Is truth relative?

[John Scott]

Amiss, not amis.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Amiss, not amis.

Hell! I've been spelling that wrong my whole life. lol - thanks John.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Atom

Hell! I've been spelling that wrong my whole life. lol

I love to misspell input (as "imput").

[Atom]

Originally Posted by John Scott

I love to misspell input (as "imput").

Yes, I've noticed that.

I'll bet an ape would have noticed that too.

[John Scott]

Since apes are not able to recognize "if" statements, no.

But you want to know why I do that? It's because of Japanese. In Japanese, if an "n" is placed before "p", or "b", it's pronounced "m" instead of "n".

[Atom]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Since apes are not able to recognize "if" statements, no.

I was being sarcastic. Darn good point though.

Originally Posted by John Scott

But you want to know why I do that? It's because of Japanese. In Japanese, if an "n" is placed before "p", or "b", it's pronounced "m" instead of "n".

I see. Interesting.

But try telling an ape that.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Atom

But try telling an ape that.

I explained it, but he wasn't interested. He just kept laughing and saying "bamama".

[Atom]

Originally Posted by John Scott

I explained it, but he wasn't interested. He just kept laughing and saying "bamama".

[Zap]

Originally Posted by Atom

If apes were smarter than us but couldn't prove that to us, they wouldn't be smarter than us.

Most likely, but not necessarily.
It could be our inability to understand apenese that gets in the way of our understanding.
We're not infallible.

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

Stick a chimpanzee in front of a computer and ask him to communicate anonymously via the internet with, oh I don't know, let's say, Zap on this forum. Then do the same with a human being with a very low intelligence, perhaps no schooling or education, perhaps a person that we would not recognise as having a detectable intelligence.

...to replace me or the chimp?

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

The question; can Zap tell the difference if he has no indication which he/she is communicating with.

I'd like to think I'd know the difference, but then again, you guys don't yet know I'm a chimp, do ya?
Cat's out of the bag now, huh.

[sitetutor]

some truth is relative, other truth is cut and dry.
But then again, maybe we´re not meant to find out the truth about too many things. Maybe this life is just an illusion. Who knows

[Atom]

Originally Posted by Zap

Most likely, but not necessarily.
...

Ok try this one: If apes were smarter than us but couldn't prove that to us, they couldn't be smarter than us.

Yes, no, maybe?

[robert s.]

Originally Posted by Atom

Ok try this one: If apes were smarter than us but couldn't prove that to us, they couldn't be smarter than us.

Yes, no, maybe?

hmmm - how do you proof to an oyster that you are smarter than her? you can crush her, eat her, destroy her - which makes you bigger, stronger and more violent.....but how do you proof smarter??

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by robert s.

hmmm - how do you proof to an oyster that you are smarter than her? you can crush her, eat her, destroy her - which makes you bigger, stronger and more violent.....but how do you proof smarter??

"Smart" is not really an ideal word here. But I think we can agree that "smartness" has an ability to discern how to best act in order to serve one's own interests. If that is agreed upon, then apes and chimps definitely fail to qualify as abundantly "smart".

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by John Scott

You you define "reason" as "non-rational instinct"? Humans choose bananas after rational evaluation of the merits of bananas in relation top their hunger. Chimps choose bananas because they are instinctually programmed to.

How do you explain chimps learning to use tools from other chimps and from trial and error in the wild? Because they do that. So do crows and orangutans. You can argue that a baby chimp imitates its parent, but somewhere along the line a parent must have figured it out. In fact it takes more than imitation to succeed with some of the tools I've seen chimps use.

For instance it takes reasoning to work out how long a stick to break off to stick into a termite mound. It takes reasoning somewhere along the line to work out that if you wet the stick, the termites stick to it when you place it down a hole. Of course there is no point in pushing it down any hole either.

Is that all based on instinct?

[Atom]

Originally Posted by robert s.

hmmm - how do you proof to an oyster that you are smarter than her? you can crush her, eat her, destroy her - which makes you bigger, stronger and more violent.....but how do you proof smarter??

My statement in the above quote concerns apes proving to humans, not humans proving to apes.