The origin of mankind

[Karl]

Hello readers! If I could get your attentions. What if a human around kindergarten age or elementary school student asks exactly the same question like my thead,how would you tell him or her one by one.....I think that makes us more easier to see whole picture.

 

Not really. They haven't yet created enough concepts to deal with it. Most of them probably don't know where they came from at that age, never mind the origin of man.

[Apech]

Infinite regression then. I will go along with that. It's pretty much the same positive argument against the creation of the universe by some omnipotent being. That isn't a surprise, as that's where Neo platonists took the idea of a heaven. I think it's just a good exercise. Sometimes it exposes internal conceptualisation which are weak which I enjoy discovering in myself.

 

 

What's this thread called again?

[Apech]

Not really. They haven't yet created enough concepts to deal with it. Most of them probably don't know where they came from at that age, never mind the origin of man.

 

 

Yeah but the idea is that you formulate an answer.

[Stosh]

Infinite regression then. I will go along with that. It's pretty much the same positive argument against the creation of the universe by some omnipotent being. That isn't a surprise, as that's where Neo platonists took the idea of a heaven. I think it's just a good exercise. Sometimes it exposes internal conceptualisation which are weak which I enjoy discovering in myself.

Yes, I took the concept there as well, might you correct my spelling since its so big now ?  

[Michael Sternbach]

What the OP means is: Let's get back on topic, folks!

 

[Brian]

Does a structure necessarily have nodes ? I wouldn't particularly recognise that as a net. Certainly as a network.

 

One of the reasons I suggested that you define fields was because of your wider knowledge of these things. The thing about a definition is that it must be easily understood by someone of average intelligence otherwise it's useless. It can be added to of course by mathematical formula etc, but that specialises it.

The intersection points of a net would be considered nodes. The connecting materials may or may not be flexible, and may or may not be flexibly connected to the nodes. There would probably need to be some discussion about dimensionality and degrees of connectedness as well as whether connections are strictly to adjacent nodes and whether a connection must be made to all adjacent nodes. Anticipated or expected use would probably impact the nailed-down definition, too. That's before you start talking about levels of abstraction (the network and from that the neural network, as two examples).

 

Define an MRI. Or a glioblastoma. Or an amygdala.

 

The reason I'm pushing here, Karl, is because a definition need only be adequate to be meaningful and useful, and the threshold for "adequate" depends on the audience and the application. What you consider to be inadequate because of your limited practical experience with mathematics and physics is perfectly adequate for me and a number of others on the forum. The choice, then, becomes -- do we spend inordinate time and energy trying to convince someone who isn't interested enough to do the requisite background work (assuming that person even has an honest interest) or do we continue discussion at a linguistic level sufficient for the knowledgeable minority. The answer depends on the intend of the conversers and the conversation.

 

This holds true for most areas of discussion.

 

For instance, the term SSD might be perfectly adequate for some audiences but might need to be expanded to "solid-state drive" to make sense to others. For someone who has a passing knowledge of a computer storage device, explaining that it is a storage device analogous to a "disk drive" but without any moving parts might make sense but to really explain/define it requires either prior understanding of or a definition which includes solid-state physics to incorporate & convey sufficient understanding of how a semiconductor works -- which, of course, necessarily leads to subatomic structures and quantum electrodynamics.

 

As another example, when we discuss something as structured and well-defined as "logic," those discussing need to have a similar understanding of what things mean but it is unlikely that they will have a an exactly matching understanding. For instance, someone who has put no meaningful effort into studying the topic may not understand the distinction between analytics and dialectics. Similarly, someone versed only in Aristotelian logic will understand the roles of grammar, dialectics and rhetoric but may not grasp that grammar can be a recursive process because they've never delved formally into propositional calculus. This in no way devalues the trivium & quadrivium, mind you, but merely puts those studies within a larger context --much as second-order logic extends the context to include not just "things" but the relationships between things. Logic nested within logic nested within logic -- each seemingly self-contained.

 

Along those same lines, it is common for people to struggle with conservation principles. I have a brother-in-law who is perpetually pitching ideas for perpetual-motion machines at me. Invariably, the flaw is one of scope -- he believes he has fully thought something through until I show him how to take a step back and look at the larger system.

 

There's a valuable tie-in here, BTW, to Junko's proposal about answering the same "origin of mankind" question if it comes from a kindergarten kid or an elementary school student. The challenge is always to frame a response within the context of and aimed at the knowledge and abilities of the intended audience. This is particularly helpful for the self-reflective person because it often forces one to examine assumptions, understandings and beliefs which may run deep but are generally unacknowledged -- the recursive "why?" is a devastatingly effective tool for getting to the (hopefully) humbling "I don't know." "I don't know" is hugely underrated, in my opinion.

 

EDIT: If you have a sincere interest, Karl, in expanding your awareness about fields from the perspective of "natural philosophy" (AKA "physics") then please create a new thread on the topic and I'll participate.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Brian

[Apech]

What the OP means is: Let's get back on topic, folks!

 

 

What I would say is that although we know that there are very many stars in the universe and that many of them have planets, we don’t know if life is common in the universe or something special to our planet.  It is more likely because the universe is so huge and that we live in an unremarkable part of it, that life is common - but we don’t know for sure.  We also don’t know if life originated on this planet or came here naturally by comets or meteors or even carried by another evolved lifeform like ourselves.  But either way we do know that life on earth develops through a natural process called evolution and that human beings like all other life came originally from simple single celled organisms which existed when the earth was very young.   These organisms produced over time a variety of types and forms and the most successful in terms of reproducing and getting food persisted at the expense of the less successful.  As this happened over vast periods of time more and more complex variations in living beings arose - some died out but the others continued to develop - until modern human beings like you and me developed from previous similar ape like beings about a quarter of a million years ago.

[Junko]

Not really. They haven't yet created enough concepts to deal with it. Most of them probably don't know where they came from at that age, never mind the origin of man.

I would have been happier if my parents would have asked me those guestion at that age,instead of telling me about medical bullshit it's because my father is a medical doctor!I am sure finding out questions I will find out who I am.Hope the same goes to you!

[Karl]

Yeah but the idea is that you formulate an answer.

 

Why must I formulate an answer for a group that isn't on the forum ? Ridiculous. Let's formulate an answer for primates then, what about newborns ?

[Stosh]

What happened  to these kindergarteners  !   , when I was that age I was trying to get shoes on the correct foot. 

Just tell these geniuses the truth, that for all known history , humans have always existed.

Then wait for them to get a bit older and bring up the monkey thing. 

[Apech]

Why must I formulate an answer for a group that isn't on the forum ? Ridiculous. Let's formulate an answer for primates then, what about newborns ?

 

As you wish.

[Michael Sternbach]

What happened  to these kindergarteners  !   , when I was that age I was trying to get shoes on the correct foot. 

Just tell these geniuses the truth, that for all known history , humans have always existed.

Then wait for them to get a bit older and bring up the monkey thing. 

 

I was looking at scientific books at that age and started worrying about my shoes later.

[Stosh]

Why must I formulate an answer for a group that isn't on the forum ? Ridiculous. Let's formulate an answer for primates then, what about newborns ?

I wanna hear the version that gets told to primates , a lot

[Apech]

I wanna hear the version that gets told to primates , a lot

 

Ooooh oooooh eeeek eeeeek haaa haaaa.

[Karl]

The intersection points of a net would be considered nodes. The connecting materials may or may not be flexible, and may or may not be flexibly connected to the nodes. There would probably need to be some discussion about dimensionality and degrees of connectedness as well as whether connections are strictly to adjacent nodes and whether a connection must be made to all adjacent nodes. Anticipated or expected use would probably impact the nailed-down definition, too. That's before you start talking about levels of abstraction (the network and from that the neural network, as two examples).Define an MRI. Or a glioblastoma. Or an amygdala.The reason I'm pushing here, Karl, is because a definition need only be adequate to be meaningful and useful, and the threshold for "adequate" depends on the audience and the application. What you consider to be inadequate because of your limited practical experience with mathematics and physics is perfectly adequate for me and a number of others on the forum. The choice, then, becomes -- do we spend inordinate time and energy trying to convince someone who isn't interested enough to do the requisite background work (assuming that person even has an honest interest) or do we continue discussion at a linguistic level sufficient for the knowledgeable minority. The answer depends on the intend of the conversers and the conversation.This holds true for most areas of discussion.For instance, the term SSD might be perfectly adequate for some audiences but might need to be expanded to "solid-state drive" to make sense to others. For someone who has a passing knowledge of a computer storage device, explaining that it is a storage device analogous to a "disk drive" but without any moving parts might make sense but to really explain/define it requires either prior understanding of or a definition which includes solid-state physics to incorporate & convey sufficient understanding of how a semiconductor works -- which, of course, necessarily leads to subatomic structures and quantum electrodynamics.As another example, when we discuss something as structured and well-defined as "logic," those discussing need to have a similar understanding of what things mean but it is unlikely that they will have a an exactly matching understanding. For instance, someone who has put no meaningful effort into studying the topic may not understand the distinction between analytics and dialectics. Similarly, someone versed only in Aristotelian logic will understand the roles of grammar, dialectics and rhetoric but may not grasp that grammar can be a recursive process because they've never delved formally into propositional calculus. This in no way devalues the trivium & quadrivium, mind you, but merely puts those studies within a larger context --much as second-order logic extends the context to include not just "things" but the relationships between things. Logic nested within logic nested within logic -- each seemingly self-contained.Along those same lines, it is common for people to struggle with conservation principles. I have a brother-in-law who is perpetually pitching ideas for perpetual-motion machines at me. Invariably, the flaw is one of scope -- he believes he has fully thought something through until I show him how to take a step back and look at the larger system.There's a valuable tie-in here, BTW, to Junko's proposal about answering the same "origin of mankind" question if it comes from a kindergarten kid or an elementary school student. The challenge is always to frame a response within the context of and aimed at the knowledge and abilities of the intended audience. This is particularly helpful for the self-reflective person because it often forces one to examine assumptions, understandings and beliefs which may run deep but are generally unacknowledged -- the recursive "why?" is a devastatingly effective tool for getting to the (hopefully) humbling "I don't know." "I don't know" is hugely underrated, in my opinion.EDIT: If you have a sincere interest, Karl, in expanding your awareness about fields from the perspective of "natural philosophy" (AKA "physics") then please create a new thread on the topic and I'll participate.

 

Get real.

[Karl]

I would have been happier if my parents would have asked me those guestion at that age,instead of telling me about medical bullshit it's because my father is a medical doctor!I am sure finding out questions I will find out who I am.Hope the same goes to you!

 

What the fuck ? Really Junko ? You have a brain and you can find out all kinds of things but you are unhappy about the questions your parents didn't ask you ?

[Karl]

I wanna hear the version that gets told to primates , a lot

 

 

Oooohh. Ahhhhaaa ahhaaaaa ooo ooo wah wah

[Michael Sternbach]

What the fuck ? Really Junko ?

 

Karl, please. You are talking with a lady.

[Karl]

What's this thread called again?

 

Isn't heaven, hell, God and physics all jumbled up in the answers ?

[Karl]

Karl, please. You are talking with a lady.

 

I forgot myself in the heat of the moment. I blame it on the shock.

[Apech]

Isn't heaven, hell, God and physics all jumbled up in the answers ?

 

Possibly but not endless discussions about how to define a net.  Please remember it's us poor sods have to read this stuff.

[Brian]

 

Possibly but not endless discussions about how to define a net. Please remember it's us poor sods have to read this stuff.

The "net" sidetrack was my fault, I'm afraid -- I naively thought I'd take another angle at making a point.

[Apech]

The "net" sidetrack was my fault, I'm afraid -- I naively thought I'd take another angle at making a point.

 

Thou art forgiven.

[Karl]

Thou art forgiven.

 

Possibly but not endless discussions about how to define a net.  Please remember it's us poor sods have to read this stuff.

 

I only answered Brian's question.

[Nungali]

Not really. They haven't yet created enough concepts to deal with it. Most of them probably don't know where they came from at that age, never mind the origin of man.

 

 

And they would have framed the question differently .