Smidlee said: There is no hint that the Pope or anyone else slow down science one bit during the Medieval times. Anyone who even played Medieval Total War would know this. One of the things that drives science is war. If there one thing Roman Empire was good at was war. Also from what I've read from history it was Galileo's arrogance as well as belittling the wrong people (including those who support him) that got Galileo in trouble more than his idea. In fact even the church took Galileo's position before there were hard evidence to back it up.

A few things:

- Galileo didn't live in medieval times. The church also forced him to recant his notion of Heliocentrism and then imprisoned him. Whatever the reasons (and Galileo did burn quite a few bridges), that's a blatant case of church slowing down and restricting science.

- The Spanish Inquisition says "hi".

- Religion controlled science during most of the Medieval period. Not surprisingly, it's one of the most dormant scientific times in human history, despite the fact that wars were abundant and everyone was in a battle of one sort or another. It wasn't until the Renaissance when the Catholic Church first starting seeing its stranglehold on the public loosen that we saw the emergence of true science.

- Did you seriously reference a video game as historical fact? 

- Did you seriously reference a video game as historical fact?

Put it in the quote library.

Sqrl said: libellule said: Sqrl said: libellule said: @sqrl, I doubt dolphins or any others animals species can match our "intelligence". It is not that we are qualitatively different from them (superior mamalian possess intelligence capacity + communication system like us) but we are quantitatively so far from them. Take a human monkey from birth. Put all the efforts u want to develope his intelligence/memory, it will never match a well educated six years old children. In fact, I believe 95% of the human beings, including the low educated ones with low knowledge, can own The Most Intelligent Monkey of All Time. Again, I never said Dolphins were smarter than people. I agree we are quantatatively far ahead of them, but I would point out that it is our standards of measure being used to make this assessment. So is it really a surprise that we determine ourselves to be superior?   As a humerous thought, what f they were to choose the criteria? I bet we would fall a lot shorter of their criteria than they do of ours.       ==> I also never said "smarter". I said "match" But do you think Dolphin have a conscience of their existence as we have ? I personnaly doubt. do you think dolphin have a conscience of the world we are living ? I doubt too. do you think Dolhin will EVER ask themselve the question : do you think we are more intelligent than human ?"" I think this is what make us so different of the others species : conscience of our self + conscience of our world + big stupid all the time question like "are we more inteligent that Dolphins ?" As Rocketpig pointed out there is a substantial amount of evidence that they are in fact self aware. And in fact there is evidence they are also aware that other dolphins and even humans have individuality. They believe that Dolphins actually have names for themselves and other dolphins, which if true definitely shows awareness of both self and others. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article714144.ece Some have even speculated that Dolphins have creative and artistic abilities as well: http://www.earthtrust.org/delrings.html And as some of you may or may not have heard they are regarded as the only other species that engages in sex for fun : http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro04/web1/eberdan.html  (note that the primary subject of this link is not recreational procreation of Dolphins, aka you might have to read a bit)

==> you should take care about these datas because they are very complex to analyse. They are mainly based on human interpretation (the one about Art...).

But you know, I believe every superior mammalian is able to recognize his sister/brother/father/mother/friend/foe. I m not sure the fact to "have a name" is an important point : u can recognize people even if u dont name them using ur language.

I believe monkey also do sex for fun (bonobo)

kenzomatic said: Sqrl said: kenzomatic said: Don't take this the wrong way but how do you "make a PhD?"  He is french, thus his english isn't perfect, give the man a break. Did not know thank you, I apologize for asking.

==> Come on, come on,

there is no problem kenzomatic !!!

u are already forgiven ;)

 

kenzomatic said: - Did you seriously reference a video game as historical fact?  Put it in the quote library.

Hahah... It boggled my mind. That's like watching a season of Friends and then declaring yourself an educated Sociologist afterward. 

libellule said: Sqrl said: As Rocketpig pointed out there is a substantial amount of evidence that they are in fact self aware. And in fact there is evidence they are also aware that other dolphins and even humans have individuality. They believe that Dolphins actually have names for themselves and other dolphins, which if true definitely shows awareness of both self and others. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article714144.ece Some have even speculated that Dolphins have creative and artistic abilities as well: http://www.earthtrust.org/delrings.html And as some of you may or may not have heard they are regarded as the only other species that engages in sex for fun : http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro04/web1/eberdan.html (note that the primary subject of this link is not recreational procreation of Dolphins, aka you might have to read a bit)   ==> you should take care about these datas because they are very complex to analyse. They are mainly based on human interpretation (the one about Art...). But you know, I believe every superior mammalian is able to recognize his sister/brother/father/mother/friend/foe. I m not sure the fact to "have a name" is an important point : u can recognize people even if u dont name them using ur language. I believe monkey also do sex for fun (bonobo)

 I really think you underestimate the importance of a name. 

To realise that you need a name is to ponder "I am".

To realise that you and your species need names is to ponder "We are".

Those concepts seem trivial to us but that is the absolute foundation of self-awareness...if not its definition. 

Sqrl said: I really think you underestimate the importance of a name. To realise that you need a name is to ponder "I am". To realise that you and your species need names is to ponder "We are". Those concepts seem trivial to us but that is the absolute foundation of self-awareness...if not its definition.

Zero expertise over here, but I have to register my skepticism.  Seems to me that a name is a way for other individuals to identify yourself.  You know who you are with no need for a name as such.  I would think that naming oneself would be concurrent with or after naming others, either as in "hey, I need one too!" or being given one by others. 

Of course, none of that undermines your argument.  Obviously naming oneself is a sign of self-awareness, but I would think that it's ALSO a sign of awareness of others. 

Am I wrong? 

Final-Fan said: Sqrl said: I really think you underestimate the importance of a name. To realise that you need a name is to ponder "I am". To realise that you and your species need names is to ponder "We are". Those concepts seem trivial to us but that is the absolute foundation of self-awareness...if not its definition. Zero expertise over here, but I have to register my skepticism. Seems to me that a name is a way for other individuals to identify yourself. You know who you are with no need for a name as such. I would think that naming oneself would be concurrent with or after naming others, either as in "hey, I need one too!" or being given one by others. Of course, none of that undermines your argument. Obviously naming oneself is a sign of self-awareness, but I would think that it's ALSO a sign of awareness of others. Am I wrong?

Well I'm far from the authority on this, but it does seem to me that to grasp the idea behind a name for someone else you would need to grasp it first for yourself ....perhaps that assumption is faulty but it seems reasonable given the egocentric nature of instinct. I think this process of realizing you need a name and then that other individuals do as well is probably a process that takes place in the mind of every self-aware creature as it matures, and to a certain extent is probably facilitated from generation to generation by the existing members highlighting its importance. Or in short, I don't think all members of a species would make that connection without assistance, but that is purely my speculation.

I do see your point about names being useless without others to utilize them with. My point wasn't so much that they were seperate developments, but rather that the utilization of names shows that the creature has both capabilities.

note: made some edits

How many of you will see the documentary?

Count me in - I'm hooked (reading all your posts got me interested in what Ben has to say about this)

Coca-Cola said: How many of you will see the documentary? Count me in - I'm hooked (reading all your posts got me interested in what Ben has to say about this)

I'll absolutely watch it. If he raises valid points I'm more than willing to find out where we've gone wrong. I have a lot of respect for Ben Stein and if this is a serious movie I doubt he would put his name on it if he didn't feel strongly about it. That doesn't mean I'm going to automatically assume any position aspoused but I'm definitely going to give it as fair listen as I am capable.

I'll be honest in saying I have doubts that this movie will shake the foundation of natural science like the trailer seems to imply but stranger things have happened.