Raider5678

I can do a fancy version of this where I only have to do it twice, then I take the cards, flip them over upside down, and have the person point to his card.

Curiously, even if perpetual motion machines aren't possible, wouldn't building something that spins really fast for a really long time still be enough? Just spin it again when it stops.

Yeah, we really have no idea. For all we know, time could be atmosphere and the farther you go out form the edge the less and less time affects you.

Forget the horny goat weed.

Like an evaluation.

But can it pass a psychology test?

Honestly the only reason I believe in a deity at all is because it's easier for me to believe there's a higher power that made the universe rather then the idea it came from nothing. In the end, you can always ask "well where did that begin?" but if there's a deity, you can simply say "It made it." As for what created the deity, you simply accept that it isn't in reality.

The mental capacity to solve problems. Did I even say I thought my parents were taught nothing as children? I said that children that were taught more. As in, they were sepecifically taught more then the normal child. That should have been a given from what I was saying. I know I didn't specifically say "they were taught more then the children that weren't taught as much" but it should be a given that I meant comparatively. Not as in "the parents were taught absolutely nothing". I mean come on. That was obvious. You're pulling my leg there.

There is a difference to having access to and being taught. All children have access to just about any information. But the children taught from a young age, were smarter then their parents. Significantly.

That's what the entire post was about man. An accumulation of logical ability. But, of course, the whole thing still relies on the idea that primates have not reached their max mental capacity.

So taking the fastest. Tomato tomahto. Replace horses with primates and replace fastest with smartest.

The idea is child development. When you're a child, that is when things are most impact to how you will turn out. Because you're still growing. There's not a lot of experiments where if you don't teach a child anything that it will be dumb because typically that would be considered inhumane. But from uncontrollable cases, there's evidence that the children will have less learning capacity because they didn't develop the mind during the young age. There are however experiments involved with teaching children a lot during a young age, and its been proven that they are smarter then their peers raised normally.

Thanks. But doesn't that further prove my point? Training the horses doesn't change their genes. But somehow it passes on those traits to it's offspring? Or does it actually change it's genes associated with those areas? In which case, the primate idea would theoretically work in a basic level.

I wonder how the idea behind thoroughbred horses works? I thought that was simply take the healthiest horses, train them. Then breed them. From there, keep doing that to get healthier, stronger, and faster horses. Okay, but what about child development? If you separate a child from humans at birth, they won't be as smart. Logically speaking and educationally speaking. If they expose them to a lot of education and teach them a lot, their mind develops smarter. Hence the case for teaching kids at a young age. Now I'd assume it works for primates as well. If during childhood, it's taught and raised by primates that have a lot of logical capacity, wouldn't they also somewhat teach their kids that? Even if the child doesn't learn 100% of their logical ability, it will be smarter then it's parents were at the same age. So continuing to expose it to logic problems, it will be able to solve slightly more complex ones then it's parents. Simply because it's parents passed on a small amount of their logical ability through TEACHING, not genes. Eventually, if more and more logic is taught with each generation, then the child will develop smarter and smarter each generation. Even if only a little bit.

A much lower capability in logic. Logic, I assume, isn't education, but the actual measure of intelligence. No. But you said intelligent life. Separate humans from other humans at birth and they are barely much smarter then a primate. I didn't.

Seperate a human from other humans from birth, and the answer is yes. Look at case where the kid was raised by wolves or things like that. Their intelligence is much much lower then a human raised in a social setting.

How did humans evolve a smarter mind?

I've never heard of that before, but yes. Seems to be pretty much exactly what I was saying.

No it isn't. But for advanced intelligence, I would say a requirement should at least be a societal order. Whether it's like ours, or a hive mind, or even some weird telepathic mind, I don't care. The individuals should be able to communicate or work together in some form through communication.

Constantly challenging them with problems will help prevent them from going into a state where they don't try to advance. Primates, in their selves, typically simply survive. They collect food, reproduce, and live life. What we want to do is have them constantly using logic to solve problems, so they can hopefully apply it to better their living quality. The idea, is to teach them indirectly. The mind can evolve faster then the rest of your body. If fast reactions are what is required to survive, it won't take but a few years before you develop faster reactions. Granted, not much faster, but still faster. It would go like this. First generation- Constantly exposed to logic problems. Grows 1-2% smarter. Second generation- Grew under the first generation, learned from them. Constantly exposed to problems, grows 2-4% smarter. Third generation- Grew under even smarter parents, learn from them. Constantly exposed to problems, grows 6-8% smarter. And so on so on. Each generation will be exposed at a young age to their parents. Their parents will raise them with even a tiny bit different, then their minds will grow differently. If you teach a child at a young age spanish, they grow up speaking spanish. Same concept. Raise them with the tiniest amount of logic taught to them, they will develop differently then their parents, who weren't raised with the same intelligence. Eventually resulting in heightened intelligence. The biggest play here, is that 2% of the human population are geniuses. As these apes continue on, 2% of them will theoretically be smarter then the rest. They will be the main ones actually making the change inside the populations. As for it taking 450 years, that's the problem with creating an intelligent species. It's gonna take a long time. I was thinking maybe 2 thousand years, before you have an official species that intelligence rivals humans. Well, intellect capacity. I don't suspect they'll have rockets. But once we take them from the experiment, we can explain what happened, who they are, where they came from, etc. And start teaching them a lot of things. It'd be interesting, but not matter what, it's going to take much longer then a normal lifespan. Which is the problem. Nobody really likes starting projects that not even their great grandchildren will see the results of.

Yes.

I assumed language should be a requirement for advanced life. Because unless they're in the form of hive mind, they would have to be able to communicate ideas and knowledge to each other to make any significant progress. Its hard for a species to start wiring things with electricity, if the idea on how to build generators and how to use wires is only with one of them, and the others must examine it to figure out how it works. Knowledge would be lost with each generation, but knowledge would also be gained. But the net worth would be stupidly slow.

True. But it'd be a lot easier to assume something can experience sensation if they have language and can talk about the sensations.

I think that dolphins are secretly the smartest animals on the planet, and one day they're going to say "So long, and thanks for all the fish." String, about the primate idea. If you created a large enclosed area, with technology allowing you to monitor everything inside of it, control everything, etc. And then you put say 50 of the smartest primates you could find in there. If you gave them access to tools, and constantly posed them with problems that would reward them with food, etc. Do you think that over say about 30 generations, they would have the ability to build homes, farm, and have a simple society going? I think that they would. If you kept each generation in there, and constantly put them with problems requiring them to think, that eventually they would become smarter with each generation. And if at say the 50th generation, you could teach them a complex sign language, that they could teach their kids sign language. Starting a species of primates capable of talking, building, farming, and learning. All of what I would say is a class 5 animal species.

The idea, is that they're ordered JQKA. So the first card, will give the first person a jack. THe second card will give a queen. The third a king. The final a Ace. So when you get to the next Jack, you're back with the person who got the jack first. Giving each person 4 of the same type.