Questioning Society discussion

Shmarticalz? lol

Yes. More than one person that is smart.

Milana wrote: "No, beacause what if we do something for love, technically it isn't logical."


Love is blind.

Milana wrote: "No, beacause what if we do something for love, technically it isn't logical."


I think there should be a little bit of logic involved in love. I mean, you should decide whether it's really love or lust, for both you and the other person.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Why or why not?

REASON AND LOGIC CAN EXPLAIN HUMAN BEHAVIORS.

I disagree.
The statement is too narrow and absolute.
Reason and logic can explain SOME human behavior. But it can not be an all encompassing thing. If this were true, we could create tests that would not just explain human behavior but predict it as well. We would be able to categorize and classify people and arrange are laws to fit. We could reasonable deny certain types of people insurance and perhaps the right to breed-
I myself am a big believer that stupid people shouldn't breed.
Now if we could just find all those people behaving stupidly and sterilize them, we could create the master race.

"Now if we could just find all those people behaving stupidly and sterilize them, we could create the master race. "

Me and my friend J had that idea, but in the form of a stupidity tax.

Reason and Logic can explain human behaviors in the sense that they are derived from microscopic physical phenomena that can be understood. They cannot be predicted, however, without a complete knowledge of state, one which it is literally impossible to obtain from inside the Universe itself. We are open systems, and new information is constantly flowing in from the outside world to change our state and alter the course of our behavior -- our behavior cannot be any more predictable than that wild and chaotic world out there we respond to.

The problem is complicated by the fact that a great deal of each human's behavior is derived from their biochemistry and genetics (highly variable, largely unknown even to the person in question) and involves the use of human language and an imperfect map from terms and concepts onto an objective real world. This leads to behavior as semantically self-contradictory as murdering people in the name of "life" (see the Atlanta Bomber, for example).

So while the "technical" answer is yes in the sense that there is no reason to believe that it is "random" or "supernatural", I find that reason and logic cannot explain all of my own behavior, let alone that of other humans. Perhaps it could with perfect information, but that's just the same as saying it cannot be.

rgb

Lauren wrote: ""Now if we could just find all those people behaving stupidly and sterilize them, we could create the master race. "

Me and my friend J had that idea, but in the form of a stupidity tax. "

If you sterilized all people behaving stupidly, you'd create the absent race in very short order. Consequently, you could start with yourself...;-)

On the other hand, why bother? The world does it for you! That's basically what Darwin discovered.

It's interesting to note that measured IQ has increased by over 20 points in the last 100 years in the USA. No matter what you think "IQ" measures, the average person living in 1900 would be considered borderline retarded today. That's worthy of a thread of its own...

rgb

lol We were joking, I think. X)

But natural selection has basically stopped in humans. When in the wild people with bad eyesight would be the first to die, and good eye genes would live, now, you just get a pair of glasses. And the bad gene lives on. Everyone is taken care of but the species as a whole suffers greatly. The only way it's still working is extreme health conditions like mental problems and prevent children. But other then that, the wild theories about everyone slowly going blind may not be so wild, just need the time to happen.

rgb wrote: "Lauren wrote: ""Now if we could just find all those people behaving stupidly and sterilize them, we could create the master race. "

Me and my friend J had that idea, but in the form of a stupidity..."


It's interesting to note that measured IQ has increased by over 20 points in the last 100 years in the USA. No matter what you think "IQ" measures, the average person living in 1900 would be considered borderline retarded today. That's worthy of a thread of its own...

Well I can think of two things that skew the IQ test between 1900 and today.
1. Education
Even though IQ test are supposed reflect intelligence level rather than education level, it just doesn't work that way. You have to be literate to take the test. The better educated you are, the better you'll understand the questions. In 1900, it was common for many people to have very little in the way of education. Unlike many today, people then could get good jobs that would support themselves and their families without education. So less emphasis was placed on staying in school. My mother (born in 1934) was lucky to go to school and be allowed to graduate high school. Her aunts (the generation before her) were supposed to stay home, keep the house, get married and have babies- education wasn't a player for them. Who knows what unrealized talents her aunts had?

2. nutrition.
Healthier bodies equal healthier minds.
Today we have better knowledge (education) about nutrition and we also have better access. Most of us no longer live on just what we can grow off the land.
Thank the industrial revolution.

Naturally we are smarter now.

But we don't judge past people by current standards, there is no way that they could meet them, and it's unfair, and pointless.

Lauren wrote: "lol We were joking, I think. X)

But natural selection has basically stopped in humans. When in the wild people with bad eyesight would be the first to die, and good eye genes would live, now, you ..."

Natural selection cannot stop as long as there is Nature, and since Nature is all that there is...

What is true is that the criteria for fitness and survival has shifted. But humans have been crafting their own fitness function for thousands of years now -- you'd have to go back maybe 100,000 years to find a time when humans haven't been their own biggest threat to survival.

We are, indeed, top of the food chain, the meanest S.O.B.'s in the valley (to paraphrase an old 23th Psalm parody).

Irene, I agree, although I offer up the following intriguing hypothesis as well. The most recent information obtained by studies in psychology indicate that human intelligence is not fixed by genetics as once was thought. At least, that is not as dominant a predictor. Human intelligence appears to be remarkably plastic and actually increases throughout many people's lives.

If you want to make a smart baby, raise it in a complex and challenging environment. If you want a stupid baby, put it in a simple environment and try to prevent it from learning. If you want to become literally more intelligent yourself, then embark on a process of learning, of challenge, work out your brain! Do New York Times grade crossword puzzles. Do Sudoku. Play Sorites with friends. Read. Study math, logic, science, history. Spend an hour a day on a Wikiromp, visiting a random place in Wikipedia and following links from article to article as things interest you.

In a year, you will be literally smarter. Not just better read, smarter. More able to solve problems, more able to understand things. Intelligence is a broad, interconnected cognitive map, and everything you learn, everything you do, contributes to it.

rgb

rgb

"Human intelligence appears to be remarkably plastic and actually increases throughout many people's lives."

By intelligence, do you mean the capacity or ability to learn, or the will to learn? Some people are smart, but willfully ignore facts.

"If you want to become literally more intelligent yourself, then embark on a process of learning, of challenge, work out your brain! Do New York Times grade crossword puzzles. Do Sudoku. Play Sorites with friends. Read. Study math, logic, science, history. Spend an hour a day on a Wikiromp, visiting a random place in Wikipedia and following links from article to article as things interest you."

Waste time away debating on websites. ;)

My theory is reading books is always going to help. You'd be hard pressed to find a book that made you dumber.

I mean all aspects of intelligence. The more you learn, the easier it is to learn more. The more you reason, the easier it becomes to reason.

As far as the will to learn goes -- one of the great tragedies of the world is that there are those that turn away from learning as "too hard" and seek instead the comfortable certainty of accepting some very simple set of beliefs that are handed to them as "truth" that doesn't require the critical effort that real knowledge requires.

I devote my life to battling this particular monster -- the true face of Satan on this planet (metaphorically and mythopoeically speaking:-) is Unreason.

rgb

rgb -I didn't state it because I didn't think of it exactly in the terms you put out but I would say education is part of environment. Creating a complex, challenging environment for your baby is giving your baby an educational experience- just not in the school sense. There are many more ways to be educated than school. My mother, bless her self discipline, has taught herself several different languages courtesy of books. She's also extremely well versed in religions and philosophy. Courtesy of books- God bless the library. She reads just about everything She never censored our reading growing up. For that I remain truly grateful.
These days my passion is paranormal romance. I actually discussed that with my psychiatrist because I'm not sure reading about vampires and werewolves getting all hot bothered about each other is the most intelligent pass time. He says it's okay. Whatever trips your trigger keeps your mind active and is healthy for you. Maybe The Urantia Book is healthier for me but it's not going to do any good at all if I can't get passed the first page.

"As far as the will to learn goes -- one of the great tragedies of the world is that there are those that turn away from learning as "too hard" and seek instead the comfortable certainty of accepting some very simple set of beliefs that are handed to them as "truth" that doesn't require the critical effort that real knowledge requires."

# ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE
(1) Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid atheists; it's too complicated for you to understand. God exists whether you like it or not.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

# ARGUMENT FROM UNINTELLIGENCE
(1) Okay, I don't pretend to be as intelligent as you guys — you're obviously very well read. But I read the Bible, and nothing you say can convince me that God does not exist. I feel him in my heart, and you can feel him too, if you'll just ask him into your life. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son into the world, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish from the earth." John 3:16.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/God...

Gem of a website.

omg are you talking about Twilight? lol At least it's reading. It'll lead to other, hopefully a bit better things.

Like Harry Potter. X)

Irene wrote: "rgb -I didn't state it because I didn't think of it exactly in the terms you put out but I would say education is part of environment. Creating a complex, challenging environment for your baby is g..."

Dear Irene,

I totally agree! In fact, I think Wikipedia is the newly evolving Ubermind of the human race, one of the greatest wonders of the world, precisely because it is universally available. For the first time in the history of the world, if you can get to any computer attached to the Internet, you have pretty much all human knowledge at your fingertips. It is the missing parts of my brain -- all the facts I never learned (even when I studied them). Google too. Do I remember the name of the submarine in [movie: The Life Aquatic]? No, but two minutes at a keyboard and yeah, now I do! Family discussion, true story.

And I tend to think that reading anything is good. Even no-pictures porn. Well, not that good in the case of porn, but still better than not reading at all. So would I criticize your reading taste? No way! I read my way through (oops, what is her name -- Google to the rescue) Patricia Briggs and enjoyed the hell out of it. I read lots of books in that general genre, although I have to admit I don't really care for vampire stories per se all that much.

And Lauren, don't forget:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com

rgb

:D

I am a wikipedia fan
I love the fact it's user created- you can find everything on there
I read Shogun and got some of the points of the book clarified for me on wikipedia
I also read thurough reports and Clavell's other books. That's just one example.
I also got great information on Asperger's Syndrome- complete with references.
Andrea Yates is on there. I learned a few things a few things about that case I didn't know before.
And Google... don't even get me started. I hardly ever pay for a book. Even a new one. I'm unemployed and I've got plenty of time. Did I mention I was a research analyst in the Air Force? Me and poking around the computer find stuff are good friends.

Unfortunately for the copyrighters out there and the people making their living from selling their art...
I'm a big believer in libraries and sharing. If I've got a book and you want it, I'll be happy to pop it in the mail for you. Email.

I'm a big believer information exchange. In my previous life in the AF, I saw a lot of people hording information... now what good does that do? It seems to me, the people that are really good at what they do, aren't cagey about it. They'll share, they're willing to teach.

How would we get a car if we had to keep rebuilding the wheel everytime? Sooner or later, we're going to have to share if we want to progress.

Books, well if I buy I buy used when I can. So even if I'm paying for it, I'm not paying the author's mortgage.

Okay so now I'm totally off topic but I had to get that out.

Unfortunately for the copyrighters out there and the people making their living from selling their art...
I'm a big believer in libraries and sharing. If I've got a book and you want it, I'll be happy to pop it in the mail for you. Email.

Yeah, well, TBOL took me several thousand hours to write and another thousand or so to edit, clean up, rework, and promote. If I sell 150,000 copies I'll just about break even on the value of my time writing it. So bear in mind that every time you give away a stolen copy of it, you're basically keeping me from making enough money from it to be worth writing more books. And the same is true of other living authors.

I agree with you in the case of dead authors, and do think the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is dark Evil and there to support big business, not the artist. But when the author is alive and hoping for some pitiful return on the really, really substantial investment of time that any book represents, making copies and distributing them in a way that undercuts that hope is cruel.

Loaning copies is fine. Selling copies you own is fine. Helping the author of books you like by telling other people to buy their own copies is REALLY fine. But making copies and giving them away is not fine, even though the Internet makes it very, very easy to do so.

rgb

rgb wrote: "Unfortunately for the copyrighters out there and the people making their living from selling their art...
I'm a big believer in libraries and sharing. If I've got a book and you want it, I'll be ha..."

But making copies and sending them to people would be like loaning the copy wouldn't it?

But the original copy was bought, so there is some money involved.

Hate people who scan entire books for free instead of buying.

Lauren wrote: "But the original copy was bought, so there is some money involved.

Hate people who scan entire books for free instead of buying. "


That is annoying but if you know someone over the internet but nowhere else and you want them to read that book and you OWN that copy and you copy your copy and send it to just taht person it is like loaning

well electronic copy laws are pretty tricky and not yet set in stone. I understand it's okay to buy a and cd and make a copy for yourself- same thing with dvds.
Ebooks I'm not sure if they've come up in legislation or not. You're not supposed to buy a copy and make copies for your 1573 friends which you only know by internet- artists get kind of pissy about that.
But copyright laws are kind of like speed limits. Most of us violate them at some time. Come on, you're going tell me you NEVER xeroxed pages of a book in the library for a paper you were writing? The small print in the front of the book says that's no-no. Ever scan a page from a book with an origami diagram on it. ditto- another no-no How about share a crochet pattern with your mama?
Now back in the eighties I had occasion to travel between San Antonio and San Angelo frequently- a four hour drive with poor radio reception. So what I would was tape programs off the radio and play them in the car while I drove.
So what's the difference between copying something off the radio to listen to and copying something off the internet? I love my little electronic gadgets and I had a phase where I recorded internet streaming. Streaming is just like a radio only it's on your computer. AND some streams don't have commercials. Even streams that have commercials- a little click of the mouse and poof! disappearo! magic...
We've all got VCRs right? So it must be okay to copy things off the TV. So why can't I copy things off the internet? The artists aren't getting paid anymore money when I take something off the TV, than if I took it off the internet. The artist makes the same amount of money if I tape my episode of ER as they do when I bring it up on the computer and burn it to a DVD. NBC.com the episodes are commercial free and look better on my DVD than on my VHS tape.
So what's this deal about books? You put a book in a library- you've bought one copy- 1500 people read it.
But you can't put a book in an electronic library and let 1500 people read it?
You can broadcast over the airwaves and fifteen hundred people can listen to it... I'm getting close to popping a brain cell...
I am sensitive to the artist- somewhat. I understand they have spouses, kids, mortgages, car payments etc. If they don't make money selling their art, they're going to competing with me for that job at the golden arches. Not good for them and since I'm quite a fan of the arts- not good for me either...
I'm retired unemployed and I make fifteen hundred dollars a month, I'm married and I live in a one bedroom apartment. Yes, my husband works so the fifteen hundred I make isn't all there is when it comes to overall household expense- But my point is- if I had the money for all these books, I'd buy them. I don't- Of course some of the reason is personal choice- rather than go out and buy a bunch of books I don't have room for, I spent 750 dollars on a computer and another 150 dollars per month on nice cable and good quality internet. I'm also unemployed by choice. It's a budgeting decision. You have decide what's important. I also pull the tags off of mattresses, speed- pay speeding tickets on a occasion and share information like crazy- I love art (all different kinds) and don't believe in being selfish about it. I'm not much of an artist myself but if I have some art and I can share it with you, it would make me very happy to do that.
Blame my mother. My mother was sharing books with me before I could even read them. It's her fault. I learned from her that it's cool share books. And if you can share with one person, it's even cooler if you can share with a thousand.
I've never made a dime from anything I've shared but I've always paid a monthly fee to my internet provider.
So, technically I'm losing money on the deal but so far it seems to be worth it.
I've also recieved a great deal- music, movies, books things I would never have been able to afford the "normal" way. Copyright laws and disgruntled artists- the benefits outweigh the risks.

JKR refuses to have HP in ebook form. The author has the final say, I believe.

Actually, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) is what currently governs copyright, especially in the context of electronic and digitial media. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA

To summarize, it is legal to make copies of copyrighted media for backup purposes, although sellers of media wish you would forget this. There is provision for something called "fair use" of most copyrighted material that permits you to give or sell or loan your ONE ORIGINAL COPY to friends, as long as you don't retain a copy for yourself. In most cases it also permits you to use your personal copy on e.g. multiple computers or ebook readers, although sellers can and do put codicils into their "acceptable use agreement" that they make you click on that prohibit this, and try hard with "digital rights management" keyed encryption systems to make it IMPOSSIBLE for you to give away copyrighted media.

Outside of the narrow constraints of backup and fair use, all other copying and giving, selling, "loaning", of copies violates copyright and is against the law. You purchase the right to OWN a copy of the work when you buy it, not the media, and most definitely not the right to make more copies and sell them or give them away. The copyright is control of the "right to make copies". Literally.

Copyright, like many other things in the Universe, is a double edged sword, good and bad. Good, because without it who would bother writing anything, at least anything good? Thousands of hours of goddamn hard work, no return. Only rich people can afford this. Do you want to read books that were only written by rich people? Look back three centuries, and that's precisely what you find. No copyright, no reward for writing books, almost no fiction (and what there was, written by the idle wealthy literate).

Good because books and other artworks aren't like the game "telephone" where everybody who copies an unprotected work can steal it, make it their own, add or delete scenes, change the names and resell it as if they wrote it. All of which happened pre-copyright. Think Plaigerism on a grand scale...

Bad because in practical terms, copyright protects an entire food chain for most works where the actual author gets a tiny bit of what you spend for the book. The bookstore owner and its employees, the publisher, the distributer, everybody gets a cut, and the cut of most of them is as big or bigger than the author's. And most of the DMCA is designed to protect the moneymaking capability of this engine for long, long after the author has died. Dashiell Hammett died in 1961 at the age of 67. His CHILDREN (if any) are in all probability dead or very old. Yet his books written in the 1930's and 1940's are all still copyrighted, and the publishers with the rights to them haven't relinquished those rights, so all we can do is buy overpriced copies of those stories in printed form, when the publisher bothers to print them at all.

Think about it.

rgb

Thanks the information on DMCA. I didn't know it and wouldn't have been able to find it easily because I didn't know what to look for. Computers are great. They will give up virtually all their information if you know what to look for. The key is in asking the right question.

:) infomation

But think about it, Maybe we only Know Some things. Just because we don't know the answer or reason doesn't mean it's there.

yeah, no prob. (with the hearts or suggestion) i'm not trying to be an expert, just enlighten people to my opinion. my horrid spelling doesn't help though...

lol

Firefox has a spellchecker, if you have Firefox.

nope, my school does though.

i have firefox.