What does it mean to be human?

[Kerberoz]

It's just easy to see that the majority of the human race is logical/rational

Bullshit.
Register to see the NSFW content

[Kuya]

I never understood the idea or reason behind saying most human beings are stupid. I mean, what exactly are you comparing the human species to in order to justify that statement? Even the "dumbest" human being is more advanced than the nearest species, so when someone is saying this they're obviously not comparing humans to other species. So i tend to think when someone says "people are stupid" they're comparing the general population to the relatively fewer "smarter" humans. Yet, you don't generalize on the capacity of a species by comparing it to its outliers. You generalize by finding what the general distribution is, and using that as a frame of reference. Although if you use that logic, most human beings can never be considered stupid, because the majority is the means by which you are measuring intelligence.

At this point i conclude that the people who love to say "people are stupid", should read an Ayn Rand book because they might like that.

[quannum]

ayn rand is stupid.

[Kuya]

Quite the contrary, Ayn Rand was probably much more logical than you or I. In fact, she is a fine example on how rationality can lead to the most absurd conclusions.

[Uzor]

Most people that say "people are stupid" compare them to themselves.

[Kuya]

Ayn Rand def the way to go

[Tajin]

http://zarzamora.com.mx/wp-content/u...r_anderson.jpg

[Myrrh_Quetz]

I just figured out what it means to be human.

We have TV. Do Animals have TV? No. They. Fucking. Don't.

There you go. Write about TV.

[Maguspk]

I said number of possible connections; not actual connections it can have at any one time

and I am telling you it doesn't matter because the 'connection' is a result of millions of ions and/or neurotransmitters.

[Uzor]

How does it not matter? The total number of possible connections does not have to equal the total number of actual connections.

To simplify it; if you roll two dice three times it's impossible to roll all the possible combinations. That doesn't mean the combinations doesn't exist, though.

[Maguspk]

How does it not matter? The total number of possible connections does not have to equal the total number of actual connections.

To simplify it; if you roll two dice three times it's impossible to roll all the possible combinations. That doesn't mean the combinations doesn't exist, though.

You aren't comparing the total number of possible connections to the number of connections you were comparing them to the number of atoms in the universe. You are bad at this. Just stop.

[Uzor]

You aren't comparing the total number of possible connections to the number of connections you were comparing them to the number of atoms in the universe. You are bad at this. Just stop.

No, what I said was that a scientist said that the possible number of connections in the brain is greater than the amount of atoms in the universe. Just because the number of actual connections the brain can make is limited, does not mean that the number of possible connections it can make is equal to the number of actual connections it can make.

It's not just the neuron-to-neuron direct connections, but the unique PATH between any two synapses. It could be many thousands of neurons long. The following paper, for example:
http://www.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/w...Vol4.2-HMC.pdf
claim that the memory capacity for the brain is 10^8432 bits where each neural pathway is 1 bit. He's using the following formula:

connection possibilities (unique pathways) = n! / m! * (n - m)!, where
n = number of neurons
m = average # of connections between neurons

= 10^11! / 3000! * (10^11 - 3000)!

The thing is, synapses aren't actually connected to each other. There's a small gap between them called the "Synaptic Cleft". So each "connection" doesn't require new atoms to form. They are connected, in a way, but not to each other. They're connected by water.

The reason I'm skeptic is because we still know so little about the brain. He does make a compelling argument, though.

[Correction]

[Maguspk]

The thing is, synapses aren't actually connected to each other. There's a small gap between them called the "Synaptic Cleft". So each "connection" doesn't require new atoms to form. They are connected, in a way, but not to each other. They're connected by water.

We come full circle. I said this in my first reply to you and you have just stumbled upon it after googling your ass off in order to formulate a reply. You lack an understanding sufficient to discuss this topic, especially with the statement that 'each connection does not require new atoms to form'.

[Uzor]

We come full circle. I said this in my first reply to you and you have just stumbled upon it after googling your ass off in order to formulate a reply. You lack an understanding sufficient to discuss this topic, especially with the statement that 'each connection does not require new atoms to form'.

Yes, you are quite possibly more educated than me on the subject. I admit that. My point is that the number of possible connections does not have to be equal to the number of actual connections. Thing is, since each synapse can connect to several thousand other synapses, and the brain has over 100 billion synapses all in all, bringing the total to an almost endless amount of possibilities.

The only thing I googled was the original source of who said it - which I didn't find. I did, however, find several other scientists/doctors/whatever claiming the exact same thing. I am, however, curious as to why you're convinced they're wrong. Like I said, I'm skeptic since the brain isn't nearly fully understood.

[guartz]

I never understood the idea or reason behind saying most human beings are stupid. I mean, what exactly are you comparing the human species to in order to justify that statement? Even the "dumbest" human being is more advanced than the nearest species, so when someone is saying this they're obviously not comparing humans to other species. So i tend to think when someone says "people are stupid" they're comparing the general population to the relatively fewer "smarter" humans. Yet, you don't generalize on the capacity of a species by comparing it to its outliers. You generalize by finding what the general distribution is, and using that as a frame of reference. Although if you use that logic, most human beings can never be considered stupid, because the majority is the means by which you are measuring intelligence.

At this point i conclude that the people who love to say "people are stupid", should read an Ayn Rand book because they might like that.

It's a easy mistake to make, since verbal communication is imperfect and we know our own wit better then we could ever know somebody else's.