Memammal

I have not read the entire thread. Has anyone brought up Kyle R Skottke's paper on The Evolution of Human Intelligence (Increasing Importance of Domain-Specific Intelligence in the Modern Environment)? It is a rather short and concise paper and worth a read. Here are some key excerpts:

I think Bering Strait has been bearing further off course though. I don't think we are here to slug it out in/with upper case, bold insults. Yes, I last got the feeling that this was more or less the conclusion that we ended up with. All other discussions re athleticism etc. further served to prove that environmental factors are far more influential. And in saying that, I do not want to even entertain another debate on exactly how to define so-called races (not that I am the OP, only speaking for myself). The entire topic serves little to no purpose for reasons already divulged.

^ I was commenting on your post in its context, i.e. as a response to a previous post, and merely pointing out that there is no (scientific or other) reason to insert a God into the gaps. And I agree 100% with:

Science has so far not uncover ANYTHING that require(d) supernatural intervention. To the contrary, the concept of God has been reduced to said singularity as well as the origin of the very first cell. In both cases there are numerous probable natural explanations. We discussed this before. Notwithstanding the RCC's official stance on the matter, evolution and their own dogma are contradictory to one another. The first paragraph above highlights the danger of religious fanatics. Faith should not enter the fray. It is intrinsically skewed.

It begs the question as to whether pure bred races (like the utopian Germanic Aryans) would really be better off than "conventional" or mixed races. Think about pure bred dogs vs cross-bred/mongrels. Again this is not necessarily clear-cut and generally applicable across the board, but there is a well substantiated school of thought that cross-bred or even mongrels are far better equipped to survive in comparison with their pure bred counterparts. These three lines go well together and address the same underlying matter. Yes, I agree that until there is absolute clarity and accurate data it is not worth speculating about. In my personal opinion, however, there is little merit in discussing a race/intelligence correlation at all as I would still question the aim or purpose of such a discussion. Do we still have unique, homogenous or pure bred "races"? Yes, there undoubtedly are still isolated regions where reasonably isolated gene pools may exist, but due to ever-expanding natural migration patterns (likely to increase further with global warming) and the inter-"racial" mixing, is it not something that would become entirely irrelevant in the near future? And if so, would that not be good riddance and a step in the right direction for the survival, or at least improvement of our species?

Jamaican sprinters of recent times are a prime example of this phenomena, ditto for long distance runners from [edit] northern Africa (Ethopia). That being said, one must be careful to conclude that it is purely as a result of genes. Winners not only "breed" winners, but they also harness a winning culture. Nature and nurture. What about the origin of historical winners of such events, or what about future winners? We cannot generalize and say OK, we now assume that the Jamaicans will continue to dominate sprint events and Ethopians will continue to dominate long distances. I am not sure if we remotely want to entertain the notion of breeding super races, either intellectually superior or athletically superior. We definitely should not consider a situation where certain groups will be disqualified (or exterminated?), or prohibited to reproduce, based on an ethnic/race differentiation. There is no conclusive evidence that intelligence is directly linked to race or ancestry or ethnicity. The concept of intelligence in itself is somewhat blurry, IQ as a (only) measurement of intelligence or of cognitive ability is somewhat blurry, while there are quite a few studies that have highlighted the contribution of environmental factors in improving so-called cognitive abilities...even to the point of nullifying "racial profiling". As I stated earlier, one should never use grey data/parameters to make and parade black & white conclusions...especially if those kind of conclusions only serve to humiliate and/or to "divide and conquer". That essentially boils down to propaganda and I have seen enough of that through out the last few pages of this thread.

No, that is not my view. I described one of your earlier statements/assessments as "hideously unintelligent and irresponsible". Go back and connect the dots. Not much has changed. You clearly are a racist...would that be genetically-, environmentally-driven, or both? Yes, I was thinking along the same lines...

Just sick and tired of the likes of you who abuse grey data to reach agenda-driven black & white conclusions and want to implement unfounded policies accordingly. What do you propose? To discriminately consider immigrants based on different mental traits, or races/ancestries? And how do you intend to measure those? It somehow reminds me of this: The Jew has always been a people with definite racial characteristics and never a religion - Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf) Which is why I am so reluctant to participate. It is like being dragged down to a level where I don't want to be. Fortunately the poll result is pretty conclusive.

^ At least get you facts straight before you nosedive into it again. As you should come to realise by now (you seem somewhat thick-skinned though), I was raising a point with the poster of the part that I quoted and it goes back to his earlier statement, to this: Capisce..? Just read between the lines (oh sorry, not even necessary as it is quite blatant) of the post that I quoted in my last post (that I reacted to). For example asking whether the article referred to white Americans in comparing them with east Asians. That is so sad. I repeat, it is a poor reflection on those who drive this agenda (read you & co). Enough said, I am out of here.

Using skin colour to classify humanity into groups, to further attempt to correlate such separate groups (typing these words give me the chills having grown up during Apartheid in South Africa) with IQ's and then saying that the NH "races" almost always (those were your words, which is a gross generalization) have higher IQ's than the SH "races" are hideously unintelligent and irresponsible. I am not sure if the matter of IQ as an accurate tool to measure intelligence, mental traits or cognitive ability has already been debated in this thread, but it has been raised numerous times in other similar threads and it is something that is being widely disputed. Which brings me to the reason why I inserted those two opinions/links (that you referred to above). These kinds of debates hold zero benefit for science or for society, it does not achieve anything, it is a waste of time, it is a poor reflection on those driving the race/intelligence agenda and it only serves to insult those implicated by vague allegations of different (read inferior) "mental traits". I will have no further part in this.

Its begs the question as to whether there are colour differences in intelligence...just saying...

With all due respect, I challenged a specific statement made by another poster. I never engaged with Over 9000. Any member may also choose to not respond to another. Over 9000 also made two sarcastic comments that were uncalled for in the post prior to my reaction. The question in the poll, however, reads "Do you believe that there are racial differences in intelligence?" You do understand that, in a literal sense, the question should yield a "NO" vote?

I voted. The wording of the question made it easy. Intelligence simply cannot contain (have in it) racial differences and neither can there be racial differences (contained) in intelligence. That is a fallacy.

^ I was not talking to you. I now understand why the mods reacted the way they did. Go away, troll.

The word "believe" points to a subjective opinion. How can the concept of "intelligence" (whatever is understood by it) have "racial differences"? Look, these same issues have been dealt with in many different threads and in many different guises over and over. It is pretty pointless to try and instil rational, scientific discourse into topics that are very obviously (and sometimes blatantly) agenda-driven. Agenda's don't have a place in science. Let me leave you with these:

OK, I understood this part of it early on already...I somehow thought you had a more expansive analogy in mind. I think we are pretty much on the same page.

^ I already posed the question (as to the relevance of IQ) to the previous poster.

Talking of obfuscating... So what are you implying exactly? That the same environmental differences between the north and south that contributed towards different shades of skin colours also (almost always?) affected IQ's? What should we read into the relevance of IQ's? For me it is as (ir)relevant as skin colour...nada, zilch. PS. I don't quite get the question of the poll - Do you believe there are racial differences in intelligence? Gosh, that is such an unscientific question to start with?

Just thinking out loud...one could also use real infinities to describe "macro events" in order to differentiate it from quantum behaviour's potential infinities..? Just so that we are clear, I was referring to their context as you used it in your original post... I am not convinced "paths" is the appropriate term while frozen pictures in a dynamic system might have been better, but otherwise this is getting quite close. @ koti: that would be a worthwhile contender for your one/two liner question...to be read in context with our most recent discussion spread across the previous two pages. My reference to the box of chocolates was only a skin deep analogy, purely philosophical and the first thing that jumped into my mind. It referred to our lifelines being embedded in the block universe, each chocolate (moment) pre-packaged but the flavour remains unknown until you unwrap- and experience it. I find any notion of "double time" within the block universe model as somewhat dubious. I tend to agree.

(Our experience of) the universe is like a box of chocolates (with acknowledgement to Forrest Gump).

studiot, sorry it took me so long to react to this. I actually did not want to derail the discussion by introducing new idea's. I was misled by your equation rather than to pay attention to what you have written...which is exactly what you pointed out to me in your follow-up. As I understand it you are suggesting that we perceive the time axis as a set of infinities (which agrees with my ruler example), with the present and past as real (completed) infinities and the future as potential infinities. Something like a time axis consisting of potential infinities that are being filled up by real infinities (bracketed) when those moments are being experienced, so to say..? @ Michel: Those last two sentences of yours seem to be on the right track. Read it in conjunction with the above...

Good comment, studiot. This topic dovetails quite nicely into the various block universe "discussions". I enjoyed this thread, especially the latter part thereof. It would seem that one of the issues that is lacking in some of the other threads was also nicely picked up by Eise here:

a) I cited the Wikipedia article in the hope that we could at least find common ground as to what we mean by presentism. It seems as if we have been debating in circles about what presentism is and/or what presentism is not. The manner in which these threads have become so disentangled might have resulted in parts of the same arguments being duplicated all over. The issue of the "now" (as in the present) being the only reality opposed to events in either the past and/or future, has come to the fore repeatedly. I have just started re-reading this thread and on page 1 this same issue was being dealt with. I have read numerous other references and articles about presentism and that is the one aspect thereof that they all seem to agree on. b) Do you regard so-called Wikipedia's presentism as a unique kind of presentism, different from Tim's presentism? Please point me to the discovery that you mentioned above.

^ Well spotted. Truth be told - after I copied it, that phrase caught my attention. I attempted to explain it, but I might have inadvertently stumbled on- and exposed that persistent shortcoming of presentism, its incompatibility with relativity. That being said, my mind is elsewhere today (enjoying some time with the family at home), so let me rather just fill in the rest of that paragraph in case I misunderstood the context thereof: