bucket chemistry. I'm fairly certain most home brewers don't go as far as saponifying esters, but hey 
Is he calling it a Michael Jackson special?
QUOTE
His wine is too sweet, and sucks like Mogen-David,
My wine was never too good, which is why I started making brandy. And I've make cavaldos (apple jack) from apples, tastes very much like brandy. And I recently made a brandy from pears.I also do vodka. The point is no flavour at all. It's a bit too easy, just bucket chemistry. I'm fairly certain most home brewers don't go as far as saponifying esters, but hey
All we make around here is corn liquor(moonshine). Some guys have started filtering it through activated charcoal and it smooths out the taste real well. It also makes a pretty good paint stripper and fuel additive for gasoline!!!
Grumpy
Grumpy
I wonder if wine from wine kits has the same health benefits as regular wine?
Because I know the hangovers are worse.
Because I know the hangovers are worse.
I'm 20.75, as of today, and you guys are KILLING ME
QUOTE (xtrmn8r+May 23 2008, 12:59 AM)
American beer sucks? I BEG your pardon!
http://www.thestar.com/living/article/424975
I live in Tranta, eh.
The Star is one of the most biased papers around and spins everything.
That article just shows that mainstream American beer is so bad that small groups of Americans have to brew their own to get a good one. And once Yankee ingenuity gets involved at the personal level they get good results.
http://www.thestar.com/living/article/424975
I live in Tranta, eh.
The Star is one of the most biased papers around and spins everything.
That article just shows that mainstream American beer is so bad that small groups of Americans have to brew their own to get a good one. And once Yankee ingenuity gets involved at the personal level they get good results.
QUOTE (N O M+May 23 2008, 12:17 AM)
I'm starting to be swayed to gmilam's point, that beer is the defining technology for civilisation. That does put the US at a disadvantage, since American beer sucks
I would disagree! There are many brewers, small and medium in size, that make world class beer. As good (or better) than anything out there!
The big guy's do suck! but when you make enough beer to fill the Astrodome, what do you expect.
Please don't associate the big guy's as representing American beer! This is most definitely not true!
Besides, I've had some imports (into the USA) that suck rocks as bad as anything Anal-heiser Bush, Miller, Coors... have put out!
American beer is some of the best beer in the world! That's not to say there aren't great beers elsewhere as well, just stop saying that American beer sucks! _Every_ country produces _some_ beer that SUCKS!
FGG
That does put the US at a disadvantage, since American beer sucks I would disagree! There are many brewers, small and medium in size, that make world class beer. As good (or better) than anything out there!
The big guy's do suck! but when you make enough beer to fill the Astrodome, what do you expect.
Please don't associate the big guy's as representing American beer! This is most definitely not true!
Besides, I've had some imports (into the USA) that suck rocks as bad as anything Anal-heiser Bush, Miller, Coors... have put out!
American beer is some of the best beer in the world! That's not to say there aren't great beers elsewhere as well, just stop saying that American beer sucks! _Every_ country produces _some_ beer that SUCKS!
FGG
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 23 2008, 12:02 PM)
All we make around here is corn liquor(moonshine). Some guys have started filtering it through activated charcoal and it smooths out the taste real well. It also makes a pretty good paint stripper and fuel additive for gasoline!!!
Grumpy
You are _never_ ready for your first sip of shine!
FGG
Grumpy
You are _never_ ready for your first sip of shine!
FGG
QUOTE
You are _never_ ready for your first sip of shine!
My first taste still burns!
QUOTE (FGG+May 24 2008, 08:34 AM)
I would disagree! There are many brewers, small and medium in size, that make world class beer. As good (or better) than anything out there!
The big guy's do suck! but when you make enough beer to fill the Astrodome, what do you expect.
Please don't associate the big guy's as representing American beer! This is most definitely not true!
Besides, I've had some imports (into the USA) that suck rocks as bad as anything Anal-heiser Bush, Miller, Coors... have put out!
American beer is some of the best beer in the world! That's not to say there aren't great beers elsewhere as well, just stop saying that American beer sucks! _Every_ country produces _some_ beer that SUCKS!
OK, good point.
Maybe there are a few people there with some taste.
Still, if you drink enough, even crap beer tastes alright
The big guy's do suck! but when you make enough beer to fill the Astrodome, what do you expect.
Please don't associate the big guy's as representing American beer! This is most definitely not true!
Besides, I've had some imports (into the USA) that suck rocks as bad as anything Anal-heiser Bush, Miller, Coors... have put out!
American beer is some of the best beer in the world! That's not to say there aren't great beers elsewhere as well, just stop saying that American beer sucks! _Every_ country produces _some_ beer that SUCKS!
OK, good point.
Maybe there are a few people there with some taste.
Still, if you drink enough, even crap beer tastes alright
QUOTE (N O M+May 24 2008, 03:54 AM)
Still, if you drink enough, even crap beer tastes alright
Hell, if you drink enough even 'shine tastes good...
Hell, if you drink enough even 'shine tastes good...
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+May 24 2008, 04:11 AM)
Hell, if you drink enough even 'shine tastes good...
..... and even "They" looks tasteful after 27 gallons of aristar grade ethanol.
..... and even "They" looks tasteful after 27 gallons of aristar grade ethanol.
QUOTE (Sec+May 24 2008, 04:26 AM)
..... and even "They" looks tasteful after 27 gallons of aristar grade ethanol.
Not after 27 gallons of Pepsi, though.
Not after 27 gallons of Pepsi, though.
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 23 2008, 08:02 AM)
All we make around here is corn liquor(moonshine). Some guys have started filtering it through activated charcoal and it smooths out the taste real well. It also makes a pretty good paint stripper and fuel additive for gasoline!!!
Grumpy
Back in the '70's at the Fiddler's Convention in Greensboro North Carolina, they brewed moonshine right on the property. They mixed all these crushed up pears and plums and melons and whatever else with it, put it in a real big container, pressurized it, and called it Purple Jesus. It was so smooth and wonderful everyone drank just too darn much of it, and there was enough for the hundreds of people in the center of the main tent, but not the tens'o'thousands outside!
Grumpy
Back in the '70's at the Fiddler's Convention in Greensboro North Carolina, they brewed moonshine right on the property. They mixed all these crushed up pears and plums and melons and whatever else with it, put it in a real big container, pressurized it, and called it Purple Jesus. It was so smooth and wonderful everyone drank just too darn much of it, and there was enough for the hundreds of people in the center of the main tent, but not the tens'o'thousands outside!
QUOTE (soundhertz+May 24 2008, 05:49 AM)
Back in the '70's at the Fiddler's Convention in Greensboro North Carolina, they brewed moonshine right on the property. They mixed all these crushed up pears and plums and melons and whatever else with it, put it in a real big container, pressurized it, and called it Purple Jesus. It was so smooth and wonderful everyone drank just too darn much of it, and there was enough for the hundreds of people in the center of the main tent, but not the tens'o'thousands outside!
In the Colorado mountains, we used Everclear (190 proof) and guests contributed fruits and soda in a big (clean) trash can and we called it a "Harry buffalo" party... (because that's what your brain felt like in the morning...)
FGG
In the Colorado mountains, we used Everclear (190 proof) and guests contributed fruits and soda in a big (clean) trash can and we called it a "Harry buffalo" party... (because that's what your brain felt like in the morning...)
FGG
Anyone ever have "barrell wash"?
Probably, but not by that name
Everclear made the best punch; unfortunately, here in Pa. the perennial residential idiots known as the Liquor Control Board have decided to further protect us from ourselves by banning it. And I loathe vodka. Bacardi 151 is the closest. Hey what's the best Australian Shiraz? All I ever do is get Yellowtail but I bet there's some prime vineyards.
QUOTE
In the Colorado mountains, we used Everclear (190 proof) and guests contributed fruits and soda in a big (clean) trash can and we called it a "Harry buffalo" party... (because that's what your brain felt like in the morning...)
Everclear made the best punch; unfortunately, here in Pa. the perennial residential idiots known as the Liquor Control Board have decided to further protect us from ourselves by banning it. And I loathe vodka. Bacardi 151 is the closest. Hey what's the best Australian Shiraz? All I ever do is get Yellowtail but I bet there's some prime vineyards.
QUOTE (soundhertz+May 25 2008, 04:10 AM)
Hey what's the best Australian Shiraz? All I ever do is get Yellowtail but I bet there's some prime vineyards.
Best is rather impossible to judge, as Oz has so many absolutely awesome ones.
I'd go for pretty much any Shiraz (14.5% + alcohol) from the McLaren Vale & Barossa/Eden Valley (near Adeliade), 'cause this is where true genius exists!
Best is rather impossible to judge, as Oz has so many absolutely awesome ones.
I'd go for pretty much any Shiraz (14.5% + alcohol) from the McLaren Vale & Barossa/Eden Valley (near Adeliade), 'cause this is where true genius exists!
QUOTE
McLaren Vale & Barossa/Eden Valley (near Adeliade), 'cause this is where true genius exists!
That's it!!
I was working with this truly amazing Aussie band a couple of years ago from Adelaide - Fruit - (check them out if you like Jewel/Fiona Apple/Annie Lennox) and they turned me on to those Shiraz brands - thought I had died... I just couldn't remember those names. Damn it's Sunday in Pa.!
QUOTE (soundhertz+May 25 2008, 04:20 PM)
That's it!!
I was working with this truly amazing Aussie band a couple of years ago from Adelaide - Fruit - (check them out if you like Jewel/Fiona Apple/Annie Lennox) and they turned me on to those Shiraz brands - thought I had died... I just couldn't remember those names. Damn it's Sunday in Pa.!
What? .... unable to purchase ozzy red on Sunday!
- my deepest condolences dude the sad wretched filthy influence of religion strikes again. 
All yall heathens have thus far overlooked the numerous an breathtakingly wonderful qualities of an 18 year old Macallan.
I'll take that or a nice Cragganmore over a glass o shiraz any day...
I'll take that or a nice Cragganmore over a glass o shiraz any day...
Hey, not all religious!
Catholics are FAMOUS for drinking like Fish,
Make mine Johnny Walker Black
Catholics are FAMOUS for drinking like Fish,
Make mine Johnny Walker Black
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 4 2008, 12:20 AM)
Make mine Johnny Walker Black
Don't settle for Black, aim higher! Blue Label is where it's at! Well, if you like blends.
Take the jump over to single malts, you'll find that The Macallan 18 is really quite good.
Don't settle for Black, aim higher! Blue Label is where it's at! Well, if you like blends.
Take the jump over to single malts, you'll find that The Macallan 18 is really quite good.
QUOTE (Dabeer+Jun 4 2008, 10:51 AM)
Don't settle for Black, aim higher! Blue Label is where it's at! Well, if you like blends.
Take the jump over to single malts, you'll find that The Macallan 18 is really quite good.
Well on my paycheck, Black is as expensive as I can buy and still get often enough to keep me from injuring others, hehe.
Oh and I HAVE tried Macallan, WOW that is SERIOUSLY amazing stuff. Have yet to figure out how to get it in Utah though. Friend of mine brought it with him back from Scotland. You got any ideas?
Take the jump over to single malts, you'll find that The Macallan 18 is really quite good.
Well on my paycheck, Black is as expensive as I can buy and still get often enough to keep me from injuring others, hehe.
Oh and I HAVE tried Macallan, WOW that is SERIOUSLY amazing stuff. Have yet to figure out how to get it in Utah though. Friend of mine brought it with him back from Scotland. You got any ideas?
QUOTE (deadbeat+Jun 4 2008, 06:58 AM)
Well on my paycheck, Black is as expensive as I can buy and still get often enough to keep me from injuring others, hehe.
I feel you on that one. I have a hard enough time trying to convince my accountant... uh, I mean, my wife... to let me buy beer, much less whiskey.
Physfan
ps. Don't give me any of the usual patronising cr*p in response. Try the rationality you look for in others and typically fail to display yourself.
I feel you on that one. I have a hard enough time trying to convince my accountant... uh, I mean, my wife... to let me buy beer, much less whiskey.
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
Oh and I HAVE tried Macallan, WOW that is SERIOUSLY amazing stuff. Have yet to figure out how to get it in Utah though. Friend of mine brought it with him back from Scotland. You got any ideas?
Utah? No, I think you just might be out of luck... wait a sec, what's a Utahan doing drinking alcohol, aren't you all Mormon out there?
Utah? No, I think you just might be out of luck... wait a sec, what's a Utahan doing drinking alcohol, aren't you all Mormon out there?
Dabeer
Might I suggest the Jameson 7 yr single malt???
It's fine and costs less than most good imports.
Grumpy
Might I suggest the Jameson 7 yr single malt???
It's fine and costs less than most good imports.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jun 4 2008, 09:35 AM)
Dabeer
Might I suggest the Jameson 7 yr single malt???
It's fine and costs less than most good imports.
Grumpy
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll have to give it a try.
Edit: Apparently my state's Alcoholic Beverage Control stores don't stock Jameson 7.
Edit 2: Unless, of course, you're referring to stock Jameson Irish Whiskey, which doesn't list an age...
Might I suggest the Jameson 7 yr single malt???
It's fine and costs less than most good imports.
Grumpy
Thanks for the recommendation, I'll have to give it a try.
Edit: Apparently my state's Alcoholic Beverage Control stores don't stock Jameson 7.
Edit 2: Unless, of course, you're referring to stock Jameson Irish Whiskey, which doesn't list an age...
Dabeer
Any Jameson would be worth a try, the last 7 I saw was in the Azores many years ago.
Grumpy
Any Jameson would be worth a try, the last 7 I saw was in the Azores many years ago.
Grumpy
Yes, I couldn't agree more. When all else fails, get pi$$ed!
g.
g.
einstein's brain was smaller then average.
QUOTE (mnidjm+Jun 6 2008, 05:59 PM)
einstein's brain was smaller then average.
Less full of cr@p then!
g.
Less full of cr@p then!
g.
QUOTE
I am not 'anti-religion', but Pro-Truth. If this turns out to be the same thing, is it my fault?
If you were interested in truth, you would have researched the nonsense that psychoanalysis is and have rejected it. Having failed to do this, you are a hypocrite.Physfan
ps. Don't give me any of the usual patronising cr*p in response. Try the rationality you look for in others and typically fail to display yourself.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jun 4 2008, 01:35 PM)
Dabeer
Might I suggest the Jameson 7 yr single malt???
It's fine and costs less than most good imports.
Grumpy
Might I suggest the Jameson 7 yr single malt???
It's fine and costs less than most good imports.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Physfan+Jun 11 2008, 05:31 AM)
If you were interested in truth, you would have researched the nonsense that psychoanalysis is and have rejected it. Having failed to do this, you are a hypocrite.
Physfan
ps. Don't give me any of the usual patronising cr*p in response. Try the rationality you look for in others and typically fail to display yourself.
I have a better idea. Having researched the nonsense that is YOU, I shall reject you instead!
g.
Physfan
ps. Don't give me any of the usual patronising cr*p in response. Try the rationality you look for in others and typically fail to display yourself.
I have a better idea. Having researched the nonsense that is YOU, I shall reject you instead!
g.
QUOTE (Masked Marauder+Jun 11 2008, 01:01 PM)
Try a Dalwhinnie a 15 yo Best Scotch on the Planet Can't go wrong.. $55.00 a bottle.
$60 with Virginia's higher liquor import taxes, but looks like it might be worth a try. Thanks for the recommendation!
$60 with Virginia's higher liquor import taxes, but looks like it might be worth a try. Thanks for the recommendation!
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.