Human Laughter Up To 16 Million Years Old 149
An anonymous reader writes "Published today in the journal Current Biology, a new study shows that laughter is not a unique human trait, but a behavior shared by all great apes. Tickle a baby chimpanzee and it will giggle just like a human infant. This is because laughter evolved millions of years ago in one of our common ancestors, say scientists."
and today... (Score:1, Funny)
those same apes are still laughing at us 'evolved' humans.
The monsters! (Score:3, Funny)
They tickled three human babies for this experiment.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
That's nothing! Back in the war, we chased the teddy bears into their cuddle bunkers, then had to tickle them out with machine hugs and fun throwers!
...They say the more soldiers you tickle, the easier it gets. Well, sir, it doesn't.
Re:The monsters! (Score:5, Funny)
Human Laughter Up To 16 Million Years Old
That's funny, because so are the gags on "According to Jim".
First joke (Score:2)
Scientists have extrapolated the first joke, which translates like this:
A mandrill walks up to a watering hole. The barmonkey says "Why the long face?"
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I thought the first sign of humor was the now famous phrase, "is that a banana or are you happy to see me"
That is not even Funny (Score:3, Informative)
Hrrmmpff.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That was my first thought as well. There's an episode of Radiolab all about laughter [wnyc.org], and they have a video on that page of a researcher tickling rats.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha-ha ha ha, NARF!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Yes it was.
And now (Score:1)
Imagine being a comic... (Score:5, Funny)
16 million and 1 years ago? Talk about a tough crowd... and no booze or blow to help take the edge off.
Well, that's a relief... (Score:2)
Now I have an excuse for my general demeanor and telling the really, really bad users "because you're a fucking idiot, to be honest!".
? /Wipes sweat away from brow, spills beer...damnit
I thought it had already been tested on rats (Score:5, Interesting)
A reference [umich.edu] from 1998 might be uselful for those interested.
Might be a case of convergent evolution (Score:4, Interesting)
Might be a case of convergent evolution.
From what i have understood, social animals behave more or less the same; there is a evolutionary advantage in some behaviours. That should then also why we can communicate better with dogs rather than polar bears, despite that they both are about equally "far" from us.
Rats are social animals and, possibly, their giggling is one cue to a mutual social behavious - perhaps social animals giggle. How then do dogs giggle? I do not know what do expect, but perhaps they giggle, but we just have not identified it as such yet.
.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Many animals play. And play is often an important part in their lives and development.
There are various sorts of humour though.
Some involve you laughing because your brain suddenly made a lots of unexpected connections.
Not sure how that relates to you being tickled by someone else.
So? We are all mammals (Score:3, Interesting)
If one mammal can laugh, why not another? We share plenty of other traits.
First Fart Joke.. (Score:2, Funny)
... as are the jokes (Score:2)
I want that job (Score:5, Funny)
B: I tickle orangutan babies and then write about it.
No touchy! (Score:4, Interesting)
From the article:
If you tickle an orangutan, for example, it makes a series of loud panting hoots; it would be easy to mistake these sounds for pain or distress, rather than joy.
If you tickled me, especially if you when I was a small child, I would make sounds that were easy to mistake for joy when they were really sounds of pain or distress. I HATED being tickled. Hated it. My Mom would tickle me until I couldn't breathe when I was about 3-4, and I tried desperately to get away, but I couldn't stop laughing or uncurl myself from a ball. It took her a few years to get that I really, honestly despised it.
My point is, how do we know the apes are laughing? How do we know they're enjoying it and not just incapable of fighting it off like I was when I was little?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
My point is, how do we know the apes are laughing? How do we know they're enjoying it and not just incapable of fighting it off like I was when I was little?
Actually, they were measuring the researchers' laughter. The orangutans didn't like being tickled at all, but the researchers thought it was funny as hell.
Re:No touchy! (Score:4, Insightful)
From the article:
If you tickle an orangutan, for example, it makes a series of loud panting hoots; it would be easy to mistake these sounds for pain or distress, rather than joy.
How do we know they're enjoying it and not just incapable of fighting it off like I was when I was little?
Because they -are- capable of fighting it off!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously there aren't any orangutan joke writers (other than Jeff Foxworthy, I suppose), but if comedy stems from the tragedy of others, maybe we should find out if orangutans still "laugh" when they see ano
Re: (Score:2)
Oook!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:No touchy! (Score:4, Insightful)
"My point is, how do we know the apes are laughing?"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8083230.stm [bbc.co.uk]
I think the ape in the video would have ripped the guys arms off if he didn't like it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an interesting new metric: Average number of arms remaining per researcher.
"Ooo... he really didn't like that at all! Bob's going to need help feeding himself tomorrow!"
Re: (Score:2)
How do YOU know that you didn't sincerely like it when you were young? The problem with tickling is is that the ticklee is not in control. If you are susceptible to tickling there's little you can do but laugh. If the tickler abuses this, it is very easy to get annoyed pretty fast. I'm not into child psychology much, but I can only presume that babies don't hate their mother because she's in control. At least I haven't got any hateful tickling memories of my years before 4 years old.
That said, I've had a pr
Re: (Score:2)
By the orangutans' reaction when the researcher next appeared? Did they flee him or come to him to be tickled again? That should be a good indicator if the apes in question enjoyed it. Also, one could watch out if the orangs copied the behaviour and tickled other members of the group.
Of course, the researcher could have just looked up ook in the librarian's orangutan-human dictionary.
We are talking great apes (Score:3, Insightful)
If a great ape doesn't like something, your first clue will be that you die. They might look like gentle giants of nature but any great ape is many times stronger then a human being. Try this, you swing yourself up on a branch with one arm holding a baby or tractor tire with the other.
The saying "where does a 400lbs gorilla sit: anywhere it wants to" isn't for nothing.
An orangutan incapable of fighting of a research assistant :p
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ya, blame your lack of amusement on your mom.
I don't know that anybody likes to be tickled for very long. My wife hated tickling because of her experience of her father repeatedly tickling her way beyond the point that it was unpleasant and like the GP to the point that she couldn't breathe. She was really apprehensive when I started to tickle our children until she saw them coming back requesting more. Unlike her father, I tickle for a shorter time, giving them the opportunity to get away.
I used to think it was a bit of a strange thing about my wi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
24-bit Value (Score:2, Funny)
In other news, scientists have named these 16 million old laughter as "True Laughter". In comparison, the human laughter is named "Hi Laughter", believed to be between 16384 and 262144 years old.
We are not alone (Score:2)
16 million? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I blind-dated a fossilized rubber chicken once. Not something I'd recommend.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Mod parent up, +1 Funny.
Re:hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, I'll bite. Nobody other than you is saying that humans *must* have evolved from a common ancestor with other apes simply because of a single shared trait. It's a very well-documented scientific fact that humans and other apes share a common ancestor. Modern genetics, biology, study of fossil records, etc. all repeatedly confirm this theory. And it's pretty reasonable to suggest that a trait present in all species of a family was present in their shared common ancestor.
Science isn't a tool of "the liberal agenda." Evolve yourself a brain and read a fucking biology textbook.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem isn't really a single trait, it the lack of a complete set of traits. Much of what is known about the past is interpreted in order to fit into a prescribed story. You have relationships between form and function that go completely ignored too. Similarities in DNA can easily be attributed to similarities in appearance where the DNA is a certain way because of Two arms and two legs or the way the arms and legs bend rather then because of a common ancestor. There was a recent discussion about dog b
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was an interesting theory. I haven't heard of it before but it sounds like a lot of other things I have heard of.
However, we have seen what can be interpreted as laughter in other animals too. Young elephants have shows signs of this, Rats emitted ultrasonic squeals in response to tickling, Dogs emit emotion and come back for more just like the chips presenting their feet to be tickled again and again with their laughter studies.
Lets forget about the common ancestor for a minute, we know the speech pat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all.
This is irrelevant. The way your arms and legs bend isn't the only piece of available evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is. This was illustrated with the conversations about breeds of dogs is extinct as we know them today would all pretty much be considered a different species with only archeological evidence availible.
The scientific process for looking at the past is to look at the evidence, determin how it fits together then test that determination. While the theory hasn't been falsified, it doesn't mean it won't be or that two entirely different theories could be just as valid with the given evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. But you are too ignorant to understand this. You are focusing narrowly on your own superstitious misconceptions of science. You are ignoring the other data that is available. All creationists do.
Re: (Score:2)
Then what did it say? I think you will find that when you attempt to explain it (if your even close to being up for the task) that you will have to repeat what I just said.
BTW, I have said nothing to indicate I'm a creationist. Either stick to what was said, it go troll somewhere else. Keep your own re
Re: (Score:2)
Re:hmmm (Score:4, Funny)
After all these years, creationists are still resorting to the same strawman arguments. I guess changing their tactics over time to be more successful would be hypocritical.
Re: (Score:2)
"2 animals which share the same trait must have evolved from a common organism is astoundingly incorrect"
No, it is not incorrect. True, those shared traits may not have evolved from a common ancestor, and then they are "analogous" traits; .e.g. the wings in bats and birds are examples of that.
If they have evolved through a common ancestor then they are "homologous" traits; the wings of bats and birds are examples of homologus traits, if regarded as forelimbs and not as wings.
In order to judge which is corre
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Evolution is quite real. Humanity has played with it for a long time [wikipedia.org]. But we must drop the assumption that behavior observed now has been there 16 million years ago. Why do we assume chimpanzees stopped evolving, again?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the problems is that biological evolution is such a broad term that encompasses many things. Take the bible for instance, there are many historically real facts in there. There are some that is questionable and unverifiable to date. However, saying that a burning bush never spoke to someone names Moses doesn't mean that the Egyptians didn't enslave the jews, or that rome didn't conquer the land currently known as Israel and so on.
With that in mind, there are several aspects of evolution that should h
Re: (Score:2)
Show me a chihuahua and a great dane breeding without artificial intervention. Without humans, they are separate species.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol.. Silly boy, Technical possibility isn't diminished by physical improbability.
The physical size differences in the dogs is attributed to a single gene sequence (IGF1 gene) which is inhibited or suppressed in smaller dogs through selective breeding. The IGF1 gene acts like or triggers a growth hormone which accounts for large dogs stature. In short, the biological differences between a chihuahua and a great dane are present in all small dogs verses large dogs.
Now, pointing to something like a chihuahua a
Re: (Score:2)
Ring species are not that much of a problem at all. They are not biologically blocked from breeding, just physically or mechanically. Now, if humans are just part of the natural enviroment, then don't object to humans causing the breeding which proves rings species much like the great da
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstand the concept of ring species. Certain ring species can't physically breed, but there is no hard and fast cut off. Please research the concept before attempting to comment on it. You simply appear uninformed when you don't know common biology terms.
You are wrong about speciation, too. Completely wrong. It has been observed, and written about quiet extensively. For instance, before the invention of nylon, nothing on earth had the enzymes necessary to digest it. A few decades after it was inve
Re: (Score:2)
I fully understand what a ring species is. What I don't acnowledge is your attempt at a usage for the term. Physically prohibited from breeding doesn't mean biological incapable. That is why a ring species doesn't present any problems. It also
Re: (Score:2)
What? In a ring species A-B-C-D-E-F-G, A and D can't breed even if artificially inseminated. A and B can breed easily, B and C can breed easily, and so on. But a and D can't.
You are just misinformed about speciation, I don't know what more I can say except you are obviously attached to your theories and unwilling to look at evidence that contradicts them. First year biology students know that you are wrong.
It is as if you are attempting to claim that the earth is flat, it is that outdated and ridiculous. Yo
Observed Instances of Speciation (Score:2)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html [talkorigins.org]
Ring species: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species [wikipedia.org]
Species: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species [wikipedia.org]
Interbreeding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbreeding [wikipedia.org]
Get back to me when you're more educated. You are a virtual clone of millions of other uneducated people who know nothing about biology or evolution yet think they are fit to argue what they don't comprehend. You are not unique, your arguments have been made and refuted a million times before. It gets b
Re: (Score:2)
No can't is never used in the explanation of a ring species. Don't or do not is always used. Biologically, the are capable but either the mechanics or their own preference prevent it from happening in real life.
Re: (Score:2)
it's pretty bad when you think of yourself as the only one who knows the truth. Millions of other ignorant people might be a sign that you reality just isn't all that believable.
I have read those point before, I know what they claim to say. However, they don't present anything new to the mix as you are attempting to claim. You also bastardizing science in order to make the claims fact when they are mostely opinion about facts.
Perhaps you should get back to me when you're more educated on the differences bet
Denial is not just a river in Africa (Score:2)
You've got nothing but opinions, unsupported by facts. Your opinions don't match up with reality. Just contradicting the truth doesn't make an argument. I've disproven every one of your so called claims, but you just keep denying it.
Re: (Score:2)
You are still wrong about ring species. Oh, and I can't change your mind, your mind is closed. You just keep denying that the facts I present are facts, without saying why or shoeing any evidence. You aren't arguing a point, you are simply denying facts.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you understand, it's all opinion over observed evidence. You are making jumps to maintain your position and in doing so, you have offered nothing but unterpreted evidence that relies a whole lot on opinion. You have not disproved anything, you have simply stated your opinion and the opinions of other people.
In fact, you are the one with the denial problem.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm arguing the point that your facts don't mean what you think they mean. You can't take facts on their own and present them on their own to the conclusion, you have to interpret them surrounding a bastardized concept that when applied liberally breaks down in an instant as obnoxious and absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
If you'd even read the wiki article on ring species, you would know you are dead wrong about facts, not opinion. Whether an animal is genetically capable of mating with another is a fact, not an opinion.
Same with speciation, we have observed dozens of incontrovertible speciation events, both in the lab and in the wild. These aren't opinions, and just claiming they are won't make the facts go away.
I am the one presenting facts, facts that first year biology students know.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. Facts are facts. Speciation is an observed fact, not a theory or opinion. You are simply ignoring the facts. Your opinions aren't even unique or new, plenty of ignorant people hold the exact same opinions you do. And those opinions have been proven over and over again to be false opinions based on wishful thinking, not observation.
Go to talkorigins, you will see all your opinions debunked with hard science.
Re: (Score:2)
For instance, you claim: "No can't is never used in the explanation of a ring species. Don't or do not is always used. Biologically, the are capable but either the mechanics or their own preference prevent it from happening in real life."
This is as patently false as claiming the earth is flat. Learn basic biology before attempting to discuss it. I mean, you are claiming the exact opposite of observed fact. It is patently obvious that you didn't even read the article on ring species.
Re: (Score:2)
I have read the Wikipedia articles. In fact, it just says the end populations are too distant to breed. It doesn't say biologically incapable of breeding just that they don't breed. It even offers the gulls as an example in which they are perfectly capable of interbreeding but do not because of migration patterns and preferences. This is no a biological restriction to breeding and you calling them a separate species or pointing at is as proof of specialization is nothing but opinion. It's not fact, it's opi
Re: (Score:2)
You need to drop the religious zealotry and look at it for what it is. The facts are A, B, and C, specialization claims are nothing more then an interpretation of those facts. The facts by themselves don't say anything about speciation, it allows you to create conclusions or opinions about them in order to signify their meaning. The facts on their own don't say anything close to what your claiming, and evolution, macro-evolution to be precise is not a fact, it's an opinion of facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Which species specifically state that the biological make up is so different that reproduction is biologically impossible? And no, don't point to idiots misinterpreting something, point to the actual research. You called it and are insisting something, now show it.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh. My. God. Nope, wrong again. It specifically says biologically unable to breed. Not migration patterns and preferences, please. Did you just skim it looking for certain words? Migration patterns, physical barriers, and preferences, plus mutations over time, have left them unable to breed physically. Fact.
Re: (Score:2)
I gave you a link to dozens of examples. Here it is again: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html [talkorigins.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Your opinions, not the facts as witnessed by thousands of field researchers.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't admit the simply truth that the interpretation of evidence is opinion until empirically observed, then this conversation is over due to your own ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
I think I asked for links to the actual research which does say "doesn't reproduce" and mot incapable of doing so. Instead, you show links to a site that is designed to push the agenda or opinion over others, that really smart there.
But lets look at your page and what it was to say about speciation with the fruit flies,
Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971): sterile males, can't mate period and would not evolve the species at all
Thoday and Gibson (1962): didn't mate from preferential selection, not biological inco
Re: (Score:2)
Pick and choose your data much? It says exactly what I'm claiming: speciation has been observed.
Here's my favorite:
"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species
Re: (Score:2)
There is no interpretation as to whether two animals can biologically breed. Whether they can or can't is a fact, not an opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
There is too, the animals in question are not prevented by biological restrictions to interbreeding, they are being prevented by geographical, mechanical, or preferential restrictions. In a lab, all of the animals can be fertilized and the embryos implanted into any of the animals and they live until something prevents that from happening. In your great dane verses Chiuaua it's a mechanical restriction in the gulls from wikipedia article, it's a migratory restriction.
You claiming that they can't interbreed
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, you will need to show some sources when you make outrageous claims. Why should anyone believe just your word on it? I've shown sources. The wiki article clearly states, "In the case where the cline bends around, populations next to each other on the cline can interbreed, but at the point that the beginning meets the end again, as is shown in C, the genetic differences that have accumulated along the cline are great enough to prevent interbreeding (represented by the gap between pink and green on the
Re: (Score:2)
I need to show sources, What's wrong with yours? They say what I say, they even quote studies and everything. Take your talk origins article-- I already pointed where it said as I do.
Damn dude, just give up, they aren't lies and you kicking and screaming doesn't make them so. Look at your own links objectively and you will see exactly what I see. If you can't look at them objectively, then sit down and shut up about it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't even know how to have a conversation with someone who just keeps on denying the truth. You keep claiming my sources say something they do not say. It is pathetic. You've lost, epic fail. Anyone can read those sources, you are playing to people who won't even read them, hoping they will take your word for it. Please, read the sources, anyone can see that I am right and you are lying.
Re: (Score:2)
That AC comment wasn't by me. I think you know me well enough that I would just say it in regular posts if I wanted to say it.
However, I am sort of inclined to agree with him.
I have pointed to where your sources say the things they do, yet you are attempting to take the collection and bring them to your preconceived conclusion. The problem with this isn't what your doing as a practice in general, That's how science works, you interpret the evidence to the best possible explanation. But what is wrong is that
Re: (Score:2)
I know that. I have a stalker again, pissed some idiot off weeks ago and he keeps reposting this.
I can't keep arguing with you because you keep ignoring what I say, claiming that the facts I present are mere opinion. For example, here's a quote I've posted before about ring species:
In the case where the cline bends around, populations next to each other on the cline can interbreed, but at the point that the beginning meets the end again, as is shown in C, the genetic differences that have accumulated along the cline are great enough to prevent interbreeding (represented by the gap between pink and green on the diagram). The interbreeding populations in this circular breeding group are then collectively referred to as a ring species.
Here's another bit that specifically makes my point:
The problem, then, is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours). Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often thought to be.
Here's a bit about salamanders, Dawkins used it to illustrate ring species:
The Ensatina salamander has been described as a ring species in the mountains surrounding the Californian Central Valley.[2] The complex forms a horseshoe shape around the mountains, and though interbreeding can happen between each of the 19 populations around the horseshoe, the Ensatina eschscholtzii subspecies on the western end of the horseshoe cannot interbreed with the Ensatina klauberi on the eastern end.[4] As such it is thought to be an example of incipient speciation, and provides an illustration of "nearly all stages in a speciation process" (Dobzhansky,1958).[2][5]
Now, you may claim that when they say, "Can't interbreed" they mean, "Are physically incapable of bree
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh. I keep giving him the benefit of the doubt, but it's obvious that to him, this is some kind of a game, where there are winners and losers. It isn't about sharing knowledge or discussion at all. It's about not losing, and as long as he doesn't admit he's lost, in his mind he's the winner.
Re: (Score:2)
We are natural selection, as much as anything else is.
Re:hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
Shall I even mention the leap of faith required to even consider whether those same 2 animals evolved in the first place?
If you have:
It's impossible NOT to have evolution.
We observe these 3 things every day, in every new baby plant and animal.
These mutations are not selective to a specific sub-set of traits. They go across the board effecting every trait of an organism. Nature is constantly changing every aspect of every organism right in front of our eyes, with every new birth. If we do this for millions of years it's impossible NOT to have an incredibly different organism at the end.
The misconception comes from the idea that an ape gave birth to a human. This is simply not the case. The change was very gradual, changing trait upon trait over time. Today's apes are VERY different from the apes of the past.
The only reason we separate and classify into Homo erectus, sapians, neanderthalensis, etc. is to make sense of it all. We give different words to groups of organisms that have different traits. They're basically the same living thing with slightly different traits.
Where we draw the line and call things different species, races, etc? Well it's very difficult, and so we're constantly refining what names we give to groups with different traits. But they're just NAMES. The traits change all the time.
This gradual change in traits that we observe happening RIGHT NOW is what many people call evolution. There's LOTS of evidence (bones & fossils) to say that this has always happened.
When observing all of this right in front of our eyes, it actually takes a leap of faith to say things don't evolve. Even the last 2 Catholic Popes (heads of a very non-liberal organization) have understood and agreed with it. Once you see it, you have to say, "I don't believe my eyes." And THAT is the true leap of faith.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, creationists have created an escape condition from that logical argument. They accept that there are small changes that occur between every generation, but that these are small changes that cancel out and do not add up to the major changes that are are claimed to have happened (assuming they don't believe the world was created 6000 years ago).
Re: (Score:2)
God told Moses it was 7 days, because Moses just wouldn't understand something like 7 Billion years maybe.
Or it's possible the Bible was, in whole or in part, written by humans who got it wrong.
Here's what I believe, God Created the universe, god created life, God caused evolution to Just work,
Abiogenesis doesn't require a supernatural being, either.
But you're right -- there are many opportunities for a deity to help things along, and neither evolution nor abiogenesis makes it impossible to adapt a Christian belief.
That's not a typo -- I said "adapt", not "adopt". Just as Christianity has had to adapt itself before, to the idea of Earth being spherical, and Earth not being the center of the Universe.
It's good
Re: (Score:2)
Biological evolution has a very different meaning. It's merely the process of variation / selection / heredity. It does not mean that something becomes more complex or more intelligent (although certain complexities and intelligences do tend to help with survival in the wild, and therefore those traits might stick around).
So, yes, whoever makes more babies will have more of their traits s
Re: (Score:2)
All skeletal remains are transient.
Re: (Score:2)
AC, you are my new King/Queen/Fido of Whoosh. Brilliant.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I didn't realize we were able to hear someone or something from 16 million years ago laugh to *know* that action is that old.
You incorrectly assume that we have to experience a fact through our senses to be able to know that fact to be true.
Re: (Score:2)
You incorrectly assume that we have to experience a fact through our senses to be able to know that fact to be true.
Not to start a big discussion on this, since I really don't have enough of an opinion to care, but isn't this the exact opposite argument people use to say that God doesn't exist? "I can't see him or see any hard evidence, so he must not exist" right? Or is that qualifier only used when it's convenient? ;)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, good argument there. Let's see, lets assume that you don't believe me when I say the was light is green at the intersection exactly 25 years 1 day, 13 minutes and 2 seconds ago, now prove to me it wasn't. You see how that seems ridiculous? The problem isn't finding proof one way or another, it's how convincing that proof is and how much it ties the truth of the situation to reality. Obviously, there are people wh