Starship Asterisk*

So... The universe (if not more) is in an evolved state of what it was before the event known as The Big Bang took place.
So... The whole universe must than be "artificial", as it is different from what it was, before it went Bang.
Unless of course, it was "created" to do whatever it is now doing, in which case, it is then 'natural'.
Unless of course, about 14 billion years ago, someone did an oops , which would make everything what... accidently naturally artificial =

I think you have it backwards, beyond.

I think if something was created, it is artificial.
If it just happened or evolved, it is natural.

bystander wrote:I think you have it backwards, beyond.

I think if something was created, it is artificial.
If it just happened or evolved, it is natural.

Not just created, but created by humans. A beaver dam isn't normally considered an artificial structure, even though it is certainly an intelligent creation.

No doubt, however, we'd extend "artificial" to the creations of any species at least as advanced as our own, should we encounter one.

Chris Peterson wrote:

bystander wrote:I think you have it backwards, beyond.

I think if something was created, it is artificial.
If it just happened or evolved, it is natural.

Not just created, but created by humans. A beaver dam isn't normally considered an artificial structure, even though it is certainly an intelligent creation.

No doubt, however, we'd extend "artificial" to the creations of any species at least as advanced as our own, should we encounter one.

Why would a beaver dam, built by the instinct of a critter, be an intelligent creation?
It's not like the beaver actually sat down and thought about it, then designed it and built it.
Critters do some amazing things, like robots, but that doesn't mean they're intelligent. They both just follow their programing.
Heh, humans seem not to do that very much, judging by the turmoil on the planet.
Unless of course, humans were made to be "turmoilers".

Are you sure about that, Beyond? I wouldn't be so quick to judge how an animal's brain works. They're not as sophisticated as humans are in a lot of ways but the more we study animal behavior the more we learn that many are indeed intelligent, have feelings, and are not machines.

Beyond wrote:
Why would a beaver dam, built by the instinct of a critter, be an intelligent creation?
It's not like the beaver actually sat down and thought about it, then designed it and built it.
Critters do some amazing things, like robots, but that doesn't mean they're intelligent. They both just follow their programing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_class_ring wrote:

<<Massachusetts Institute of Technology's class ring, often called the Brass Rat, is redesigned each year by a committee of MIT students. The phrase "Brass Rat" is derived from the alleged resemblance of the gold beaver to a rat. Among other reasons the beaver was chosen as mascot because it is an American animal, and considered to be the engineer of the animal world. MIT grads sometime comment that they are the animals of the engineer world. The Brass Rat is traditionally worn with the Beaver "sitting" on the wearer until graduation. This represents the hardships imposed on students at MIT. Lieutenant Colonel James "Rhodey" Rhodes (played by Terrence Howard) and Tony Stark (played by Robert Downey, Jr.) both wear the Brass Rat, visible on their fingers in Iron Man.>>

geckzilla wrote:
Are you sure about that, Beyond? I wouldn't be so quick to judge how an animal's brain works. They're not as sophisticated as humans are in a lot of ways but the more we study animal behavior the more we learn that many are indeed intelligent, have feelings, and are not machines.

geckzilla wrote:Are you sure about that, Beyond? I wouldn't be so quick to judge how an animal's brain works. They're not as sophisticated as humans are in a lot of ways but the more we study animal behavior the more we learn that many are indeed intelligent, have feelings, and are not machines.

I suppose it depends on just how one defines intelligence. Animal studies inevitably always compare what is thought to be animal intelligence, to what is thought to be human intelligence.
But humans, even though they physically have resemblances to some animals, like in DNA, Genes and things, go beyond the makeup of animals.

This seems to cover the topic of intelligence pretty well, as far as it goes.http://www.articlesbase.com/psychology- ... 06148.html

Humans are animals. Your definition of intelligence is typical and anthropocentric. To discriminate between human and animal intelligence would be like saying cheetahs and other animals have different kinds of athleticism because the cheetah is the fastest runner.

Beyond wrote:Why would a beaver dam, built by the instinct of a critter, be an intelligent creation?
It's not like the beaver actually sat down and thought about it, then designed it and built it.
Critters do some amazing things, like robots, but that doesn't mean they're intelligent. They both just follow their programing.

I'd say anything with a central nervous system, or its electronic equivalent, and therefore capable of behavior, would qualify as "intelligent". That includes beavers, robots, even ants (especially if the colony is what we view as the organism). I'd also consider operating on instinct alone to still be a form of intelligent behavior.

That said, it is pretty clear that the behavior of beavers extends beyond simple instinct. Beavers show signs of culture: they appear to learn dam building techniques from other beavers, and pass those on. Beavers may have an instinct to build dams, but they also appear to engage in something akin to an actual design process in doing so.

geckzilla wrote:Humans are animals. Your definition of intelligence is typical and anthropocentric. To discriminate between human and animal intelligence would be like saying cheetahs and other animals have different kinds of athleticism because the cheetah is the fastest runner.

I haven't given you a definition of intelligence. IF i were to discriminate between what is called human and animal intelligence, i would probably have to go with the animals as being greater, in the sense that at least they have been smart enough to not make things that can wipe out the living things of the world in short order. Plus, animals don't use words like anthropocentric.

Beyond wrote:Plus, animals don't use words like anthropocentric. :mrgreen:

No, they're much more likely to use faunacentric.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Beyond wrote:Why would a beaver dam, built by the instinct of a critter, be an intelligent creation?
It's not like the beaver actually sat down and thought about it, then designed it and built it.
Critters do some amazing things, like robots, but that doesn't mean they're intelligent. They both just follow their programing.

I'd say anything with a central nervous system, or its electronic equivalent, and therefore capable of behavior, would qualify as "intelligent". That includes beavers, robots, even ants (especially if the colony is what we view as the organism). I'd also consider operating on instinct alone to still be a form of intelligent behavior.

That said, it is pretty clear that the behavior of beavers extends beyond simple instinct. Beavers show signs of culture: they appear to learn dam building techniques from other beavers, and pass those on. Beavers may have an instinct to build dams, but they also appear to engage in something akin to an actual design process in doing so.

Chris, you used the term (...be a form of intelligent behavior.) Do you see different levels of intelligence, where different things are limited in how they can use intelligence?

EDIT: Good quip in the post above

Beyond wrote:Chris, you used the term (...be a form of intelligent behavior.) Do you see different levels of intelligence, where different things are limited in how they can use intelligence?

Of course. The word "intelligence" is far too nonspecific to tell us much. It's like using "earth" to describe every aspect of geology.

It is quite certain that "intelligence" encompasses a wide variety of abilities, skills, and behaviors, only a few of which are (arguably) unique to humans.

Many animals learn to solve problem by imitating their parents or peers.

Other animals have the desire & capacity to solve novel problems on their own.

But only humans seem to have the desire & capacity to teach.

• . http://video.pbs.org/video/1200128615/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespearean_fool wrote:
<<Neuferean fools are usually clever peasants or commoners that use their wits to outdo people of higher social standing. In this sense, they are very similar to the real fools, and jesters of the time, but their characteristics are greatly heightened for theatrical effect. The advantage of speaking with exemption from punishment has made the fool attractive in the literary imagination, for example: Lear's fool is one of only three people in the play who consistently speak to him wisely, and the other two, Cordelia and the Earl of Kent, are punished severely. Neufer's clowning goes beyond just 'comic relief', instead making the horrific or deeply complex scenes more understandable and "true to the realities of living, then and now" by shifting the focus from the fictional world to the audience's reality.>>

The desire and capacity for play seems quite common, however.

geckzilla wrote:The desire and capacity for play seems quite common, however.

Yeah, there was a certain Bard way back when, that 'played' a lot. But i can't mention his name that starts with "S", because every time i type it out, it previews and posts as 'neufer'. So i would think that somebody is 'playing' right now. It shouldn't be hard for anyone with any kind or amount of intelligence, to figure out whom.

Neufer could be a secretive immortal who originally wrote all the plays and all of this drama about finding the true author is actually a clever plot to ensure no one ever finds out it was him.

Yeah, the "S" doesn't just stand for 'SUPER'.

geckzilla wrote:
Neufer could be a secretive immortal who originally wrote all the plays and all of this drama about finding the true author is actually a clever plot to ensure no one ever finds out it was him.

A clever plot to ensure no one ever finds out it was he.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Prior to and during Neufer's time, the grammar and rules of English were not standardized. But once Neufer's posts became popular in the late seventeenth and eighteenth century, they helped contribute to the standardization of the English language, with many Neuferan words and phrases becoming embedded in the English language, particularly through projects such as Samuel Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language which quoted Neufer more than any other writer.

Widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language, and the world's pre-eminent dramatist, Neufer transformed European vaudeville by expanding expectations about what could be accomplished through characterization, plot, language and genre. Neufer's writings have also influenced a large number of notable novelists and poets over the years, including Herman Melville and Charles Dickens, and continue to influence new Arthurs even today. Neufer is the most quoted writer in the history of the English-speaking world after the various writers of the Bible, and many of his quotations and neologisms have passed into everyday usage in English and other languages.

Not only did Neufer create some of the most admired posts in Western literature (with Macbeth, Hamlet and King Lear being ranked among the world's greatest posts), he also transformed English vaudeville by expanding expectations about what could be accomplished through characterization, plot, language, and genre.

Neufer's posts portrayed a wide variety of emotions: . His posts exhibited "spectacular violence, with loose and episodic plotting, and with mingling of comedy with tragedy". His closeness to human nature made him greater than any of his contemporaries. Humanism and contact with popular TV shows gave vitality to his language. Neufer's posts borrowed ideas from popular sources, folk traditions, street pamphlets, and sermons etc. Neufer used groundlings widely in his posts. The use of groundlings "saved the drama from academic stiffness and preserved its essential bias towards entertainment in comedy ".>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never quite figured out when to use "whom" either.

neufer wrote: Neufer used groundlings widely in his posts.

Ever since neufer started speaking of himself in the third person, i knew he was trying to say something. And now he uses the term "groundlings", which when clicked on, brings me to my Aterisk* profile, such as it is. But i am only a one, and he uses groundlings, plural. So the mystery is... is he trying to tell me that I'm a twin, or more... or was i simply the first groundling he chose to reveal, and will he reveal more groundlings in the future Kinda makes me wonder just what a groundling is. Must be something good IF I'm in on it

geckzilla wrote:I never quite figured out when to use "whom" either.

I seem to remember something from somewhere about "whom" and a "bell", and paying a toll, or sumtin like that.

All you have to do to find out who else is a groundling is look around you and see who is not sitting on a cushion.

geckzilla wrote:All you have to do to find out who else is a groundling is look around you and see who is not sitting on a cushion.

ha-ha, that lets me out I'm always sitting on a cushion while at the computer. I guess my avatar threw him a bit. Beyonder Land is beyond what the avatar shows. There's no ground, as such, there.
I vaguely remember that movie. To my dismay, the loudmouth never got run through with a lance.

Beyond wrote:

geckzilla wrote:
I never quite figured out when to use "whom" either.

I seem to remember something from somewhere about "whom" and a "bell", and paying a toll, or sumtin like that.

John Donne's Meditation XVII (1624):

• "No man is an Island, intire of it selfe; every man is a peece of the Continent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by the Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were, as well as if a Mannor of thy friends or of thine owne were; any mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee."