Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on June 29, 2005, 06:27:52 am
-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/29/zombie_dogs/
[q]US scientists at the Papa Doc Duvalier Center for Reanimation Studies* are celebrating ground-breaking research during which they successfully raised dogs from the grave after several hours of "clinical death".
According to news.com.au, the technique involves draining the mutts' blood and replacing it with a saline solution a couple of degrees above zero. The body temperature drops to around 7°C, provoking a cessation of breathing, heart and brain activity and rendering the subject officially dead.
To reanimate the zombie canine, the latter-day Herbert Wests reintroduce the blood while administering 100 per cent oxygen and electric shocks to jump-start the heart. The dog is apparently none the worse for its near-permanent-death experience and reportedly suffers no physical or brain damage as a result of this macabre experiment. We assume that post-resurrection mental capacity is judged by throwing a stick across the lab and seeing if the four-legged member of the Tontons Macoutes runs after it with tail-wagging enthusiasm.
Naturally, there is some perfectly legitimate science behind all this. The team reckons the technique could be used to temporarily suspend battlefield casualties, during which surgeons could repair the damage before jump-starting the bewildered grunt. One unnamed army doc enthused: "The results are stunning. I think in 10 years we will be able to prevent death in a certain segment of those using this technology."
The scientists plan to reanimate a human subject within a year. Any reader wishing to participate in this historic moment is advised to wrap up warm and fully acquaint him or herself with the works of HP Lovecraft
*Ok, we made that up. It's actually the Safar Centre for Resuscitation Research in Pittsburgh.[/q]
I'll just start off with the :wtf: smilies, shall I? Lovely.
-
In a way I can see their plan actually. Freeze dry people on the scene of an accident, transport them to hospital and then fix them up before bringing them back to life.
Could actually be very useful in non-military applications (in fact I see this being more useful in civilian applications than miltary ones).
The Reg are giving an odd spin on it but if you go back an hundred years and told people that you had a revolutionary process that involved taking people who are nearly dead, cutting them open to remove the heart and then sticking that heart in another person in order to replace their own damaged heart the reaction would have been pretty much the same.
These days only Jehovah's witnesses bat an eyelid at heart transplants.
-
Pood dogs...those sick bastards...
-
Originally posted by karajorma
In a way I can see their plan actually. Freeze dry people on the scene of an accident, transport them to hospital and then fix them up before bringing them back to life.
Could actually be very useful in non-military applications (in fact I see this being more useful in civilian applications than miltary ones).
The Reg are giving an odd spin on it but if you go back an hundred years and told people that you had a revolutionary process that involved taking people who are nearly dead, cutting them open to remove the heart and then sticking that heart in another person in order to replace their own damaged heart the reaction would have been pretty much the same.
These days only Jehovah's witnesses bat an eyelid at heart transplants.
Replacing all the blood in the body with near-frozen saline, though? Seems a bit bizarre. Especially if used on bleedy-people.
-
Hmm, interesting... I guess if this could have reflections on hibernation experiments...
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Especially if used on bleedy-people.
What in the name of Sir Isaac Newton are you talking about?!
Actually, i'm thinking that, even with the immediate benefits obvious here, Animal Rights Activist loonies are going to have a field day over doing this to Dogs...:p
-
What the...?? I cut OFF all outside communication! How'd they find this out??
-
A bit unrelated, but... In resident Evil, they have zombie dogs, right? How come zombie dogs can run and jump around, but zombie humans can't? :p
That was Nico's stupid question of the week.
I think I'll ask a stupid question per week starting from now.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Pood dogs...those sick bastards...
If you ever get cancer. Take an asprin. Lose an arm, asprin. Get an infection, witch hazel. Need a heart transplant, die.
Every single drug and medical technique was pioneered using animal testing. Don't like it, then don't use ANY of them.
I'm so sick of anti-vivisectionists acting as though it's wrong to experiment on animals when the techniques developed as a result save human lives. Especially as the same bastards who complain the loudest about it are always the first in line to use the products of those experiments when they get sick.
Originally posted by aldo_14
Replacing all the blood in the body with near-frozen saline, though? Seems a bit bizarre. Especially if used on bleedy-people.
As I said, hacking the heart out of one person to put into another probably seemed odd too at one point. Thankfully we didn't have bio-ethicists back then to tell us it was wrong. :rolleyes:
It sounds weird but basically its a high temperature version of cryogenics. Freeze the body so that it doesn't degrade, fix the problem, revive the patient. But not using cryogenic temperatures they get round the whole problem of ice crystals breaking the cells open.
I'll conceed that it seems like an odd way to deal with an enormous bleeding wound but if you think about it, it's much easier to replace the losses of cold saline than it is to replace blood.
-
Originally posted by Mefustae
What in the name of Sir Isaac Newton are you talking about?!
They're (talking of) replacing peoples bloody with cooled saline solution. How's that going to work with internal or external bleeding?
And what happens when they reintroduce the blood - what if some of the saline has 'leaked'? What're the consequences of having near-frozen saline solution sloshing about in your chest cavity?
-
You're sure that's not scam? :p
Isn't HLP awfully slow today?
-
Originally posted by karajorma
As I said, hacking the heart out of one person to put into another probably seemed odd too at one point. Thankfully we didn't have bio-ethicists back then to tell us it was wrong. :rolleyes:
It sounds weird but basically its a high temperature version of cryogenics. Freeze the body so that it doesn't degrade, fix the problem, revive the patient. But not using cryogenic temperatures they get round the whole problem of ice crystals breaking the cells open.
I'll conceed that it seems like an odd way to deal with an enormous bleeding wound but if you think about it, it's much easier to replace the losses of cold saline than it is to replace blood.
Don't get me wrong, I can see the reasoning behind it. But it is a bit 'odd' to have a treatment that requires 'killing' the patient beforehand IMO; and it'd surely be very difficult to test on humans.
-
I agree woth that. They'd have to get someone with a cancer or something that was considered inoperable due to the danger of killing the patient.
Depending on how this works they might be able to prevent brain damage for long enough to repair the damage the operation did.
Faced with either death or a slim chance of life I know what I'd pick.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
I agree woth that. They'd have to get someone with a cancer or something that was considered inoperable due to the danger of killing the patient.
I think they would rather go the Robocop way. You get a deadly road accident for exemple, and do the blood swapping with one of the casualities.
-
Wouldn't it be more efficient to transplant the brain into a healthy body? And not just a regular body, but one with superhuman strength and reflexes, able to crush those who foolishly oppose it!
-
I read about this in Scientific American, thought it was awesome. :yes:
-
Originally posted by Nico
I think they would rather go the Robocop way. You get a deadly road accident for exemple, and do the blood swapping with one of the casualities.
Problem with that is that it's an experimental procedure and it would be hard to get the permission of anyone who actually needs it.
-
Tell them it'll stop aging for a few hours and you'll get them queuing up to be subjects.......
-
Interesting indeed. I approve. :yes:
-
I'm a little unsettled by the latest photos from the lab....
EDIT: Images never work. :mad:
-
red X's are quite unsettling...
-
This will never work on humans, and i doubt the dog was of full health after the experience. One of he greatest obstacules to freezing a body to revive later, is the fact that the water within each cell isn´t frozen fast enough, so it forms crystals that destroy the cell in the process. This saline solution doesn´t freeze you, granted. So the cells aren´t destroyed. But how can it deal with the fact that the human brain is damaged after only a few minutes without oxygen?
If they invented a new type of anti-coolant or something, that they could replace the blood with, and deep freeze the body, there could be a chance of this working. But saline solution alone won´t cut it. They need a substance that preserves the cells, while at the same time places them in deep hibernation.
Anyway, i too am not pleased with animal experiments, but medical research cannot be made any other way. It´s a burden we need to bare, no matter how much we deslike it.
Actually, i wouldn´t mind seing them experiment on humans aswell, just as long as they are volunteers. Experimenting with humans directlly would cut the research time in half. Unfortunally governments and religious authorities have deemed such experiments as "immoral", even if the subjects are strictly volunteers. I would rather see this done to a man, than to a poor dog that had no vote in the matter...
If they do find a way to make it work, the possibilities are tremendous. Just as long as Racoon City stays well over the other side of the ocean.
:p
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
But how can it deal with the fact that the human brain is damaged after only a few minutes without oxygen?
Why are you finding hard to believe that they can pump the blood out of the body, pump saline solution in and yet have trouble figuring out how they could oxygenate the solution and continuously pump it around the animals body?
-
It's not even them oxygenating the saline. The saline preserves cells as they were when they were the saline was first introduced. Therefore, the saline keeps the brain cells in the same condition as the other cells: ready to be reanimated.
That's my take on it, at least.
And yes, I don't like animal testing either, but it's necessary, imo. As long as it's done in such a way as that the animals are not tortured (such as undue pain, etc), then I'm cautiously pro about it.
-
My main concern is about long-term effects. Saline solution, obviously, contains an awful lot of salt, and salt has a habit of forming into crystals and growing over time.
The idea itself has considerable medical possibilities, and, this would be a 'do or die' option, I don't see many doctors approaching this casually due to the possible contradiction to the Hippocratic Oath.
However, like cloning, it would be wise to wait and see if there are any long-term effects before considering taking it further. After all, Dolly the Sheep seemed perfectly healthy at first, but ended up revealing a large number of genetic defects as time passed.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
If you ever get cancer. Take an asprin. Lose an arm, asprin. Get an infection, witch hazel. Need a heart transplant, die.
Every single drug and medical technique was pioneered using animal testing. Don't like it, then don't use ANY of them.
I'm so sick of anti-vivisectionists acting as though it's wrong to experiment on animals when the techniques developed as a result save human lives. Especially as the same bastards who complain the loudest about it are always the first in line to use the products of those experiments when they get sick.
Meh..there is a limit to everything.
Testing a cold or cancer remedy on some "lower" animals I can live with.
But making really bizzare experiments on animals like DOGS.. They are like, mans best friend.
humane tratment of animals and respect for ALL life on Earth. That is the motto I live by. And in case you don't know, I happen to love msot animals more than i love most humans.
-
Then you need to sort your f**king priorities out.
Like I said I bet you won't be complaining if 20 years down the line this technique saves your son or daughter who was in a car crash.
Its very easy to condem other people to die because you want to prevent the use of animals in medical experiments but when it's your own flesh and blood I'd bet you'd be singing a completely different tune.
As I keep saying this is no more bizzare than the first heart transplants were. You want to say that those also shouldn't have been researched? Cause IIRC they tested those on dogs first too. Will you refuse to have a bypass or any other kind of surgery involving work on even trasplantation of blood vessels from your own body because of the number of man's best friends who died to perfect the procedure?
-
I'm against the testing of life saving drugs on animals.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I think we should use PETA members instead - then everybody can be happy.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Testing a cold or cancer remedy on some "lower" animals I can live with.
But making really bizzare experiments on animals like DOGS.. They are like, mans best friend.
humane tratment of animals and respect for ALL life on Earth. That is the motto I live by. And in case you don't know, I happen to love msot animals more than i love most humans.
You contradict yourself.
What makes an animal 'lower'? Because they're less cute? Because they're not fuzzy? Because they've not been domesticated?
How can you consider all life sacred, and then call some species 'lower' and say they are acceptable to submit to testings? :doubt:
-
My problem has always been with csometic testing etc on Animals, which was un-neccesary and pointless. It needs to be borne in mind that these animals weren't nicked off the street or bought from Dogs homes for experimentation (or, at least, I sincerely hope they weren't, I have no real evidence to prove that). The chances are that they were bred as lab animals, much as some rats and apes are.
Yes, from a certain point of view it is - distasteful, and I don't believe in running rickshod over animal rights, however, I also realise that a great many people who are around today would not be so had it not been for experiments that were orignally run on animals.
A lot of research has actually moved away from animal testing now, preferring to use other methods, though, they face problems, because, despite the fact no-one wants them testing on live animals, no-one wants them testing on cloned human cells, or stem cells either, so they kind of get boxed into a corner.
-
I'm 100% behind the ban on cosmetic testing as it was completely unnecessary. I don't like animal testing at all in fact and I'm all for any laws that make sure the animals are treated with as much respect as possible but the fact is that unfortunately it's an necessary evil.
What a lot of the idiots who are against vivisection don't realise is that the drug companies would love to move away from animal testing.
Animal testing is hugely expensive for one thing. It would be in the drug companies finacial interest to move away animal testing. The problem is that the body is like an incredibly complex chemical factory and there is no possible way to fully model that using cell cultures or any of the other claptrap that the animal lovers come out with.
Cell cultures can help but they can't replace proper animal testing. Sad but true.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Why are you finding hard to believe that they can pump the blood out of the body, pump saline solution in and yet have trouble figuring out how they could oxygenate the solution and continuously pump it around the animals body?
Yes they could. But did they? The article doesn´t mention that.
And what are the consequences of joining oxygen and saline solution? I´m no chemist, obviously. But i expect the oxygen to have an adverse effect on the saline solution. Even if you continuaslly pump the solution through the body, some cristals are bound to be left behind and start forming larger crystal clusters. What effect would that have?
There´s lots of questions, that we as non-scientists cannot answer. For example, an excess of salt in the body severly disrupts the electrolite balance, and the liver and kidneys would be shot to hell trying to deal with the unbalance.
What i mean to say is, saline solution alone would not cut it. There must be something else that we don´t know about, some drug, or some other procedure that we as non-scientists don´t know about.
I would need to read more about this to make a closer acessment.
-
when your cold your metabolism shuts down, that's how it works, it isn't cryogenics and will never lead to anything for cyrogenics, it's simply an controled version of the whole "kid falls into a frozen lake is found nine hours later and revived undamaged" thing.
animals are animals, I don't give a damn what happens to them, much like I don't give a damn about the bugs that hit my windsheild on my car, there animals you see, irrelevent other multi-cellular organisms that consume food and oxygen that could go to a human, a human wich is what I am, wich is the only animal I care about, because I am an animal on a planet were there is a rather cut throught evolutionary process going on, and of wich I am the product of, no other animal on this planet gives a damn about any other animal exept can I eat it or will it try to eat me and we are no exeption. it's just that the type of animal I am happens to live in large groups controled by small numbers of members of that group, any way to convince a large segment of the population gets you power, there are many governments religons and cults organised around this concept, and there is also PETA.
-
what bob just said. you guys think too science-fictiony, cryogenics has little if anything to do with it.
we had a lecturer mention the metabolism thing a few weeks back with kids who fall into freezing cold water. what happens is the gas carrying ability of the blood is hugely changed, combined with other reflexes, causing slow heart beat, slow respiration and reduced tissue metabolism. i don't know if it's possible that these processes can be entirely stopped- i don't know about the scientific credentials of the authors and all, so i can't say- but it's not a far leap that if cold water can cause such extreme reduction in body function yet the body can still later be revived with little harm, then those same functions can be totally stopped and reactivated. maybe.
sorry my english is a little dead today, i spent six hours on the train. good news is that they found my wallet though so i'm happy.
-
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Yes they could. But did they? The article doesn´t mention that.
And what are the consequences of joining oxygen and saline solution? I´m no chemist, obviously. But i expect the oxygen to have an adverse effect on the saline solution.
Why? Salt is completely stable to oxidation. Your body uses haemoglobin for oxygen transport mainly because plasma can't disolve the amounts of oxygen needed IIRC. In this situation the bodies metabolism is slowed down a large amount and therefore simply oxygenating the solution before pumping it in might be enough.
Thing is that they might not even need to oxygenate the blood anyway. Bob is correct about the cases where sudden cooling prevent brain damage occuring. The reason this works is probably because the reaction that damages the brain requires the body to be at a reasonably warm temperature. Cool the body down and it proceeds much more slowly if at all.
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
Even if you continuaslly pump the solution through the body, some cristals are bound to be left behind and start forming larger crystal clusters. What effect would that have?
Why are you making the assumption that when they say saline solution they mean something other than the standard isotonic saline solutions that are used to give drugs via an IV drip?
Originally posted by Swamp_Thing
What i mean to say is, saline solution alone would not cut it. There must be something else that we don´t know about, some drug, or some other procedure that we as non-scientists don´t know about.
I would need to read more about this to make a closer acessment.
There may be more to it than simple saline but I wouldn't bet money on it.
Originally posted by icespeed
what bob just said. you guys think too science-fictiony, cryogenics has little if anything to do with it.
I simply mentioned cryogenics to give an example of how this would be used. Bobs example is better though :)
-
IMO the dog is a bloody champion. His name should be engraved on the moon.
Go Dogs! :D
-
Originally posted by Raa
You contradict yourself.
What makes an animal 'lower'? Because they're less cute? Because they're not fuzzy? Because they've not been domesticated?
How can you consider all life sacred, and then call some species 'lower' and say they are acceptable to submit to testings? :doubt:
Hello? You missed the " " part. Why do you think I put those anyway?
by kajorama
Then you need to sort your f**king priorities out.
Like I said I bet you won't be complaining if 20 years down the line this technique saves your son or daughter who was in a car crash.
Its very easy to condem other people to die because you want to prevent the use of animals in medical experiments but when it's your own flesh and blood I'd bet you'd be singing a completely different tune.
As I keep saying this is no more bizzare than the first heart transplants were. You want to say that those also shouldn't have been researched? Cause IIRC they tested those on dogs first too. Will you refuse to have a bypass or any other kind of surgery involving work on even trasplantation of blood vessels from your own body because of the number of man's best friends who died to perfect the procedure?
False reasoning. I can comment NOW becouse I'm now being more or less objective (not torn by my feelings). If someone I love was dying I wouldn't really be thingking perfectly straight..of course I would give everything to have them back.
In such situations, people are often ready to do ANYTHING.
and about refusing treatment that's allready been invented... Why? What's the point? It's allready there, and not using them won't change anything or bring back the animals that died during it's dvelopment.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
I'm 100% behind the ban on cosmetic testing as it was completely unnecessary. I don't like animal testing at all in fact and I'm all for any laws that make sure the animals are treated with as much respect as possible but the fact is that unfortunately it's an necessary evil.
What a lot of the idiots who are against vivisection don't realise is that the drug companies would love to move away from animal testing.
Animal testing is hugely expensive for one thing. It would be in the drug companies finacial interest to move away animal testing. The problem is that the body is like an incredibly complex chemical factory and there is no possible way to fully model that using cell cultures or any of the other claptrap that the animal lovers come out with.
Cell cultures can help but they can't replace proper animal testing. Sad but true.
Ture.. But let's allso not forget that in the end you DO HAVE TO TEST IT ON HUMANS ANYWAY.
Body build and metabolism of a rat or dog are different than humans. All th testing you do really only ammounts to the general direction, and in the end, some human must take the risk of trying the procedure medicine...
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
False reasoning. I can comment NOW becouse I'm now being more or less objective (not torn by my feelings). If someone I love was dying I wouldn't really be thingking perfectly straight..of course I would give everything to have them back.
In such situations, people are often ready to do ANYTHING.
Or you could look at it as you realising you made a dreadful mistake only when your nose is ground up against the fact.
Some people only realise their mistake when it affects them personally. The fact that you'd be emotional in that situation doesn't mean that you were any more wrong when you made your so called objective choice.
Fact is that no one I know has died from anything this technique could save them from. Doens't stop me from objectively supporting it.
Originally posted by TrashMan
and about refusing treatment that's allready been invented... Why? What's the point? It's allready there, and not using them won't change anything or bring back the animals that died during it's dvelopment.
It's called sticking up for your principles and it's something that most people who complain about vivisection find a completely confusing notion. What it means is that you say "I'm morally against the use of animals in testing drugs and therefore I will not use anything that is the product of something I feel so strongly against" as opposed to the usual stance of "I'm going to ***** and moan about cute animals dying and generally hold back medical progress but when I get sick you better give me all the f**king drugs you can cause I'm not willing to die for my principles but I feel that you should"
Seriously if you're really against the use of animals for medical testing make a promise to never use a single drug that was tested on animals after today. Otherwise quit trying to make everyone live by rules you're not even willing to live by yourself.
And if this does end up becoming a technique that is used for tramua patients in the future remember to tell the ambulance crew that you'd rather risk bleeding to death in the ambulance rather that be saved by something that was once a bizarre experiment carried out on man's best friend.
Originally posted by TrashMan
Ture.. But let's allso not forget that in the end you DO HAVE TO TEST IT ON HUMANS ANYWAY.
Body build and metabolism of a rat or dog are different than humans. All th testing you do really only ammounts to the general direction, and in the end, some human must take the risk of trying the procedure medicine...
The words of someone who has only the vaguest knowledge of how drug design works. Do you have any idea how many drugs are abandoned at the animal testing stage due to unforseen side effects? Do you have any idea how many peoples lives are saved even when the drug is approved because the animal testing shows that the drug is incompatible with things like high blood pressure or some other condition?
Of course human testing is needed because animals aren't perfect models but your plan is analogous to boeing taking the blueprints of their jet and going straight to building full sized planes without any further testing. Why build models, after all they don't suffer the stresses of the real plane in exactly the same way.
The suggestion to put untested drugs directly from the cell culture studies into humans without any animal testing is just callous. It would cause a rise in drugs having teratogenic effects like thalidamide because you can't model the development of a feotus in a cell culture. So your wonderful method would result in more drugs on the market which have an unknown effect on unborn children. Or which cause heart attacks in people with high blood pressure. Or which work with normal people but kill you if you have a failing liver, or kidneys.
On top of that direct to human trials would mean longer drug development times because no company is stupid enough to start mass producing drugs that could have the above effects for fear of getting sued. Without animal tests and the disections that follow it would take decades before you could say with any kind of confidence that a drug might not cause long term liver damage or something of the sort.
Testing on humans first is stupidity of the highest order and is only ever suggested by people with no knowledge of how drug design works.
-
Hello? You missed the " " part. Why do you think I put those anyway?
Because you knew that you were acknowledging the validity of the term, but did not want to concede it, so you pulled a John Kerry and tried to meet everyone at the epicenter? Just a guess.
I'm all for animal testing. We have no treaties with animals, and they're not going to be offended if we use some of their individuals for medical research. (Even if they were, I think we know who would win that war. Heh heh.) Hell, drug companies test all their new products on the general public because the FDA is a lifeless puppet, but I don't hear people complain about that.
-
AAARh!
I jsut made a lengthy reply and all of it was "eaten" by friggin Exploer! I hate that thing!
-
They should test new versions of IE on animals before they release it to people. ;)
-
You should have been using Mozilla then. :p
-
Originally posted by redsniper
They should test new versions of IE on animals before they release it to people. ;)
:lol:
-
now THAT would really be torture!
-
Er...Is 'The Register' even an reliable source?
A lot of informal language is used ('boffins', 'zombie dogs' [because they're not really zombies]) , the article has a very light tone to it ('Any reader wishing to participate in this historic moment is advised to wrap up warm and fully acquaint him or herself with the works of HP Lovecraft.'), and there's the footnote at the bottom of the page. The article should, IMHO, stay as neutral as possible, and less 'personal' because the writer obviously added some of his own touches to the story.
Does anyone know where else I can read about this? Apart from at news.com.au?
-
The Register is generally a reliable source.
-
The Register generally takes a slight editorial spin when presenting news but is usually very reliable. There have been several cases where the Register has been proved right when everywhere else got things wrong (Code Red = the end of the internet, Microsofts UP&P = the end of the world etc. )
This is actually one of the few Reg stories I've seen that disappointed me by taking the editorialising too far. It's okay to make the odd joke but deliberately spinning a medical breakthrough to sound like some kind of bizarre Dr. Frankenstein experiment is taking things too far.
Regardless of the language used though I have no doubt that the story behind it was true. El Reg is generally very good about admitting it when they get things wrong.
-
Yeah, the way they wrote the article really bugged me. It's like they're trying to downplay the signifigance of this. Even if it wasn't deliberate, the effect is the same.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I'm against the testing of life saving drugs on animals.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I think we should use PETA members instead - then everybody can be happy.
Smartest thing ive seen so far.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Wouldn't it be more efficient to transplant the brain into a healthy body? And not just a regular body, but one with superhuman strength and reflexes, able to crush those who foolishly oppose it!
No, it wouldn't. The nervous system in any animal that has a brain (humans included) is extremely complex. There are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of connections between the brain and the rest of the body.
Plus you could end up with some severe psychological problems as a result of that.
-
Well, looking at that article alone, (I haven't read any other The Register articles), I assumed that some technical details were ommited or simplified to perhaps make it more interesting/complicated to its target audience. ;p
-
Originally posted by Raa
You contradict yourself.
What makes an animal 'lower'? Because they're less cute? Because they're not fuzzy? Because they've not been domesticated?
How can you consider all life sacred, and then call some species 'lower' and say they are acceptable to submit to testings? :doubt:
so when you step on a cockroach, an ant, or kill a fly......... isn't that sacred life too?
-
Originally posted by karajorma
These days only Jehovah's witnesses bat an eyelid at heart transplants.
Jehovah's Witnesses reject blood transfusions. the transplant of muscles or organs, are left up to the conscience of the individual as far as i'm aware... i might research that though.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
so when you step on a cockroach, an ant, or kill a fly......... isn't that sacred life too?
Sacrilege can be fun too :p
-
[color=66ff00]The whole point of this is to prolong the life of a patient as long as possible thus increasing the survivability.
As Bob has stated once you drop the core body temperature below a certain level the body's functions tend to slow down. The brain accounts for a rather large chunk of the oxygen requirement of the body (hence it's got it's own pulmonary sub system) the brain also regulates most of the body's functions; if you try to put the brain into a 'standby' mode the rest of the body shuts down first in order to maximise the O2 and nutrients going to the brain. Blood vessels in the extremities narrow their diameter, as a result the blood and everything in it is redirected and a person loses their colour. When the brain enters this standby mode all of the higher brain functions are diminished or shut down entirely reducing the brain's energy and oxygen needs.
The body is a self regulating mechanism, it requires a certain temprature and chemical balance to be maintained. Temperature effects a number of chemical systems, notably enzymes which facilitate a vast array of chemical processes including respiration; reduce the body temp. and you reduce respiration. Respiaton in this case is not 'breathing' (a common misconception for some reason) it's the breakdown and conversion of nutrient sources (sugars, fats and protien) to form adenosine triose phosphate (ATP).
So on to the main reasoning behind the experiment; you've just had some kind of life threatening accident and you're not in a position to recieve treatment. In the time that's required to get you to a place where an operation can take place a medic will have to regulate your breathing, control blood leakage from wounds and constantly monitor your condition including temperature. Now as you may all be aware no workable, mass producable (i.e. cheap) substitute for blood has yet been discovered so the medic may require a significant volume of plasma to keep you alive between the scene of the accident and the operating theatre. This blood will have to have been screened and chemically altered to inhibit clotting, it will also have to be of the same type as your blood otherwise your immune system will see the new blood cells as foreign bodies and will attack (read up on antigens if you wish to know why).
Saline by comparison is cheap, plentiful and readily available, it can be quickly and cheaply sterilised, is compatible will everyone (no antigens) and does not require donors. You could build a relatively small, mobile unit that would cool and pump the saline. If you've got twenty guys stuck in the middle of a battlefield and you've got two medics and a limited blood supply you can imagine how this kind of process wold be useful.
[/color]
-
In the future, there will be one saline tank in every ambulance! :nod:
-
I can see this being useful in battlefield conditions but it could just as easily be used in civilian trauma cases for much the same reasons.
For instance suppose you have a long and risky operation to perform. It might be simpler to simply use this process to stop the heart and carry out the operation without the need to keep the patients body working throughout the entire operation.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
I can see this being useful in battlefield conditions but it could just as easily be used in civilian trauma cases for much the same reasons.
For instance suppose you have a long and risky operation to perform. It might be simpler to simply use this process to stop the heart and carry out the operation without the need to keep the patients body working throughout the entire operation.
[color=66ff00]Well I am being speculative in the technology's implementation and usage. Given most people's proximity to hospitals in the western world it would seem to me to be overkill. Also a considerable number of modern medical operations rely on the person's ECG (EKG), EEG and other measurable output from the body to identify how well the operation is proceeding. Operating on what would effectively be a cadaver would be more of a guessing game.
This is of course assuming the technology is viable for people.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Raa
You contradict yourself.
What makes an animal 'lower'? Because they're less cute? Because they're not fuzzy? Because they've not been domesticated?
How can you consider all life sacred, and then call some species 'lower' and say they are acceptable to submit to testings? :doubt:
I used " " to indicate that I think it's crap.
I do consider all life sacred and I don't consider animals lower in any case. Hell, I don't hurt animals at all - I even let a few spiders in my apartment..and it works too.. it's bug-free without me resotring to any sprays or anything..they keep the bugs away...call it a symbiosis)
The only time when I make exceptions is parasytes..
In effect, there is no logical basis to call an animal lower than us humans are....
Name one reason why they are lower..
WE rule the Earth?
So did hte dinasours, and for far longer then us...Does that make us lower than them?
We build thing?
So do animals, alltough on a smaller and simpler scale..they don't need more anyway.
We have culture?
So do animals - the recent studies confirmed that.
We ARE different, but does that automaticly make us batter?
-
so you are saying that a sponge is on the same level as a human?
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
I used " " to indicate that I think it's crap.
I do consider all life sacred and I don't consider animals lower in any case. Hell, I don't hurt animals at all - I even let a few spiders in my apartment..and it works too.. it's bug-free without me resotring to any sprays or anything..they keep the bugs away...call it a symbiosis)
The only time when I make exceptions is parasytes..
In effect, there is no logical basis to call an animal lower than us humans are....
Name one reason why they are lower..
WE rule the Earth?
So did hte dinasours, and for far longer then us...Does that make us lower than them?
We build thing?
So do animals, alltough on a smaller and simpler scale..they don't need more anyway.
We have culture?
So do animals - the recent studies confirmed that.
We ARE different, but does that automaticly make us batter?
2 things;
Reasons why animals are considered lower; less cognitive ability (less ability to problem solve or use tools), simple inability to compete with humans for territory (we are very good at extermination, after all), inability to create food sources (i.e. such as in farming).
Ruling the Earth; er, the dinosaurs weren't a single species. The only valid comparison to make in that case would be mammals versus dinosaurs.
-
There is one gargantuan thing that definitively seperates us from all other life on this planet, and that is language. Not communication-- language. The emergence of language was more than a revolution in communication; it made us far more intelligent by opening the door to abstract and metaphorical thought, without which civilization is not possible.
Stop and think for a moment about how you handle every single piece of sensory data that enters your brain. It's all inescapably tied to words. Even words are based on words. Now try as hard as you can to imagine processing your thoughts without language. That is why we are seperate from all other animals. (That combined with opposable thumbs, which allowed us to actualize our potential.)
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
There is one gargantuan thing that definitively seperates us from all other life on this planet, and that is language. Not communication-- language. The emergence of language was more than a revolution in communication; it made us far more intelligent by opening the door to abstract and metaphorical thought, without which civilization is not possible.
Stop and think for a moment about how you handle every single piece of sensory data that enters your brain. It's all inescapably tied to words. Even words are based on words. Now try as hard as you can to imagine processing your thoughts without language. That is why we are seperate from all other animals. (That combined with opposable thumbs, which allowed us to actualize our potential.)
Although the use of language is not beyond animals (as evidenced by sign language in apes; they're able, IIRC, to form new concepts and express them in word groups). I'm not sure if our sort of cognitive-stroke-illustrative language is unique to humans, although I'd expect it to be, because there's no real way to tell otherwise (is there?) in an animal like a dolphin or bee (the latter should be pretty obvious it's not near human intelligence, but the complexity of its communication methods does kind of illustrate the difficulty of understanding communications).
It could be, alternatively, that the main difference between humans and animals is imagination; the ability to see outlandish (i.e. compared to the sort of base imagination required for problem solving in say, apes and parrots) scenarios and how to make happen/prevent them.
-
no other animal has nukes
-
Humans, first of all, are the only animal with the vocal equipent necessary to produce the wide range of sounds that form a language. (No, not even parrots have it.)
There are many animals that have learned to associate sounds with certain objects or basic concepts, but that is not language, which must have rules of grammar and syntax, because otherwise it is limited to very primitive structures. In addition, our languages are the only form of communication that actually uses itself to describe other aspects of itself. This is how we are able to conceive abstract ideas, which form the basis of government, money, philosophy, art, mathematics, and basically anything that does not concretely exist. In short, we are the only animal that is capable of thinking about how we think, because such complex thought structures are simply impossible without a system that is capable of modifying itself to build new compartments and categories for an infinitely complex universe.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
no other animal has nukes
I wuv j00. :D
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Humans, first of all, are the only animal with the vocal equipent necessary to produce the wide range of sounds that form a language. (No, not even parrots have it.)
There are many animals that have learned to associate sounds with certain objects or basic concepts, but that is not language, which must have rules of grammar and syntax, because otherwise it is limited to very primitive structures. In addition, our languages are the only form of communication that actually uses itself to describe other aspects of itself. This is how we are able to conceive abstract ideas, which form the basis of government, money, philosophy, art, mathematics, and basically anything that does not concretely exist. In short, we are the only animal that is capable of thinking about how we think, because such complex thought structures are simply impossible without a system that is capable of modifying itself to build new compartments and categories for an infinitely complex universe.
[color=66ff00]I'd think carefully about that reasoning. Dolphins, whales and birds are known to communicate a wide array of different things. The entire point of language is to allow a creature to convey meaning, something these creatures do albeit in a seemingly simpler fashion.
So long and thanks for all the fish. :)
[/color]
-
I'm not just pulling these things out of my ass; modern linguists will back me up on this. (It's my mom's field of expertise, also.)
Just because language is for communication doesn't mean that all communication is language. It is a simple fact that humans are the only animals that have what meets the scientific definition of language, and the difference between dolphins clicking and humans speaking is an immense gap of complexity.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
I'm not just pulling these things out of my ass; modern linguists will back me up on this. (It's my mom's field of expertise, also.)
Just because language is for communication doesn't mean that all communication is language. It is a simple fact that humans are the only animals that have what meets the scientific definition of language, and the difference between dolphins clicking and humans speaking is an immense gap of complexity.
[color=66ff00]You'd probably need to quote a source then.
I just did a quick dictionary search: Link (www.answers.com/language&r=67)
Note point number 7.
[/color]
-
But note that this is a dictionary definition, and thus acknowledges colloquial uses of words as valid. You can call what dolphins do whatever you want, but it's still different from what we do.
I can't find any relevant articles online, but I would suggest reading Stephen Pinker's (http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/books/index.html) work, which talks about the same things I am.
-
pinker fucking rocks BTW
-
[color=66ff00]I only pointed out the dolphin reference as an interesting coincidence the main point that I had hoped you'd see was 1a.
I have seen a interesting program about Stephen Pinker's blank slate theories but a lot of his material seems very hit and miss so I decided that if I were interested in the subject I'd have a much more comprehensive look at what's available.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]I only pointed out the dolphin reference as an interesting coincidence the main point that I had hoped you'd see was 1a.[/color]
Even so, if semantics is ignored, there is a qualitative difference between what humans do and what any other animal does to communicate. Ironically, what we're doing right now is a case in point; we're struggling to transcend the common boundaries of our language in an attempt to make points about that language. Let's see Coco the gorilla do that! :)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
so you are saying that a sponge is on the same level as a human?
I'm sure a sponge could voice its opinion, it'd share the same as you, Bob :p "hint hint"
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Humans, first of all, are the only animal with the vocal equipent necessary to produce the wide range of sounds that form a language. (No, not even parrots have it.)
There are many animals that have learned to associate sounds with certain objects or basic concepts, but that is not language, which must have rules of grammar and syntax, because otherwise it is limited to very primitive structures. In addition, our languages are the only form of communication that actually uses itself to describe other aspects of itself. This is how we are able to conceive abstract ideas, which form the basis of government, money, philosophy, art, mathematics, and basically anything that does not concretely exist. In short, we are the only animal that is capable of thinking about how we think, because such complex thought structures are simply impossible without a system that is capable of modifying itself to build new compartments and categories for an infinitely complex universe.
Language isn't defined by vocal equipment, though; hence the whole sign language example. There is, IIRC, evidence that apes using sign language can form new word groups/expressions- the only problem is that even with a human-devised method of communication it's still highly interpretive and what a person regards as intelligent language use (albeit only equivalent to a young human - about 2-3 years I believe).
It's an interesting question with regards to introspection; IMO one of the defining characteristics of human intelligence is that ability to conceive abstract ideas. But I don't think that is something which can be defined by language alone; language can facilitate the expression of it, but I'm not convinced it is 'responsible' for it.
Of course, it's probably interesting that the animals we regard as most intelligent are the ones that behave and act - or are capable of acting - most like humanity.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
so you are saying that a sponge is on the same level as a human?
Ok - let me rephrase that - animals with brains (mostly mamals)
Reasons why animals are considered lower; less cognitive ability (less ability to problem solve or use tools), simple inability to compete with humans for territory (we are very good at extermination, after all), inability to create food sources (i.e. such as in farming).
The problems we put before animals are problems created by US from OUR point of view and OUR way of thinking. I wouldn't call it representaive for animals. Regardless, mesuring intelligence is right down impossible even for humans - scientist tody say IQ tests are crap.
but granted, they may have a leser cognitive ability (child-level), but how does that make them lower? Or do you cosider children and babies "lower"?
Competing for territory is irrelavant. If a massive kiler virus or uber-venomus insects or something was to exterminate all people on the planet, would it be higher than us? After all, didn't it take over all our territory?
Animals don't need farms. They live in balance with nature - it is us who are overpopulating and shamelessly using every resource we can find.
but for your information - tehre are some animals that do grow food - ant's for instance. They grow mushrooms and keep a certin insect species as cattle...
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Just because language is for communication doesn't mean that all communication is language. It is a simple fact that humans are the only animals that have what meets the scientific definition of language, and the difference between dolphins clicking and humans speaking is an immense gap of complexity.
Actually, dolphins and whales communicate on a very complex manner. The frequency range and oscillations they use surpass by far our vocal capabilities..
In other words, the informational potential of their communication is far greater then ours. What they are saying to eachtoher is a mystey though...
B.t.w. - di you know that dolphins acutally have accents?
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Ok - let me rephrase that - animals with brains (mostly mamals)
what does that have to do with anything, an animal is an animal, fine, is a worm, or cockroach on the same level as a human?
Competing for territory is irrelavant. If a massive kiler virus or uber-venomus insects or something was to exterminate all people on the planet, would it be higher than us? After all, didn't it take over all our territory?
yes, they beat us in evolution, and therefore are a better design, ubber intelegence has a cost, and if that cost does not pay off it becomes a huge liability, fortuneately it seems to be paying off. when an animal goes extinct because it gets out competed by another animal then the new animal is better than the old, and we have replaced every animal we have yet encountered, so untill we come upon an animal who we cannot replace it is reasonable to say we are simply the superior life form on the planet currently.
-
Dammit, my sodding reply got lost.
Um;
1/ Virus is not alive (doesn't count)
2/ If an insect or other animal was able to wipe out humanity, then it would be top of the food chain and hence 'higher'.
3/ Being a 'higher' form of life entails the combination of intelligence, ability to control environment, etc; not just the singular ability of one.
4/Territory is highly relevant. It's a perfect example of human intelligence and ability to adapt to other territories. I don't think there is a single advanced species (i.e. not single celled, etc, but reasonably intelligent) that has the 'range' humanity has.
5/All animals have brains or some form of CNS control.
6/RE: dolphin, etc, communications. Note that human communication is denoted by the ability to express complex thoughts via combination of terms. The range of our vocal cords, etc, has nothing to do with the intelligence or content of human communicaiton. At most it would mean dolphins et al could possible 'talk' faster.
7/It's completely pointless to bring up 'children as lower forms of life' as an argument (it's a lazy attempt to use a strawman IMO). Firstly, you'd have to compare human vs animal children at the same developmental stage where AFAIK humans have a far greater capacity for learning and larger brain mass. Secondly, children are still human; it's pretty obvious you don't partition species into age groups for definition, so you can't do so in comparison (unless you want a deliberately biased comparison). Thirdly, human children are by nature 'lesser' than adults; they are still learning, developing and have worse judgement amongst other things.
8/humanity ****ing up the planet is just evidence of our success as a species; No other species on earth has reached this level of control; it's not of any value to make assumptions that if another species reached this 'level', they'd be any better at managing the planet (in fact, they don't have the cognitive ability to identify a problem or communicate it, so they could be worse).
9/ the intrinsic 'balance' animals have with nature is simple environmental pressures. It's not attributable to that species 'intelligence' in doing so, just the interplay of competing plant and animal life.
10/Intelligence can be measured demonstratively; IQ test is just an attempt to put a specific rating on human intelligence, but it's daft to suggest that's the exemplar for all forms of 'intelligence test'.
11/The very concept of intelligence is a human one. As is every single arguement and counter arguement that can be used for this debate; you can't argue in terms of human perspective so long as you are human.
-
Before I continue, I have to emphasize that anyone who responds to this must, must, must, read the whole thing, or the argument will be incomplete.
Language isn't defined by vocal equipment, though; hence the whole sign language example.
To that end, I quote from this interview (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/2/text_pop/l_072_03.html) with Steven Pinker:
A friend of mine lived and worked with a chimpanzee for several years, and tells the story of how the chimp loved to imitate things that she did. For example, after she washed the dishes the chimp would wash the dishes, but the chimp's idea of washing the dishes was very different from ours. It went through the same muscle movements; it would pick up the sponge, let the warm water roll over his hands, would rub the sponge on the plate, but didn't get the idea that the point of washing the dishes was to get the dishes clean.
It just liked the feel of rubbing a sponge over the plate. It could wash the same dish over and over again, it could rub some of the dirt off and not get all of it off, because what it was imitating was the particular physical sequence. What it didn't think about was what was the goal of the human performing the action. And the ability to guess what other people's goals are is a key part of human intelligence, and it makes us very different from our primate cousins.
That's a huge part of what makes us unique. It's that ability to process those extended sequences of cause/effect relationships far beyond the initial physical act, and no other animal has demonstrated that kind of ability. Chimps just don't "get it"; they can only imitate. There is no evidence that any of these so-called "made up" words were anything more than random motions.
Actually, dolphins and whales communicate on a very complex manner. The frequency range and oscillations they use surpass by far our vocal capabilities..
In other words, the informational potential of their communication is far greater then ours. What they are saying to eachtoher is a mystey though...
B.t.w. - di you know that dolphins acutally have accents?
[/B]
1) Humans possess the ability to close off one portion of our throats, allowing us to produce sounds while exhaling without choking. This ability is unique to us, and it allows us to produce sounds that no other animal can.
2) Dolphins are physically unable build things, which right away removes much of the necessity for language and makes their coevolution of abilities fundamentally different from ours. In The Descent of Man, Darwin, much ahead of his time, described language as "an instinctive tendency to acquire an art". In other words, a child is not born knowing how to make or use tools, but is born with what Chomsky, and Pinker later on, would conclude is an instinctive desire to acquire the necessary information-- in other words, language. Dolphins have no instinctive need to learn these things because they are physically unable to do them in the first place.
3) Noam Chomsky demonstrated that a language cannot be simply a system of responses; it must have the ability to form an infinite number of sentences out of a finite number of words. All dolphins have demonstrated is the ability to communicate basic statements to one another in a code-- "We are in danger", or "I like you, let's have sex." Their system of communication is not infinitely flexible the way all human languages are. Thus, it can never be equal in complexity.
-
*cough* about the language thing, Dolphins don't just produce the clicks to comunicate, they use a variety of mechanisms, one of which is the creation of bubbles of variable sizes and shapes. Let's see other animals do that.
Also, about the infinite number of sentences, unless there is an infinite number of words, there cannot be an infinite number of sentences, just a very large one.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
*cough* about the language thing, Dolphins don't just produce the clicks to comunicate, they use a variety of mechanisms, one of which is the creatiion of bubbles of variable sizes and shapes. Let's see other animals do that.
Their methods are irrelevant. My point still stands that this is nothing but code, regardless of the specific mechanism employed.
Also, about the infinite number of sentences, unless there is an infinite number of words, there cannot be an infinite number of sentences, just a very large one.
A language can form a theoretically infinite number of thoughts because it can constantly apply new definitions and connotations to the same words-- as well as modify the words themselves-- as new input presents itself.
-
US scientists at the Papa Doc Duvalier Center for Reanimation Studies
Umbrella Corp R&D they mean.
*gets shotgun*
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
That's a huge part of what makes us unique. It's that ability to process those extended sequences of cause/effect relationships far beyond the initial physical act, and no other animal has demonstrated that kind of ability. Chimps just don't "get it"; they can only imitate. There is no evidence that any of these so-called "made up" words were anything more than random motions.
Unfortunately, it's also impossible to be 100% certain what they mean becaise of that intepretive problem (I think I already said that, though). It's always difficult, IMO, to draw conclusions from imitational behaviour because the motivations for the imitation in themselves are interesting. Like the chimp washing the dishes - does the chimp care about whether the dishes are clean? After all, it's not a problem it's contemplated (I'd expect), and hence it 's possible that, were it of human level intelligence, it wouldn't 'see' that solution regardless.
The point I was making - trying to make - is that if a chimpanzee had this cognitive ability that humans do, it wouldn't necessarilly need a vocal language. Unfortunately with only one language using animal in the world, it's hard to find standalone examplars, but I would still say that sign language is an - imperfect - example that you can communicate without vocals (here's a thought... did our word vocabulary develop before or after speech?).
Also, IMO language is a consequence of cognition, not the reverse.
-
No, there are limited numbers of words, therefore it cannot have infinite number of sentences, just really large numbers of sentences -> Combinations Theory.
I presented a situation where dolphins use a method to communicate that humans don't have, in response to your:
1) Humans possess the ability to close off one portion of our throats, allowing us to produce sounds while exhaling without choking. This ability is unique to us, and it allows us to produce sounds that no other animal can.
So you pretty much threw that away in your response to mine.
In another matter what they DO communicate is as vague as the definition of inteligence, how do you know that they are saying?
You cannot, you may find meaning into it, but if you were to analyse the patterns of a human conversation you could also find meaning into it, even if you didn't know exactly what they were saying.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
No, there are limited numbers of words, therefore it cannot have infinite number of sentences, just really large numbers of sentences -> Combinations Theory.
I presented a situation where dolphins use a method to communicate that humans don't have, in response to your:
Humans possess the ability to close off one portion of our throats, allowing us to produce sounds while exhaling without choking. This ability is unique to us, and it allows us to produce sounds that no other animal can.
So you pretty much threw that away in your response to mine.
In another matter what they DO communicate is as vague as the definition of inteligence, how do you know that they are saying?
You cannot, you may find meaning into it, but if you were to analyse the patterns of a human conversation you could also find meaning into it, even if you didn't know exactly what they were saying. [/B]
My statement regarding humans' ability to produce sounds was a response to TrashMan's assertion that dolphins possess a greater physical potential for communication than humans do, and does not concern the other arguments I made in that post.
Okay, you want to split hairs, I see. If you take a snapshot of a language at any given moment, then you are correct, a language cannot form a literally infinite number of sentences. However, a language is a dynamic entity of sorts, and it is constantly modifying itself as the universe supplies new input. In that sense, a language's potential is, for all intents and purposes, infinite.
Originally posted by aldo_14
Unfortunately, it's also impossible to be 100% certain what they mean becaise of that intepretive problem (I think I already said that, though). It's always difficult, IMO, to draw conclusions from imitational behaviour because the motivations for the imitation in themselves are interesting. Like the chimp washing the dishes - does the chimp care about whether the dishes are clean? After all, it's not a problem it's contemplated (I'd expect), and hence it 's possible that, were it of human level intelligence, it wouldn't 'see' that solution regardless.
If the chimp possessed our intelligence, it would also have the social prowess to work towards the same goal even if the goal is not in and of itself significant to the chimp. And I cannot believe that a species that has evolved in the same environment as ours would not be able to recognize the pattern of dirty dishes becoming clean through this basic process.
The point I was making - trying to make - is that if a chimpanzee had this cognitive ability that humans do, it wouldn't necessarilly need a vocal language. Unfortunately with only one language using animal in the world, it's hard to find standalone examplars, but I would still say that sign language is an - imperfect - example that you can communicate without vocals (here's a thought... did our word vocabulary develop before or after speech?).
All evidence from human evolution shows language to be the only way a species can expand its own potential within a single generation. And without this rapidity of evolution, there is no reason to believe that a species could reach the level of sophistication we have achieved. Do we know for certain? Of course not. But then again, there is very little we do know for certain.
Also, IMO language is a consequence of cognition, not the reverse.
The two feed each other. It does seem that a certain level of sophistication is necessary before language can exist. I believe it's mentioned in the interview I cited that a species must have something to "talk about" before it starts talking. However, linguists now believe that the emergence of language greatly expanded our cognitive abilities, because it gave us a medium through which abstract thought could exist-- abstract thought that cannot exist without words to describe it first. It's a chicken/egg sort of scenerio.
-
My whole point is they way you decide wich one is better (or higher)
YOU decide the criteria..
biggest brains.. HAHAHA humanz win! We rulez!
What is better?
oh..about the chimp washing the dishes thing:
How do you know the chimp doesn't get it? Maby it doesn't care' Maby it doesn't WANT to clean dishes?
How does that prove or disprove anytihing?
I can very well go and mimich a dog and pee on a tree.. Does it have the smae meaning for me and the dog? nope.. Would the dog consider me dumb? probably...
-
How do you know the chimp doesn't get it? Maby it doesn't care' Maby it doesn't WANT to clean dishes?
How does that prove or disprove anytihing?
Read my response to that exact same argument in the post before yours. It is an anecdote that is illustrative of a larger concept.
-
you know why a dog pees on a tree but a chimp doesn't know why we scrub dishes.
-
about dolphins, I don't think we have determined exactly what is going on with them, it's posable that they have the languge skills being discussed, but it sure as hell hasn't been proven, or even likely at this point.
just a little uncomfortable with the level of certanty being used by everyone here.
-
I think a great degree of certainty is warranted in this case. There are linguistic reasons why dolphin communication is not language, while, as you said, there is no evidence that it is.
I think Chomsky put it best: "Humans can fly about 30 feet -- that's what they do in the Olympics.... Is that flying? The question is totally meaningless. In fact the analogy to flying is misleading because when humans fly 30 feet, the organs they're using are kind of homologous to the ones that chickens and eagles use."
-
Originally posted by Nico
I'm sure a sponge could voice its opinion, it'd share the same as you, Bob :p "hint hint"
Albeit with significantly better spelling, I'd wager. :D
-
Okay, you want to split hairs, I see. If you take a snapshot of a language at any given moment, then you are correct, a language cannot form a literally infinite number of sentences. However, a language is a dynamic entity of sorts, and it is constantly modifying itself as the universe supplies new input. In that sense, a language's potential is, for all intents and purposes, infinite.
So in your opinion, human population is infinite? It's constantly modifying itself and growing...
-
well is it fineite? a specific number, or could you always put on just one more?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
well is it fineite? a specific number, or could you always put on just one more?
:confused:
Number in R + 1 = number in R
Infinite != number in R
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
If the chimp possessed our intelligence, it would also have the social prowess to work towards the same goal even if the goal is not in and of itself significant to the chimp. And I cannot believe that a species that has evolved in the same environment as ours would not be able to recognize the pattern of dirty dishes becoming clean through this basic process.
But why would a chimp want clean dishes? (or more specifically want to work to the same goal as a human person; if it gets enjoyment out of the tactile feeling, is that any more an invalid goal?)
I'm not suggestin a chimp is anywhere near human intelligence (I think I said this before), but if it was there's not a reason to suppose this would be a goal of relevance. It's proven that apes can problem solve, to a certain limited degree of course, but dirty dishes is probably not a problem that they would be 'wired' to solve, because cleanliness is part of human society (as such that's probably a bit of evidence for the importance of language, etc; I don't think humans are biologically coded to value cleanliness to the sort of degree that society does).
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
All evidence from human evolution shows language to be the only way a species can expand its own potential within a single generation. And without this rapidity of evolution, there is no reason to believe that a species could reach the level of sophistication we have achieved. Do we know for certain? Of course not. But then again, there is very little we do know for certain.
That doesn't invalidate the concept of non-vocal language, though. I'd bet that if you could form a conceptual interlingua of human thought it would be possible to devise other communication methods carrying that same detail. They wouldn't be natural to us as a species, and they might not be biologically possible in some ways (such as via heavy use of body language), of course, but I think it's possible.
Conceptual interlingua is basically what I meant by whether vocabulary evolved before, or after speech 'began' (most likely during, of course); I think the concepts would come before the language came along to express them.
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
The two feed each other. It does seem that a certain level of sophistication is necessary before language can exist. I believe it's mentioned in the interview I cited that a species must have something to "talk about" before it starts talking. However, linguists now believe that the emergence of language greatly expanded our cognitive abilities, because it gave us a medium through which abstract thought could exist-- abstract thought that cannot exist without words to describe it first. It's a chicken/egg sort of scenerio.
Oh, I have no doubt they feed off each other; I just differ in my opinion of which 'fed first'. I'm not saying we would have developed our cognitive abilities fully before developing language, nor vice versa. Like you said, chicken & the egg.
-
(http://www.progressiveboink.com/jon/images/calvinhobbes/jon7.GIF)
-
:lol:
Can't go wrong with Calvin & Hobbes