Area54

Do you doubt that there is a genetic component to IQ? Do you doubt that intelligence impacts upon academic achievement? I'm just puzzled why you seem surprised by this.

You are perfectly free to start a thread on evolution, or to resume any recent thread on the topic. Any polite, thoughtful person would have recognised that this thread is not the place for that. I look forward to engaging with you on that thread if you choose to initiate it. I shall ignore further replies from you here that are not directly related to the OP. (At this point I apologise for continuing to take the thread off topic, but neither swansont nor beecee seem to have pointed out this option.)

You see a single, biased, example of crowding. On the internet, via GoogleScholar and other sources, you have a wealth of evidence that is easily viewed, checked, measured and described covering crowding at large. Why won't you get of your fat ass and, over the course of two or three days, validate or refute that particular hypothesis? What are you afraid of? Why, instead of investing time in that, do you keep recycling the same old tired assertions? I have no right to insist that you give me a straight answer, nevertheless, for your own self respect, would you please give me one. Why won't you conduct the simple literature research I have proposed?

Several decades ago I read a short SF story that intrigued me. The protagonist was a literary critic and computer programmer who had written software that extracted the essence of great novels into a summary. These were not some Reader's Digest Condensed Books versions, but captured the heart and soul of the books despite being around 10% of the size of the original. Then James Joyce's Ulysses is subject to the process. It emerges with every word intact. Tar, you are not James Joyce. The attitude you express in the second highlighted section will interfere with the desire expressed in the first. Good luck with that.

I think that may not be far from the truth. Much of the world seems to exist in a miasma of cognitive dissonance, where the Dunning-Kruger effect can get you elected to high office. If I were a rational person I would be a pessimist. It's only my irrationality that keeps me optimistic.

Artificially modifying DNA to function as an artificial data storage medium was not the idea proposed. The proposed idea was wrong, but thank you for linking to an interesting article.

Despite feminism, despite civil rights, despite a black President, the United States of America has been a white patriachal society since its inception. Now, as generations have grown up with lip service being paid to equality, believing it to be real, demand it be so; as the demographics of the country swing away from a WASP majority, those in control perceive the threat to their power base. A cornered wolverine is at its most dangerous and fights back. (Spoiler Alert: fear does not lead to effective strategic decision making.)

The top fifteen one-liners from the 2017 Edinburgh Fringe Festival, courtesy Reuters and the Sydney Morning Herald. 1. "I'm not a fan of the new pound coin, but then again, I hate all change." – Ken Cheng 2. "Trump's nothing like Hitler. There's no way he could write a book." – Frankie Boyl 3. "I've given up asking rhetorical questions. What's the point?" – Alexei Sayle 4. "I'm looking for the girl-next-door type. I'm just gonna keep moving house till I find her." – Lew Fitz 5. "I like to imagine the guy who invented the umbrella was going to call it the 'brella'. But he hesitated." – Andy Field 6. "Combine Harvesters. And you'll have a really big restaurant." – Mark Simmons 7. "I'm rubbish with names. It's not my fault, it's a condition. There's a name for it…" – Jimeoin 8. "I have two boys, five and six. We're no good at naming things in our house." – Ed Byrne 9. "I wasn't particularly close to my dad before he died... which was lucky, because he trod on a land mine." – Olaf Falafel 10. "Whenever someone says, 'I don't believe in coincidences.' I say, 'Oh my God, me neither!'" – Alasdair Beckett-King 11. "A friend tricked me into going to Wimbledon by telling me it was a men's singles event." – Angela Barnes 12. "As a vegan, I think people who sell meat are disgusting; but apparently people who sell fruit and veg are grocer." – Adele Cliff 13. "For me dying is a lot like going camping. I don't want to do it." – Phil Wang 14. "I wonder how many chameleons snuck onto the Ark." – Adam Hess 15. "I went to a Pretenders gig. It was a tribute act." – Tim Vine

Why is this thread in OtherSciences? Surely it should have opened in Speculations and by now have been consigned to the Trash Can.

That made more sense than usual, but it would be helpful if you told me whether or not my precis hit the mark, or - if it missed it - by how much. I'm a simple minded person who understands directness and concision, but is confused by anecdote, rambling and multiplexing.

It would eliminate the need for tiresome discussions such as this one. /humour

Am I talking to a brick wall? The only thing stopping you from presenting the evidence and reasoning in regard to the principle of crowding is that you won't get off your ****ing ass, gather the evidence and present it. That (mis)behaviour has produced two immediate consequences: 1. I have downvoted your last post. 2. If you choose not to get of your ass and present something of substance I shall urge the moderators to shut this thread down. What do you feed yours on? Mine seems to prosper on a diet of wilfiul ignorance and blind faith. I keep these locked in the larder so the hierarchies can't get at them.

I am also left unclear as to the intended distinction. Some irrational decisions can turn out to be good ones. Some rational decisions can be bad.

OK, I get it. You refuse to take the little amount of effort required to establish the degree of "crowding" relative to a cross section of species on the lower and middle rungs of your hierarchy. Why the refusal? Apparently you are not serious. You are just stroking your ego. Or what? It is taking me all of my will power to resist giving you a negative vote, for you are currently just taking the piss. You say you have been doing research for the last 25 years, but you won't take a couple of days to resolve a simple point! Why? I can't help thinking it is much more convenient for you to avoid the research that could undermine your hypothesis. So much simpler to just make endless unfounded assertions.

I am talking about pseudoscience, third rate and second rate popular science books, frauds, etc. They are likely to be around for a very long time. There is very little, if any, bad bible stuff in the bible; the bad stuff arises from ignorant interpretations. Itoero, we could go on like this indefinitely. I don't have a problem with religion. I do have a problem with some followers of religion. I value the Bible as an outstanding compendium of myth, poetry, moral guidance, folk history and the esoteric. (And, in the case of the King James version, a beautiful piece of literature.) As I have previously noted, many scientists have had no problem reconciling science and religion, and many church people have had no problem either. That's a demonstrable fact. Therefore, your insistence that the two cannot be reconciled is disproven. I have no issue with you making a personal choice not to reconcile your views of the two, just don't demand your narrow view be applied universally.

On this occassion your defence was most welcome. I had, I thought, posted a response, but it didn't go through. (This has happened a couple of times in the last two days.) You've captured the gist of my argument, though I am not certain we are more aware than all other animals. The other great apes, elephants and cetaceans are all arguably in the same ball-park. And for me the jury is out on parrots, crows and those pesky octopuses/octopi. Fortunately the hedgehogs have their own forums and rarely visit here. Tar, I've read your passage multiple times and just cannot bring anything of substance out of it. I suspect that you are talking on a different wavelength from the one I am tuned to. Or maybe your broadcasting on AM and I only have an FM receiver. This is my precis of what you said: The processing of external stimuli by the brain and the storage of the resultant interpretations is a key part of consciousness. Self consciousness is an awareness of ones interaction with the totality of ones environment. The same environment is "appreciated" to different degreees by different species and by different members of each species. If that is what you were aiming for this is my repsonse. The first statement is incorrect. The second two are trivial and surely not in dispute, therefore I do not understand the point of making them. I repeat, I find your style difficult to follow, so I may have got you partially or completely wrong. I can only respond to what I think you said and hope that matches what you meant. (On the stylistic point, have you considered the benefits of the paragraph?)

Bad science stuff is often taught to people. That's not the fault of science. Nor is the teaching of "bad bible stuff" the fault of religion, but of misguided fools.

I wondered if that might have been the direction you were heading. My own grasp of Latin never got me further than making it through some chapters of Caeser's War Commentaries. In (weak) support of your thesis I subsequently developed a keen interest in military history.

I can't, because I'm not a time-served theologian. I also can't tell an up quark from a neutrino, but there are people who can.

So, when are you going to get off your ass and investigate it. I've alreasy pointed out that two or three days of internet research would enable you to provide a semi-quantitative and convincing qualitative assessment of your hypothesis. Instead you keep recycling your unfounded assertions and moaning about negative rep. Why aren't you doing the research? Hint: my very quick review has suggested your hypothesis will be disproven. The ball is in your ballpark.

Because human languages are generally (perphaps all) rich in metaphor and other rhetorical devices. Humans are great story tellers and stories are routinely enhanced. Fables are constructed to make a point. Language is poetic. All of this finds particular and extensive expression in our most important works, which the bible was to its creators.

Interesting. I learned some Latin, but I've never found it contributed to my thought processes. (It's main benefit was the feelking of smugness over those who haven't studied it.) Perhaps I was not sufficiently advanced in it to reap the benefits. How do you see it working?

I agree with you the two, intelligence and consciousness, are related. I am not certain that anyone has ever demonstrated there is a 1:1 relationship, perhaps because - despite their importance to us - we're still not very sure what either of them is.

Thank your that fulsome apology. +1

I'm an analogue kind of a guy. (Even our digital equipment is analogue at heart, just faking the digital face to show the world.)