What Are You Carrying?

[Risottia]

What does this thread have to do with xeroism, epiphytics or pragmatarianism?

I have no idea.

Unless xeroism and pragmawatchamacallism are somewhat based on the deliberate use of weaseling.

But if the point is promoting Xero's neologism... there is an app for that. It's called a "blog", methinks.

[Dakini]

I have no idea.

Really? No idea? Well... they are all ideas that I carry in my head. Do you carry any of these three ideas in your head? Nope. You carry different ideas in your head. I think you're carrying the wrong ideas in your head. You think I'm carrying the wrong ideas in my head. And neither of us wants to carry the wrong ideas.

I don't think that you're carrying the wrong ideas around in your head. I think you're carrying incredibly inane ideas around in your head that aren't even wrong.

[San Marlindo]

NSG is not the place for airing massive thought dumps. You don't just make a thread about any and everything you want to get off your chest.

The OP reads like a) somebody who just woke up; or b) a philosophy major who's high as fuck.

[Dakini]

I have no idea.

Unless xeroism and pragmawatchamacallism are somewhat based on the deliberate use of weaseling.

But if the point is promoting Xero's neologism... there is an app for that. It's called a "blog", methinks.

He has one of those. That's where he seems to have first promoted this neologism (he's also promoted it on Reddit).

Seeing the preview of the blog post on Google is why I mentioned what a lacuna is.

[Xerographica]

I have no idea.

Unless xeroism and pragmawatchamacallism are somewhat based on the deliberate use of weaseling.

But if the point is promoting Xero's neologism... there is an app for that. It's called a "blog", methinks.

Do you have a theory that explains human intelligence? Because that's what I asked for in my OP.

[Xerographica]

NSG is not the place for airing massive thought dumps. You don't just make a thread about any and everything you want to get off your chest.

The OP reads like a) somebody who just woke up; or b) a philosophy major who's high as fuck.

Let me guess, you don't have a theory for human intelligence either.

[Dakini]

NSG is not the place for airing massive thought dumps. You don't just make a thread about any and everything you want to get off your chest.

The OP reads like a) somebody who just woke up; or b) a philosophy major who's high as fuck.

Let me guess, you don't have a theory for human intelligence either.

Dude, you don't either. Your "theory" isn't scientific and it doesn't explain anything except a word you're desperate to make happen.

[San Marlindo]

NSG is not the place for airing massive thought dumps. You don't just make a thread about any and everything you want to get off your chest.

The OP reads like a) somebody who just woke up; or b) a philosophy major who's high as fuck.

Let me guess, you don't have a theory for human intelligence either.

How would knowing the answer to that profit me in any material way?

[Xerographica]

Let me guess, you don't have a theory for human intelligence either.

Dude, you don't either. Your "theory" isn't scientific and it doesn't explain anything except a word you're desperate to make happen.

"My" theory is that our intelligence is the result of our linvoid. What's your theory?

[Dakini]

Dude, you don't either. Your "theory" isn't scientific and it doesn't explain anything except a word you're desperate to make happen.

"My" theory is that our intelligence is the result of our linvoid. What's your theory?

It fucking evolved. Duh.

"linvoid" is not a scientific concept. It's not even a very well-defined concept from what I can tell.

[Xerographica]

"My" theory is that our intelligence is the result of our linvoid. What's your theory?

It fucking evolved. Duh.

Well... yeah. But why the fuck has it fucking evolved?

"linvoid" is not a scientific concept. It's not even a very well-defined concept from what I can tell.

Are you sure?

[Valaran]

Can you make a case for those other traits putting more pressure on the selection/evolution of intelligence?

Only the ones I've mentioned above (social groups; dietary practices; etc), in that these are quite common theories.

You didn't debunk/destroy my case.

If you'll note, this wasn't my intent.

You simply said that there are other differences between chimps and humans.

I actually said a lot more that you didn't quote...

Make a case for those other differences... or debunk my case for linvoid.

Again, I think you entirely missed my point (also, I detect some defensiveness about this). My point is that you cannot claim the linvoid is important for the reason that we have it to a greater degree than apes, because we have a lot of things that are different from apes. You never made a case of why linvoid is more important, or why these other factors should be discounted. Instead, you rested that particular statement on the fact that the difference in linvoid is also the reason for the difference in intelligence. Given there are these other differences that you didn't adress, how is making this point at all supporting your argument? Its irrelevant if you haven't discounted other possibilities, which I should note are often considered to be the reason for mankind's intelligence (the social theory and the dietary theories are very common). I'd argue you haven't proven anything more than correlation. You haven't give much other evidence (I'm sure one could look into brain functions of both modern and early humans in more detail; same goes for muscle structure, since linvoid depends on both), and you haven't ruled out the other possibilities that have the same correlation, and are more widely held by the scientific community*. In short, you've given fairly little to indicate your theory is correct, and I was merely pointing this out.

*For instance Robin Dunbar argues in favour of the Social brain hypothesis, while the dominance-social competition model has a large number of adherents (including Mark Flinn, David Geary, Carol Ward and Richard Alexander).

[Dakini]

It fucking evolved. Duh.

Well... yeah. But why the fuck has it fucking evolved?

Because it was useful.

"linvoid" is not a scientific concept. It's not even a very well-defined concept from what I can tell.

Are you sure?

Uh... considering that you've also decided that "linvoid" also means carrying microorganisms in your guts and ideas in your head, what you linked doesn't apply to "linvoid", which is a concept you've made so meaninglessly arbitrary and vague that it is meaningless and ends up having little to do with anything useful.

Hell, how's this: humans are so "linvoid" we can carry three different species of lice with us at the same time! Other animals don't get to do that!

[Xerographica]

I'd argue you haven't proven anything more than correlation.

I've provided straightforward logic, which you conveniently ignored. So I doubt it will do any good for me to provide it again. But I suppose there's really only one way to find out...

A. More linvoid means a harder problem of deciding what to carry
B. Harder problems require better processing/storage of information
C. More linvoid results in more selection/evolution of intelligence

This isn't "evidence"... it's logic. It's entirely possible that my logic is wrong. Do you think it's wrong? If so, then please explain why, exactly, you think it's wrong. If you don't think it's wrong... then you agree that our linvoid is the cause of our intelligence.

[Dakini]

I'd argue you haven't proven anything more than correlation.

I've provided straightforward logic, which you conveniently ignored. So I doubt it will do any good for me to provide it again. But I suppose there's really only one way to find out...

A. More linvoid means a harder problem of deciding what to carry
B. Harder problems require better processing/storage of information
C. More linvoid results in more selection/evolution of intelligence

This isn't "evidence"... it's logic.

No it isn't. The first two are just premises and the third is your conclusion (I think?), but you've done nothing to connect your premises to your conclusion. You also need to add an additional premise, which is that natural selection is a thing that happens. This is not how you construct a logical argument in any sense.

And you're still stuck with the problem that "linvoid" is poorly defined and essentially meaningless.

[Valaran]

I'd argue you haven't proven anything more than correlation.

I've provided straightforward logic, which you conveniently ignored. So I doubt it will do any good for me to provide it again. But I suppose there's really only one way to find out...

A. More linvoid means a harder problem of deciding what to carry
B. Harder problems require better processing/storage of information
C. More linvoid results in more selection/evolution of intelligence

This isn't "evidence"... it's logic. It's entirely possible that my logic is wrong. Do you think it's wrong? If so, then please explain why, exactly, you think it's wrong. If you don't think it's wrong... then you agree that our linvoid is the cause of our intelligence.

Exactly. Its not evidence. Its not proven. You're shooting the breeze, in other words. Spitaballing. "What if humans were smart because they could carry?" "Who knows, Jim, maybe one day we'll find out." That's all one can really say.

I ignored it, because funnily enough, I had seen it in your OP, and nearly posted a snarky comment to that effect when you reiterated on the assumption that I hadn;t seen it. Is this my punishment for not being snarky?

I have no clue whether it is right or wrong, since, believe it or not, I haven't conducted an intensive study in the field and analysed the evidence. I have, however, noted the problems with some of your supporting reasoning, namely your point about differences from apes, which has not been adressed. Do you think my point is wrong? Is so, then please explain why.

Its entirely possible that your theory is right. Then again, its entirely possible that its not. My hunch is that you're massively overemphasising one thing and ignoring all other factors, so so you can have your pet theory. Using your own line of argument, since you haven't explained why you think they are wrong, I take it that you agree with them then?

But since you really want to debate hypotheticals, there are potentially other as yet un-disproven theories that could have lead to a greater processing/storage of information. I posted some of them. I gave you links. All of which, was also, conveniently ignored. You have given me nothing that say linvoid is the only way this this process could have occurred. Until then its one of many ideas floating around. And that's pretty much all one can say.

[Herrebrugh]

I have no idea.

Really? No idea? Well... they are all ideas that I carry in my head. Do you carry any of these three ideas in your head? Nope. You carry different ideas in your head. I think you're carrying the wrong ideas in your head. You think I'm carrying the wrong ideas in my head. And neither of us wants to carry the wrong ideas.

I am now carrying a headache in my head.

[Dakini]

Oh, and although I've pointed out that your "logic" isn't logical, let's go through how your premises are faulty.

A. More linvoid means a harder problem of deciding what to carry

This isn't really the case and I'm not even sure that "more linvoid" is even something that makes a lot of sense given how you have been defining "linvoid". I'll assume that you meant to say something like:

"A: Being more linvoid means that it is more difficult to decide what to carry."

Now, this premise is false. Since you've decided that "linvoid" means having the ability to carry not only objects in one's hands, but microorganisms, ideas and things in a truck, this means it also includes having the ability to carry parasites and whatever else. A lot of the things that one carries are not something one chooses to carry. Furthermore, one doesn't necessarily have to carry just a few things (e.g. one can carry half one's mass in microorganisms and any number of ideas in one's head), nor are a person's choices of what to carry entirely up to them (if I want to choose to carry a hammer, but do not have access to a hammer, I cannot carry a hammer). One is also capable of carrying different tools for different tasks, setting things down and picking them up again and so on.

B. Harder problems require better processing/storage of information

Again, this premise is not worded very well. I'm assuming that you're missing the word "solving" at the start here (and an "s" on the end of "requires"). I'm also assuming that you mean to define "intelligence" as "processing/storage of information" even though you don't actually do this in any of your statements.

C. More linvoid results in more selection/evolution of intelligence

Again, this is poorly phrased. I assume you mean to say:

"C: Organisms which are more linvoid tend to be selected for intelligence"

Which doesn't follow your earlier premises since you never introduced the ideas of selection, evolution or intelligence before you get to C.


In the end, the only part of your argument that's remotely correct doesn't involve your neologism, has a much stricter definition of "carrying" and isn't really your argument at all because someone else did it before and better.

[Xerographica]

Its entirely possible that your theory is right. Then again, its entirely possible that its not. My hunch is that you're massively overemphasising one thing and ignoring all other factors, so so you can have your pet theory. Using your own line of argument, since you haven't explained why you think they are wrong, I take it that you agree with them then?

From Wikipedia...

Dunbar argues that when the size of a social group increases, the number of different relationships in the group may increase by orders of magnitude. Chimpanzees live in groups of about 50 individuals whereas humans typically have a social circle of about 150 people, which is also the typical size of social communities in small societies and personal social networks;[9] this number is now referred to as Dunbar's number. In addition, there is evidence to suggest that the success of groups is dependent on their size at foundation, with groupings of around 150 being particularly successful, potentially reflecting the fact that communities of this size strike a balance between the minimum size of effective functionality and the maximum size for creating a sense of commitment to the community.[10] According to the social brain hypothesis, when hominids started living in large groups, selection favored greater intelligence. As evidence, Dunbar cites a relationship between neocortex size and group size of various mammals.[7]

A. Our ancestors started living in larger groups
B. Larger groups are more complex than smaller groups
C. Understanding complexity requires intelligence
D. Selection favored greater intelligence

Wikipedia goes on to say...

However, meerkats have far more social relationships than their small brain capacity would suggest. Another hypothesis is that it is actually intelligence that causes social relationships to become more complex, because intelligent individuals are more difficult to learn to know.

This other hypothesis makes more sense to me. As our intelligence increased, we became more capable of living in more complex (larger) communities.

So we can say that greater intelligence allowed for our ancestors to live in larger communities. But we clearly can't say that greater intelligence allowed our ancestors to simultaneously carry a wide variety of different resources.

I can argue that Robin Dunbar gets cause and effect confused. But he can't argue that I get cause and effect confused. There's absolutely no way that more intelligence facilitated more linvoid.

First we started walking upright... which improved our ability to simultaneously carry different resources over greater distances... and then we became more intelligent. And the reason that we became more intelligent is that carrying became more complex. This complexity resulted in selection favoring greater intelligence.

Dunbar and I agree about the importance of complexity in facilitating the selection of greater intelligence. But he mistakenly believes that larger communities were the cause of this selection rather than the effect. From my perspective, linvoid was the cause and the larger groups were one of the many effects of greater intelligence being selected for.

[New Randia]

So, who here was hoping this was a CCW thread?

OP, I’m carrying a Glawk brand Glawk fortay problem solver.

[Xerographica]

A. More linvoid means a harder problem of deciding what to carry

This isn't really the case and I'm not even sure that "more linvoid" is even something that makes a lot of sense given how you have been defining "linvoid". I'll assume that you meant to say something like:

"A: Being more linvoid means that it is more difficult to decide what to carry."

Now, this premise is false. Since you've decided that "linvoid" means having the ability to carry not only objects in one's hands, but microorganisms, ideas and things in a truck, this means it also includes having the ability to carry parasites and whatever else. A lot of the things that one carries are not something one chooses to carry. Furthermore, one doesn't necessarily have to carry just a few things (e.g. one can carry half one's mass in microorganisms and any number of ideas in one's head), nor are a person's choices of what to carry entirely up to them (if I want to choose to carry a hammer, but do not have access to a hammer, I cannot carry a hammer). One is also capable of carrying different tools for different tasks, setting things down and picking them up again and so on.

I added another video to my carrying playlist. It's a video of a fox that carries different resources in its mouth. Which is why foxes are so clever?

In the second video... we can guess that the coywolf would like to simultaneously carry the egg and roadkill. But she isn't able to do so. A human would certainly be able to simultaneously carry both things. So a human is more linvoid than a coywolf and a fox.

In the next videos we see chimps using their hands, mouths and even feet to carry resources. Personally, I'm not very good at using my feet to carry things. But I'm physically better than the chimp is at carrying different things over greater distances. So humans are more linvoid than chimps.

So linvoid, as I've been using it, refers to physically carrying things. Carrying is being used literally.

But then there's the broader concept of things that we figuratively carry. My friend figuratively carries this orchid...


Angraecum Veitchii? Outdoors In Southern California by Epiphyte, on Flickr

Sometimes she literally carries it as well.

What do I mean when I say that she figuratively carries this orchid? I mean that she takes the time and makes the effort to care for this plant. She expends her limited energy to keep this plant alive. She's essentially carrying this orchid to the future. Are you carrying this orchid to the future? No? So if the future has this orchid... then it won't be because you carried it... it will be because my friend and other people and/or places carried it.

I'm an atheist but the most accessible analogy that I can think of is Noah's Ark. As the story goes, all the animals that are alive today are only here in the present because Noah chose to carry them in the past. Anybody who loves animals... and is a christian... should be very happy that Noah chose to carry all these animals.

So what we choose to carry now will determine what the future will have... or will not have.

In the OP I should have done a better job of defining and connecting and explaining these two different but related concepts of carrying. But I'm always nervous about putting too much thought into the OP lest I get accused of blogging.

[Imperium Britannicum]

A bomb, directions to London from Raqqa, the IS Beginner Jihadist's Guide to Suicide

My keys.

[Targovia]

I have the feeling this thread is the product of either extreme boredom, or some bad brownies.

Anyways, I'm carrying my wallet, backpack, and phone.

[Lost heros]

I could summarize this whole OP in one sentence: intelligence was very positively selected for because it helped our survival.

See no need for carrying shit.

[Dakini]

This isn't really the case and I'm not even sure that "more linvoid" is even something that makes a lot of sense given how you have been defining "linvoid". I'll assume that you meant to say something like:

"A: Being more linvoid means that it is more difficult to decide what to carry."

Now, this premise is false. Since you've decided that "linvoid" means having the ability to carry not only objects in one's hands, but microorganisms, ideas and things in a truck, this means it also includes having the ability to carry parasites and whatever else. A lot of the things that one carries are not something one chooses to carry. Furthermore, one doesn't necessarily have to carry just a few things (e.g. one can carry half one's mass in microorganisms and any number of ideas in one's head), nor are a person's choices of what to carry entirely up to them (if I want to choose to carry a hammer, but do not have access to a hammer, I cannot carry a hammer). One is also capable of carrying different tools for different tasks, setting things down and picking them up again and so on.

I added another video to my carrying playlist. It's a video of a fox that carries different resources in its mouth. Which is why foxes are so clever?

In the second video... we can guess that the coywolf would like to simultaneously carry the egg and roadkill. But she isn't able to do so. A human would certainly be able to simultaneously carry both things. So a human is more linvoid than a coywolf and a fox.

In the next videos we see chimps using their hands, mouths and even feet to carry resources. Personally, I'm not very good at using my feet to carry things. But I'm physically better than the chimp is at carrying different things over greater distances. So humans are more linvoid than chimps.

So linvoid, as I've been using it, refers to physically carrying things. Carrying is being used literally.

Uh, no, you haven't been using it that way consistently.

I don't think you're a good enough philosopher to be coining your own words (by the way, the word for "there should be a word for this, but there isn't" is "lacuna", which is also called a "lexical gap"). Using this as a basis of intelligence is silly. I'm not carrying anything right now.

You're carrying the word "lacuna" in your head. You're also carrying your own genetic material and the genetic material of numerous different microorganisms.

Also, intelligence has arisen more than once on this planet. Animals like dolphins are rather intelligent, as are other great apes and even octopi are quite smart.

Other animals are smart, but they aren't as smart as us. We are exceptionally smart because _________________ (fill in the blank).

And again, if you're only referring to physically carrying things, then there's no need for your stupid word because we already have a word for that. Your "theory" is also a half-baked ripoff of a theory that already exists (e.g. the idea that some animals are more intelligent because they can manipulate their environment using their bodies, which includes but is not limited to having the ability to carry things with them, is something that already exists).