The following chart (created by some scientist(s) led by David Reich) shows the genetic divergence between hominin samples as a fraction of the human-chimp difference. So for example, all the human groups have just over a 0.12 genetic divergence with Neanderthals, meaning that the genetic difference between humans and Neanderthals is only 12% as great as the genetic difference between humans and Chimps (source: supplement of Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberia.)
The purpose of the chart is to estimate how long ago the different populations diverged from a common ancestor. So since the fossil record tells us that Neanderthals and chimps diverged about 6.5 million years, then humans and Neanderthals should have diverged roughly 0.8 million years ago (12% of 6.5 million) assuming genetic divergence maps to chronological divergence in a linear way:
The above numbers make no sense to me (how could the Han and the French have separated 404 kya when the ancestors of both didn’t even leave Africa until 50 kya?).
Nonetheless, it seems to me that if you can estimate chronological divergence from genetic divergence, why not cognitive divergence?
Since I know that chimps and people of European ancestry differ by about 86 IQ points, then we can estimate how much each of these populations should differ in IQ from whites based on their genetic divergence as a percentage of the white-chimp divergence.
Using the French as the representatives for white people, we see from table S6.2 that the genetic gaps between whites and Han, Papuan, San, Yoruba, Neanderthals, and Denisovans are 0.0622, 0.0660, 0.0907, 0.0812, 0.1218, and 0.1255 respectively.
Multiplying these fractions by the 86 point IQ gap between Chimps and European ancestry people, we get the following expected IQ gaps:
Han-white IQ gap: 5 points
Papuan-white IQ gap: 6 points
San-white IQ gap: 8 points
Yoruba-white IQ gap: 7 points
Neanderthal-white IQ gap: 10 points
Denisovan-white IQ gap: 11 points
These estimated IQ gaps are much smaller than the actual IQ gaps in most cases, suggesting that IQ tests are measuring a lot of non-genetic factors.
The second point is that the expected IQ gaps between white and non-white humans is not that much smaller than the expected IQ gap between whites and Neanderthals. From a genetic perspective, Neanderthals could be just another human race, only slightly more divergent than the San, however from a morphological perspective, they’re clearly not human.
Since whites by definition have an average IQ of 100, and if we make the huge assumption that all non-white groups with the exception of Han have lower genetic IQs than whites, we get the following the figures:
Han average IQ 105
Whites average IQ 100
Papuans average IQ 94
Yoruba average IQ 93
San average IQ 92
Neanderthals average IQ 90
Denisovans average IQ 89
From these numbers we might conclude that it takes a genetic IQ of at least the mid 90s to independently invent agriculture (since everyone below that level failed to do so) and a genetic IQ of at least the high 90s to independently create civilization (since only Caucasoids and Mongoloids are credited with having done that).
Pumpkin Person 
But the Yoruba never invented agriculture either.
Until the early 2000s, the consensus was that only Mongoloids and (non-white) Caucasoids independently invented agriculture.
Then Papuans got added to the list.
But in the past 10 years academia has decided that everyone and their mother independently invented agriculture (except whites) and all within a few thousand years of eachother. Doesn’t sound very plausible to me but that’s the current scientific consensus.
“But in the past 10 years academia has decided that everyone and their mother independently invented agriculture (except whites) and all within a few thousand years of eachother. Doesn’t sound very plausible to me but that’s the current scientific consensus.”
Even after Jm8 gave the evidence to suggest it?
“But the Yoruba never invented agriculture either.”
In situ, no. The ancestors of Modern West Africans in general, howvwer, did 10kya in southern Mali.
Where are Southern Europeans on this list?
Pumpkin where is the genetic estimate of Sasquatch IQ?
Pumpkin is not a serious scientist. As we all know IQ doesn’t exist. Only Wakanda.
“Since I know that chimps and people of European ancestry differ by about 86 IQ points,”
You don’t know this.
“Multiplying these fractions by the 86 point IQ gap between Chimps and European”
This is just like your other one with Neanderthalss and “number of splits” I think it was. No justification for these arbitrary numbers.
“Since whites by definition have an average IQ of 100”
What does it mean to have an “IQ if 100”?
“From these numbers we might conclude that it takes a genetic IQ of at least the mid 90s to independently invent agriculture”
1) Agriculture isn’t invented. It’s discovered.
2) The Maya discovered agriculture independently; no, they’re not Mongoloids.
3) Africa) Civilization was created independently on 5 locations; none are European. But one is “Caucasoid” so Europeans would still get credit, I believe, in your eyes.
This is what Terrence Deacon (1990) terms “numerology fallacies”:
“Numerology fallacies are apparent correlations that turn out to be artifacts of numerical oversimplification. Numerology fallacies in science, like their mystical counterparts, are likely to be committed when meaning is ascribed to some statistic merely by virtue of its numeric similarity to some other statistic, without supportive evidence from the empirical system that is being described.“
Here is the reference for the Deacon paper:
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1007/bf02192869
Let me also discuss a bit of what Michael Hart says about “the Mayas” [sic; plural is “Maya”]:
Hart claims that “Wheeled vehicles were unknown” (pg 306), but this is false since they used wheels on children’s toys. They knew what the wheel was used for, it just was not conducive to life in their city-states. If I also recall correctly,
Didn’t you make the assertion that “cold winters” is the cause for high “native IQ”, because they “weathered the cold” and therefore had “high IQ adaptations” but did not experience the “IQ decrease” so they could do what they did because of “high IQ adaptations” from the cold, PP?
Re agriculture: Agriculture is one of the things needed for civilization, along with a writing system and sufficient population. This was only done independently in five locations (China, India, Mesoamerica, Egypt, and Sumerian; the Chinese, Dravidians, Maya, Egyptians, and Sumerians, respectively). Three are Caucasoid, so I guess the theory is safe right?
http://chemsites.chem.rutgers.edu/~kyc/Five%20Original%20Writing%20Systems.html
What does that say about their “IQs”?
“suggesting that IQ tests are measuring a lot of non-genetic factors.”
IQ tests measure non-genetic factors, re distance from the middle class. My argument holds here. So this assertion that IQ scores are “genetic” is unfounded.
IQ tests measure a mix of biological and cultural factors. Some are more culturally biased than others.
Source for biological factors?
You’re falling for the fallacy fallacy (pumpkinperson 2018). The fallacy fallacy is the fallacious belief that any inane thought with the word fallacy attached to it is a substantive criticism.
“pumpkinperson 2018”
???
It’s not an inane thought. It is a good criticism. We just call it numerology and the criticism is the same.
What about the molecular clock? Is that numerology too? I’m merely mapping IQ differences to the molecular clock because they take time to evolve.
Numerology fallacies are “committed when meaning is ascribed to some statistic merely by virtue of its numeric similarity to some other statistic, without supportive evidence from the empirical system that is being described.”
Is there supportive evidence from the empirical system that is being described? If not it’s numerology.
“Mapping IQ differences to the molecular clock” makes no sense because you’re assuming things that have not been verified.
Numerology fallacies are “committed when meaning is ascribed to some statistic merely by virtue of its numeric similarity to some other statistic, without supportive evidence from the empirical system that is being described.”
Gibberish. There’s no such thing as numerology fallacy. Where’s the Wikipedia page? It’s just some academic bullshitting to try to sound smart and you fell for it.
“Mapping IQ differences to the molecular clock” makes no sense because you’re assuming things that have not been verified.
What am I assuming that hasn’t been verified, RR?
It’s not gibberish. It doesn’t matter that there’s not Wikipedia page.
You’re assuming that IQ differences have any meaning in regard to evolutionary history and that IQ scores reflect “intelligence” and “genetics.” And that your chimpanzee “IQ” measure is valid.
Most scientists agree that intelligence has genetically increased dramatically as we evolved from ape to man and that intelligence tests comparing apes to human children are valid.
Source that “Most scientists agree … that intelligence tests comparing apes to human children are valid”?
The research was done by the ultra prestigious Max Planck institute and received zero criticism. And even you have conceded that IQ tests can’t be culturally biased against animals since they have very little culture. In other words, if you raised a chimp in a middle class home, his scores would not improve, but a human’s would. That’s why intelligence testing is in some way less biased with animals.
“The research was done by the ultra prestigious Max Planck institute”
Appeal to authority.
Is that the source that “Most scientists agree … that intelligence tests comparing apes to human children are valid”?
Appeal to authority.
Yes, we’re talking about the scientific consensus, and the scientific leadership speaks for the scientific community
That’s the source?
You’re falling for the fallacy fallacy (pumpkinperson 2018). The fallacy fallacy is the fallacious belief that any inane thought with the word fallacy attached to it is a substantive criticism
RAPE!
I’d also add that intelligence is either a mental ability, in which case it cannot be a behavior or a behavior in which case it cannot be a mental ability; it cannot be both. So if you’re married to the idea that intelligence is a mental ability, then you must realize that it is logically impossible for psychological/mental states to be inherited.
P1) In order for psychological traits to be genetically inherited, laws are required linking mental events under their mental descriptions and physical events under their physical descriptions
P2) No such laws exist
C) Therefore psychological traits cannot be inherited
But if you’re married to the idea that intelligence is a behavior—in which case it can be selected for—then it is not a mental ability—which cannot be selected because there are no psychophysical/psychological laws.
what about the phallus fallacy? the fallacy that south asians have bigger dicks than koreans.
Genes can affect the level of intelligence you have.
Genes affect your capacity to mentally manipulate thoughts.
How can “Genes affect the level of intelligence you have” if there are no psychophysical laws? How can genes, an inert molecule, affect something like “your capacity to mentally manipulate thoughts”
“I’d also add that intelligence is either a mental ability, in which case it cannot be a behavior or a behavior in which case it cannot be a mental ability”
False dichotomy. intelligence is a physical potential of neuronal activity in response to external stimuli. Furthermore, learned skills is the actualization of this potential or in other words: behavior. So if Behavior is inherited and IQ is a test of learned skills, then IQ is therefore inherited. Of course though, ability and potential are genetically inherited because it is required for the realization of said skills. This all hinges on how you’re defining these words, so please try to clear up any misconceptions.
genotype leads to the phenotype
so genes affect how the brains functional structure dynamics are, therefore, the intelligence it has.
What are the psychophysical laws?
It’s not a false dichotomy; IQ tests are tests of learned skills and knowledge more prevalent in certain classes over others (along with a whole bunch of other factors).
Mental abilities cannot be inherited since there are no psychophysical laws. So if intelligence is a mental ability, it cannot be inherited. Behaviors can be inherited, so if intelligence is a behavior then it can be selected for.
Intelligence can be either or, it cannot be both. My argument on the genetic transmission of mental states stands.
Intelligence happens in the brain.
The brain is made/regulated by proteins.
genetics and epigenetics determine development/regulation of the brain by means of protein production.
different sets of genes can create differently development patterns leading to high or low levels of functioning/coordination.
Intelligence is a matter of gene/protein regulating the brain, determining self-coordination of the brain.
Psychology doesn’t reduce to physical structure (the mental is irreducible to the physical) so how can genetic differences explain psychological differences?
So the brain doesn’t cause our thoughts RR? What does? Evil spirits?
What’s that have to do with psychology not reducing to physical structure because there are no psychophysical or psychological laws?
But where do our cognitive abilities come from if not our physical brain? Evil spirits? Hocus pocus? The Wicked Witch of the West?
Mental events are just mental events, not physical events. Mental events cannot be physical events.
Intelligence is real, it exists
it is located in the brain
even mentally changed people can understand this.
So it’s a mental ability and it therefore cannot be selected for.
mentally challenged*
Is there an assertable identity relation between the mental and the physical? Are there any ex ante specifiable ceteris paribus clauses with respect to mental phenomena?
genes regulate proteins to self-organize the brain to be more or less intelligent by the way brain cells coordination in the brains.
Peoples genes can make them more or less intelligent.
Different genes = different ways of coordination
Genes don’t “make” anything. The mental is irreducible to the physical, there are no psychophysical laws.
Without my brain, I would have no intelligence.
Without DNA with genes, I would have no brain.
This is much too hard for RR to understand.
You don’t understand the objections.
Why are some people I see more intelligent than I am.
They have brains more intelligent, that coordinate functioning superior to mine.
Their brain can do this because of genes in DNA self-organizing it that way.
My gens are different so my brain self-organized differently and so self-coordinates in a less efficient manner.
It cannot just be conditioning. These people are way too intelligent.
The mental is completely reducible to the physical.
How?
“It’s not a false dichotomy; IQ tests are tests of learned skills and knowledge more prevalent in certain classes over others (along with a whole bunch of other factors).”
Iq tests are tests of intelligence, but the scores are a behavior therefore they are selected.
“Mental abilities cannot be inherited since there are no psychophysical laws.”
Mental events are in fact commensurable. Neuroscience has made leaps and bounds. Here’s a good quote:
This point can be made clear by using an analogy with meteorology, although nothing hangs on this particular discipline if it was objected that it is not a special science, an analogy using biology would be equally effective. The earth’s atmosphere is an immensely complex system, which can be described at several different levels. Typically the meteorologist will use the vocabulary of fronts, atmospheric pressure, types of cloud formations etc. in attempting to describe and predict the weather. The meteorologist will also no doubt utilise a body of generalisations to help in this predictive task, which will be couched in this vocabulary. However, due to the tremendous complexity of the atmosphere, and the limits on our information gathering technology, the meteorologist will never be able to produce a totally accurate characterisation of the weather at any one time, let alone produce an accurate short term forecast. The generalisations with which he has to work cannot be made accurate enough if they are restricted to meteorological vocabulary, to get more accurate generalisations one would have to move down to the vocabulary of physics. It is
conceivable that a sufficiently large group of physicists could produce such generalisations if they were given all the possible evidence there is, down to the last molecule, about the atmosphere. It is also conceivable that with these resources they could produce an accurate weather forecast, given that they had a total specification of the atmosphere’s current state. In order to do this the physicists would have to abandon the vocabulary of meteorology, but this does not mean that the style of explanation employed by ordinary meteorologists is sui generis, and that clouds and cold fronts are anomalous. The alteration would merely involve a change of perspective, rather than a change in the kind of explanation deployed. If the meteorological is irreducible because it cannot produce homonomic generalisations, this does not lead us to conclude that meteorology is incompatible with
science, or that it is illegitimate to try and explain the weather using meteorological generalisations. It is important to note that it may well be the case that the terms deployed in meteorological vocabulary will not be meaningfully reducible to any physically specified correlate, at least not in a way that would be of any use to the meteorologist in normal practice. Nevertheless it seems perfectly sensible to say that the meteorological level supervenes on the physical. The lack of any useful links between levels is the result of the extreme complexity of the system involved rather than any divergence in constitutive principles. If Davidson’s argument for the anomalous nature of the mental is based on the complexity of the subject of interpretation, then it appears exactly analogous to the case of meteorology. Thus it
could be granted that we will never be able to produce a perfect “translation manual” without this proving that rationality is constitutive of the mental, so that there cannot be any psychophysical laws. All that his argument can establish, understood in this form, is that any such extensionally adequate generalisations would be so complex and disjunctive as to be of no practical utility whatsoever, but this is far short of his desired conclusion. A defender of Davidson’s anomalous monism might object that even if the mental is analogous to meteorology this is all that is needed to establish the anomalism of the mental. For the vocabulary of meteorology is not reducible by strict bridge laws, at least not in a systematic way, to the vocabulary of physics. If by absurdly remote chance we were to stumble on a nonstochastic true psychophysical generalisation, we would have no reason to believe it more than roughly true. However, the meteorology analogy shows that we could even grant Davidson all of this, that any generalisations which we could produce would not be genuinely lawlike, without this demonstrating that the mental is unique. For Davidson has an overly demanding criteria for scientific reduction. The meteorology analogy is enough to argue against radical incompatibility of constitutive principles. We do not in fact require strict, lawlike, bridge laws between domains for reduction, it is enough to show that the two vocabularies are dealing with the very same stuff, but from different perspectives, and there seems to be no distinction here between the weather and the mental. Thus Davidson’s argument is either based on an unattractive instrumentalism about the mental, or it fails to establish the strong conclusion that the mental is anomalous in an interesting way, which differs from anything found in the special sciences.
“So if intelligence is a mental ability, it cannot be inherited. Behaviors can be inherited, so if intelligence is a behavior then it can be selected for.”
I’m assuming you mean ‘ability’ as in ‘potential’. Again, correct me if this is a wrong assumption. Mental potential is most definitely selected for, because the catalyzation cannot occur by any other means.
“Intelligence can be either or, it cannot be both.”
Why not?
“You don’t understand the objections.”
You haven’t made any clear objections. Only assertions.
Anime kitty,
“This is much too hard for RR to understand.”
Indeed, he’s essentially saying that because IQ and other mental states supposedly lack construct validity, then it can’t be inherited. Anomalous monism comes from a man who did not have access to the technology or information that we do today and wrote his main thesis over 3 decades ago. RR has never picked up a book n neuroscience book and is simply parroting anything that satiates his confirmation bias. Mental states are quantifiable by their neuronal communication and structure, as is intelligence.
“Iq tests are tests of intelligence, but the scores are a behavior therefore they are selected.”
So IQ is not a mental ability?
“Thus Davidson’s argument is either based on an unattractive instrumentalism about the mental, or it fails to establish the strong conclusion that the mental is anomalous in an interesting way, which differs from anything found in the special sciences.”
Davidson’s argument on the anomalism of the mental is sound. Psychological discourse and physical discourse are governed by different principles; so if two forms of discourse are governed by different principles, then their predicates and terms cannot co-occur in law statements. So it follows that psychological and physical predicates cannot co-occur in law statements and so this shows that there can be no laws that are formulated on a psychological and physical vocabulary in conjunction.
“Mental potential is most definitely selected for, because the catalyzation cannot occur by any other means.”
Since there are no psychophysical or psychological laws, the mental is irreducible to the physical thus “mental potential” cannot be selected for.
“Why not?”
Because mental abilities cannot be genetically inherited.
“You haven’t made any clear objections. Only assertions.”
https://pumpkinperson.com/2018/05/30/new-paper-claims-to-have-solved-the-missing-heritability-problem/#comment-92688
https://pumpkinperson.com/2018/05/30/new-paper-claims-to-have-solved-the-missing-heritability-problem/#comment-92692
“he’s essentially saying that because IQ and other mental states supposedly lack construct validity, then it can’t be inherited”
I didn’t bring up construct validity.
“RR has never picked up a book n neuroscience book”
Interesting, what kinds of books do I own?
“simply parroting anything that satiates his confirmation bias”
Says the guy searching for anything to prove the existence of psychophysical laws.
“Mental states are quantifiable by their neuronal communication and structure, as is intelligence.”
The mental is irreducible to the physical.
So intelligence is a mental ability to you? Or is it a behavior?
“So IQ is not a mental ability?”
Intelligence is a mental ability, IQ is a test of intelligence, so it is a behavior. I think this is the 3rd time I’ve said this, in this thread alone. Try to catch up with the reading comprehension.
“Davidson’s argument on the anomalism of the mental is sound.”
No, the analogy used in the article I posted directly demonstrated the absurdity of Davidson’s thesis, whilst simultaneously providing a more parsimonious solution. That this inconsistent vocabulary is simply a product of folk psychology.
Eliminative materialism>anomalous monism
“the mental is irreducible to the physical thus “mental potential” cannot be selected for.”
That doesn’t follow. There are psychophsyical laws, but’s that irrelevant at the moment, because the inheritance of mental potential has nothing to do with whether it is anomalous or not. Mental potential/Intelligence is not rationalism, it’s not intention, it’s simply the psychical constructs that catalyze and regulate representative thought of external stimuli. When you force your entire thesis under one School of thought it can be very difficult to break away from misconceptions.
“Because mental abilities cannot be genetically inherited.”
That doesn’t make sense. You’re not explaining anything. Just non sequitur after non sequitur.
“I didn’t bring up construct validity.”
Hahaha, you do realize AM is essentially saying Mental events are incommensurate to physical ones right? He’s basically saying it’s not falsifiable and that it lacks construct validity. Both untrue statements, but yeah, that’s what he was arguing.
“Interesting”
It is quite interesting isn’t it? It’s interesting how you try to make extraordinary claims on consciousness, yet can’t even answer the most simplest questions regarding the latest research in Neuroscience. You’re a hack.
“Says the guy searching for anything to prove the existence of psychophysical laws.”
Like what?
Just so everyone is aware. RR is using irreducible complexity to try and falsify evolution. I have a weird feeling he’s going to try and rehash Anselm’s unsound argument so that he can claim God created the mental. He has admitted that he is a creationist.
“Intelligence is a mental ability, IQ is a test of intelligence, so it is a behavior. I think this is the 3rd time I’ve said this, in this thread alone. Try to catch up with the reading comprehension.”
It’s either a mental ability or behavior, it cannot be both.
“No, the analogy used in the article I posted directly demonstrated the absurdity of Davidson’s thesis, whilst simultaneously providing a more parsimonious solution. That this inconsistent vocabulary is simply a product of folk psychology.”
Yes it is sound. See my explanation.
“There are psychophsyical laws””
nope
“That doesn’t make sense. You’re not explaining anything. Just non sequitur after non sequitur.”
You asked “Why not?” to “Intelligence can be either or, it cannot be both” and I, again, said why.
“Hahaha, you do realize AM is essentially saying Mental events are incommensurate to physical ones right? He’s basically saying it’s not falsifiable and that it lacks construct validity. Both untrue statements, but yeah, that’s what he was arguing.”
The mental is irreducible to the physical; we can know everything about the brain and we would not be able to explain mental states since the mental is irreducible to the physical.
“It is quite interesting isn’t it? It’s interesting how you try to make extraordinary claims on consciousness, yet can’t even answer the most simplest questions regarding the latest research in Neuroscience. You’re a hack.”
Which books do I own?
“Like what?”
Citing laws that are not psychophysical laws.
“Just so everyone is aware. RR is using irreducible complexity to try and falsify evolution. I have a weird feeling he’s going to try and rehash Anselm’s unsound argument so that he can claim God created the mental. He has admitted that he is a creationist.”
you’re hilarious kid.
“It’s either a mental ability or behavior, it cannot be both.”
I’m not really understanding the relevance of your ranting.
“Yes it is sound.”
The premises are false assumptions. My explanation requires less obfuscation and is completely sound, unlike yours.
“nope”
Hahaha. You know, it’s okay to admit that you don’t have a decent rebuttal.
“we can know everything about the brain and we would not be able to explain mental states”
The brain and the mental are not exclusive properties.
‘Which books do I own?”
Certainly not any on Neuroscience.
“Citing laws that are not psychophysical laws.”
How were they not laws?
‘you’re hilarious”
Sometimes the truth is hilarious.
“I’m not really understanding the relevance of your ranting.”
If it’s a mental ability it can’t be selected. If it’s a behavior it can. It cannot be both.
“The premises are false assumptions. My explanation requires less obfuscation and is completely sound, unlike yours.”
They’re not false assumptions. The argument has 2 premises.
“Hahaha. You know, it’s okay to admit that you don’t have a decent rebuttal.”
Hahaha my argument establishes they don’t exist.
“The brain and the mental are not exclusive properties.”
The mind is not the brain.
“Certainly not any on Neuroscience.”
How do you know? Do you own any?
“How were they not laws?”
Already explained.
“If it’s a mental ability it can’t be selected. If it’s a behavior it can. It cannot be both.”
Still not seeing how this contradicts what i said. I mean you’re still obviously wrong, Mental potential is simply the physical constructs(the brain’s structure) that controls an action, you’re assuming it’s this abstract metaphysical substance. Your basically saying your leg’s potential(your legs anatomic structure) is not inherited, but the behavior of kicking is.
“They’re not false assumptions.”
They are. Davidson has a better case than you or Kim. Are you a pure Dualist? That’s the vibe I’m getting from your responses.
“Hahaha my argument”
Your argument is invalid.
“The mind is not the brain.”
Why? since when have words been things?
“How do you know?”
Because you wouldn’t say the dumb shit that you do.
“Do you own any?”
I own two lol. I prefer actual studies.
“Already explained.”
Where?
“Still not seeing”
Well see it. I’ve explained it enough times.
“They are”
Nope.
“invalid”
No it’s not. The premises are true. The argument is valid.
“Why?”
Because the mental is irreducible to the physical.
“I own two”
Which ones?
“Where?”
A few days ago.
” I’ve explained it enough times.”
And I’ve rebutted it enough times. You only have nonsensical statements to make.
“Nope.”
Reality says different. Go cry about it somewhere else.
“The premises are true. The argument is valid.”
No, if you can’t address my refutations, then your argument is wrong.
“Because the mental is irreducible to the physical.”
More proof you don’t understand Donald Davidson’s thesis. The supposed irreducibly is irrelevant to whether P=M.
“Which ones?”
One is a small book, from 1990 the other is a book on FMRI technology, it was originally french.
“FMRI technology”
Yea, read this book:
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/reliability-cognitive-neuroscience
“Yea, read this book:”
Yawn* that book is highly outdated. Neuroimaging has made leaps in replicability especially with new attempts at data aggregation with the connectome project and the Biobank.
Yawn you’ve never read the book.
“you’ve never read the book.”
I prefer scientific studies to opinion pieces.
How can you make a claim about a book you’ve never read?
If it’s stating that there is a replicability issue in neuroimaging, and is from 2012, then it is outdated. Lemme guess, its main criticism is “muh false positives derp derp derp”?
Your arguments always remain in stasis that’s how I know it’s not adding anything new to the table, because despite the numerous refutations I’ve presented, you still repeat the same assertions without ever addressing mine. You’ve already decided that “you’re right” and are simply ignoring my contention and spamming me with redundant sources. How bout this, you actually address my counter-arguments, and then I’ll read the book, even then I already have other sources that are more modern and directly buttress my claims if feel the need to present them.
His criticisms are more robust than that.
Ive “aready decided I’m right”? Like you haven’t?
You’ve provided no counter-arguments to address. Sorry.
“I’ll read the book, even then I already have other sources that are more modern and directly buttress my claims if feel the need to present them.”
Bulverism.
“His criticisms are more robust than that.”
Prove it.
“Ive “aready decided I’m right”? Like you haven’t?”
See here’s the thing… you have the burden of proof, not me. So far, your “evidence” that supposedly sends neuroscientific consensus into upheaval,has been lackluster: a bunch or just so arguments built on fallacious reasoning, nearly a 1:1 analogy with popular creationist arguments, “like God of the Gaps” and “irreducible complexity”.
“You’ve provided no counter-arguments to address. Sorry.”
P1 Arguments consist of premises and conclusions
P2 Claims backed by empirical observations are premises, conclusions are the overall point a claim is trying to buttress
P3 My claims are empirically backed, my conclusion is formed from these claims
C1 I am producing a legitimate form of an argument.
Still waiting.
“Bulverism.”
How cute, you learned a new word. It’s quite hilarious how you try to “educate” other users and I with information we already know.
Read the book. It’s about the lack of reproducibility of cognitive neuroscience studies.
There can’t be a science of the mind because the mental is irreducible to the physical because psychophysical and psychological laws do not exist.
Your “argument” has no inference rules.
“Read the book. It’s about the lack of reproducibility of cognitive neuroscience studies.”
There is no lack of reproducibility.
“There can’t be a science of the mind because the mental is irreducible to the physical because psychophysical and psychological laws do not exist.”
There already is a science of the mind, and so far we’ve done a petty good job of reducing the mental. So you think your fallacious argument overturns all the discoveries we’ve made in Neuroscience? Nice try but intelligent people know better and that’s why nobody here buys your bullshit. But go ahead, repeat yourself.
“Your “argument” has no inference rules.”
Yes it does. Grasping at straws.
Mental states are irreducible to brain states; cognitive neuroscience, at best, studies behavioral dispositions. We can know every fact about the brain but not know every mental fact because the mental is irreducible to the physical.
The “argument” has no inference rules.
“Mental states are irreducible to brain states; cognitive neuroscience, at best, studies behavioral dispositions. We can know every fact about the brain but not know every mental fact because the mental is irreducible to the physical.”
P=M. Dualism violates Occam’s Razor. Therefore the subjectivity of the symbolical expressions we use to describe these phenomena are irrelevant to the certainty of the physiological descriptions we prescribe them. From a data perspective it is not a debate whether M is reducible to P. Nothing you can say could handwave this fact away. Regarding it’s semantic reducibility, it is still up to debate, and you could very well be correct but it is also redundant to the heredity of the aforementioned traits, and you’re simply special pleading over eliminative materialism to begin with. You have no reason to propagate any of this garbage unless you had an axe to grind.
“The “argument” has no inference rules.”
Yes it does.
My reasoning posted last week shows why psychophysical and psychological laws do not exist.
What’s your response to the rule-following and Moore-Frege-Moore pincer arguments?
“My reasoning posted last week shows why psychophysical and psychological laws do not exist.”
And the reasoning I just posted, refutes it. Try again.
“What’s your response to the rule-following and Moore-Frege-Moore pincer arguments?”
I’ve already responded to that:
“The physical interactions we observe are not equivalent to the language(including math) that we use to describe it. P= M and is therefore reducible.”
I already told you words aren’t things. Are you just now getting that?
It doesn’t refute it. How’s that a response to the rule-following and Moore-Frege-Moore pincer arguments?
“It doesn’t refute it. ”
It does.
“How’s that a response to the rule-following and Moore-Frege-Moore pincer arguments?”
Isn’t it self evident? Do you not know what the rule following paradox is?
The rule-following argument shows that there are a priori doubts that the mind-body relationship can be explained through a functional definition. Further, Kripke’s normativity argument shows that intentional states (mental states) reducing to brain states is not to be expected.
“The rule-following argument shows that there are a priori doubts that the mind-body relationship can be explained through a functional definition. ”
What? How?
“Further, Kripke’s normativity argument”
How do these arguments reconcile with the massive amount of neuroscientific evidence mapping the mechanics of Qualia and Semantics.
Because mind-body reduction requires an account of higher-level phenomenon solely in terms of the lower level. Such higher-level properties such as intentional (mental) states. Kim claims that for mind-body reduction to hold, there needs to be functional definitions of mental properties in terms of lower level properties. The normativity argument from Kripke establishes that such functional definitions are not possible and thus mind-body reduction does not hold for intentional (mental) properties.
Where’s the “massive amount of neuroscientific evidence mapping the mechanics of Qualia and Semantics”?
“there needs to be functional definitions of mental properties in terms of lower level properties. ”
There already are…I gave you at least 3 examples.
“The normativity argument from Kripke establishes that such functional definitions are not possible”
How? Language is subjective that doesn’t mean the physical interactions we observe and describe them with are nonexistent. Go ahead jump out a 4 story building and see what happens.
“Where’s the “massive amount of neuroscientific evidence mapping the mechanics of Qualia and Semantics”?”
Maybe you’d know if you ever read a Neuroscience study. It’s not hard to find. Do you want me to explain in detail the physiological and biological interactions that create certain intentional states?
“There already are…I gave you at least 3 examples.”
The normativity argument establishes that functional definitions of intentional states are not possible, it also establishes that the mental is not reducible to the physical.
“Maybe you’d know if you ever read a Neuroscience study. It’s not hard to find. Do you want me to explain in detail the physiological and biological interactions that create certain intentional states?”
It’s not an empirical matter.
“The normativity argument establishes that functional definitions of intentional states are not possible”
I don’t care. I’ve produced a decision making algorithm. It’s a mathematical model so it is a priori. How does his argument address it? Read Explaining the Normative.
“It’s not an empirical matter.”
Obviously it is, especially since we can observe and predict it.
Turner identifies a standard argument pattern that lies beneath most defenses of explanatory normativism. First, a phenomenon is described in such a way as to emphasize its normative aspects (the correctness of Adam’s behaviour, for example). Second, the most obvious non-normative explanations of that phenomenon are shown to be inadequate. Third, by way of ‘transcendental’ reasoning, the necessity of appealing to an irreducibly normative principle is inferred, on pain of leaving some aspect of the social world unexplained. Turner does a good job at exposing the weaknesses of this strategy. He highlights in particular the normativists’ dubious reliance on heavy redescription (step one), and the problem of underdetermination (steps two and three: for every normative explanation there is always a non-normative, less mysterious alternative).
https://philpapers.org/rec/TURETN-4
Naturalism has been refuted by at least ten arguments. E.g., Kripke’s/Wittgenstein’s rule-following argument, Bilgrami’s Moore-Frege-Moore pincer argument, Ross’s “Immaterial Aspects of Thought”, Tiehan’s Normativism and Mental Causation.
“Naturalism has been refuted by at least ten arguments.”
Not it hasn’t, words aren’t things. Most modern Normativists still endorse some level of naturalism, they’re simply special pleading for Consciousness with a Gap of the Gods type argument. All Organisms are goal driven, specifically to survive so that they can reproduce.
Both our sense driven brains and our genes interact with the environment we are in, yet we would not say that evolution is irreducible. In fact the specific kind of adaptations that are propagated can suffer from the same Is/ought problem that intentions run into. That’s because consciousness seeks to solve the same problems as evolution just on a shorter time scale. A survival issue can be solved by multiple intentions, like building a fire because you’re cold or to keep annoying insects away, just like more than one adaptation can be beneficial in a particular environment. Goal driven behavior is based on a form of a risk/reward system but of course morality is subjective because it as a social construct. The function that creates this construct is language now what decides which intention is the most objective way to describe an organisms behavior? To know this, you would need the complete biological information from the organism in question as well as the ceteris paribus ecological catalyst, which can be inferred form the biological state of said organism. Long story short Evolution and “mental states” are predictable. Complexity=/=incommensurate
“Not it hasn’t”
You can address the four presented, then after you’ve rebutted them we can go on to the other 6.
“The function that creates this construct is language”
Language matters because the contents of intentional states (mental states) are propositions. If you’re saying that animals have intentional states, they don’t, nor do they perform actions. Animals have phenomenal states and they behave.
“now what decides which intention is the most objective way to describe an organisms behavior”
Cognition is intentional; behavior is dispositional; therefore cognition (an intentional state) does not explain behavior.
“you would need the complete biological information from the organism in question as well as the ceteris paribus ecological catalyst, which can be inferred form the biological state of said organism”
We can know everything about an organism’s physical states, but never everything about their mental states.
“You can address the four presented”
I’d appreciate it if you actually responded to the point I was making instead of picking apart random phrases and simply repeating yourself. None of the responses you just made address my contention, and are ad nauseam. Address the book by turner, address all of the neuroscientific evidence that quantifies cognition, address the psychophysical laws I presented and address Rob west’s thesis then we can have a debate. I don’t take any argument you’ve made seriously, words aren’t things. Period.
“Language matters because the contents of intentional states (mental states) are propositions. ”
What does this have to do with the statement you quoted from me?
“If you’re saying that animals have intentional states, they don’t, nor do they perform actions.”
Yes they do. Anything that makes a decision has an intention to make said decision. This further highlights the ridiculousness nature of normativism. Where the proponents have to assume anthropomorphism and a magical world filled with normativity that somehow is inescapably non-empirical.
“Cognition is intentional”
Cognition is simply a projection of your sensory perceptions that all coalesce into a inner-model of the self. How sad is it that propagators of normativism have to change the meaning of words to justify their nonsensical statements.Behavior is a reflection of cognition. Cognition is dispositional, behavior is intentional. Seriously did you not get anything I said previously?
‘We can know everything about an organism’s physical states, but never everything about their mental states.”
Mental states are indistinguishable from physical ones.
“I’d appreciate it if you actually responded to the point I was making”
The arguments refute naturalism.
“Address the book by turner, address all of the neuroscientific evidence that quantifies cognition, address the psychophysical laws I presented and address Rob west’s thesis then we can have a debate.”
Turner’s book (which you’ve not read): addressed by the above arguments; “Lolz, address X, Y, and Z they are my arguments!!”; psychophysical reductionism is false, which the four presented arguments also show.
“What does this have to do with the statement you quoted from me?”
Seriously?
“Yes they do.”
Animals have beliefs and desires?
“Cognition is simply a projection of your sensory perceptions that all coalesce into a inner-model of the self.”
Which is an intentional (mental) state (an action), which is distinct from behavior.
“Cognition is dispositional, behavior is intentional.”
You’ve got it reversed.
“Mental states are indistinguishable from physical ones.”
We can explain mental states knowing every physical fact about the brain? The four arguments above, too, refute that contention.
“The arguments refute naturalism.”
No they don’t.
“Turner’s book (which you’ve not read): addressed by the above arguments;”
Right, just like you haven’t read any book on neuroscience. Don’t project your shortcomings unto me. It was not addressed, all of your arguments rely on the same fallacious tactics as outlined in Turner’s book. Nothing you have said is new, the “person” who taught me Philosophy used AM as a basis for many of his conclusions. Which is why it’s so easy for me to debunk it now. You simply just can’t understand the criticism which is why you just repeat yourself. Have you read the Soul Camera?
“Seriously?”
Yes seriously, you retard. What does the propositional basis of intentional states have to do with my statement: ” Goal driven behavior is based on a form of a risk/reward system but of course morality is subjective because it as a social construct. The function that creates this construct is language now what decides which intention is the most objective way to describe an organisms behavior?” Languge evolves, it’s subjective. Period. Nothing you can ever say would change that fact, saying Intentions are propositions completely sidesteps the point that I was bringing up.
This is what I mean. You don’t understand the criticism, just certain buzzwords offend you, so you quote mine them and then simply repeat yourself, without fully understanding the point.
“Animals have beliefs and desires?”
Again, why wouldn’t they? Beliefs, desires and intentions all have overlapping definitions, and they can be completely reduced to neuronal dynamics, in humans and animals . Do animals not desire to mate? How can a mammal know who to mate with without a belief in it’s gender? Again read Rob Wet’s thesis, changing the semantics of an explanation does not mean it’s irreducible. In fact this happens a lot in science. Like with geology or meteorology.
“Which is an intentional (mental) state (an action), which is distinct from behavior. You’ve got it reversed.”
And because you’ve never read a book on Neuroscience you have no idea what cognition or consciousness actually is. I don’t have anything reversed you just don’t know what you’re talking about.
‘We can explain mental states knowing every physical fact about the brain?”
Of course we can, what are you confused about? I’ll explain it.
“No they don’t.”
“No they don’t” is a solid refutation. If you won’t touch the arguments and show the flaws in their reasoning, this is my last reply.
“Right, just like you haven’t read any book on neuroscience.”
I have.
“all of your arguments rely on the same fallacious tactics as outlined in Turner’s book.”
How do you know if you’ve not read it? The four arguments presented above (and more) refute naturalism.
“The function that creates this construct is language now what decides which intention”
Because the contents of intentional states are based on language. Reasons are causes; the organism that engages in goal-driven behavior does so because of reasons, which cause its goal-driven behavior.
“Again, why wouldn’t they?”
So yes animals do have intentional states?
“And because you’ve never read a book on Neuroscience you have no idea what cognition or consciousness actually is. I don’t have anything reversed you just don’t know what you’re talking about.”
You said “Cognition is dispositional, behavior is intentional.”, this is false, and because you’ve never read a book on philosophy of mind, you have no idea what cognition or consciousness actually is. (I’ve read a philosophy of cognitive science book, so I know what ‘cognition” and “thinking” are, but there cannot be a science of the mind.)
“Of course we can, what are you confused about? I’ll explain it.”
The normativity argument—and the others presented to you above—show that mental states are irreducible to brain states. You saying “No they don’t” refute psychophysical reductionism is BS. They do. Once you’ve refuted those arguments, then we can move on to the other six. If you won’t touch them, then this is my last reply here.
““No they don’t” is a solid refutation.”
It is warranted when the objector refuses to address any citations, quotes, and counter- arguments from known Philosophers, Scientists, or myself.
“I have.”
Obviously not. More specifically, i know that you don’t keep up with any of the new Neuroscience literature(you couldn’t answer 3 simple questions). So you just handwave any counter information? Do you honestly hold Philosophy in higher progressive value than Science?
“How do you know if you’ve not read it? The four arguments presented above (and more) refute naturalism.”
I have read it, you just can’t fathom anyone having a different interpretation of the literature. Yours is not objective.
“Because the contents of intentional states are based on language. Reasons are causes; the organism that engages in goal-driven behavior does so because of reasons, which cause its goal-driven behavior.”
How does simply repeating my statements address them?
“So yes animals do have intentional states?”
Duh.
“this is false”
No it’s not. Consciousness is episodic memory played on loop. What you perceive is different than what you intend to do with said perception. I can see an Ice cream cone independent of whether I intend to eat it or not. It is also independent of qualia or the normative. Intentional states and perception are a small part of consciousness which is simply being self-ware, while awake. Consciousness itself is a part of cognition as a whole in the form of a behavior regulating system. My point being, Consciousness is not purely Intentional, only the normative parts are. What Markus Gabriel calls a “Bioculture Hybrid”.
“you’ve never read a book on philosophy of mind, you have no idea what cognition or consciousness actually is.”
You don’t read on the semantics of language to understand how the mind works. You read a neuroscience textbook.
“I’ve read a philosophy of cognitive science book, so I know what ‘cognition” and “thinking” are”
Hahahahahaha.
“If you won’t touch them, then this is my last reply here.”
Then leave. Nobody’s convinced by your “arguments”.
“It is warranted when the objector refuses to address any citations, quotes, and counter- arguments from known Philosophers, Scientists, or myself.”
The arguments are sound.
“Obviously not. More specifically, i know that you don’t keep up with any of the new Neuroscience literature(you couldn’t answer 3 simple questions). So you just handwave any counter information? Do you honestly hold Philosophy in higher progressive value than Science?”
Reductionism is false; the mind is not mechanistic.
“I have read it, you just can’t fathom anyone having a different interpretation of the literature. Yours is not objective.”
They refute psychophysical reductionism.
“How does simply repeating my statements address them?
I was talking about human causes for action; actions are goal-directed.
“”So yes animals do have intentional states?”
Duh.”
Language decides intention; animals don’t have language; therefore animals don’t have intentional states.
P1 Believers must have the concept of belief, and to have the concept of belief, one has to recognize that beliefs are true or false; one cannot understand objective truths without an understanding of the nature of beliefs.
P2 To gain an understanding of objective truths, one must be able to communicate and triangulate with others and talk about the world, so all believers must be language users.
P3 Non-human animals don’t use language.
C Therefore non-human animals don’t have beliefs.
“No it’s not.”
Yes it is; you reversed what I wrote.
“You don’t read on the semantics of language to understand how the mind works”
There can’t be a science of the mind.
“Nobody’s convinced by your “arguments”.”
Most people are not swayed by rational, sound arguments, I know. They demand evidence for a priori objections not knowing that evidence is irrelevant to a priori objections.
“The arguments are sound.”
The ” citations, quotes, and counter- arguments from known Philosophers, Scientists, or myself.” say otherwise.
“Reductionism is false; the mind is not mechanistic.”
Irrelevant. Answer the question.
“They refute psychophysical reductionism.”
Reductionism is not necessary to commensurate the psycho-physical.
“I was talking about human causes for action; actions are goal-directed.”
Right, now explain why you’re repeating what I said. Could it possibly be because you’re a shitty reader?
“animals don’t have language”
Language is simply a form of communication. All animals communicate with one another. Too easy.
“you reversed what I wrote.”
With good reason, your definition of consciousness is born from ignorance. How can you intend if you cannot perceive? Consciousness is at least partly dispositional.
“There can’t be a science of the mind.”
Too bad there already is.
“Most people are not swayed by rational, sound arguments, I know.”
Hahaha, you haven’t made any “rational, sound arguments”. Anytime someone makes a priori objection to yours, you just repeat yourself. Are you ever going to address Rob west?
“The ” citations, quotes, and counter- arguments from known Philosophers, Scientists, or myself.” say otherwise.”
No.
“Irrelevant. Answer the question.”
I don’t hold either ‘higher in progressive value’.
“Reductionism is not necessary to commensurate the psycho-physical.”
Why?
“Right, now explain why you’re repeating what I said. Could it possibly be because you’re a shitty reader?”
Because the contents of intentional states are propositions; intentional states are actions, animals do not perform actions, they behave.
“Language is simply a form of communication. All animals communicate with one another. Too easy.”
Doesn’t refute the arguments.
“With good reason, your definition of consciousness is born from ignorance. How can you intend if you cannot perceive? Consciousness is at least partly dispositional.”
It isn’t “partly dispositional”, it’s either dispositional or intentional, it cannot be both. Animals don’t have cognition, but they can perceive.
“Too bad there already is.”
There can’t be because the mind is not physical.
“Hahaha, you haven’t made any “rational, sound arguments””
I gave two above.
“Are you ever going to address Rob west?”
His objection is irrelevant to the rule-following argument, Moore-Frege-Moore pincer argument etc. The mental is irreducible to the physical; psychophysical reductionism is false.
Are you ever going to address the four arguments provided to you?
P1) All formal thinking is incompossibly determinate.
P2) No physical process or functions of physical processes are incompossibly determinate.
∴Thoughts aren’t a physical or functional process; no physical process is formal thinking. Therefore functionalism and physicalism are false.
Ross’ Immaterial Aspects of Thought
Anything outside of the natural is supernatural.
Since by definition, the natural includes all existence, the supernatural would need to be outside of all existence.
Thinking then, if being outside the natural, is outside all existence.
Do you accept the argument or not?
Thought is immaterial in the same way software is immaterial. We still need the hardware or the software would be nothing. Thought still needs a brain like software needs the computer hardware. That could be a proof that software on a computer is capable of thought.
Necessary pre-condition. Not a sufficient condition to explain thought. The argument provided is sound.
So thought is software. correct?
“No.”
Yes. I’m waiting.
“I don’t hold either ‘higher in progressive value’.”
So then how are you reconciling this with all of the neurophysical evidence that disagrees with your contention?
“Why?”
Because Holistic systems still have individual parts. Reductionism is a methodology that is still applicable to holistic systems. Reducible=/=modularity. And complexity does not equal incommensurate. That is an argument from ignorance and is therefore fallacious. Again until you read Rob west’s thesis you’re just going to keep missing the point.
“Because the contents of intentional states are propositions; intentional states are actions, animals do not perform actions, they behave.”
All decisions require intention, Animals make decisions therefore they have intentions, subsequently they perform actions. Too easy.
“Doesn’t refute the arguments.”
Are you going to address my refutation or just keep repeating yourself? Actually go ahead and repeat yourself. I want the audience to fully understand your intellectual dishonesty.
“There can’t be because the mind is not physical.”
Well there is, so get over it.
“I gave two above.”
Nope, try again.
“the rule-following argument”
Rob west already addressed that argument.
“Are you ever going to address the four arguments provided to you?”
I already did. You just don’t know how to read.
“Yes. I’m waiting.”
Wait forever since the arguments are sound.
“So then how are you reconciling this with all of the neurophysical evidence that disagrees with your contention?”
Causal?
“Again until you read Rob west’s thesis you’re just going to keep missing the point.”
I did read it; the other arguments are sufficient for the objections raised by West re anomalous monism.
“All decisions require intention, Animals make decisions therefore they have intentions, subsequently they perform actions. Too easy.”
Intention requires mindedness; animals don’t have minds; therefore animals don’t have intentions and do not perform actions, they behave.
“Are you going to address my refutation or just keep repeating yourself?”
Your statement doesn’t “refute” anything; there is a difference between the terms “respond to” and “refute”.
“Well there is, so get over it.”
Not possible.
“Nope, try again.”
The arguments are sound.
“Rob west already addressed that argument.”
The argument establishes that normative facts are irreducible to dispositional facts.
“I already did. You just don’t know how to read.”
Yea, someone reads these comments I respond to for me.
“Wait forever since the arguments are sound.”
According to my refutations, they’re pretty unsound.
“Causal?”
What are you asking?
“I did read it”
No you didn’t. none of the arguments address his contention. In fact the rule following argument only buttresses West’s point.
“animals don’t have minds;”
Wrong again, that is a circular assumption.
“there is a difference between the terms “respond to” and “refute”.”
Exactly and my arguments refute your contentions.
“Not possible.”
Too bad so sad 🙂
“The arguments are sound.”
Nope.
“The argument establishes that normative facts are irreducible to dispositional facts.”
And Rob west refutes that point. Changing the scope of explanation does not make the mental irreducible.
“Yea, someone reads these comments I respond to for me.”
Well something has to explain your inability to grasp simple concepts.
“According to my refutations, they’re pretty unsound.”
Learn the difference between “respond to” and “refute.”
“What are you asking?”
Reread my reply.
“No you didn’t. none of the arguments address his contention. In fact the rule following argument only buttresses West’s point.”
It does not at all; the rule-following argument along with the normativity argument establish that functional definitions of lower-level properties are not attainable for intentional states.
“Wrong again, that is a circular assumption.”
I gave you two arguments. Organisms must have beliefs and those beliefs come with the concept of objective truth, and that’s only possible in organisms with language. Humans are the only organisms with language, therefore animals do not have beliefs (and they do not have minds, since minds can have intentional states. Animals behave, they do not perform actions).
“Exactly and my arguments refute your contentions.”
You “respond to”, not “refute.”
“Nope.”
Yup.
“And Rob west refutes that point. Changing the scope of explanation does not make the mental irreducible.”
No he does not.
“Well something has to explain your inability to grasp simple concepts.”
People read for me.
“Learn the difference between “respond to” and “refute.””
I do. Now are you going to respond to my refutation or not?
“Reread my reply.”
You didn’t even write a complete sentence….
“It does not at all;”
Yes it does, the normativity of language is precisely why the mental is reducible.
“Humans are the only organisms with language,”
Language is just communication, animals communicate, Therefore animals have beliefs and concepts. Too easy.
“Humans are the only organisms with language,”
No I refute.
“Yup.”
Nope.
“No he does not.”
Yes he does, come back when you’ve actually read it.
“People read for me.”
I don’t think that surprises anyone.
“I do. Now are you going to respond to my refutation or not?”
You clearly don’t.
“You didn’t even write a complete sentence….”
I said “Causal?” meaning “Is the neurophysical data causal” and “not only an association?”
“Yes it does, the normativity of language is precisely why the mental is reducible.”
Intentional states are normative and are thusly irreducible.
“Language is just communication, animals communicate, Therefore animals have beliefs and concepts. Too easy.”
Language decides intention; animals don’t have language; therefore animals don’t have intentional states.
P1 Believers must have the concept of belief, and to have the concept of belief, one has to recognize that beliefs are true or false; one cannot understand objective truths without an understanding of the nature of beliefs.
P2 To gain an understanding of objective truths, one must be able to communicate and triangulate with others and talk about the world, so all believers must be language users.
P3 Non-human animals don’t use language.
C Therefore non-human animals don’t have beliefs.
These two args are sound; what you wrote says nothing to them.
“No I refute.”
no you do not
“Nope.”
yup
“Yes he does, come back when you’ve actually read it.”
i did Functional definitions of lower level mental properties are not possible.
“I don’t think that surprises anyone.”
i know right? im just so lazy. i need to have someone always by my side to read to me.
“You clearly don’t.”
Still waiting.
“Is the neurophysical data causal”
Yes.
“These two args are sound; what you wrote says nothing to them.”
Think about why language is necessary for intentional states and the corresponding culture…because it allows for communication. Language is the most complex form of communication and animals communicate on a simpler scale, adaptations are not absolute. Animals have to be able to communicate so they can recognize intentions and beliefs of other ones. Some examples of Animals displaying obvious intent and beliefs would be like some birds and primates sounding alarms to warn other members of their group that predators are nearby, or cuttlefish and chameleons changing color to display their mood, not even mentioning body language. Surprisingly it’s pretty easy to predict animal intent, animals(including humans) are pretty bad liars, and most cases of mistaken identification in regards to signaling is due to statistical noise and not lying.
Your arguments are very unsound, another mutual exclusivity fallacy.
https://sci-hub.tw/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19199525
“no you do not”
Yes I do.
“i did Functional definitions of lower level mental properties are not possible.Intentional states are normative and are thusly irreducible.”
Obviously you didn’t, the normativity means the scope of explanation changes, so the supposed “unassessable supervenience”, is in fact assessable. We already have lower level definitions, it’s the higher ones that are more of an enigma, and saying something is irreducible vs saying it’s impossible to reduce are completely two different things. The latter position is Dogmatic, intellectually dishonest, and statistically false.
“i know right? im just so lazy. i need to have someone always by my side to read to me.”
Well you need to fire whoever is reading your shit, because they obviously have difficulties. Or are you trying to say that your brain is reading it and not you? LOL
Agree, except for claiming Americans aren’t Mongoloids.
They’re not Mongoloids. They’re clearly distinct.
Distinct but descended directly from Mongoloids, aka they are Mongoloids in the same way Whites are distinct but are Caucasoid and descended directly from Middle Eastern people.
They are Mongoloids period. RR doesn’t understand that the Mongoloid race is very diverse.
Nah they’re not. It’s just some BS to give peoples credit for something they did not do.
“Distinct but descended directly from Mongoloids, aka they are Mongoloids in the same way Whites are distinct but are Caucasoid and descended directly from Middle Eastern people.”
Using this illoical reasoning, Europeans are Africans since they’re descended from them, thus European accomplishments are African accomplishments.
I’d also like to add that Rosenberg et al 2002 buttresses the claim that Native Americans are not “Mongoloid”. If they were “Mongoloid” then they’d cluster with them, but they cluster separately:
Here’s is philosopher Michael Hardimon’s view on these clusters (2017: 85-86):
If the five populations corresponding to the major areas are continental-level minimalist races, the clusters represent continental-level minimalist races: The cluster in the mostly orange segment represents the sub-Saharan African continental-level minimalist race. The cluster in the mostly blue segment represents the Eurasian continental-level minimal race. The cluster in the mostly pink segment represents the East Asian continental-level minimalist race. The cluster in the mostly green segment represents the Pacific Islander continental-level minimalist race. And the cluster in the mostly purple segment represents the American continental-level minimalist race.
[…]
The assumption that the five populations are continental-level minimalist races entitles us to interpret structure as having the capacity to assign individuals to continental-level minimalist races on the basis of markers that track ancestry. In constructing clusters corresponding to the five continental-level minimalist races on the basis of objective, race-neutral genetic markers, structure essentially “reconstructs” those races on the basis of a race-blind procedure. Modulo our assumption, the article shows that it is possible to assign individuals to continental-level races without knowing anything about the race or ancestry of the individuals from whose genotypes the microsattelites are drawn. The populations studied were “defined by geography, language, and culture,” not skin color or “race.”
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/02/18/minimalist-races-exist-and-are-biologically-real/
The five populations which correspond to the major geographic areas are continental-level minimalist races, so the clusters from Rosenberg et al 2002 represent continental-level minimalist races. Americans are a continental-level minimalist race. Therefore Native Americans and “Mongoloids” are separate races.
That they are descended from them doesn’t mean anything. Europeans are descended from Africans, therefore we can say all European accomplishments are African accomplishments. Fenoopy’s logic is flawed.
Native Americans are a separate race. Rushton’s tri-racial system is old and outdated.
1) Rosenberg’s clusters were arbitrary. He told the computer to give 5 or 6 clusters because he was hoping they would map to the continents. He could just as easily have asked for only 2 clusters or 100.
2) Cavali-Sforza found Native Americans clustered with East Asians
3) Race is about morphology inherited from a common ancestor. Two members of the same race could diverge enormously on non-selected DNA (forming different clusters) if they’ve been separated long enough, but it would not necessarily mean they are different races, unless you define race exclusively by DNA. Homo erectus was separated into African and non-African groups for over a million years, so I guarantee they would show up as wildly different species in genetic clustering, and yet based on shared morphology, it’s all one species
1) It doesn’t matter that he told the computer to give 5 clusters. What matters is that the populations that came out in K=5 are genetically structured, meaning they are meaningfully demarcated on the basis of genetic markers and only genetic markers.
2) Cavalli-Sforza’s work is ancient compared to today’s data.
3) They wouldn’t be separate races in regard to the minimalist race concept since they’d have to be genetically isolated breeding populations in a different continent with differing physiognomy and morphology.
P1) There are differences in patterns of visible physical features which correspond to geographic ancestry
P2) These patterns are exhibited between real groups, existing groups (i.e., individuals who share common ancestry)
P3) These real, existing groups that exhibit these physical patterns by geographic ancestry satisfy conditions of minimalist race
C) Therefore race exists and is a biological reality
1) Define genetically structured. How do you know K = 2 or K = 8 was not equally genetically structured.
2) Cavalli-Sforza’s work was not ancient compared to Rosenberg’s
Race does exist but Rosenberg’s races were arbitraily chosen.
1) I’m not sure about K=2 (it’d probably be Africans and non-
Africans), nor am I sure about K=8, but I am sure about K=6. Rosenberg et al 2002 did K=6 which delineated the Kalash people.
The fact that structure represents a population as genetically distinct does not entail that the population is a race. Nor is the idea that populations corresponding to the five major geographic areas are minimalist races undercut by the fact that structure picks out the Kalash as a genetically distinct group. Like the K=5 graph, the K=6 graph shows that modulo our assumption, continental-level races are genetically structured” (Hardimon, 2017: 88).
“Genetically structured” refers to meaningful demarcation on the basis of genetic markers.
2) Regarding population genetics it’s ancient.
So Rosenberg et al 2002 doesn’t show that race is reality? In your view, what does? Does the argument for the existence of minimalist races prove that race exists?
1) I’m not sure about K=2 (it’d probably be Africans and non-
Africans), nor am I sure about K=8, but I am sure about K=6. Rosenberg et al 2002 did K=6 which delineated the Kalash people.
The point is he chose K = 6 because it gave results consistent with popular perceptions of race. Had he chose a smaller number, Native Americans and East Asians would have been lumped together.
The fact that structure represents a population as genetically distinct does not entail that the population is a race. Nor is the idea that populations corresponding to the five major geographic areas are minimalist races undercut by the fact that structure picks out the Kalash as a genetically distinct group. Like the K=5 graph, the K=6 graph shows that modulo our assumption, continental-level races are genetically structured” (Hardimon, 2017: 88).
“Genetically structured” refers to meaningful demarcation on the basis of genetic markers.
So both K = 5 and K = 6 meet his criteria, showing there’s no right answer by his method
So Rosenberg et al 2002 doesn’t show that race is reality? In your view, what does? Does the argument for the existence of minimalist races prove that race exists?
In my view race is just a way of subdividing life on Earth. We have broad subdivisions (animals vs pants), small subdivisions within animals (humans vs Neanderthals), and smaller subdivisions within humans (Mongoloids vs Caucasoids) and even smaller subdivisions within Mongoloids (East Asians vs Native Americans) and even smaller subdivisions within East Asians (Chinese vs Japanese).
It should all be calculated by some computer that objectively sorts everyone based on phenotype inherited from a common ancestor, and the computer should decide how many subgroups and how many subgroups with each subgroups, not the person running it.
Also:
4) So you deny that Rosenberg et al 2002 found that race is geographically structured?
“Using this illoical reasoning, Europeans are Africans since they’re descended from them, thus European accomplishments are African accomplishments.”
Straw man, I said nothing about achievements.
Though yes, we’re all descended from Africans. We can divide the human race into any arbitrary number of ethnic groups. Three, six, a hundred.
Presuming we’re choosing three corners of the triangle:
https://notpolitcallycorrect.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/i-6505999ec389c9cb434f204f598809d8-race.jpg?w=500&h=436
We’ll be splitting the human race in three. Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid.
Aka given the relation between East Asians and Natives, they are Mongoloid.
“Straw man, I said nothing about achievements.”
I never said you said anything about achievements. That’s my add-on.
“We can divide the human race into any arbitrary number of ethnic groups. Three, six, a hundred.”
Will they be meaningfully demarcated on the basis of genetic markers and only genetic markers like K=5 is?
“We’ll be splitting the human race in three. Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid.”
Oceanics are Asian?
“Aka given the relation between East Asians and Natives, they are Mongoloid”
Are Europeans African?
“Will they be meaningfully demarcated on the basis of genetic markers and only genetic markers like K=5 is?”, “Oceanics are Asian? “, “Are Europeans African?”
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Neighbor-joining_Tree.svg
I understand your point that the German classifications [Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid] are bad and wrong, but that’s what they’re called.
It’s accurate to call Europeans “primates of African origin”, yes, just as it’s accurate to call Europeans humans.
It’s accurate to call East Asians, Oceanics and Americans “primates of Asiatic origin”.
It’s accurate to call all of these people “homo-sapiens”.
“The point is he chose K = 6 because it gave results consistent with popular perceptions of race. Had he chose a smaller number, Native Americans and East Asians would have been lumped together.”
Source that “he chose K = 6 because it gave results consistent with popular perceptions of race”?
“So both K = 5 and K = 6 meet his criteria, showing there’s no right answer by his method”
K = 5 and 6 do meet the criteria, so what? Hardimon writes in note 52 that he takes no stand on the matter of whether or not the Kalash constitute a minimalist race or not—you know the criteria for minimalist races, so what is your view? (But since they’re not a continental-level population, they’re not a continental-level minimalist race.)
Either way, your contention (that K = 5 is arbitrary) is common from race-deniers; it doesn’t matter that it’s arbitrary, what matters is that these clusters are clearly demarcated which shows that the populations represented are genetically structured, i.e., that there is meaningul demarcation on the level of the gene regarding continental-level minimalist races
You’re aware that by contesting Rosenberg et al 2002 that you’re, in a way, denying that race exists? Is this the hill you want to die on PP?
“First the authors demonstrate that the clusters are robust, in that if sufficient data are used, the geographic distribution of the sampled individuals has little effect on the analysis. They then show that allele frequency differences generally increase gradually with geographic distance. However, small discontinuities occur as geographic barriers are crossed, allowing clusters to be produced. These results provide a greater understanding of the factors that generate the clusters, verifying that they arise from genuine features of the underlying pattern of human genetic variation, rather than as artifacts of uneven sampling along continuous gradients of allele frequencies.”—Rosenberg et al’s 2005 follow-up. (My emphasis)
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070
Also, another quote from Hardimon (2017: 90): “Constructing genetic clusters using microsatellites constitutes a nonarbitrary way of demarcating the boundaries of continental-level minimalist races. And the fact that it is possible to construct genetic clusters corresponding to continental-level minimalist races in a nonarbitrary way is itself a reason for thinking that minimalist race is biologically real.63”
And here is note 63 (Hardimon, 2017: 197): “Just to be perfectly clear, I don’t think that the results of the 2002 Rosenberg article bear on the question: Do minimalist races exist? That’s a question that has to be answered separately. In my view, the fundamental question in the philosophy of race on which the results of this study bear is whether minimalist race is biologically real. My contention is that they indicate that minimalist race (or more precisely, continental-level minimalist race) is biologically real if sub-Saharan Africans, Caucasians, East Asians, Amerindians, and Oceanians constitute minimalist races.”
But, to be clear, Rosenberg et al 2002 do demarcate 5 clusters which correspond to the 5 races of man, one being Amerindians, thus they form their own cluster, therefore they are distinct from East Asians, therefore, they are a separate race from East Asians.
So minimalist race is a genetically grounded, relatively superficial biological reality.
This is what philosopher of science Quayshawn Spencer calls “Blumenbachian populations”, and that when Americans talk about “race” they’re really talking about “Blumenbachian populations”:
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1086/677694
“It should all be calculated by some computer that objectively sorts everyone based on phenotype inherited from a common ancestor, and the computer should decide how many subgroups and how many subgroups with each subgroups, not the person running it.”
The explanation for the “arbitrary” K = 5 is not sufficient for you? Fact of the matter is, it shows that continental-level minimalist race is a biological reality; there is meaningful demarcation, so it shows that there are 5 primary races of man, not 3.
these clusters are clearly demarcated which shows that the populations represented are genetically structured
Your immediate family has a different genetic structure than your neighbour’s family. Is every household a race? If he had chosen K = 100 million, every group of siblings in America would be their own “race”. So when you say Native Americans are not part of the Mongoloid race, all you’re doing is arbitrarily choosing a higher K level, which forces the computer to divide big races into smaller races.
Fenoopy, and? That means we can logically group them together when genetic analyses group them apart?
Are you a racial skeptic (because racial naturalism is false, race does not exist), racial constructivist (that even if racial naturalism is false, races came into existence through human culture and action), racial population naturalist (that since racial naturalism falsely attributes differences in mental abilities, mores, etc to different races, there could still be significant biological differences between populations to denote the term race), racial eliminativist (recommending to discard the concept of race entirely), institutional constructivist (that institutions decide races which are specific to the society in question) or thin constructivist (that only superficial physical features denote race, which is in-line with the folk races)?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/race/
“Your immediate family has a different genetic structure than your neighbour’s family. Is every household a race? If he had chosen K = 100 million, every group of siblings in America would be their own “race”. So when you say Native Americans are not part of the Mongoloid race, all you’re doing is arbitrarily choosing a higher K level, which forces the computer to divide big races into smaller races.”
“Race” in America is a proper name for a set of population groups. Americans defer to the US Census Bureau regarding race. The Census Bureau refers to the Office of Managment and Budget (OMB). The OMB holds that races are “sets of” population groups, and these population groups are Oceanics, Caucasians, Native Americans, Africans, and East Asians. K = 5 then shows us that these clusters are genetically structured which shows that biological racial realism is true, since these populations are genetically structured we can call them “kinds”; these populations, furthermore, are interesting from a biological standpoint. The 4.3 percent of genetic variation that Rosenberg et al (2002) found is enough to denote Blumenbachian populations as real entities. Native Americans are a part of the Blumenbachian partition/minimalist race concept. Therefore they are a separate race from East Asians/”Mongoloids”.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/06/09/blumenbachian-partitions-and-mimimalist-races/
It’s not an arbitrary assumption:
Constructing genetic clusters using microsatellites constitutes a nonarbitrary way of demarcating the boundaries of continental-level minimalist races. And the fact that it is possible to construct genetic clusters corresponding to continental-level minimalist races in a nonarbitrary way is itself a reason for thinking that minimalist race is biologically real. (Hardimon, 2017: 90)
Also what’s your racial philosophy from the philosophies listed above? I shouldn’t have to say it but I’m a biological racial realist. Yourself?
Races are breeds, eg; a group of organisms having common ancestors and sharing certain traits that are not shared with other members of the same species.
Races are genetically isolated breeding populations that share visible physical features and morphologic traits which correspond to geographic ancestry.
(don’t post the other one. Wrong thread.)
How do we define the point where two populations become different enough to be considered two different races? There are 3 or 5 races, or any number really depending on the answer to this question. I choose the minimum as opposed to any arbitrary number between 3 and 7.6 billion.
“Since I know that chimps and people of European ancestry differ by about 86 IQ points,”
You don’t know this.
Yes I do. They took an intelligence test and I estimated their score on the IQ scale (white mean = 100; SD = 15)
“Multiplying these fractions by the 86 point IQ gap between Chimps and European”
This is just like your other one with Neanderthalss and “number of splits” I think it was. No justification for these arbitrary numbers.
The justification is that to the extent IQ differs as a function of genomic difference, populations that diff from whites only x% as much as chimps do, might be expected to have IQs x% as different as chimps are from whites. Simplistic? Yes. But it’s just intended as a rough guideline for what we might expect.
“Since whites by definition have an average IQ of 100”
What does it mean to have an “IQ if 100”?
It means you performed as well on a test of general intelligence as the typical white in the U.S., UK or Australia
“From these numbers we might conclude that it takes a genetic IQ of at least the mid 90s to independently invent agriculture”
1) Agriculture isn’t invented. It’s discovered.
No it was invented because it was a new method of getting food
2) The Maya discovered agriculture independently; no, they’re not Mongoloids.
Discussed elsewhere
Civilization was created independently on 5 locationns; none are European. But one is “Caucasoid” so Europeans would still get credit, I believe, in your eyes.
Caucasoids get credit, not Europeans specifically
“Yes I do”
What test? How do I know I can trust your estimate?
“It means you performed as well on a test of general intelligence”
So a test of middle class knowledge.
When I asked what 100 IQ means, I mean biologically and physiologically speaking.
“No it was invented”
That agriculture was “a new method of getting food” doesn’t mean it was invented.
“Discussed elsewhere”
The Maya aren’t Mongoloids. Calling them Mongoloids is an attempt to give Asians credit for something they didn’t do.
“Caucasoids get credit”
Either way, “Europeans” didn’t do it independently.
The Max Planck institute found they perform on most cognitive tasks equivalent to a Western 2.5-year-old. I merely equated that score to an IQ of 14. Not sure what you’re arguing? That the test wasn’t valid, or that my conversion wasn’t valid, or that the chimps would have scored higher with middle class culture 🙂
As for giving East Asians credit for stuff by calling Mayans Mongoloid, that’s a really bad argument. Should we not call them human either because that’s giving them credit for all human accomplishments?
So it’s a baseless assertion, re “chimpanzee IQ.”
It’s not a bad argument. Using Fenoopy’s logic, since Europeans are descended from Africans then European accomplishments are African accomplishments. Is the logic flawed or not?
So it’s a baseless assertion, re “chimpanzee IQ.”
How is it a baseless assertion? They took a test and got a result. Why would you even say that?
Your extrapolation is.
What about the extrapolation?
The number of “IQ points”; that genetic distance can be used along with “IQ scores”; your extrapolation to gage how the “genetic distance” of IQ scores between races; assuming genetic distance between races is additive to IQ differences; “assuming genetic divergence maps to chronological divergence in a linear way”; and “we might conclude that it takes a genetic IQ of at least the mid 90s to independently invent agriculture.”
“from a morphological perspective, they’re [Neanderthals] clearly not human”
Why not?
The number of “IQ points”;
That was explained in the chimpanzee IQ article I linked to.
that genetic distance can be used along with “IQ scores”;
IQ is a phenotype like any other. The more different the genotype, the more different the phenotype is expected to be ceteris paribus
assuming genetic distance between races is additive to IQ differences
That’s the simplest assumption. In science we start with simple models until evidence contradicts them.
“assuming genetic divergence maps to chronological divergence in a linear way”;
That was the assumption of the scientists I cited, not mine. Google molecular clock
and “we might conclude that it takes a genetic IQ of at least the mid 90s to independently invent agriculture.”
*might*
“from a morphological perspective, they’re [Neanderthals] clearly not human”
Why not?
Because all human groups living today inherited a common phenotype (round dome shaped cranium, face tucked under the brain case, small jaw, gracile build, etc) that Neanderthals didn’t inherit. We form a morphological cluster that excludes them.
“chimpanzee IQ article”
“If we assume that most cognitive abilities are like digit span”
“ceteris paribus”
Go on.
“That’s the simplest assumption”
No it’s not. The simplest assumption is the argument identifying IQ tests as tests of middle class knowledge/culture and skills. You assuming the genome is additive, and that genes “add up” like positive (and I assume negative) charges is your biggest unfounded assumption.
“assumption of the scientists I cited”
Source?
“*might*”
Why “*might*” it?
“We form a morphological cluster that excludes them.”
That doesn’t mean they’re not human.
No it’s not. The simplest assumption is the argument identifying IQ tests as tests of middle class knowledge/culture and skills.
So chimps score low because they lack middle class culture?
You assuming the genome is additive, and that genes “add up” like positive (and I assume negative) charges is your biggest unfounded assumption.
I’m assuming differences in genotype generally correlate with differences in phenotype in a linear way. Do you have examples to the contrary? If not there’s nothing constructive to say.
“So chimps score low because they lack middle class culture?”
The test in question in your article tests “intelligence”? How do you know?
“I’m assuming differences in genotype generally correlate with differences in phenotype in a linear way. Do you have examples to the contrary? If not there’s nothing constructive to say.”
The assumption is that genes and environment are additive; that genes and environment work independently of each other, that’s what h2 assumes, and this is wrong.
Agriculture is practiced by other species.
“The Maya aren’t Mongoloids. Calling them Mongoloids is an attempt to give Asians credit for something they didn’t do.”
No it isn’t? How do you jump to these conclusions? Does Mayans being Mongoloids give them ‘credit’ for Chinese civilization?
I would call your statement a straw man but I don’t even know what to call it tbh
Humans get credit for all Mayan accomplishments, but not vice versa. Doesn’t work laterally either. Basic logic and I don’t know why RR sometimes thinks in retarded, illogical ways, but other times thinks logically. Usually people are one or the other. Incapable of logic, or entirely logical.
Though tbh PP is the same, sometimes logical (in regards to science) but the moment the conversation moves off from HBD PP becomes filled with prejudice, dogma and illogical opinions. I think this is unique to the older generation
“Does Mayans being Mongoloids give them ‘credit’ for Chinese civilization?”
Does it? The point is, they cluster separately clearly separately. They’re meaningfully demarcated on the basis of genetic structure. Thus they’re a separate race.
Don’t call my statement anything at all. Because it’s not fallacious.
So non-european caucasians are different races than european caucasians**
“So chimps score low because they lack middle class culture?”
lmfao
Fenoopy yea it’s funny because no one can address any premise.
Pumpkin Person: “From these numbers we might conclude that it takes a genetic IQ of at least the mid 90s to independently invent agriculture”
All your IQ articles say Native Americans have an average IQ of 90. This treats all natives of the western hemisphere as the same. The Mayans invented a Callander that could predict eclipses. They had metal work.
Aztec Pyramid on Behance
Inca Stonework Peru
Native americans have today an average IQ around 90’s, but i doubt they had the same levels when ”they” built this.
How do you know? Or are you just telling stories?
Story telling.
Why is “they” in scarequotes? Did other people build it? Aliens?
Secrets
Tomorrow i tell you…
The Inca, Olmec, Aztecs, Mayans. They All had agriculture.
I don’t understand your unexplained assumptions here.
It’s very simple and straightforward. Whites and chimps differ by 86 IQ points, so if a group differs genetically from whites by only 10% as much as whites differ from chimps, we might expect their IQ to differ 10% as much, thus 8.6 points. Obviously that’s extremely simplistic because overall genomic differences will not perfectly predict genomic differences in any one trait like IQ, but it’s a rough guideline for what we might expect.
Excellent post. Can you do a more detailed one on all sub-races, such as South Asians, Australoids, North Africans, Persians, South-East Asians, Levantines, Arabs, Nordics, South Italians etc?
Also didn’t Benin independently create civilization? I think above 90s is required. Just it takes a certain population density.
That said, I was about to ask about Jewish genetic distance then realized none of the data I requested is likely to be available. Unfortunate.
No Benin did not (as far as I am aware). Only 5 locales created civilization independently.
These are the 5 acknowledged places of independent writing (Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, Mexico).
The only valid criterion for civilization is state formation and urbanization. It developed independently in West Africa.
West Africa was also very close to being added as a 6th place of independent writing with the Nsibidi script, which is considered proto-writing but was very close to maturity, only held back by the fact that it was aimed to transcript tonal languages and would have needed the complexity of the Chinese script as opposed to a simple alphabet.
Afrosapiens:
Nsibidi (in many of its forms) pretty much was a full script (or close to maturity as you say), in that it could be/was often used conceptually to convey syntactical language/sentences, etc—the definition of a true script (unlike simpler systems of pictograms like Ghanaian Akan adinkra or the Chippewa Indian middewiwin society symbols). It was (mostly—though perhaps not entirely) ideographic (like Chinese) rather than alphabetic, which may indeed is more conducive to tonal languages (such as are common in both West Africa and East Asianincluding Chinese).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nsibidi
Jm8 i think the reason blacks don’t credit for independent civilization is that accomplishments like Nsibidi happened so late that it’s hard to believe they were uninfluenced by non-blacks
There is absolutely no doubt that the Nsibidi is an independent development, Greater Igboland wasn’t in contact with any non-African culture before European contact, at that time the script already existed.
The only debatable thing is whether it’s a full script or proto-writing. I read here and there that it is a fluid system that really does transcript the entirety of various languages in Greater Igboland. And it survived in Haiti and Cuba, which indicates a significant amount of literate speakers. I don’t know exactly what distinguishes proto-writing from writing, but it seems the Nsibidi could possibly be added as a full script in the future.
North Africa has been in contact with West Africa from ancient times through the tuat oasis route I believe. I don’t know enough about Nsibidi script to say if it was absolutely an independent development or not.
Afrosapiens and PP:
It was not in contact with any non-African culture, and there is no evidence of outside influence on the script. Also, none of the peoples surrounding S.E Nigeria (greater Igboland) had scripts (it developed cut off from any other script on all sides). It was a development native/unique to the region, and suited to the native languages spoken. Nsibidi is unlike any other script and it shows no evidence of outside origins—its symbols are distinct and show evidence of having grown out of the local culture. And it’s ideographic/logographic-based (rather than alphabetic or syllabic), unlike almost script any other except Chinese. And it’s not too surprising that two regions where such scripts developed and ideograms were most important in local scripts (though not strictly the only such regions where some ideograms/logograms were present, as they also sometimes occurred along with alphabetic/syllabic elements in Central America and Egypt) were regions (S.E Nigeria and China) where tonal languages were spoken.
Correction: “(though not strictly the only such regions where some ideograms/logograms were present, as they also sometimes occurred along with alphabetic/syllabic elements in Central America, and some logograms were used—though not so much ideograms—in the often largely/heavily alphabetic system of Egypt)
The only part of West Africa that was in contact with North Africa was the Sahel, where they used the Ajami script, which is a modified version of the Arabic script used to write African languages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajami_script
Non-Islamic societies like those of Greater Igboland didn’t have exposure to the Ajami. One African script that has been developed under Islamic influence is the Bamum script, which was inspired by the Ajami script of the Hausa and Fulani conquerors of Adamawa in the late 19th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamum_script
Afrosapiens:
“Non-Islamic societies like those of Greater Igboland didn’t have exposure to the Ajami”
True. And the regions in between: like the Yoruba, the Nupe (before Islam, as some Nupe elements became islamized much later/relatively recently) and Igala (and others in Central and north Central Nigeria) did not use/adopt Ajami or any other script (or at least not until a lot later/quite recent times).
“And the regions in between (that is to say between the Igbo and the Ajami-using regions in the Sahel)…: (and others in Central and north Central Nigeria, and other regions intermediate) did not use/adopt Ajami or any other script (or at least not until a lot later/quite recent times).”
Why didn’t you post that on topic, non-insulting comment, PP?
i’m afraid RR’s road damascus came when i called him a guinea wop.
that is, he switched to anti-HBD when he realized his own group was regarded as…niggers…by many.
Nah. My “switch to anti-HBD” had nothing to do with realizing “[my] own group was regarded as…niggers…by many”, I don’t care what people think about “my group”.
If everyone must know, the book DNA Is Not Destiny had me begin to question it and Genes, Brains, and Human Potential: The Science and Ideology of Intelligence changed my mind on IQ completely. Nothing to do with Italians; nothing to do with Richard Lynn. See how dumb appealing to motive is?
Wait…is RR Sicilian? Or just Southern Italian?
I didn’t realize RR’s anti-HBDism is entirely based on his feels about negative attributes of his own group, and this shows motivated reasoning. Very sad!
He should know that if a black man can accept HBD (and I’m not the only one) then anyone can!
“Wait…is RR Sicilian? Or just Southern Italian?”
South. Maybe some Sicilian. I don’t know nor do I care.
“I didn’t realize RR’s anti-HBDism is entirely based on his feels about negative attributes of his own group, and this shows motivated reasoning. Very sad!”
You didn’t know this because it’s false. I explained why I became an “anti-HBDer”, i.e., anti-IQ-ist.
Your appeals to motivation don’t cut it here.
“He should know that if a black man can accept HBD (and I’m not the only one) then anyone can!”
I “accepted HBD” (IQ) before, I read new information that changed my view. It has nothing to do with “motivated reasoning”. The switch in my views did not occur because of Richard Lynn nor Italian IQ.
Did it occur when you realized your SAT score equated to an IQ of 60?
Of course I don’t consider the SAT a very good IQ test. Just the fact that it classifies you as mildly retarded is evidence of its flaws.
But if you’re ever on death row, you can try to use your SAT score to save yourself from execution. It’s illegal to execute those below IQ 70 in some states.
Wikipedia: Appeal to motive is a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer. It can be considered as a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument. As such, this type of argument may be an informal fallacy
I used to believe it. I accepted Lynn’s “IQ clines” from North to South within and between countries. I then read new information that changed my viewpoints. I know it’s hard to believe, because most people never change their views, but believe it.
“Did it occur when you realized your SAT score equated to an IQ of 60?”
Not at all. My current (past and future) views on things have absolutely nothing to do with my perception of myself, my accomplishments nor how others see me.
“But if you’re ever on death row, you can try to use your SAT score to save yourself from execution. It’s illegal to execute those below IQ 70 in some states.”
Haha. I’m not a criminal so I don’t have to worry about that.
You might be able to use it to get into the special Olympics and compete in the bodybuilding category? 🙂
Haha. This may be the funniest thing I’ve seen you say. I’d never do something like that because I’d be just like the “transgendered MtF” weightlifter who blew away the competition (unshockingly):
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/16/preliminary-thoughts-on-male-to-female-transgenders-in-sports/
This one is my favorite though:
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/16/preliminary-thoughts-on-male-to-female-transgenders-in-sports/
Whoops wrong link. This is the second:
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/16/preliminary-thoughts-on-male-to-female-transgenders-in-sports/
I got all Ds and Es during high-school because existential crisis, depression, nihilism, infinite questions, finite answers, typical teenager stuff. College 95%+ every exam and assignment. Judging based on academic achievement is retarded. These kind of judgements are old timer judgements.
SAT-IQ says 142
but culture fair test say 92
purely working things out in my head (I have low capacity)
Any person who’s gifted with a functional brain knows IQ is complete bullshit. High IQ societies were meant to become influential think tanks and to publish insightful research. None of this ever happened, and the founders of Mensa quickly realized that the members were underachieving dorks in need of validation who come for a circle jerk, just like you guys. Meanwhile, the whole world cringes and laughs at you IQtards.
Yes, Mensa are circle-jerking morons, however, Blacks are stupid. Sorry. The whole world cringes and laughs at Haiti.
No, Fenoopy, no one laughs and cringes at poverty. And no educated person thinks Haiti is poor because of its black population. Jamaica, Barbados or the Bahamas have black populations and aren’t poor, they’re even richer than your beloved Berbers who literally get shitted on by Arabs in their own countries, they really laugh and cringe at you guys.
And even IQtards wouldn’t say blacks are stupid, the smartest kid in Britain who allegedly scored 162 on the mensa test is a black boy with a Nigerian sounding name.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/britains-smartest-schoolboy-11-year-old-boy-4056609
Try harder.
Real Port-au-Prince here.
Lovely.
LOL! The world laughs and cringes at Negroes. Poor little Haitian orphan.
Only in your retarded incel world. In real life, people love our swag, copy our music and admire our athletes. We have the largest number of billionaire entertainers.
What people actually laugh and cringe at is the only 193k 4chan weaklings who’ve watched the video but piss their pants in front of a black person in real life.
LOL! That’s how the world sees Blacks.
193K views = the world.
LMAO! 4chan math.
It’s a shame they didn’t show them the average Black: starving in Africa! Sad!
The average African is not starving.
obviously this isn’t an exact science OBVIOUSLY but it’s good to get a general idea, sub-human to start breaking it down instead of understanding the general concept/idea and taking it as it is
Agriculture isn’t invented, it’s discovered. West Africans have been domesticating crops like Yams since 8000BCE.
This. There is no such thing as “inventing agriculture”. People domesticate plants. Yams, African rice, sorghum, millet and kola nut were independently domesticated in West Africa. It’s unclear where plantains come from though. They seem to be of south-east Asian origin, but they were grown in West Africa quite some time before there could have been contacts between the two regions or transmission from Austronesians via the Malagasy and the Bantu to West Africans. So it’s quite an enigma. There are no signs that Africa has native species of bananas.
A question to redacted, swank, philosopher and others here.
If you want to create a super race, by that i dont mean take over the world kind of race. But a race that is good looking, with big brains, athletic..atleast moderately enough….they should be able to play outdoor games every weekends. Have less body hair, less body odor, fair skinned, but dont age easily, IQ minimum 120, which ethnicities ,,,,who would you choose and in what percentages. Ofcurse all this is voluntary, and people can leave if they dont want to be part of it.
I would go to universities, colleges, companies, choose the brightest IQ above 120 with big brains and also tall, athletic and good looking, from….central european whites, blacks, southern europeans with the least body hair, ashkenaji jews. some central asians, west/north-west middle eastern… north middle east, like syrians, turks, iranians, kurds, northern iranian …semi whites… as these people also may not age as fast as other whites. Among these the ones with least body hair also. I would also choose east asians… big brains, ageless skin, lowest body hair. I will also throw in least hairy fair skinned indians from north-west india, pak, afghanistan if they fullfill the above criteria.
And among all these people i would screen for things like aspergers, autism, SCD, and other related things. Shizo or schizoid tendencies, pot belly, thigh width, lack of athleticism, risk of hypertension, diabetes, hair loss, myopia/hyperopia, allergies, lactose intolerance or other intolerances, gum/oral health, sleep problems, prone to addictions like drugs, cigarrettes, alcoholism, anxiety, depression etc so on. Ofcourse all this is voluntary, and people can leave if they dont want to be a part of it.
And no offense to anybody here if any body of you here has some of these…i have most if not all of these, issues and even more severely.
So from the above group how many would i find?..300 million men and women? I will also invite world top 2 players in chess, tennis, football, go etc. And everybody within reproductive age who have 180 or more IQ even if they dont fullfill all the above criteria. And people above 200 even if they dont fullfil any criteria
I would introduce them to english if some of them cant speak it. After they become very proficient, I will urge them to marry within the group if they are not married or in a relationship. After a generation they will become 600 million.
I would make south africa president an offer he cant refuse and make him leave southafrica. I will settle all these people there.
Will they turn south africa again into a first world country? Or a global superpower?. Of course all countries should be in dealing terms/trade with them. They can also allow immigration of others into their country, but keep it to a minimum. Trade and other relations/exchanges, with other countries shall go on.
Any suggestions? which groups to include, which to exclude? which filtering criteria to include/ exclude.