NIMH: Could it have actually happened? - Thorn Valley Forum Archive

NIMHmaniac

31-10-2004 08:59:18

I'll have to admit that I was one of the "unsure" votes cast. However, this does not mean that I am not open to the possibility of such a phenomenon occuring. After all, isn't evolution taking place all the time?? Who's to say that somewhere down the road, perhaps a few thousand or even million years from now (provided the planet is still around and has not been completely obliterated by our wanton destruction of the environment) that a super intelligent race of rats could not flourish. The reason that I say this is because of an article which I believe was in "TIME" Magazine shortly after I saw Secret of NIMH for the very first time. The subject matter of the article was about (believe it or not) some experiments that were being conducted on some lab mice to make them bigger, in some cases, the mice grew to twice their mormal size if I remember correctly. Now I do not think that one has to stretch the imagination too far to begin to wonder just what would the consequences be if a few of these "lab specimens" escaped and began to mingle with the local wild population. The larger lab mice could indeed impart their knowledge and exprience along with their altered DNA and we could very well witness a true SON type story unfolding right before our very eyes. That is of course, if we let them. Too often in our selfishness and greed, we have have chosen to wipe out entire cultures and societies simply because they were "different" or were in the way of progress so to speak. :D :D

Martin Siedow

10-11-2004 12:13:26

I think that there could be a colony of super-intelligent rats and mice somewhere on earth, even if the possibility is rather low.
Maybe the genes of some rodents were altered in an experiment, maybe some slipped in via an alien spacecraft that landed or crashed on our planet (even our not so intelligent rats and mice have the capability to follow humankind to every corner of the world, including the antarctic outposts), maybe they have evolved normally and then proved Albert Einsteins theory about wormholes back through the fourth dimension (time) to be true.
Just to make it clear: This is no joke but my serious thoughts.

spiritpanther87

11-11-2004 00:29:27

8) Finally, someone who voted yes!...I was beginning to think I was the only one....

I too believe it to be so, and therefore agree with you completly...and by the way, thanks for voting and for posting martin... It takes real courage to go against what seems to be the prevailing opinion....

If you are interested, I have a little theory....What if these superintelligent mice weren't just stowaways on an alien ship....What if they -were- the aliens?....Who is to say that there wouldn't be a race of alien mice out there?...I cannot emphasize more the importance of "what if?"...Without it, we would all be a mindless herd....And now for the kicker...It's all true!
:wink:
If you were joking, then I'm insane! <bonks self on the head> :D

And now for the random quote of the week:

"If you don't believe the sun will rise, stand alone and greet the coming night, in the last remaining light..."--Audioslave

That's it for now... :)
Ltr!...Sp87 ﭿﮥﮭﮢﯜﯥﷲ

Procyon

12-11-2004 09:06:57

I'm sorry to do this, but I'm going to have to say 'no' I don't think there could be a colony of super intelligent rats out there (at least not in the way that they were in book or film. One must define intelligence, though I'm not getting into that because it's a very long and boring arguement). Here's the reasoning:

There's a great book, The Writer's Guide to Creating a Science Fiction Universe (George Ochoa & Jeff Osier) and in that they've got a section about creating aliens. They say how small creatures, like rats and mice, have too major obstacles to developing intelligence and civilisation. Firstly, due to their size, they lose body heat faster than larger mammals and so must devote more time to simply staying alive, and not developing higher intelligence. The second and more important obstacle, again linked to their size, is that their brains are simply not large enough to accommodate human-like intelligence. They physically don't have enough neurons to regulate their bodies and create the neurological structures needed for intelligent thought. Okay. There's the nay saying.

What you were saying about aliens is interesting. The writers of the above book point out that silicon can approximate carbon as the building block of life. They also point out that it is theoretically possible for a brain to develop from a silicon base, essentially a biological computer chip that would require less space and thus would enable smaller creatures to be rather more intelligent without having massive heads. Far fetched I grant you, but it is a big universe out there, and anything could happen. However these creatures wouldn't be rats, they'd be something else and so doesn't help the case of Terran rats.

One thing that is promising though. Apparently rats never stop growing. They simply get bigger and bigger until they die. Their lifespans do stop them from getting to big, but if one could extend their lifespan (something that is not totally beyond modern science as it has been partially successful using simple organisms such as a type of tape worm) and allow them to get quite large (and assuming they can find enough food to eat and avoid trigger happy, yet irate farmers) they could in theory get large enough to have some brain space left over for higher thought.

Hope that all makes sense. In summary I don't think there is a chance at the moment for a rat civilisation, though the potential is there. But like Jam said, how would we ever know one way or the other?

spiritpanther87

12-11-2004 15:20:35

Here's a news story I found while looking up info about the subject....

Scientists create big-brained mice

Altering a single gene gives mice human-like brains. Mice with the altered gene developed large, folded brains, right, that looked like human brains... big brains... brains so large they have to fold up, much as human brains do, to fit inside the skull, researchers said Thursday.

IT IS NOT yet clear whether the mice are smarter -- they were all killed soon after birth -- but the scientists said they were surprised that one gene had such a strong effect and said they would do further experiments. "I know the most interesting question was whether they learned to play Mozart but we don't know," Dr. Christopher Walsh of Brigham and Womens Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston... said.... a protein called beta-catenin, which helps control cell division... a regulatory switch.... So Walsh and Chenn genetically engineered mice, adding extra beta-catenin that would become overactive specifically in brain tissue.... To their surprise, they report in Friday's issue of the journal Science, the mice developed large, folded brains that looked like human brains.

"We didn't expect to see the folds. We sort of expected the cerebral cortex would be big. We didn't expect it to be so big," Walsh said.... "The thinking power of the cerebral cortex is determined by surface area. It is basically a sheet," said Walsh.... His team will also genetically engineer more mice and let them develop, to see if they develop normally, and if they become more, or less, intelligent than normal...

I found this -very- interesting....

And now for another quote:

"Without chaos there can be no order."--unknown

Peace be with you,
Sp87 ﭿﮥﮭﮢﯜﯥﷲ

Procyon

12-11-2004 16:05:15

That is indeed quite interesting. The surface area of the human cerebral cortex is increased greatly due to the folds. You can usually tell how advanced a creature is (or at least, how advanced it's brain is) by looking at how 'wrinkly' the surface of it's brain is. The more folds, the smarter the animal should be. Apes and dolphins have very wrinkled brains. Reptiles and other 'older' creatures (mammals, in evolutionary terms, could be thought of as younger than reptiles) have smoother brains, reminiscent of lower mammals amongst which are the rats. If they've found a way to overdevelop the brains of rodents (ie. give them more folds) this should certainly make them smarter. Do you have a link for this research paper, Spirit Panther? I would be very interested to read it. More interesting still would be the results of intelligence tests using these mice. Guess the "Secret of NIMH" is not too far fetched after all. I still don't think they could develop the sort of intelligence they are portrayed with in the books and film though... :D

spiritpanther87

13-11-2004 09:13:02

Here's the link that was given for the original story, but it seems to have expired..http://msnbc.msn.com/news/782312.asp[]http://msnbc.msn.com/news/782312.asp

Although most of the news sites have taken the article down, I managed to track down one that still had it. Here it is :D ...

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20021116/bob8.asp[]http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20021116/bob8.asp

This might be the results of a similar experiment, or it could be a more recent experiment done as a follow-up on the one talked about in the story above...

It's the second article on the page, so you'll need to scroll down a bit...
The other article is pretty interesting as well, if you're into such things...

I'm going to make a copy of that webpage just in case they too decide to remove it, though...

Later... and hope that helped...
Sp87 ﭿﮥﮭﮢﯜﯥﷲ

Procyon

13-11-2004 12:01:04

Thanks Spirit Panther. Both articles are fascinating reading (I thought so anyway). Sounds like they still have a number of problems to work through, but I didn't realise they had got this far with this sort of research. As I said before, maybe NIMH isn't as far fetched as I first thought. Although I doubt the brains are yet big enough, one spooky thing I picked out was that it said the big brained mice that survive are more aggressive (Jenner anyone?). I'll have to keep an eye out for further information on this sort of thing...

Also, I forgot to say earlier: good question Spirit Panther!

spiritpanther87

14-11-2004 16:11:08

You are quite welcome Procyon...and by the way, thanks for posting!

I was thinking the mice were more aggressive becaused they realized they were being held against thier will, but thats just my opinion.

Yet another quote:

Confusion keeps me sane.--Sp87

C ya next time.
Sp87

NIMHmaniac

14-11-2004 18:56:47

After reading the quote in SpiritPanther's reply, I have to admit that I now more than ever have cause to wonder about the possibility of a super intellient race of rats/mice coming into existance. As I mentioned before, there was an article in (I believe) "Time" Magazine about some experiments being conducted on some lab mice to make them grow bigger. Combine this with the experiments being done on their brains as mentioned in SpiritPanther's reply and you have the makings of a true SON story come to life. Can you imagine what would happen if even just two of these "specimens" either accidently or on purpose, escaped into the wild. Super-sized, super-intelligent mice could very well be the result. And this would not be the first time that man's folly has brought forth a genetic mutation that we may or may not be able to control... Remember the African Killer Bees??

spiritpanther87

26-01-2005 13:40:00

Hello all!

Just got a little update as to the possibility of a NIMH scenario playing itself out. Those former links were a few years old, and what scientists are doing now is just scary! :shock:

Here's a link, so you can see for yourselves.[=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0125_050125_chimeras.html]see for yourselves.

Till next time, Keep the Light...
Sp87 ﭿﮥﮭﮢﯜﯥﷲ

Whiskers57

26-01-2005 18:26:08

Yes it is , but I do like professor`s cheshire stand on the "species integrity" and being careful in this research matters . As he said "the risk of exceeding the limit before it could be recognized"(sounds like a story we all know :? ) and hopefuly setting limits for such types of of research of such "chimeras".

NIMHmaniac

27-01-2005 17:29:10

Hey Spiritpanther,

That article that you linked to in your last reply was extremely thought-provoking and I must admit somewhat disturbing. The thought that in this day and age such experimentation is still being conducted is nothing less than apalling. I realize that we may always need some form of vivisection, but I must ask if this is not going overboard.

Peace :shock:

Tzolkin

13-03-2005 02:47:23

Indeed. Sort of makes me wonder what they are really after when they do these experiments. What -are- they after? Can't be anything good, that's for sure. Things spawned from pride and greed rarely are. Perhaps if they succeed we can use it for good, however.. That is, if they do not use it on us first. :shock:

--Tzolkin
ﺶﺞﻚﷲ

Cluny

27-04-2005 13:57:44

Well,........... I would say with the technology these days, we could probably go as far as making the rats a little smarter and live longer, but I hardly think we could make them able to read and write. wink

leejakobson

27-04-2005 17:28:34

however it would be interesting to have another species fighting for the earths control other than us . especialy if it was because of our own doing.

maxx

27-04-2005 18:00:30

however it would be interesting to have another species fighting for the earths control other than us . especialy if it was because of our own doing.

Robots and other cyber-intelligent beings are already in the place of that. Scientists are spooked that if they were to come across a discovery to enhance cybernetic intelligence for military/other purposes, they have no idea of the outcome of it all, or how such a being would react.

The same thing could very well happen to animals, just maybe not at this time or year. Who knows what science may come across next.

Justin Wilson

19-05-2005 18:15:18

Opps double posted when I accidently clicked quote instead of edit.

Justin Wilson

20-05-2005 16:28:07

:lol: You have no idea. Some people here, maybe you should e-mail Nimh, from a different computer and completely new e-mail adress with all fake info about yourselves in the information requirements and ask them:

"Dear NIMH: Has anyone been createing highly inteligent rats and when they escaped you geneticly created loyal cat sized rats with tracking devices under their skin to hunt down these rats and destroy them when you found out where they live? (and anything else you might want to add)"

Trust me, you might get a reply you'll least expect if you think the rats of Nimh don't exsist. How I know this is because I and a few other friends have gifts to see things (remote veiwing I think it's called) and then another friend of mine that lives in the area around a wild-life refuge where he had found one of these cat sized rats and killed it with a 2X4 after he had his seemingly proof and I told him to try to help the rats over there.

I don't care much for what others think of me but if you have any guts, do what I told you guys with multiple people doing this and it might help to get that unexpected reply if multiple people e-mail Nimh.

Also do not mention how you found any of this out, less they know about us the better. Tell them that a small group scattered across the country know about this and will expose this if the rats are not left alone.

It's also confirmed that the rats that are highly inteligent are not evil and just trying to live their lives. The one guy in that area is doing his best to protect the rats and if he catches any adults in that wild-life refuge he said to me himself that he wouldn't hesitate to kill them to keep the rats safe.

There's also a web site somewhere that I can't find right now that confirms that Nimh had done experiments on human volentires and some of them had died. If they can kill humans in experiments there's probably no bounderies as to what they can do to animals.

The rats are not the ones found in the movie but it's confirmed that the leader of the rats is named Tyler Jonson and he is a little younger then Justin was in the movie.

If anyone thinks I'm crazy prove it, by questioning Nimh.

Tzolkin

29-09-2005 12:12:24

:lol: You have no idea.

Actually I do, or I would have not started this thread. :wink:

--Tzolkin
ﺶﺞﻚﷲ

Tenken

29-09-2005 15:02:32

The second and more important obstacle, again linked to their size, is that their brains are simply not large enough to accommodate human-like intelligence. They physically don't have enough neurons to regulate their bodies and create the neurological structures needed for intelligent thought. Okay. There's the nay saying.

You have a point on this, but not all is the brain size. Think about genius like Einstein or Isaac Newton, their brains ar not bigger than the average and so they didn't have an average intelligence. And in a IQ exam they don't measure the size of the brain! :lol:
But one thing to think: we are so "intelligent" :roll: but we only use mostly the 10% of our brain capacity, that could be applied the rats and mice.
Mmmh...
What if they could use the 100% :?

Matthias

29-09-2005 19:02:55

I'm afraid that I must correct you here; the whole notion of "only 10%" is, at least, an exaggeration, and at most a perfidious and unfortunate mass-produced misconception, stemming from the public's preoccupation with self-actualization and the perception of so-called innate, untapped potential. There is no "missing 90%" In fact, pretty much every sector of the brain has some use, just like every part of the body has a use (even the appendix, which apparently is linked to the lympathic system and helps to fight infection). It's just that those sectors are not being used all the time, or in ways which can be detected with current methods.

This scenario ought to illustrate my point: We've all heard about people who've received brain injuries of some sort. One story involves a young man who had suffered head trauma and was accumulating blood inside his braincase. Emergency personnel performed a risky procedure to relieve pressure on his brain before he died; they used a small drill to make a hole in his skull. Unfortunately, they also scratched the brain a little bit, and when he returned home, his family reported that he was...different, somehow. Now, if only such a small part of his brain was affected, then why were there these drastic changes?

I agree, though, that size in relation to brain capacity is also irrelevant. After all, many of the world's great geniuses had brains smaller than average. Also, one must remember that it is surface area not volume, which is more correctly attributed to brain capacity. The multiple, complex folds inside the human brain may be a primary factor of our intelligence; the rats of NIMH most definitely have such folds in their brains as well. Even then, we cannot account for intelligence of simple measurements; much of the mystery of intelligence still remains even after many centuries of development in scientific thought.

Anyways, that's my two cents. Hopefull,y you can find some use for theme. I'll see you around :)

mythril

29-09-2005 20:17:34

i say that mice are already smarter than us, we're only the third smartest lifeform on earth any way, mice and dolohins are smarter than us.

yeah, im reading the Hichhickers Guide to the Galaxy.

Tzolkin

30-09-2005 04:50:53

Hmm, Matthias, I think I remember posting an article about an experiment done on mice to make their brains bigger. These big-brained mice had many more folds in their brains than ordinary mice. They were killed before they could show any signs of intelligence (scientist were afraid they'd be able to claim human rights maybe?) but it does make one wonder what would happen if an experiment combining the two different experiments (the one that increased seratonin and the big brain one)...

On a different note, I have a theory. Perhaps our intelligence is not in our brains, but in our minds, and our brains just act as a conduit through which the mind functions. If this is the case, different animals would show different levels of 'book smarts' as I call it based on their brain's ability to relay the information rather than size or surface area or whatnot. More 'programs', say for speech recognition and reading, would require more neural circuitry, but the main factor would be efficiency. So, by this we can argue that all animals are pretty much equal as far as their minds intelligence goes, but differ by their brain's ability to provide different perspectives. To make one's brain more efficient, all that is required is to make it easier for new 'programs' to form, and make it easier for those new programs to become permanent...

Dunno if that made much sense but that's my thoughts, for now.

Tortillian

30-09-2005 14:49:40

If you are interested, I have a little theory....What if these superintelligent mice weren't just stowaways on an alien ship....What if they -were- the aliens?....Who is to say that there wouldn't be a race of alien mice out there?...I cannot emphasize more the importance of "what if?"...Without it, we would all be a mindless herd....And now for the kicker...It's all true!

Hehe, no offense, but this is strangely reminiscent of Douglas Adams' "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." :wink:

I'll not discredit the possibility, but based on several different tangents of my beliefs, I'm voting "no."

Tzolkin

30-09-2005 17:15:38

Well, it might be reminiscent of that, but at the time, I (formerly spiritpanther87) hadn't even heard of hitchhiker's guide. :wink:

Though, I have at least seen the movie now, and do agree it is reminiscent of it.

--Tzolkin

Matthias

30-09-2005 18:44:47

i say that mice are already smarter than us, we're only the third smartest lifeform on earth any way, mice and dolohins are smarter than us.

Hmm...by what standard are you measuring intelligence? How are they smarter than us? Unless you provide us with some definite basis, I'm afraid that I find little credence in your statement.

I assume, however, that you speak of the unfortunate fact of human folly and foolishness. While I myself must admit this sad truth, I believe that the stupidity of Man is only due to the misuse of our inherant faculties rather than a real lack. Humans, unlike other animals, possess the capability to make fully free and entirely conscious choices (other animals rely mostly on instinct and natural impulse to react to stimuli). While such an ability can lead to folly and fallacy in Man, it can also lead (and ought to lead) to wisdom and charity. It is all a matter of choice; we can choose to do good, or ill.

Perhaps our intelligence is not in our brains, but in our minds, and our brains just act as a conduit through which the mind functions.

If you mean by "mind" the seat and source of intelligence in contradistinction to the brain as simply a physical organ, then I very much agree with your assessment. The mind as an operative entity is very much a seperate thing from the tool, which is the physical brain. THe impulses and processes of the brain, while whole and complete in themselves, still require external initiation to execute its functions. A working car still needs a driver.

If this is the case, different animals would show different levels of 'book smarts' as I call it based on their brain's ability to relay the information rather than size or surface area or whatnot. More 'programs', say for speech recognition and reading, would require more neural circuitry, but the main factor would be efficiency. So, by this we can argue that all animals are pretty much equal as far as their minds intelligence goes, but differ by their brain's ability to provide different perspectives.

Now, here is something to which I must show some reservation. While it is true that augmenting the physical neural capacities of various animals enables them to perform a greater variety of tasks with greater skill, I must draw the line as a caution against absolute application. What I mean is that the maximal capabilities of a creature are inherant in its own nature, its state of being, to use other terms. We can augment Toby the terriers brain as much as we want, but he still would plateau at some point by the very fact that he is a dog. This inherant nature of things cannot be described in physical terms, for the essential nature of anything is, by definition, immaterial.

This, of course, brings us to the question: What about the rats of NIMH? Well, that is an interesting case. Physical augmentation alone is not enough to produce a self-conscious, moral being from a lower creature. Such processes can provide the proper tools and capabilities, but the actual ability must be gained either from the nature of the creature or from some External Source...

Just a question, Tzolkin: have you ever undertaken any formal or informal study of philosophy? It seems to me that you would benefit from it greatly; it'll really help you with all of your profound musings (and they are profound).

Anyways, I hope that was beneficial. I'll see you around :)

Tortillian

30-09-2005 22:19:24

Ultimately, both from some religious and base science-ethics standpoints, humans have always been regarded as the sole being in existence (aside from God and His angels) with the ability to reason.

Without reason, intelligence is only measurable by several degrees and planes of memory and association. Instinct comes into play as an animal substitute for reason by utilizing natural inhibitions and tendencies to further an individual creature's own existence and that of (in some cases) its young.

The rats (and mice) of NIMH were also ultimately written by a staunch evolutionary sympathizer. Remember when, in Nicodemus' account of their escape and "coming to be" for Mrs. Frisby, we were enlightened to a theory that prairie dogs have such advanced societies that, had we not "come down from the trees to dominate the earth" and evolve into superior beings, prairie dogs would have taken over. :?

You'll have to make your own ultimate choice as to what you believe, but it's important to know the the National Institute of Mental Health in its past has only done testing similar to the kind mentioned in "Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH" with a serum of shark proteins injected into the brain and spinal cord, and it didn't have the returns they were looking for. Please be sure that theory is separated from observation is separated from scientific fact is separated from science fiction. :wink:

Matthias

01-10-2005 12:55:04

Ultimately, both from some religious and base science-ethics standpoints, humans have always been regarded as the sole being in existence (aside from God and His angels) with the ability to reason.

Without reason, intelligence is only measurable by several degrees and planes of memory and association. Instinct comes into play as an animal substitute for reason by utilizing natural inhibitions and tendencies to further an individual creature's own existence and that of (in some cases) its young.

I, of course, have assumed this from the very beginning. I brought up the notion of essential nature in order to differentiate Man from other animals (like how he has free will, for example) and also to show why such differences exist.

Upon further reflection, perhaps I should have been clearer with regards to the notion of intelligence. Contrasting memory/association with true rationality would have been good, as you have done above. I haven't delved into the question much, which is probably why my response sounded awkward.

The rats (and mice) of NIMH were also ultimately written by a staunch evolutionary sympathizer. Remember when, in Nicodemus' account of their escape and "coming to be" for Mrs. Frisby, we were enlightened to a theory that prairie dogs have such advanced societies that, had we not "come down from the trees to dominate the earth" and evolve into superior beings, prairie dogs would have taken over.

I've somewhat suspected this point-of-view as well. In fact, I recall reading O'Brian's Newbery Award acceptance speech (It can be found here[=http://www.thornvalley.com/library/articles/mrs_frisby/newbery-speech.php]here), where he mentions being influenced by a biology tract entitled This Simian World (among others), which is as radically Darwinistic as you can get. Still, the author's personal views don't affect my interpretation the slightest. No matter how much the neo-Darwinistic crowd would like to deny it, any progressive development of organisms ultimately has to follow a set of ordered principles which come from an Intelligent Agent; pure randomness is not an argument that can stand.

You'll have to make your own ultimate choice as to what you believe, but it's important to know the the National Institute of Mental Health in its past has only done testing similar to the kind mentioned in "Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH" with a serum of shark proteins injected into the brain and spinal cord, and it didn't have the returns they were looking for. Please be sure that theory is separated from observation is separated from scientific fact is separated from science fiction.

Don't worry;, I'm not that far over the edge just yet :wink: In fact, I have a rather definite view of how reality works, but I digress. I just happen to enjoy applying the principles of logic and philosophy to hypothetical or imaginary situations, somewhat like a thought experiment through extrapolation. In this case, the question was: If the Rats of NIMH really existed, then what is the mechanism that infused in them their rational intelligence? As I have deduced, such a profound change, not just in their bodies, but in their very natures, would have required special intervention by Providence. After all, does He not breathe an immortal soul into every human newly conceived?

I apologize if my argument seems unusual, but I happen to believe that, in the immortal words of Hamlet, "There are more things in this world...than are dreamt of in your philosophy." ('Your' referring to people in general; I know that your 'philosophy' is quite encompassing given your believe in Christ). If God can become Man and raise Himself from the dead, then...that kinda opens up a lot of possibilities, you know :)

Of course, I would never go so far as to consider the possibility of something entirely contrary to the teachings of Christ, but even within such limits, the world is still full of many hidden wonders...

Tzolkin

01-10-2005 15:21:01

Just a question, Tzolkin: have you ever undertaken any formal or informal study of philosophy? It seems to me that you would benefit from it greatly; it'll really help you with all of your profound musings (and they are profound).

Yes, I have studied philosophy a little, and have taken one formal class. I really should study more but the current RL situation prevents me.

--Tzolkin

leejakobson

05-10-2005 12:37:36

i say that mice are already smarter than us, we're only the third smartest lifeform on earth any way, mice and dolohins are smarter than us.

Hmm...by what standard are you measuring intelligence? How are they smarter than us? Unless you provide us with some definite basis, I'm afraid that I find little credence in your statement.

how can one speculate humans are the most intelectual life forms because we have technology that can enilate the world or the resources we waste each day through our wars and greed. in that sense one could argue that all humans are premative paresites bent on controling our environment and sucking all natural resources dry. an interesting arguement could be gather that by not forming a society and by following the rules of nature they are more advanced. because think of it mice and dolphins have been around probably a lot longer than we have. yet mice have learned to adapt as pets and intruders. and dolphins to have adapted to training in military. and for you animal lovers out thier no dolphines are not hurt when they search for mines because the mines only explode if they come in contact with boats. dolphines on the other hand are a little too small.

Matthias

06-10-2005 06:47:54

how can one speculate humans are the most intelectual life forms because we have technology that can enilate the world or the resources we waste each day through our wars and greed.

We also have the tehcnology to cure or curb terrible diseases and preserve such resources for future generations. It's just that people have a tendency to focus on the negative aspects rather than the positive aspects of technology, which we were able to develop because we could understand the underlying principles and mechanics of the world that make them work.

I know that you are aware of mankind's more positive technological contributions, but I feel that your generalized stigmatization of technology in general to present your argument of Man as some sort of destroyer or reaver off the earth is simplistic and misguided.

in that sense one could argue that all humans are premative paresites bent on controling our environment and sucking all natural resources dry.

I think I've already covered this statement through my discussion of free will, and through my reply above. Still, I must reiterate; the misuse of natural resources as a result of free will is no indication that Man is somehow inferior, only foolish. Mankind has far greater potential; it's just that far too often he doesn't hit the mark.

an interesting arguement could be gather that by not forming a society and by following the rules of nature they are more advanced. because think of it mice and dolphins have been around probably a lot longer than we have.

Hmm...at first glance, that does sound reasonable...until you think about it. Looking at how "Nature's law" works, we find that in relies upon deterministic mechanisms that oblige all to follow it in the most restrictive manner. In other words, "Nature's law" relies solely upon instinct and natural impulse to operate. Mice and dolphins are good at what they do, yes, but that's only because they have been pre-programmed from birth to act, react, and move in a certain way depending on their species and their enivironment. What makes Man superior to the lower animals is precisely his ability to act outside of this natural programming and make conscious choices as to how he ought to act. Therefore, despite his many, many shortcomings, the potential of Man to do great things with his inherant rational powers is enough to merit him a special place among all creatures.

Also, if you think about it further, do we really want people to act upon their natural impulses? I mean, many violent crimes and other sorts of deviant behaviour occur precisely because people have chosen to follow their baser instincts rather than make a smart, rational choice. Let's face it, living by Nature's law will only reduce us all to a bestial state.

yet mice have learned to adapt as pets and intruders. and dolphins to have adapted to training in military. and for you animal lovers out thier no dolphines are not hurt when they search for mines because the mines only explode if they come in contact with boats. dolphines on the other hand are a little too small.

This creatures only adapt because, as I've said before, it is part of their natural programming. All animals have adaptive abilities connected with their instinctual programming. However, Man is a special case because, unlike other animals, his adaptability extends to his ability to manipulate the environment to suit his needs (there are abuses, of course, but I've already talked about this above). The very fact that he is able to do this is a sign of his special role in the ecosystem as a steward and caretaker, which is really the ideal for human/Nature interaction.

Also, who do you think taught the dolphins how to search for mines?

Tortillian

06-10-2005 22:18:12

i say that mice are already smarter than us, we're only the third smartest lifeform on earth any way, mice and dolohins are smarter than us.

Hmm...by what standard are you measuring intelligence? How are they smarter than us? Unless you provide us with some definite basis, I'm afraid that I find little credence in your statement.

how can one speculate humans are the most intelectual life forms because we have technology that can enilate the world or the resources we waste each day through our wars and greed. in that sense one could argue that all humans are premative paresites bent on controling our environment and sucking all natural resources dry. an interesting arguement could be gather that by not forming a society and by following the rules of nature they are more advanced. because think of it mice and dolphins have been around probably a lot longer than we have. yet mice have learned to adapt as pets and intruders. and dolphins to have adapted to training in military. and for you animal lovers out thier no dolphines are not hurt when they search for mines because the mines only explode if they come in contact with boats. dolphines on the other hand are a little too small.

Ultimately, it's very important to distinguish between what you're referring to as "intelligence" and what comes across wholly as "character." It's true; the greater the potential for good, the greater the potential for evil. Man, I believe wholheartedly, is the single most intelligent creature on the planet.

The ancient Roman Empire had chemists who formulated a liquid substance that could actually combust and ignite upon contact with sodium chloride (salt water). The Aztecs found ways of building their houses in such a way that they hung on the sides of mountain faces without any logical support to hold them there. There are ruins of a city in Etheopia (or somewhere thereabouts) whose only entrance was a ramp of granite and marble several hundred yards long, so slick and smooth that any invading army would be unable to break in; only to besiege. All of these we have yet to replicate, but it stands that each generation has different and equally profoudn innovations. The ability to adapt is actually an inborn quality given as instinct. Like as frogs are cold blooded. If you put a frog in cold water and set that water to a boil, the frog will adapt to the heat so much so that it will attempt to live in it and eventually dies because of it.

Man, I believe, is a very intelligent creature. In fact, I believe us to be THE most intelligent. Simply put, though, we are also prone to such character flaws as selfishness, arrogance, brashness, and subjection to the dominance of unreasoning fears. Intelligence does not provide for the right choice or perfect society, it grants the possibility to innovate and manage. What man lacks is the desire to sacrifice a little ego to make that stretch to reason and eventually learn good and Godly character.

That's something that even human philosophy will never attain. Where human philosophers are contradictory, Scripture is wholly complimentary. Where human ideology (standing alone) is grasping and flawed, Scripture is direct and perfect with one intrepretation and many applications for each passage and verse. After all, how could we hope to build perfect societies and be perfect ourselves when we killed the only perfect human being simply because He was perfect. That kinda sets a statement to the ;evel of perfection we can condone. :wink:

Tortillian

06-10-2005 22:32:21

I think the largest fallacy here is the assumption or belief that the mind and our natural set are things that define our choices. The mind is simply a center for logic and natural-base questions and answers.

We are told in I Corinthians 2:9-10 that our minds are simply a center for organizing observation and controlling logic by streaming our intelligence into channels of use. An understanding of right and wrong and this theory of perfection can only be formulated by a deeper setting, a part of us known as the spirit (more specifically God's Spirit in us).

I Corinthians 2:9-10 - "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him. But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things..."

Once again, I cannot stress enough the importance of differentiating between "intelligence" and "character." The main prblem with relying on intelligence to do the Spirit's job of promoting character and discerning right from wrong is that our minds do the single most harmful things; rationalize. There is not a single evil or wrong thing in this world that the human mind, through use of the intelligence and knowledge we retain therein, cannot rationalize into what would seem as reason. A study on what reprobation really is will give you a good idea of great intelligence acting alone.

The examples you gave above of man coming up with ways to annihilate our world and make any number of judgments based entirely on greed and desire for personal gain actually strengthens the idea that man is extremely and vastly more intelligent than any other creature. Any other creature has no choice but to answer to isntinct and memory. We can refute resaon and truth (however wrongly) by manipulating knowledge and experience and what we perceive in other people with nothing but our minds and the intelligence we harness therein.

Tortillian

06-10-2005 22:52:59

Matthias:

I thought your response was well formulated, my friend. I have yet to hear anything that I can think of that came across as less than sound of well-based. :)

I'll certainly have to look into that speech. I've actually read a review by "Focus on the Family" (a Christian family organization run by Dr. James Dobson) on "This Simmian World." You're absolutely right. Darwinism was one of those philosophies (like innumerable others) that came to be because one man sought to excuse the way he lived and thought by seeking to come up with "rationale" for why God must be a foolish image held by weak fools. Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Kirkegaarde, Nietzche... the list goes on. Some things they say are very true, but precious little of it. Most is the ramblings of their conflicted conscience knowing the truth and seeking desparately to deny it. It's rather ironic when people seen as great philosophers claim to be the greatest of philanthropists, but end up only hurting humanity by seeking to tear down anyone with morals. Even more sad, we as Christians tend to let their words slip by, sometimes even propogating them, when we have the truth in our hands (often unbeknownst to even ourselves).

Also, the ideology of evolution has gotten to the point where it refutes itself. Not only does every evolutionist believe a different theory or twist on the same theory, but the idea that we can evolve into something better after millions of years of the same is simply rediculous, expecially if they think they can chart evolutionary growth in us today, just counting back centuries and close millenia. If that is even remotely true, then we would have become whatever it is we were going to become a long, long time ago. There's simply no logical support for that bias.

I'm all for giving thought ground to imaginary of fictional situations. What better exercise for the mind, you know? Except Scripture memorization, but I mean something as a change of pace, and ultimately more immediately stimulating. :) And that He does; and He alone can bring the breath of life. Like the Roman Centurion said to Jesus, "I myself am a man of authority, and I say to this man go, and he goes." What better explanation of His exclusivity in that realm?

That's a great quote from Hamlet. I agree wholeheartedly. Hehe, I have to say though, my philosophy is not nearly a drop in the bucket. Were it even a drop, not enough to be heard or gauged. There's simply too much wisdom in God's Word to glean a percentile amount. I've been reading the biography of George Muller lately, and one thing he brough to light is that, if you read the New Testament, we are asked to reverse the path of mortal life in our spiritual lives. We go from adulthood to being like children before God. The more we know, the more we learn, the more we realize we know not much, if anything, at all.

You said, "Of course, I would never go so far as to consider the possibility of something entirely contrary to the teachings of Christ, but even within such limits, the world is still full of many hidden wonders..." I could not have said it better myself, brother.

leejakobson

07-10-2005 14:18:48

but one could argue that these being are more advanced through the laws of nature. the poor arguement i provided was only because i have nethier time nor resorces to form that arguement

Tzolkin

07-10-2005 16:49:22

We also have the tehcnology to cure or curb terrible diseases and preserve such resources for future generations. It's just that people have a tendency to focus on the negative aspects rather than the positive aspects of technology, which we were able to develop because we could understand the underlying principles and mechanics of the world that make them work.

I know that you are aware of mankind's more positive technological contributions, but I feel that your generalized stigmatization of technology in general to present your argument of Man as some sort of destroyer or reaver off the earth is simplistic and misguided.

Yes, we do have positive technology, but think about how we got that technology in the first place. By exploiting and destroying.

I suppose we could argue that we're still better because we have the intelligence to commit such atrocities, but is that really such a good thing?

I think I've already covered this statement through my discussion of free will, and through my reply above. Still, I must reiterate; the misuse of natural resources as a result of free will is no indication that Man is somehow inferior, only foolish. Mankind has far greater potential; it's just that far too often he doesn't hit the mark.

To this I would argue that we're not the only creatures with free will..

Hmm...at first glance, that does sound reasonable...until you think about it. Looking at how "Nature's law" works, we find that in relies upon deterministic mechanisms that oblige all to follow it in the most restrictive manner. In other words, "Nature's law" relies solely upon instinct and natural impulse to operate. Mice and dolphins are good at what they do, yes, but that's only because they have been pre-programmed from birth to act, react, and move in a certain way depending on their species and their enivironment. What makes Man superior to the lower animals is precisely his ability to act outside of this natural programming and make conscious choices as to how he ought to act. Therefore, despite his many, many shortcomings, the potential of Man to do great things with his inherant rational powers is enough to merit him a special place among all creatures.

Do domestic animals not act outside their natural programming? Would you not act within your natural programming if you were in a situation where survival was a daily struggle? :wink:

Now, for my argument. Animals are much more intelligent than we give them credit for. No humans are not inferior, but they are not superior either.

--Tzolkin
ﺶﺞﻚﷲ

GrizzlyCoon

07-10-2005 22:54:03

Is all this possible in real life?

I don't think it's possible in real life for such tiny animals as rats to be endowed with human intelligence and objective reasoning through genetic enhancement, but you never know, the frontiers of science are ever-expanding, and already some genetic experiments have been done on mice before that are proven to have endowed some lab mice with slightly higher intelligence than average. What of larger animals with large brains with plenty of foliations complex structuring, such as apes, dolphins, bears or even parrots? They already have been shown to have some limited abilities in reasoning, and some capabilities exceed ours, bears can make clearer and more detailed and elaborate mental maps of larger areas of their environment than a human can, and apes have a level of reasoning higher than a 5-year old human, dolphins of course have sophisticated echolocational senses... Intelligence is a very misunderstood, multifaceted and complex realm of understanding, there's so many different
types of intelligence, that many animals are "more intelligent" than us in certain ways we can't understand, because we simply lack the capability to. There is no accurate or simple way to "measure" someone's intelligence, and just outwardly say that one animal or person is absolutely more intelligent than any other. But perhaps someday it may be possible to alter these animals to have a more developed, more densely foliated cerebrum, the small reasoning region of the brain in humans that supposedly "seperates man from the lower animals". What if, then, it could someday be possible to have apes, dolphins or bears as or almost as intelligent as humans? How do we really know they aren't already? Would we accept or integrate them into our society? How different, or similar to us would they be? What would we learn about animals, and about existence and kinship with all other life on earth?

Tortillian

07-10-2005 23:54:45

but one could argue that these being are more advanced through the laws of nature. the poor arguement i provided was only because i have nethier time nor resorces to form that arguement

Still, find someone who can readily tell me what the laws of nature are. Too much of what people know of the "laws of nature" today stem from Disney movies dribbled down into society's ideological mosh and the stimulus of fictional, theoretical and self-conjured writings and musings of none other than man himself.

Who defined the laws of nature as you know them? Part of my studies as a law student delve deeply into an understanding of natural law, and the primary outcome is an understanding that natural law is that unspoken, unwritten (lex non scripta or leges non scriptae) code of conduct we know solely by conscience and an knowledge of the same that we glean from growing up. Therefore, a product of conscience that needn't be written down for everyone. It would be fruitless for the law to openly state that it is wrong for one man to kill another, since that is protected by our conscience and natural law; what the law DOES do is prepare consequences and rectification for those affected or involved in and by the murder.

With that in mind, I have full faith with no excpetion that, by judging standing with the laws of nature, any other creature can't hold a candle to humanity. Once again, man will always have his character flaws as you so wisely mentioned that lead to the decay and catastrophe we experience from each other, but take a look at nature from where I stand and tell me that mice are in better standing with the laws of nature than we are. I live on lots of acreage in Texas, in an area where everything is rural; I've both raised, bred and treated just about every form of rodent you can think of (plus several hundred lagimorphs "rabbits"). They eat each other, destroy just as much if not more than we do, live in their own feces willingly, lose most of their young in the wild because the conditions are unprotected, and are ruled by baseless fear and unchecked desire that results in their own demise. I speculate they were made by God with the ability to repoduce so fast and in such high quantities because He knew they would prove prone to destruction. They are also worse stewards of what they have than we are by far. All rodents (including the hording squirrels, chipmunks, hamsters and gerbils) waste and ruin their own resources beyong reason or excuse.

If the argument in the arena of standing with laws of nature is that the ball lies in the court of rodents and other such creatures we were created to be stewards over, then the arguments perhaps might need a bit more in base and founding. I've heard, read and spoken to existentialists, naturalists and the like, and the one thing I have yet to see is anythig more than theories based on unpopular, unproven science, originating on grounds of their own fancies and excusatory hypotheses of less popular scientists. The one thing most of these debaters lack that turns me off about their ideology is fact to back them and sources to fall back on. Without those, theory remains as it is; theory, unfounded, and nothing more then speculated fiction made to sound good.

Tortillian

08-10-2005 00:16:28

Yes, we do have positive technology, but think about how we got that technology in the first place. By exploiting and destroying.

I suppose we could argue that we're still better because we have the intelligence to commit such atrocities, but is that really such a good thing?

A flaw in character, and a brashness that resulted in a selfish pursuit of gain. Ironically, the story of existence itself, only exemplified in man because we can sympathize with another human's decisions and actions better than we can a horse's or a lion's. :wink:

Is the question of "goodness" or is it of "intelligence?" Intelligence is what we need to solve a problem and to generate an engine for wit. Alone, it produces nothing but ill, as any great resource like a river needs channeling. If the cascade of the falls at Niagara were subjected to a flat plane, the torrent would sweep wide and accomplish much, but that "much" would be destruction and aimless distribution of power. Man's choices and actions are most often not a symbol of his intelligence or lack thereof. Something has to guide that intelligence, and that something is character disposition.

To this I would argue that we're not the only creatures with free will..

Hehe, except an argument implies there's a specific alternative. How do you define "free will" then? If free will is truly and simply no more than the ability to act in our own authority, to disobey if we wish to, and/or incite rebellion within or without, then we are one of countless creatures with free will. From that perspective... I think you may be right. I'm not entirely sure man is the only creature with free will, just the only creature aside from God and His angels (fallen included) with the ability to reason, which is the complex drive behind free will that directs it and gives it aim and purpose.

Do domestic animals not act outside their natural programming? Would you not act within your natural programming if you were in a situation where survival was a daily struggle? :wink:

Therein lies the real debate, though, doesn't it? What action is truly unnatural? The disposition and ability to both act in self presevration when threatened daily by an aggressive, harmful environment AND that of being able to settle down and engage in a calm streak for th entirety of life are wholly natural to every being.

Cats and dogs are well suited to both lives. Zebras have never been fully broken by a trainer, but they can be very docile pets and friendly creatures.

Natural programming is just that; how God made them. For all creatures, that means a tendency to have to adapt with changes and differences in environment. To suppose that a "domestic" animal is acting outside its programming is to presume upon the mechanics of its creation. Frankly, as science progresses and we learn more, the more we realizes we know little at all.

Now, for my argument. Animals are much more intelligent than we give them credit for. No humans are not inferior, but they are not superior either...

But you never see an animal or group of animals cooperating to conquest humanity, do you? Sure, when threatened they attack, like apes, monkeys, wolves and such, but do they have the ambition to step beyond their boundaries? The sign of superiority is not only greater intelligence, but also the gumption to act in originality and accept responsibility and curatorship for things that were not programmed into our being as that which we should care for. In that and the fact that we alone can reason, I believe wholeheartedly that God made us superior to every creation on this planet except each other because He wanted us to lear to be good stewards of what we have and to care for His creation with the gifts He gave us.

Tzolkin

17-10-2005 13:17:04

I think we've been talking past one another. What do you define as the ability to reason? I've been defining it as the ability to think on one's own authority, meaning I believe animals aren't just empty shells fueled by instinct. They have a soul, a driver behind the wheel, calling the shots. Sure, instinct does have an influence, as it does in us, but animals do have the ability to make decisions regarding what they do.

Tortillian

17-10-2005 20:28:55

I think we've been talking past one another. What do you define as the ability to reason? I've been defining it as the ability to think on one's own authority, meaning I believe animals aren't just empty shells fueled by instinct. They have a soul, a driver behind the wheel, calling the shots. Sure, instinct does have an influence, as it does in us, but animals do have the ability to make decisions regarding what they do.

Maybe we have been talking past one another. I understand reason to be much of what you've said, but mostly I understand its applied meaning to be one of ability to judge critically, weighing factors not included in the probable or logical or natural. I mean, from that perspective, animals trust their owners or trainers (sometimes) when they're asked to do something they are afraid of, but I don't believe animals can consider application of what would otherwise seem impossible or illogical. That's what I believe the ability to reason to mean.

Matthias

22-10-2005 13:07:54

I thought your response was well formulated, my friend. I have yet to hear anything that I can think of that came across as less than sound of well-based.

Why, thank you ^_^. I must admit, though, that I only know what I know through the perusal of a smattering of knowledge, whether it be the writings of wise men (/real/ wise men), the rich Tradition and doctrine of the Church, or just whatever happens to come along. I appreciate your complement, nonetheless. :)

I've heard quite a bit about Focus on the Family, and I know that they are a noble organization seeking to promote the welfare of society (I first heard about them to my private's school community and the numerous pro-life material I've encountered). I'm glad to know that someone on here appreciates them as well ;)

While I agree that human philosophy and reason is all too often used to trump religious belief, I must object to your disdain of Socrates and the Greeks. I understand where you're coming from, but I believe that you are mistaken in assuming that they are of the same ilk as the modern philosophers. After all, it was Aristotle who said that men ought to be habitually virtuous, unlike Kant, who said that individual acts are more important. More imporantly, he actually postulated the existence of God as necessary, though his reason alone, and formulated an argument to explain why he ought to exist. Aristotle's system was eventually utilized by Christian philosophers and theologians, especially St. Thomas Aquinas, who, in his great work the Summa Theologica, showed how the existence of God is entirely reasonable and logical. Also, I do recall reading that Socrates was the one who carved the altar "to the unknown God" which St. Paul encountered during his mission to Greece. Now, I do agree that not all of what they said and did was entirely right (Aristotle advocated slavery, for example, believing that some men were fundamentally inferior), but we must take this into context. After all, they were pagans who had no contact with God's divine revelation. However, the Lord nevertheless used their ample minds to proclaim His glory; even in Man's reason He can be found, for his mark is in all Creation.

In fact, I believe that it is a mistake to hold such suspicion on ourselves. After all, God's grace is always working in His believers; we only need to use His graces to discern the truth. However, I do agree that we must also be very wary of those who would twist the truth to promulgate a lie. I do know of some very trustworthy men who have gone before us. G.K. Chesterton is a prime example, as are Christopher Dawson and John A. Hardon, S.J. (God rest his soul). Of all of these, I highly recommend that you learn more about Chesterton here[=www.chesterton.org]here. You can also peruse St. Thomas' Summa here[=http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1.htm]here (It's a Catholic site, as St. Thomas is, of course, a Catholic theologian, but his writings are, I believe, beneficial to all Christians regardless of denomination).

Likewise, I must answer your objections to evolution. There is nothing wrong with supposing that the various species of animals (note that I speak of species, not life) came about through descent with modification, which is basically what evolution is. However, I do very much agree that such a process, if it did occur, cannot have come about through a purely random process. For one thing, its statistically improbable, and, generally, ordered lifeforms do not come about from disorder. I cannot say anything about the continuance of evolution in modern times, but if they (scientists) are promulgating this using their materialistic interpretation of life, then I must object to that as well. Besides, I think Man has gone through enough modification ;)

Now, I'll take a brief break to answer Tzolkin. I hope you don't mind, Tort :)

Yes, we do have positive technology, but think about how we got that technology in the first place. By exploiting and destroying.

Technology, by definition, requires us to modify the environment in some way. We needed to cut wood to make fire, and we needed to clear land to farm. The issue is whether we balance the consumption of resources with conversation of them.

Also, I have a feeling that your statement belies an aversion to any form of environmental modification for any type of advancement, but I could be wrong.

Do domestic animals not act outside their natural programming?

Animals are capable of learning new things to a certain degree. They can, for example, gain knowledge about their environment through experience, and can discern how to respond to new situations. However, certain tasks that lie outside their natural programming require the input of a rational agent such as ourselves. Basically, domestic animals have "unnatural" behaviours because we taught such behaviours to them. Also, many of these so-called "learned behaviours" are actually extensions of their natural programming. Dogs, for example, are subservient to us because they see us and our relatives as members of its pack, and the impression we usually give them is that of lordship ;)

Would you not act within your natural programming if you were in a situation where survival was a daily struggle?

I could also do something totally stupid, like sit on my arse :P Seriously, though, who says that's we're bound to obey our natural impulses? Every indication seems to point to the opposite.

Now, back to you, Tort :D

It was very good that you've brought up the concept of natural law. I've studied a little bit about it myself in Grade 10, and I do understand how vitally important and fundamental it is in any discussion involving law. There are certain notions, certain concepts, which we cannot derive from reason or intelligence; such things are, as you've said, natural and innate, a direct extension of our very nature as rational beings. Even before there were written laws or ordered societies as we know them, Man was nevertheless governed by the inner law in his heart, the unwritten statutes that direct all human behaviour. "Natural law is the prompting of our morality," as Justin so aptly puts in "NIMH: The Iambic Pentameter Play."

Unpopular scientists with unpopular science? I'm afraid they're a bit too popular nowadays...Read the science columns in the newspapers. Plus, I'm sure you've heard of certain big names in science whose "unpopular" theories have gained widespread ground in modern society. Ever heard of Kinsey?

I'll end this post with a little personal caution. I think you ought to be more careful about using Scripture in your arguments. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate how you've made the connections between God's word and the current situation, but not everyone does. I really don't mean to be pedagogical, but I believe that all discussions ought to start on some common ground. For example, you wouldn't mention St. James in a discussion with agnostics (and there are plenty) nor would you discuss the Trinity with Muslims. You would start with something you both agree upon, like the order or supposed order of the universe with the former and the notion of a single God with the latter. Once again, I do not mean to diminish you in any way, but this is just something I've learned in life. Plus, I know of a certain someone who might be somewhat averse to your approach ;)

Next post, I'll try to find some common definition of "intelligence" and rationality to help us all out :)