Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 42
  1. #21
    Terasiel is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Carolina, US
    Posts
    3,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    Biology > Psychology. Go read some of Darwin's work.
    It's always so refreshing to see someone choosing something as concrete, and easily proven, as Biology as having presidense over something as abstract, and often temporarily stunted by expert-favoritism, like Psychology.
    Last edited by Terasiel; 02-01-2008 at 12:52 PM.

  2. #22
    darksoulzero is offline Senior Member Well Known
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    ...
    Posts
    281

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    Biology > Psychology. Go read some of Darwin's work.
    Well, in all actuality, I have read Darwin's work. Nowhere, in his theory of evolution, does he take into account, seriously, the behavior of animals. It would be correct to to say that he was intrigued by the fact that not only animals, but all of existence seems to be in constant change. Besides, read some of Descartes' works please. talent would be considered an attribute of the subjective mind. Therefore, with regards to the subjective mind, it would be logical to examine the mind, instead of the objective brain. This gives a better reason as to why natural talent doesn't exist, unless our DNA molecules are somehow able to create and maintain some sort of talent creation/augmentation memory system in which talents are passed down, or created in. You're focusing on the animal side of human beings, and in seeing that, as animals, we are greatly inferior to other animals, try looking at what sets us apart from the other animals.
    (i do not know what it is about you that closes and opens; only something in me understands the voice of your eyes is deeper than all roses) nobody, not even the rain, has such small hands.

  3. #23
    echoblaze is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,601

    Default

    hm, you do realize that our greater brains - thus greater ability to reason and philosophize - are a result of biological evolution right ? bigger skulls lead to bigger brain sizes, and all the other good stuff that comes along with it.

    i disagree that we should look at things that sets us apart from animals - throughout history, and in fact much of today, many people are way too egocentric and think humans are something completely special from everything else. it's my belief that this is one of the reasons why evolution is so contested - because a majority of people can't stand the idea of us having evolve from apes ("apes as ancestors ? ridonkolous ! *laughs*). but i digress.

    btw, what of descartes ? i don't recall him saying much about "talent", though i must admit i haven't delved too, too deeply into philosophy

  4. #24
    Urameshi-sama is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    9,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by echoblaze View Post
    bigger skulls lead to bigger brain sizes, and all the other good stuff that comes along with it.
    No. Figure this one out on your own because I'm too lazy to help you out.

  5. #25
    echoblaze is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,601

    Default

    ^
    2nd year biology course. argue with my prof if you want.

    edit: since you were too damn lazy to even back up your complaint, here's a scientific paper

    http://biology.plosjournals.org/perl...o.0030050&ct=1

    ok, it looks like size isn't the only thing - or even the major differentiator. but the fact that we have advanced thinking abilities is still due to biological evolution, which was my original point anyway.

    in the future, put some facts - some modicum of effort - into your thoughts before you post, please. you're not adding anything significant besides saying "i disagree".
    Last edited by echoblaze; 02-01-2008 at 07:54 PM.

  6. #26
    Urameshi-sama is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    9,170

    Default

    ^I wasn't arguing with bioevolution. I was arguing with the assertion bigger brain size= more capability. In that case Neanderthals would be more intelligent and 'evolved' if that were true. But it is not.

    And give me 24-48 hrs. I will get some evidence.
    Last edited by Urameshi-sama; 02-01-2008 at 10:46 PM.

  7. #27
    Saizou is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    1,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by darksoulzero View Post
    Well, in all actuality, I have read Darwin's work. Nowhere, in his theory of evolution, does he take into account, seriously, the behavior of animals. It would be correct to to say that he was intrigued by the fact that not only animals, but all of existence seems to be in constant change.
    The behaviour of animals? You apparently missed that evolution does explain the behaviour of animals. They act as they do because there lies some evolutionary advantage in said behaviour.

    Quote Originally Posted by darksoulzero
    Besides, read some of Descartes' works please. talent would be considered an attribute of the subjective mind.
    No. Talent can be mental or physical, i.e. it can be caused by a superior brain or a superior body. Or do you really think that talented athletes are talented because of their "subjective mind"?

    Quote Originally Posted by darksoulzero
    Therefore, with regards to the subjective mind, it would be logical to examine the mind, instead of the objective brain.
    Wow. Apparently you don't understand the basic biological fact that your mind is generated by your brain.

    Quote Originally Posted by darksoulzero
    This gives a better reason as to why natural talent doesn't exist, unless our DNA molecules are somehow able to create and maintain some sort of talent creation/augmentation memory system in which talents are passed down, or created in.
    You don't seem to get the concept of heritable traits. Maybe you should go and read some of Mendel's work as well.

    In short, talents can be considered traits, as they ultimately have a genetic origin. Basic biology tells us that traits are passed down, therefore talents are as well. As for creation, have you heard of the concept of mutation?

    It does appear as if biology once again holds the answer to our question.

    Quote Originally Posted by darksoulzero
    You're focusing on the animal side of human beings, and in seeing that, as animals, we are greatly inferior to other animals,
    Yeah, we're totally inferior. That explains why we rule this goddamn planet, doesn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by darksoulzero
    try looking at what sets us apart from the other animals.
    Higher intelligence, and opposable thumbs? Because that's pretty much it.

  8. #28
    Terasiel is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Carolina, US
    Posts
    3,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Urameshi-sama View Post
    ^I wasn't arguing with bioevolution. I was arguing with the assertion bigger brain size= more capability. In that case Neanderthals would be more intelligent and 'evolved' if that were true. But it is not.

    And give me 24-48 hrs. I will get some evidence.
    I'm not about to get into a high level scientific arguement, I'll say now that I can't win one against someone who prides themselves on their knowledge of it; but I would like to make one little point here: Unless I'm mistaken, we don't actually know why Neanderthals died out. I'm still in favor of the idea that there may have been some level of cross-breeding between different pre-humans that ultimately resulted in humans as they are today.

  9. #29
    echoblaze is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,601

    Default

    @Terasiel

    honestly, it's not really "high level (science)". any intro biology course (or wiki/google info-hunting) will tell you anything you need to know about evolution, and the evidence for human's origins. but anyway, this is really diverging from the main topic. i only brought up evolution only to argue against darksoulzero's claim that talent doesn't have much to do with biology.

  10. #30
    martyr3810's Avatar
    martyr3810 is offline Banned Community Builder
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    An Unmarked Grave
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Descartes is ancient. Psychology is theoretical. Biology can be proven.

    Biology > Psychology.

    (And keep in mind, a lot of MODERN psychology IS actually just applied biology to psychology)

    For the other part of Psychology... the nurture rather than the nature part... They would tell you the environment is what influences developing humans the most.

    But then theres facts like you are 70% more likely to get a mental disorder if your parent(s) had that disorder. (and actually, I think the # is closer to 95 percent if BOTH parents had it). Mind you, this is based on statistics and case studies, which can be in themselves misleading but it is far more concrete than any theory.

    The environment does indeed HELP to shape us. The CORE however, tends to be inherited. (I say tends because there are exceptions, but they are exceptions and FAR smaller in number than the norm).

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quote Originally Posted by Urameshi-sama
    ^I wasn't arguing with bioevolution. I was arguing with the assertion bigger brain size= more capability. In that case Neanderthals would be more intelligent and 'evolved' if that were true. But it is not.

    And give me 24-48 hrs. I will get some evidence.
    Brain size DOES mean more capability. Which is why rats can learn things like navigating mazes and stuff - but not more complex things. Whereas monkeys can learn more than rats and we can learn more than monkeys.

    The problem is that we do not UTILIZE most of the potential of our brain. In fact the highest percentage "use" of the brain to my knowledge is with people who have photographic memeory... those people utilize 45-60% of their brain. The simple fact is that our brain is MORE than we need at this point in time, and I frankly don't see us evolving soon because we don't NEED to.

    Your not going to get evidence because it doesn't exist - and thats not even considering that Scientists aren't even sure we EVOLVED from Neanderthals. There is still anongoing debate whether they were a variation of homo sapiens or their own race homo neanderthalis. Brain size = More potential capability. If all you have to work with is stick and rocks and no knowledge being written down and little passed from parent to parent (no language ooh)... not gonna matter how fucking smart you are, you ain't making plastic in a day.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou
    Higher intelligence, and opposable thumbs? Because that's pretty much it.
    In a nutshell, yup. Although we ARE the only species that adapts the environment to OUR needs, rather than adapting ourselves to the environment.

 

 
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
vBulletin Skin by: ForumThemes.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162