Observed change in kinds.

[juvenissun]

So now we have the human kind as something that can be taught to use fire and has some threshold intelligence. Next question. If, due to intellectual disability a person did not reach a threshold intelligence to learn to use fire, would that person still be human? I suspect like me you would say yes, but what rationale would exist for this under your system?

Any brain damaged people could be exception to a regular classification.
Quit using oddities on any classification. What are you doing here. You are not [serious].

 

[[serious]]

I have no problem with that.

But their conversations are limited to the domain of chimp concerns. I don't think there is a sign that says: fire.

You would be wrong. Kanzi, the bonobo I showed you, has a lexigram for fire. Kanzi communicates primarily through lexigrams but also vocalized words (highly distorted due to differences in the vocal tract) and picked up sign language on him own watching videos of Moko the gorilla.

 

[[serious]]

Any brain damaged people could be exception to a regular classification.
Quit using oddities on any classification. What are you doing here. You are not [serious].

I kind of figured they would all be more unexplained exceptions. But the question is, how do you know to make an exception for them?

 

[juvenissun]

You would be wrong. Kanzi, the bonobo I showed you, has a lexigram for fire. Kanzi communicates primarily through lexigrams but also vocalized words (highly distorted due to differences in the vocal tract) and picked up sign language on him own watching videos of Moko the gorilla.

I have no problem with that either.
But does Kanzi ever talk to other chimps about fire? He might. But every other chimps might think he is crazy.
It would go no where. Kanzi died, people will have to start the same training all over again.

 

[juvenissun]

I kind of figured they would all be more unexplained exceptions. But the question is, how do you know to make an exception for them?

Well, I am not waling into your trap again. The way we can do is to examine one special case after another.

Give me a case, and I will tell you if the object is an exception or not with a good reason.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, but you should explain why.

Why should I explain anything? All I need to say is that I prefer it that way, right?

 

[Loudmouth]

They are tooooo dumb.

Why would different levels of intelligence exclude one species from a species group?

 

[Loudmouth]

I have no problem with that either.
But does Kanzi ever talk to other chimps about fire? He might. But every other chimps might think he is crazy.
It would go no where. Kanzi died, people will have to start the same training all over again.

Why would chimps need to say anything in order to be in the same kind with humans?

 

[[serious]]

I have no problem with that either.
But does Kanzi ever talk to other chimps about fire? He might. But every other chimps might think he is crazy.
It would go no where. Kanzi died, people will have to start the same training all over again.

We know they talk about painting. I don't see why fire would be any different.

 

[juvenissun]

We know they talk about painting. I don't see why fire would be any different.

Really? Kind to show my the source? I am [serious].

 

[juvenissun]

Why would different levels of intelligence exclude one species from a species group?

Because I don't like to be in the same kind with them.

 

[juvenissun]

Why should I explain anything? All I need to say is that I prefer it that way, right?

If there were no consequence, sure you can.

 

[[serious]]

Really? Kind to show my the source? I am [serious].

I'll have to look up the source, but the gist of the story was some of the researchers were going to have one of them paint for some visitors, but the apes effectively told the researchers that it was a different apes turn. All the apes involved were already abiding by the group decision so some manner of communication about who's turn it was had taken place. Most of my reading on this subject is from about 5 years ago, so I might need some time to find the primary sources again.

 

[juvenissun]

I'll have to look up the source, but the gist of the story was some of the researchers were going to have one of them paint for some visitors, but the apes effectively told the researchers that it was a different apes turn. All the apes involved were already abiding by the group decision so some manner of communication about who's turn it was had taken place. Most of my reading on this subject is from about 5 years ago, so I might need some time to find the primary sources again.

OK. I see. No source is needed now. I buy it.

But, this is no different from teaching a bunch of chimps to raise and use fire. They may talk about fire among themselves. But I don't think they can do the same communication to any chimp who does not have the experience. Other chimps won't have a clue and won't have curiosity no matter what.

I am kind of curious on why is it so. If some chimps learned how to use fire, why can't the knowledge be passed on to other chimps? I even doubt if a chimp could be taught to raise a fire from scratch (no lighter, no fuel). It is indeed a quite complicated procedure.

 

[[serious]]

OK. I see. No source is needed now. I buy it.

But, this is no different from teaching a bunch of chimps to raise and use fire. They may talk about fire among themselves. But I don't think they can do the same communication to any chimp who does not have the experience. Other chimps won't have a clue and won't have curiosity no matter what.

I am kind of curious on why is it so. If some chimps learned how to use fire, why can't the knowledge be passed on to other chimps? I even doubt if a chimp could be taught to raise a fire from scratch (no lighter, no fuel). It is indeed a quite complicated procedure.

I don't see any reason they couldn't. They, if shown how, can become quite adept at making stone tools. I think I recall this being passed ape to ape as well. There is also the ape invention of using a wettened stick to fish bugs out of holes in logs. Making fire without a lighter would probably be subject to same utility judgements as it is for humans. Unless a pressing need for fire is present and modern tools unavailable, I'm probably not going to learn to rub two stick together to make fire either.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't see any reason they couldn't. They, if shown how, can become quite adept at making stone tools. I think I recall this being passed ape to ape as well. There is also the ape invention of using a wettened stick to fish bugs out of holes in logs. Making fire without a lighter would probably be subject to same utility judgements as it is for humans. Unless a pressing need for fire is present and modern tools unavailable, I'm probably not going to learn to rub two stick together to make fire either.

I think this is how a chimp learns: One action (or one set of continuous actions) then immediately reward or application. If so, then they can learn anything, and perhaps passed the skill to the next generation. I guess if an action takes three steps or more, then it can be learned, but can not be passed on. (would "chimpenzology" (Primatology) be exciting?

No surprise, this is how any animal learns. The chimp is in the monkey kind because it can pass alone the experience to a very limited degree. Dogs can not do that at all.

That is the reason I don't like them to be in human kind. And vice versa.

 

[RickG]

Never mind an observed link or even a transitional fossil. Explain the fossil record throughout the geologic column without evolution.

 

[[serious]]

I think this is how a chimp learns: One action (or one set of continuous actions) then immediately reward or application. If so, then they can learn anything, and perhaps passed the skill to the next generation. I guess if an action takes three steps or more, then it can be learned, but can not be passed on. (would "chimpenzology" (Primatology) be exciting?

No surprise, this is how any animal learns. The chimp is in the monkey kind because it can pass alone the experience to a very limited degree. Dogs can not do that at all.

That is the reason I don't like them to be in human kind. And vice versa.

What about painting? There is no reward or utility either immediate or delayed, yet they learn that just fine. They have also been shown to understand a token economy where rewards are delayed.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I have no problem with that.

But their conversations are limited to the domain of chimp concerns. I don't think there is a sign that says: fire.

So people don't only talk about human concerns? And sign language does indeed have a sign for fire, why wouldn't it? Btw, the way other apes sign is awkward because their hands are shaped a bit differently than ours, so they can't make some of the signs perfectly.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think this is how a chimp learns: One action (or one set of continuous actions) then immediately reward or application. If so, then they can learn anything, and perhaps passed the skill to the next generation. I guess if an action takes three steps or more, then it can be learned, but can not be passed on. (would "chimpenzology" (Primatology) be exciting?

No surprise, this is how any animal learns. The chimp is in the monkey kind because it can pass alone the experience to a very limited degree. Dogs can not do that at all.

That is the reason I don't like them to be in human kind. And vice versa.

Actually, there are some chimps that have been taught differently just to counter arguments like this, being taught sign language pretty much like a human child would.