| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On February 28 2017 16:54 AndreasHeideman wrote: How do I let birds know I'm friendly? You give them food. There is not really much else you can do. Plain clothing helps with not scaring them away, but won't make you really friends. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18375 Posts
| ||
|
mantequilla
Turkey781 Posts
I mean they eat seeds, they migrate to warm places in winter, they can fly. It seems they are pretty much OK and don't need much more. Maybe they deciced to live like this and it's not worth building and advancing since they have everything they need? Maybe they are not much emotional so they don't care some of them get sick or injured then die. So they see so point in advancing healthcare + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18375 Posts
On February 28 2017 19:06 mantequilla wrote: how do we know that birds are not as intelligent as humans for sure? I mean they eat seeds, they migrate to warm places in winter, they can fly. It seems they are pretty much OK and don't need much more. Maybe they deciced to live like this and it's not worth building and advancing since they have everything they need? Maybe they are not much emotional so they don't care some of them get sick or injured then die. So they see so point in advancing healthcare + Show Spoiler + You may be onto something. Perhaps mosquitos are just as intelligent as humans too, but they're too small for us to really appreciate. But no. While intelligence is not something we completely understand yet, we have a pretty good idea of what makes things intelligent and what doesn't. Some birds are definitely quite intelligent, as are some other mammals, and even some squids and other unlikely animals. But the full suit of what we consider intelligent behavior is only displayed by humans, and in fact, to such a remarkably higher degree than any other animal that it is truly a huge leap. There are animals that use tools. In fact there are animals that can build tools if they need to (particularly primates). There are animals that can solve complex puzzles (but mostly up to a level that a human 5-y.o. can too, and not much more than that). There are animals that communicate through something resembling speech (but not even whales have grammar). There are animals that display economic thinking and planning. Etc. But there are no animals that display the full suite, and to a degree that humans do. Is this a very anthropocentric view of intelligence? Yes. We call it human-level intelligence for a reason. But we have not encountered any species that displays signs of something we recognize as intelligence on some different scale than the one we measure. Or maybe we're just too stupid to recognize it, or as Douglas Adams put it: "so long and thanks for all the fish". | ||
|
bdonballer
United States408 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
both of those are ... the same answer; its based on the same cyclical pattern of reshuffling <values that currently make sense to you>. with what you settle on as an acceptable answer does not matter; what matters is what you make of it. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11928 Posts
On February 28 2017 20:30 bdonballer wrote: If there was a Big Bang to start the universe, what created the materials needed for the Big Bang to happen? How are we even existing? It all makes no sense. Stuff is hard, and to be honest, the answer is "Noone has a clue". What we can tell is that at the earliest point at which we can observe the universe (Universal microwave background radiation), it behaves as if it had been expanding from a state of infinite density about 300000 years before that point. And from every point thereafter we can observe, it also looks as if the universe had been expanding ever since. So the idea that there was a big bang, at which the universe changed from a state of infinite density, which might have been a single point, or might still have been infinitely large, to an expanding universe, is consistent with everything we have so far observed, and pretty good at explaining a lot of things about what the universe looks like. We have no idea how the universe got into that state of infinite density. Maybe it was always like that. Maybe something else crunched together beforehand. Maybe it just started. We simply have no data about anything earlier than about 300k years after this point in time, so it is hard to build a falsifiable hypothesis about that point. For all we know, a giant space whale may have shat out the universe. | ||
|
Khalum
Austria831 Posts
On February 28 2017 20:30 bdonballer wrote: If there was a Big Bang to start the universe, what created the materials needed for the Big Bang to happen? How are we even existing? It all makes no sense. I believe TL has a thread for religious discussions? You may want to ask there. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On March 01 2017 01:21 Khalum wrote: I believe TL has a thread for religious discussions? You may want to ask there. Unlike the Big Bang, religious discussions require direct evidence as a starting point; usually in the form of a tome providing that first hand account. Like many scientific theories, the Big Bang is dependent on inferred data that has been seen to have predictive capabilities--but lacks the ideal of direct experience or observation. So it's really about what type of evidence you find more compelling. | ||
|
Khalum
Austria831 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On March 01 2017 01:47 Khalum wrote: I'm merely providing an alternative place to get answers to 'How are we even existing?'. Apologies--was not trying to contradict. Just wanted to clarify the difference between religious discussions and scientific discussions so that he's better equipped to decide how to move forward. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v20/n02/derek-parfit/why-anything-why-this | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On February 28 2017 20:30 bdonballer wrote: If there was a Big Bang to start the universe, what created the materials needed for the Big Bang to happen? How are we even existing? It all makes no sense. Simberto gave the technically correct answer: no one knows. One idea that may appeal to you though, is that the universe may actually have 0 total energy. None of this has any actual empirical evidence as far as I know, so take it as little more than a long shot hypothesis at this point, or philosophy or whatever. The basic idea, as I understand it, is that the negative energy driving the universes expansion (dark energy) exactly cancels out the matter and other forms of (positive) energy. This is a multiverse kind of idea, as it'd allow new universes to pop up a bit wherever they feel like due to quantum fluctuations, as that would then allow you to start using the anthropic principles. But again, no empirical evidence. And magpie, such a troll! :D | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On March 01 2017 08:13 Cascade wrote: Simberto gave the technically correct answer: no one knows. One idea that may appeal to you though, is that the universe may actually have 0 total energy. None of this has any actual empirical evidence as far as I know, so take it as little more than a long shot hypothesis at this point, or philosophy or whatever. The basic idea, as I understand it, is that the negative energy driving the universes expansion (dark energy) exactly cancels out the matter and other forms of (positive) energy. This is a multiverse kind of idea, as it'd allow new universes to pop up a bit wherever they feel like due to quantum fluctuations, as that would then allow you to start using the anthropic principles. But again, no empirical evidence. And magpie, such a troll! :D Oh you know it  I mean.... Um... Super serious mega serious. Furled eyebrows and everything. | ||
Fecalfeast
Canada11355 Posts
I'm not talking about what is legally done i mean in your opinion. This was a question brought up on the morning talk radio show i listen to and even the radio hosts seemed to get riled up about it. On one hand people treat their pets the same as they treat children and form strong emotional bonds with them. On the other hand it would mean there has to be an independent pet welfare investigation firm to determine the situation which seems to be a waste of public funds. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On March 03 2017 01:53 Fecalfeast wrote: In a divorce, should custody of pets be determined based on the welfare of the pet or should it be determined in the same way as inanimate property is awarded? Should it matter what type of pet it is? I'm not talking about what is legally done i mean in your opinion. This was a question brought up on the morning talk radio show i listen to and even the radio hosts seemed to get riled up about it. On one hand people treat their pets the same as they treat children and form strong emotional bonds with them. On the other hand it would mean there has to be an independent pet welfare investigation firm to determine the situation which seems to be a waste of public funds. The king cuts the pet in half and each person gets a piece. Its like with children. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11928 Posts
On March 03 2017 01:53 Fecalfeast wrote: In a divorce, should custody of pets be determined based on the welfare of the pet or should it be determined in the same way as inanimate property is awarded? Should it matter what type of pet it is? I'm not talking about what is legally done i mean in your opinion. This was a question brought up on the morning talk radio show i listen to and even the radio hosts seemed to get riled up about it. On one hand people treat their pets the same as they treat children and form strong emotional bonds with them. On the other hand it would mean there has to be an independent pet welfare investigation firm to determine the situation which seems to be a waste of public funds. I think that in a large amount of cases, only one of the two really WANTS to have the pet anyways. In the remainder of cases, i'd say unless there is reason to assume that one of the two will spitroast the pet just to spite the other, go with the same rules as inanimate property. So "Inanimate property, unless one of the two claims the other will hurt the pet, in which case, determine somehow if that is correct" | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On March 03 2017 03:16 Simberto wrote: I think that in a large amount of cases, only one of the two really WANTS to have the pet anyways. In the remainder of cases, i'd say unless there is reason to assume that one of the two will spitroast the pet just to spite the other, go with the same rules as inanimate property. So "Inanimate property, unless one of the two claims the other will hurt the pet, in which case, determine somehow if that is correct" Stay with the legal owner, visit the other every other weekend? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Calm Dota 2 3970Mini  396BeSt 165ggaemo 162Sharp  123Rock 22Hm[arnc] 20IntoTheRainbow 16ajuk12(nOOB) 14HiyA 9[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games Grubby2857 Liquid`RaSZi1018 Beastyqt557 byalli500 C9.Mang0288 DeMusliM248 XaKoH  113Livibee71 KnowMe67 Chillindude15 |
|
RSL Revival
Classic vs Trap
herO vs SHIN
Sparkling Tuna Cup
OSC
IPSL
Bonyth vs Ret
WardiTV Weekly
Monday Night Weeklies
OSC
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
