Thread: How come every single european nation prospered by but only 1 african nation prospered.

As all concepts are relative, and math is universal, it makes math appear to be the one universal truth while everything else is perspective. Qualitative research has significant value that is often dismissed by quantitative researchers despite the very stark limitation quantitative research has in fields such as psychology and education. Then again, that's what separates me from many of the people I butt heads with. Truth is an antiquated term to me. I am concerned with value. I am concerned with placing my bets upon whatever option has the greatest statistical advantage, not on the option which I "know to be true."

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

There is no separation between man and "beast" anymore than there is a separation between mammal and dog. All there is is one species artificially and arbitrarily placing itself at the center of the universe in a rather beastly way.

Yes, it is casual nomenclature for the sake of distinction. Man, after all, is ever pretentious, almost as though it were his duty.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

It is only the very modes of abstract representation which would make it appear that way. If we define "physical law" as "that which governs the universe" then of course the universe is governed my physical law.

Also, your assertion that precision is only possible with mathematics is wrong.

In fact, it is rather imprecise of you to not specify with regards to what you are claiming mathematics to have a monopoly on precision.

As is of precision, the essence of mathematics is exactness. Remove humankind's abstract representations altogether from the grand picture and you are, still, left with pure precision. Albeit it takes a bit of good luck, it isn't a coincidence carbon tends to form four bonds or that plants bend toward light. Without mankind, Nature prevails, ever feral, and absolutely pulsating with outrageous fidelity to itself.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I can answer a yes or no question precisely with "yes" or "no" and no reference to mathematics. This one counter-example is enough to sink the validity of your claim from the perspective of mathematical logic.

What more is a yes or no than a 1 or 0? Your acknowledged congruency with a song; my acceptance of a poem's rawness; Omnis Dei's favoring of value over truth--what else amounts to such realities but "yes" or 1? Are such formal, systematic inferences not the basis of logic?

If anything, the Universe seems much "a clock without a craftsman," and we, "jewels in a maker-less mechanism."

Originally Posted by Izrail

As is of precision, the essence of mathematics is exactness. Remove humankind's abstract representations altogether from the grand picture and you are, still, left with pure precision.

But precision itself is an abstract representation.

Are we discussing anything in particular?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Are we discussing anything in particular?

Only when you agree to.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Math has never saved me from anything in my life other than getting laid...

Ba-zing!

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

There is no separation between man and "beast" anymore than there is a separation between mammal and dog. All there is is one species artificially and arbitrarily placing itself at the center of the universe in a rather beastly way.

Animals cannot conceptualize and do not have the ability of choosing means to achieve ends.

That's sort of a non-sequiter. By human standards of intelligence, humans are more intelligent. PhilosopherStoned argued that the conditions we base our separation upon are arbitrary, not that they do not exist.

Besides, dolphins have larger frontal lobes than we do, which is the part of the brain responsible for all that logic and conceptualization. Who's to say what they could have accomplished with opposable thumbs?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Animals cannot conceptualize and do not have the ability of choosing means to achieve ends.

I can name at least one animal that does both of those things and that nobody claims doesn't.

Many more can be named that do choose means to ends. Pretty much all of the primates, at least New Caledonian crows from aves and octopuses from the cephalopods. Not to mention cetations and elephants. You seriously need to update your knowledge of ethology.

Bending a piece of wire to use as a hook is demonstrating both choosing a means to an end and some equivalent of conceptualization.

Well, I guess you mean Sub-Saharan Africa, seeing as there are/have been several "successful" nations in North Africa since the beginning of human civilization.
But, then, I would just have to ask you what exactly do you see as prosperous or successful? How can you define that? Do you mean materially, imperialistically?
I don't know a lot about African history, but off the top of my head I would point out the Mali Empire in west Africa was a pretty successful civilization, apart from the northern nations.
As for why none of the African nations are as developed as European ones today, I would say a combination of everything mentioned in the posts above-- the short answer being colonialism.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I can name at least one animal that does both of those things and that nobody claims doesn't.

Many more can be named that do choose means to ends. Pretty much all of the primates, at least New Caledonian crows from aves and octopuses from the cephalopods. Not to mention cetations and elephants. You seriously need to update your knowledge of ethology.

Bending a piece of wire to use as a hook is demonstrating both choosing a means to an end and some equivalent of conceptualization.

I'd like to hear them. Who is bending a piece of wire and what are they doing with it? Plus if there is an animal that is bending wire, that does not infer that it is able to conceptualize.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

I'd like to see more then one bird doing this. To me it just seems like environmental stimuli where the bird has learned a behavior.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Animals cannot conceptualize and do not have the ability of choosing means to achieve ends.

>.>

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

>.>

AnimalS. If you add the s to animal it makes it plural. Video of a singular bird is not plural. Going ">.>" is not a rebuttal nor it is anything more then the flippant attitude of someone who takes a singular instance of a bird with a learned behavior then tries to blow it up to encompass something beyond just that single bird.

Do you have evidence that crows in New York are doing this? California? Anywhere else? If this is beyond just a learned behavior by the bird then other crows must exhibit the same trait.

It doesn't matter. Your argument was that animals do not choose means to achieve ends. You argued that animals are incapable of planning. I could find more examples, even take the time to find the bird that can bend wires. But it's unnecessary. Your argument has been sufficiently nullified.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

It doesn't matter. Your argument was that animals do not choose means to achieve ends. You argued that animals are incapable of planning. I could find more examples, even take the time to find the bird that can bend wires. But it's unnecessary. Your argument has been sufficiently nullified.

Yes and I said that it is learned behavior which was brought on by environmental stimuli. You showed me A bird which has a certain behavior. What is next? Are you going to show me a mouse hitting a red button that produces food and claim that it is applying means to ends? Or maybe a parrot that says hello?! Animals, Omnis. More then one. Show me the crows dropping nuts in California traffic or the traffic of Paris. You are doing shoddy research. You have a video of a single bird and say "Oh all animals can apply means to ends!"

You've lost me. How is it that an animal developing a learned behavior to pursue a means to an ends not sufficient to exemplify how animals can apply learned behavior to pursue a means to an ends? Or would you like to rephrase your original argument?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

You've lost me. How is it that an animal developing a learned behavior to pursue a means to an ends not sufficient to exemplify how animals can apply learned behavior to pursue a means to an ends? Or would you like to rephrase your original argument?

Because learned behavior is not necessarily means/ends. If I run a mouse down the same maze 100 times, the 101st time does not mean it is applying means to end. It is carrying out behavior almost as a form of mimicry.

Explain to me how this differs from human beings applying a means to an ends.

If anything, it is less proof if a whole bunch of animals in a group are doing it.
Because then you could just as easily say that they are just doing it blindly.*
One crow displaying magnificent comprehension and planning,
is proof that animals do, in fact, have the capacity to "conceptualize and choose means to achieve ends".

*Blindly meaning if something changed, they wouldn't be able to adapt.
Obviously reasoning and planning are needed in traffic, because it changes all the time.

From lectures in learning theory, I think I remember that the difference between humans and other animals is social intelligence (for tracking relationships), and cumulative culture. Corvids and apes are just as smart as humans in physical manipulation (and I think I can still remember where to find the research to explain exactly what that means), and they do learn from each other, but the cumulative effect of each individual's contribution forming a body of theory for the group isn't there, so each time you see a crow doing something like that, it's an independent invention. That makes it all the more impressive, really.

Also of interest (for some reason... trying not to misquote my sources) is that corvids lack a neocortex.

Originally Posted by tommo

If anything, it is less proof if a whole bunch of animals in a group are doing it.
Because then you could just as easily say that they are just doing it blindly.*
One crow displaying magnificent comprehension and planning,
is proof that animals do, in fact, have the capacity to "conceptualize and choose means to achieve ends".

*Blindly meaning if something changed, they wouldn't be able to adapt.
Obviously reasoning and planning are needed in traffic, because it changes all the time.

That's seriously inane. You are saying that the more animals that can be shown doing this, then the less proof there is? It is opposite day?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Explain to me how this differs from human beings applying a means to an ends.

Humans are able to contemplate various means and from that assortment they are able to pick ones they prefer to enact in order to achieve an conceived end. You showed a bird who associates traffic with food. It gets a nut and has learned to drop the nut from a wire. It drops the nuts. Now what the video does not show is what would happen if no cars broke the nuts. What would probably happen is that the bird will go get another nut and drop another and keep on doing that until environment stimuli (a car) produces food.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

What would probably happen is that the bird will go get another nut and drop another and keep on doing that until environment stimuli (a car) produces food.

Damn, you broke Omnis' argument with your baseless predictions.