Jake_Ellison Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 You're right, I defined it too simply by using mere volume, Sorry I didn't explain it further. Elephants do have a bigger brain, but It's down to how much percentage of the body is brain, and how much body does the brain have to run. I thought you would say that, that's why I asked for a scientific source. Unfortunately, you continue to write down stuff you can come up with from memory, if they suit your argument, combined with products of your fantasy, such as these ideas that 1. the brain's volume is a good criteria to measure intelligence, and 2. brain/body weight ratio is a good criteria to measure intelligence The fact is that there are plenty of mammals who's brains make up a larger percentage of their bodies than humans (mice for instance), not to mention small birds, which have brains that make up 1/12 th of their bodies, while an adult human's only makes up 1/40 th. The kicker is that the most straightforward way to disprove your theory that brain/body weight percentage is a good criteria to judge intelligence, is by bringing up the size of the baby's head, compared to its body: if anything, by your criteria, babies are geniuses, who are going to get stupider, as their bodies grow faster than their brains, and take away brain capacity from the thinking mind. Please, if you want your biological "facts" taken seriously, come up with a credible source for those facts too. Who "forgets" that brain size is not a measure of intelligence? Someone who desperately needs to argument his preconceived ideas perhaps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrSammyD Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 (edited) I thought you would say that, that's why I asked for a scientific source. Unfortunately, you continue to write down stuff you can come up with from memory, if they suit your argument, combined with products of your fantasy, such as these ideas that 1. the brain's volume is a good criteria to measure intelligence, and 2. brain/body weight ratio is a good criteria to measure intelligence The fact is that there are plenty of mammals who's brains make up a larger percentage of their bodies than humans (mice for instance), not to mention small birds, which have brains that make up 1/12 th of their bodies, while an adult human's only makes up 1/40 th. Actually mice have the same ratio as humans. But when it comes to birds, you have to think about what it has to do. It has to develop a motor system that allows it to fly. Think about all that entails, and I'm sure you can see why it might need a bigger brain. Especially with smaller birds. Hummingbirds need to be able to move far quicker and with much greater accuracy than say a seagull. But did I not also say that absolute brain size is still important. You still do need a minimum amount of brain for things like memory and decision making. And those things are not directly tied to body size. This isn't an algebra problem, it's a calculus problem. But either way, when we are talking about primates, brain size probably a better indicator of intelligence than the ratio. http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produ....1159/000102973 The kicker is that the most straightforward way to disprove your theory that brain/body weight percentage is a good criteria to judge intelligence, is by bringing up the size of the baby's head, compared to its body: if anything, by your criteria, babies are geniuses, who are going to get stupider, as their bodies grow faster than their brains, and take away brain capacity from the thinking mind. Please, if you want your biological "facts" taken seriously, come up with a credible source for those facts too. Who "forgets" that brain size is not a measure of intelligence? Someone who desperately needs to argument his preconceived ideas perhaps? Baby's still have nearly as complex a nervous system to control. All the basics of a humans body that the brain has to control are there. A baby's brain isn't growing just to control a baby's body, it's growing to control an adults body. But here's a link on brain size vs. body mass if you insist. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kinser/Int3.html I will say there are competing theory's and the one I'm most inclined to agree with is that intelligence is the brain size minus all the house keeping parts of the brain. That includes things like heart beat, balance, motor skills, memory, and all that type of stuff. This house keeping stuff of course varies in size based on the size of the animal and activities it has to perform. Edited December 16, 2008 by DrSammyD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc K. Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 In other words we can remember things, much like animals can. In other words you are acknowledging that newborns and animals perceive, thus they have cognition of the real world (or "cognate" as you have said) which contradicts what you have said in the past. So please, be very precise in your usage because otherwise it causes confusion, like here: We do not have the ability to conceptualize as newborns. You are equivocating between an ability or capacity or faculty to do something and actually doing it. It's like when someone says that since all men have the ability to be rational, all men are rational. It is true that all men have the ability to be rational but obviously not all men are. We, as the rational animal, are born with a rational faculty; the ability to conceptualize, but it takes a little time until we actually form a concept (which is why I said "very early on"). Conceptualization involves integration and differentiation and we must have a sufficient number of percepts so that we can compare their similarities and differences. So newborns do have the ability to conceptualize but they don't form the first concepts until, I don't know, certainly by the age of one year they have done so. Also, please, if you are going to imply that I contradicted something in ITOE, then it would be appropriate to quote both and demonstrate the contradiction. Chimps *will* develop the capacity to think or conceptualize provided that social interaction remains important to chimps and those that are smarter will be able to reproduce. And yes that is how evolution works. I know that evolution isn't a straight line, but being smarter is definitely advantageous, and as long as it is, chimps will develop their brains even further. Similarly an infant *will* develop the capacity to think or conceptualize. It does not have it yet, but on the condition that the parent decides to take care of it and put energy into it, it *will*. Another equivocation. This one between the development of new species over many many generations and the development of an individual human being over the course of one lifetime. An individual chimp will never develop a conceptual consciousness (if they could, you would think we would have seen one by now). All humans use concepts because they were born with the ability to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrSammyD Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 In other words you are acknowledging that newborns and animals perceive, thus they have cognition of the real world (or "cognate" as you have said) which contradicts what you have said in the past. So please, be very precise in your usage because otherwise it causes confusion, like here: I've already stated what I've meant by cognate, and then switched the words I used to fit that. I know that it caused confusion, that's why I changed it. You are equivocating between an ability or capacity or faculty to do something and actually doing it. It's like when someone says that since all men have the ability to be rational, all men are rational. It is true that all men have the ability to be rational but obviously not all men are. I'm not equivocating. I'm saying that they don't actually contain the hardware to perform the function. It just isn't possible with the current iteration of brain that they have. They need actual physical upgrades in neuron count in order to run the software. Let me just take a computer for example because that's the closest thing. Imagine conceptualization as a piece of software. Adult humans actually can run that software because the have the hardware to do it. Even if they didn't actually install the software (experience) they would still have the hardware that could run it. Newborns don't have the hardware to do it. They might have the memory to do it (something that many animals also have) but the don't have the CPU. You can try to install it on there but it will never be able to run that software without upgrades to the CPU (growth in the frontal and prefrontal cortex). If you subtract the amount of brain that goes towards housekeeping, you get the amount of brain that is dedicated to intelligence. A newborn has most of it's brain development already dedicated to housekeeping, and the majority of the rest of the growth will be towards intelligence. But at that time, the intelligence part is not big enough to actually conceptualize. It's not that it doesn't have the experience to do it, it's that it's not big enough. Therefore it doesn't have the capacity to do it. It only has the ability to gain the capacity to conceptualize. We, as the rational animal, are born with a rational faculty; the ability to conceptualize, but it takes a little time until we actually form a concept (which is why I said "very early on"). Conceptualization involves integration and differentiation and we must have a sufficient number of percepts so that we can compare their similarities and differences. So newborns do have the ability to conceptualize but they don't form the first concepts until, I don't know, certainly by the age of one year they have done so. Also, please, if you are going to imply that I contradicted something in ITOE, then it would be appropriate to quote both and demonstrate the contradiction. Another equivocation. This one between the development of new species over many many generations and the development of an individual human being over the course of one lifetime. An individual chimp will never develop a conceptual consciousness (if they could, you would think we would have seen one by now). All humans use concepts because they were born with the ability to do so. What is the empirical difference between an embryo being able to conceptualize, and an adult. It's the existence of a brain that shows that embryo's can not do that, and an adult can. But the existence of a brain doesn't automatically mean that you are able to conceptualize. No, that requires a brain of significant complexity further than that of other brains, as seen in the ones in animals. It is certain parts of the brain that we know gives us the abilities of higher thought. It has been shown that newborns have not developed that part of the brain further than the magnitude of those of some other animals. It's even been explained why that happens for evolutionary reasons. So please, explain to me why their potential to gain that capacity is any different than that of an embryo. One may be further along but that does not change the existence of that potential. After that, you then need to explain why that potential should not be extended to potential offspring further on down the road. This would include anything that might be intelligent in the future, and to stop it from being created by killing it's ancestors is to kill it's potential. Because that's what a newborn is, the potential for the capacity of conceptual thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 Final answer for DrSammyD: Your first link is to a 10 line Abstract to a book which requires payment to read. I doubt you read it. Your second link is not a scientific paper, just a webpage who's author is not mentioned. Plus, it ends with this disclaimer: "None of this data necessarily has a definitive link with intelligence. Only behavioral data could show the significance of levels of encephalization of a species. Let's look at other methods for comparing species' brains before we make any final conclusions as to the relevance of this information." Finally, you wrote this: I will say there are competing theory's and the one I'm most inclined to agree with is that intelligence is the brain size minus all the house keeping parts of the brain. That includes things like heart beat, balance, motor skills, memory, and all that type of stuff. This house keeping stuff of course varies in size based on the size of the animal and activities it has to perform. Not only are you getting this info out of the blue ("intelligence is the size minus house keeping parts"? What scientist talks like that?), but on top of it you are talking about competing theories, and you picking one. What qualifies you to pick a theory actual experts are unable to agree on? Anyway, I'm done arguing in this manner. You are constantly skating by information that doesn't suit your argument, making stuff up, you can't seem to keep track of what you mean by different terms, and you are refusing to look into the actual biological information that is available. Instead, you are posing as some sort of expert, who's understanding of the most current theories in evolutionary biology allows him to describe the most intimate details of the inner workings of the human brain, when this is clearly not the case: you are instead coming up with the most oversimplified, almost childish theories, and linking to whatever comes up on google when you type in "brain size" or something. Lets be honest here: "minus the house keeping part... and all that type of stuff" just ain't gonna cut it when you're arguing that children shouldn't count as humans, and should be disposed of at their owners pleasure. Since in the past ten or so of your posts that's all you've been able to come up with, I say enough is enough. I consider the matter resolved, and your ideas discarded as childish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrSammyD Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 Final answer for DrSammyD: Your first link is to a 10 line Abstract to a book which requires payment to read. I doubt you read it. Your second link is not a scientific paper, just a webpage who's author is not mentioned. Plus, it ends with this disclaimer: "None of this data necessarily has a definitive link with intelligence. Only behavioral data could show the significance of levels of encephalization of a species. Let's look at other methods for comparing species' brains before we make any final conclusions as to the relevance of this information." Finally, you wrote this: Not only are you getting this info out of the blue ("intelligence is the size minus house keeping parts"? What scientist talks like that?), but on top of it you are talking about competing theories, and you picking one. What qualifies you to pick a theory actual experts are unable to agree on? Anyway, I'm done arguing in this manner. You are constantly skating by information that doesn't suit your argument, making stuff up, you can't seem to keep track of what you mean by different terms, and you are refusing to look into the actual biological information that is available. Instead, you are posing as some sort of expert, who's understanding of the most current theories in evolutionary biology allows him to describe the most intimate details of the inner workings of the human brain, when this is clearly not the case: you are instead coming up with the most oversimplified, almost childish theories, and linking to whatever comes up on google when you type in "brain size" or something. Lets be honest here: "minus the house keeping part... and all that type of stuff" just ain't gonna cut it when you're arguing that children shouldn't count as humans, and should be disposed of at their owners pleasure. Since in the past ten or so of your posts that's all you've been able to come up with, I say enough is enough. I consider the matter resolved, and your ideas discarded as childish. No, this is a discussion on a forum. If I wanted to write a paper on it, I would actually line everything out. But on an online form I can use space savers when I'm speaking, by explaining a concept an using examples, and then by saying "things like that", I'm including things that fall under that concept. I'm not posing as an expert. I've learned things about evolution and biology, and the deducing that which fits with the data I've learned is true. Do you really want me to post data and empirical studies. Nobody does that, and if ever someone does, nobody online ever reads them. So I posted an abstract of a study that I assumed was telling the truth about their findings. Either way, the burden of proof is on those that that assert rights. We can act as if animals don't have rights until they prove they have the capacity to form concepts. The same fallows for newborns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc K. Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 So please, explain to me why their potential to gain that capacity is any different than that of an embryo. One may be further along but that does not change the existence of that potential. After that, you then need to explain why that potential should not be extended to potential offspring further on down the road. This would include anything that might be intelligent in the future, and to stop it from being created by killing it's ancestors is to kill it's potential. Because that's what a newborn is, the potential for the capacity of conceptual thought. Sorry dude, this is your argument not mine so you'll have to explain it to yourself. Remember, I'm the one who said that we are born with a rational faculty. You are the one who says that the rational animal is not born with a rational faculty and that animals can somehow acquire a rational faculty over the course of a lifetime. You are sorely mistaken on both counts. And not to argue from intimidation, but since we are on a forum dedicated to the study of Objectivism: I am in agreement with Ayn Rand. It appears from your answers to me and others that you are not interested in discussing this honestly so I think I'll bow out too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted December 16, 2008 Report Share Posted December 16, 2008 Either way, the burden of proof is on those that that assert rights.Are you seriously suggesting that until someone proves that they have rights, we can act as though they do do not? What is the purpose of a proof here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Wynand Posted December 25, 2008 Report Share Posted December 25, 2008 (edited) *** Mod's note: Merged with an earlier thread - sN *** I've been studying objectivism for a while now. I've read The Fountainhead, Atlas, Capitalism, and Im reading Philosophy. But what I don't understand is why Ayn Rand supports the right to abortion. Killing a baby is murder. It is an injustice, by her definition. Therefore, it is a legitimate power of the government to stop abortions. Edited December 25, 2008 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aequalsa Posted December 25, 2008 Report Share Posted December 25, 2008 It's not that it doesn't have the experience to do it, it's that it's not big enough. Therefore it doesn't have the capacity to do it. It only has the ability to gain the capacity to conceptualize. I am not a neurologist and might be mistaken, but this is inconsistent with my knowledge of early childhood development. Brain functioning, as I understand, is less about the size of the brain and more about the number of synoptic connections and the particular type of pathways. I don't have any sources handy, but if I remember correctly, at birth each cell has about 2500 connections. This grows to 15,000 by the age of 3 and later reduces to about half that. This pruning process is essential since without it, the overly developed brain, functions improperly.(a form of retardation is actually the result of a brain which has not undergone this pruning process) What increases with the increasing complexity of connections is the glucose burn rate which maxes out at 25% or so of all the bodies consumption. I think that consumption level is a more accurate view of what's going on. I would suggest that the capacity for rationality exists from birth(or even before it) as a potentiality, but how well it utilizes that capacity is determined far more by early experience than number of cc's. Men have 16% more brain than women, but the cerebral cortex in women is more deeply folded allowing more surface area. I don't mean to be involved in the discussion, I just wanted to clarify a little of the science. It is a subject of great interest to me, so if I am incorrect and you can point me to some sources I would appreciate it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted December 25, 2008 Report Share Posted December 25, 2008 But what I don't understand is why Ayn Rand supports the right to abortion. Killing a baby is murder. It is an injustice, by her definition. Therefore, it is a legitimate power of the government to stop abortions. There are no contradictions. If you have found a contradiction, you should check your premises: try a biology book, and keep in mind what makes a man while you're reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Andrew Posted December 25, 2008 Report Share Posted December 25, 2008 *** Mod's note: Merged with an earlier thread - sN *** I've been studying objectivism for a while now. I've read The Fountainhead, Atlas, Capitalism, and Im reading Philosophy. But what I don't understand is why Ayn Rand supports the right to abortion. Killing a baby is murder. It is an injustice, by her definition. Therefore, it is a legitimate power of the government to stop abortions. You don't understand Ayn Rand's position because you don't understand her premises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD26 Posted December 25, 2008 Report Share Posted December 25, 2008 Ok, so my understanding is that rights apply only to beings that capable of volitional thought under Rand's ideology. She feels that there is some window where the embryo is just a mass of cells that has no rights. Does individual responsibility of the individuals in the act have any bearing on this? While a mother has individual rights, the act of most intercourse is an act of volition. Certainly, the result of intercourse can be conception while it might or might not be its intent. I have nothing to grind or sharpen on the topic, really, however, I do enjoy understanding the topic more from the Objectivism point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted December 25, 2008 Report Share Posted December 25, 2008 (edited) Does individual responsibility of the individuals in the act have any bearing on this? Of course it come into play and one might say that the responsibility is inescapable. I think what you might want to consider more is what that responsibility is, or rather; what is the scope of that responsibility and to whom are the parties responsible? Edited December 25, 2008 by RationalBiker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted December 25, 2008 Report Share Posted December 25, 2008 But what I don't understand is why Ayn Rand supports the right to abortion. Killing a baby is murder.Abortion does not involve killing a baby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Andrew Posted December 26, 2008 Report Share Posted December 26, 2008 Ok, so my understanding is that rights apply only to beings that capable of volitional thought under Rand's ideology. She feels that there is some window where the embryo is just a mass of cells that has no rights. I place that at the point of viability, because at that point, the fetus can be delivered prematurely and survive on its own. Does individual responsibility of the individuals in the act have any bearing on this? While a mother has individual rights, the act of most intercourse is an act of volition. Certainly, the result of intercourse can be conception while it might or might not be its intent. You make it sound like a crime. The so-called "pro-lifer" Jesus freaks think this but rarely say it out loud: "You had sex, so you deserve to be pregnant!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted December 26, 2008 Report Share Posted December 26, 2008 I place that at the point of viability, because at that point, the fetus can be delivered prematurely and survive on its own. I would agree with that. If a woman waits so long to decide on aborting a fetus that that fetus is viable then the baby has effectively stopped being parasitic and the mother no longer has a right to dispose of it than she would a toddler. One of the most disgusting practices is a partial live birth abortion, in which, as the name suggests the baby is partially born and killed before it can completely leave the mother. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth..._defined_by_law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted December 26, 2008 Report Share Posted December 26, 2008 (edited) One of the most disgusting practices is a partial live birth abortion, in which, as the name suggests the baby is partially born and killed before it can completely leave the mother.Partial birth abortions are almost never situations where a viable or almost-viable baby is being delivered and is aborted in the process. While such a case would fall under the "partial birth abortion", they are extremely rare. [There is a link to data, somewhere previously in this thread.] Instead, in almost all cases, the fetus is not viable, but the doctor decides on killing/terminating it via this procedure rather than attempt other procedures. So, most of the time, it is a completely moral procedure, even though the sight of it might invoke emotions of disgust. Edited December 26, 2008 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD26 Posted December 26, 2008 Report Share Posted December 26, 2008 I place that at the point of viability, because at that point, the fetus can be delivered prematurely and survive on its own. Well, it won't survive on its own. Without care, a baby will die. Even after a month or more of experience, a baby isn't gonna be able to make food let alone just figure out locomotion to get food. You make it sound like a crime. The so-called "pro-lifer" Jesus freaks think this but rarely say it out loud: "You had sex, so you deserve to be pregnant!" Not at all. It's just the way it is. Making a fire can result in a burn. If you don't recognize that, well, then that's just irresponsible. I didn't say sex was a crime either. Big jump on your thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Andrew Posted December 26, 2008 Report Share Posted December 26, 2008 (edited) Well, it won't survive on its own. Without care, a baby will die. Even after a month or more of experience, a baby isn't gonna be able to make food let alone just figure out locomotion to get food. Of course not, it requires nourishment like any other baby. With a baby delivered in an unviable state, it doesn't matter how much nourishment you give it, it is unable to sustain its own life. But if you give nourishment to a baby delivered in a viable state, it will metabolize the food and sustain its own life. That is precisely what differentiates an unviable and viable fetus, and what gives the viable fetus rights. The moment when it no longer requires the mother's reproductive system to survive is the moment we're no longer dealing with a woman's right to her own body and ability to control her own reproductive system. Yes, the viable fetus is still in the mother's reproductive system, but it can be delivered at any time should she no longer wish to be pregnant. Not at all. It's just the way it is. Making a fire can result in a burn. If you don't recognize that, well, then that's just irresponsible. I didn't say sex was a crime either. Big jump on your thought. Well yes, the cause-and-effect is true, but individual responsibility is not relevant to the issue of abortion. Should a woman do the rational thing and use birth control to minimize the chance of pregnancy if she doesn't want it? Absolutely. But the entire institution of abortion exists to reverse those consequences, and the question is whether it is moral to do so. We have already answered that question. Edited December 26, 2008 by Sir Andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lonely Rationalist Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 (edited) *** Mod's note: Merged into earlier thread. - sN *** Hello there. This is my first post on this forum. I'm a relatively new Objectivist. I read The Fountainhead in July, and loved it so much I read Anthem and Atlas Shrugged immediately afterward. I quickly adopt Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, and find myself much more philosophically fulfilled than I was before. But I have a question about abortion. I have read many of the typical Objectivist essays and stances on this, I have read Ms. Rand's quotes on the topic, and I have read threads on this forum about abortion, yet I still do not understand the rationale behind Objectivists's support of abortion. I have seen that, primarily, Objectivists say that a fetus or embryo is indeed a life, but that is irrelevant to the debate, and more concerns whether or not the fetus has rights. So, please could someone explain to me exactly what Objectivists believe about the rights of a fetus and an embryo? And I would also like it if someone could explain to me why a living (Human) being does not automatically have rights. Thanks a lot. I have been studying Objectivism like mad, and this is the one major issue that I am really struggling to agree with Ms. Rand on. Edited January 24, 2009 by softwareNerd Added 'merged' notice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W.C.Meyer Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 See: Searchbar: Abortion You'll find too many explanations to count. Essentially, protoplasm is not human life, and therefore is undeserving of human rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lonely Rationalist Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 See: Searchbar: Abortion You'll find too many explanations to count. Essentially, protoplasm is not human life, and therefore is undeserving of human rights. Well, as I stated, I already did look up those threads. However, most of them said that the fetus IS a life, but it still has no rights. And that it what I'm trying to figure out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lonely Rationalist Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 Might I also add, I have always thought that rights applied to all living human beings, regardless of their status. Is this view contradicted by the Objectivist view of rights? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 However, most of them said that the fetus IS a life, but it still has no rights. And that it what I'm trying to figure out. It sounds like you are associating rights with "a life". Is that correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.