caution: I'm going to slap the authority argument in your face now.
it's the same kind of rubbish I publish in peer-reviewed journals.
Why aren't all animals becoming smarter?
- Thread starter Captain Kremmen
- Start date
caution: I'm going to slap the authority argument in your face now.
it's the same kind of rubbish I publish in peer-reviewed journals.
speak english man!
???
can anyone else translate the one post besides the author?
By "QM" I think Reiku refers to "Qunatum Mechanic" but the rest is also a loss to me.
but why bother?
Reiku does not want to learn, or can not:
As I explained in some detail his error / his nonsense in post 150/ and even told the probable cause of his false belief that some human must "observe" to make the wave function collapse as follows:
"BTW, your confusion, misunderstanding etc. is probably caused by the use in English word "observation" when quantum theory is described to those who have little real understanding of it (Never did a calculation of even the classic particle in well problem). It is very unfortunate that "observation" is used instead of "classical interaction." If "classical interaction" were used instead, then you would not have posted such nonsense. Film does make a "classical interaction" with the photon."
I had earlier in post 158 used photgraphic detection to ilustrate that even an inamimate object (the photographic film) is causing the collapse of the wave function. etc. If I do say so myself, almost any idiot could have learned from post 158 that "obsevation" does not, as many ignorantly think, refer to a human looking.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd imagine that would be true. It seems strange it would depend on the observer being human
The same point from another perspective: observation couldn't be possibly be dependent on humans, because humans are constantly changing. Would observation have been possible 10,000 years ago? 50,000 years? 300,000 years in another hominid lineage? If it was dependent on humans there would be parents of some human ancestor who would not be capable of observation and their child would. Because it seems observation is either on or off.
The same point from another perspective: observation couldn't be possibly be dependent on humans, because humans are constantly changing. Would observation have been possible 10,000 years ago? 50,000 years? 300,000 years in another hominid lineage? If it was dependent on humans there would be parents of some human ancestor who would not be capable of observation and their child would. Because it seems observation is either on or off.
Given the myriad of species that have been produced, and the lack of high intelligence species that have succeeded (=1, if we can be said to have suceeded), perhaps smart is not so smart in evolutionary terms.
Yes, that is probably correct but caused by the diverting attraction of the females. Thus the fundamental problem is the existence and proximity of females.I think animals aren't getting smarter because half of them are male.There, I said it. Try and disprove it.
Please note that the first period of rapid intellectual advance in humans was during the 500 years BC peroid when a few of the smarter Greek males discovered that young boys could "releave sexual tensions" and dispensed with using females for that.
There is also a very old song of which I can only remember the first part. That is:
"Rubin, Rubin, I've been thinking: What a grand world this would be,
If all the women were transported, far beyond the Northern sea.
...."
Pesonnally, if this should ever be done, I want to go north with them.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think animals aren't getting smarter because half of them are male.
there are animals that have more females than males. None of them is particularly known for being extremely smart.
True, but those few males sure seem to be.
My own belief is that the idea of human superiority is false.
If anything, we are a freak of nature, which by some chance or mischance has survived, and our survival may wreck the delicate web which has been created by creatures not becoming more intelligent than they need be to survive as a species.
If anything, we are a freak of nature, which by some chance or mischance has survived, and our survival may wreck the delicate web which has been created by creatures not becoming more intelligent than they need be to survive as a species.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
It is certainly unscientific. Superior in what regard. No human can run as fast as a cheetah; no human can fly unaided; no human can dive to the depths of a blue whale; no human can survive in black smokers; no human can digest cellulose. On the other hand we are bloody good generalists, like pigs; and we can survive in diverse and hostiel environments, like cockroaches.
For a long period of the earths history, the first creatures hardly evolved at all.
The bacteria, forming clumps and crusts, stayed much the same for about 2 billion years, and it was only when the earth's temperature was subject to wild swings that things started to diversify.
The bacteria, forming clumps and crusts, stayed much the same for about 2 billion years, and it was only when the earth's temperature was subject to wild swings that things started to diversify.