Nature, Nurture and what makes us, us

James

Blackwing Lair Raider
2,117
40d 16h 22m
Reactions
6,340 246 0 0
He's just going to keep denying terms and definitions.
Gonna have to work harder than this to beat Xeq for worst post of 2018. There's a couple of weeks left.
 

Razzes

Knight of the Realm
352
6d 20h 9m
Reactions
336 34 0 0
Maybe its your notation so I am confused. But arent you still working with normal random variables here? You think you can just take a probability of a continuous interval and apply it to a discrete event? I hope you dont do anything that requires statistical modeling for a living.
Yes this is what I do for a living. You obviously have no formal education in probability and much less any sort of natural instinct or understanding of it. This is very much like the retarded argument I was having with you about bayesian priors.

If you pick a random black individual and a random yellow individual, then one of them is smarter than the other as measured by IQ. Which one is smarter is a discrete event with probability mass that can be computed with first year bachelor-level of probability theory (being generous) as I've shown in my post. If anything about my notation or argument confuse you, that's because you are uneducated. The probability that Yellow is smarter than Black is the probability that X2-X1 is greater than 0, there is nothing confusing or difficult about this. Yes X2 is a random normal variable just like X1, and this poses no problem at all.

EDIT: JESUS FUCK I EVEN FOUND A FUCKING LINK ON THE INTERNET GIVING THE SOLUTION
Probability of a point taken from a certain normal distribution will be greater than a point taken from another?
Not even mathoverflow, mathfuckingexchange, so it is a noob question. Your comment is even below the level of the question obviously, since you weren't even able to conceive the question in the first place
 
Last edited:

Ambiturner

<Donors Crew>
8,263
23d 14h 57m
Reactions
4,009 665 0 0
In the first fucking sentence:



Does murdering you in the face with a knife sound like we're talking about protein modification...or would you say closer to a controllable, physical process?
How have you managed to stay alive this long? Holy shit.

You still die by a biological process whether you're murdered in the face with a knife, starve to death, or die by a heart attack. You still end up with hypoperfusion to your brain/heart.

Thinking the fact that it's "controllable" somehow changes that or that being killed by a person is "biologically" different than any animal killed by a predator just shows how deep your lack of understanding goes.

Please stop with the biology talk. You are so far out of your element you're embarrassing yourself.
 

Mario Speedwagon

Shitpost Plumber
<Moderation Tools>
14,121
17d 21h 36m
Reactions
40,628 2,093 0 0
In the first fucking sentence:



Does murdering you in the face with a knife sound like we're talking about protein modification...or would you say closer to a controllable, physical process?
Things I've learned in this thread: Samurai are black, death is not a biological process.
 

James

Blackwing Lair Raider
2,117
40d 16h 22m
Reactions
6,340 246 0 0
You still die by a biological process whether you're murdered in the face with a knife, starve to death, or die by a heart attack. You still end up with hypoperfusion to your brain/heart.

Thinking the fact that it's "controllable" somehow changes that or that being killed by a person is "biologically" different than any animal killed by a predator just shows how deep your lack of understanding goes.
What does the biological process of death have to do with reproductive selection? Yes, being killed by a predator is also a cultural or geographic concern in the animal kingdom.

Please stop with the biology talk. You are so far out of your element you're embarrassing yourself.
Pull your head out of your ass and realize the arguments being made. You are literally arguing on a worldview supported by Mario Speedwagon and sadris.
 

Razzes

Knight of the Realm
352
6d 20h 9m
Reactions
336 34 0 0
Pull your head out of your ass and realize the arguments being made. You are literally arguing on a worldview supported by Mario Speedwagon and sadris.
I smell a manifestation of Godwin's law approaching. The animal is trapped and injured, finish him!
 

James

Blackwing Lair Raider
2,117
40d 16h 22m
Reactions
6,340 246 0 0
Lol, yeah, I'm trapped. Meanwhile you retards keep dancing around the fact that you think black people are dumb because it's in their genes, literally an indefensible position.
 

wormie

<Donors Crew>
5,839
45d 12h 53m
Reactions
6,788 716 0 0
Yes this is what I do for a living. You obviously have no formal education in probability and much less any sort of natural instinct or understanding of it. This is very much like the retarded argument I was having with you about bayesian priors.

If you pick a random black individual and a random yellow individual, then one of them is smarter than the other as measured by IQ. Which one is smarter is a discrete event with probability mass that can be computed with first year bachelor-level of probability theory (being generous) as I've shown in my post. If anything about my notation or argument confuse you, that's because you are uneducated. The probability that Yellow is smarter than Black is the probability that X2-X1 is greater than 0, there is nothing confusing or difficult about this. Yes X2 is a random normal variable just like X1, and this poses no problem at all.

EDIT: JESUS FUCK I EVEN FOUND A FUCKING LINK ON THE INTERNET GIVING THE SOLUTION
Probability of a point taken from a certain normal distribution will be greater than a point taken from another?
Not even mathoverflow, mathfuckingexchange, so it is a noob question. Your comment is even below the level of the question obviously, since you weren't even able to conceive the question in the first place
Yes you are right, it is very simple. And I am wrong. Interesting. Thanks.
 

Lendarios

Accused AnalRapist
<Donors Crew>
12,372
Reactions
6,527 10,368 0 0
How have you managed to stay alive this long? Holy shit.

You still die by a biological process whether you're murdered in the face with a knife, starve to death, or die by a heart attack. You still end up with hypoperfusion to your brain/heart.

Thinking the fact that it's "controllable" somehow changes that or that being killed by a person is "biologically" different than any animal killed by a predator just shows how deep your lack of understanding goes.

Please stop with the biology talk. You are so far out of your element you're embarrassing yourself.
You are too caught up in the layman use of the phrase biological process, and the scientific one. The same way you are caught up with a the word race.
From a scientific definition dying is not a biological process, biological process is the mechanism that nature created that support living. A lack or failure, or interference with biological processes will cause you to die.
For example, there are biological process to process oxygen, this is fairly well understood and studied. Oxygen from air, to lungs to blood to cells. That is the biological process nature created to absorb it.

If I were to drown a mammal , the lack of air, is not a biological process in itself. I’m simply interefering with the biological process of oxygen absorption, the organism dies because it lacks a biological process to deal with this. If it were an amphibious, a secondary biological process of oxygen absortion would kick in.

We as human die because mostly of our lack of biological processes to deal with extensive injuries, but don’t think that this is an universal truth, lots of organisms have developed highly complex regenerative processes that allow for survival even if half their bodies is cut up (sea stars)
 

Ambiturner

<Donors Crew>
8,263
23d 14h 57m
Reactions
4,009 665 0 0
You are too caught up in the layman use of the phrase biological process, and the scientific one. The same way you are caught up with a the word race.
From a scientific definition dying is not a biological process, biological process is the mechanism that nature created that support living. A lack or failure, or interference with biological processes will cause you to die.
For example, there are biological process to process oxygen, this is fairly well understood and studied. Oxygen from air, to lungs to blood to cells. That is the biological process nature created to absorb it.

If I were to drown a mammal , the lack of air, is not a biological process in itself. I’m simply interefering with the biological process of oxygen absorption, the organism dies because it lacks a biological process to deal with this. If it were an amphibious, a secondary biological process of oxygen absortion would kick in.

We as human die because mostly of our lack of biological processes to deal with extensive injuries, but don’t think that this is an universal truth, lots of organisms have developed highly complex regenerative processes that allow for survival even if half their bodies is cut up (sea stars)
Jesus, why come here and post this nonsense? Not only is James the one that tried to say dying from being murdered is a different biological process than anything else, but your faggotry of "durr death isn't a biological process but the lack of a biological process" is Tanoomba make up your own definition shit.

Your example also shows a pretty embarrassing lack of biological knowledge. "Oxygen from air, to lungs to blood to cells" makes me think you don't know blood is made of up cells, and your drowning example shows you don't know much about cellular respiration and somehow have never heard of anaerobic metabolism.
 

Lendarios

Accused AnalRapist
<Donors Crew>
12,372
Reactions
6,527 10,368 0 0
Anaerobic metabolism is not efficient. You cant sustain a high level organism with it. It is 10 times as inneficient as aerobic metabolism.

It is a biological process that is insufficient to maintain cellular life on most multi cellular organisms.

How does that changes my statement? You can also I guess say that since lungs have cells(alviolas), they dont need blood to oxygenate themselves. Lend BTFO am I right.???

I didn't define biological process, other people did, and the common thread is procceses that support life, not kill it.
 

Ukerric

Bearded Ape
<Donor All-Stars>
4,001
16d 13h 29m
Reactions
2,631 73 0 0
From a scientific definition dying is not a biological process,
It's said that we begin dying the instant we're born (and probably before that).

If dying is the process leading to death, then it's complicated anyway.

Death has had various definitions over the time. Death, more generally, can be defined as the point where you can no longer be restored to at least partial functionality. Which is why, in a number of cases, it's very hard to decide if someone is really dead or not. And why, as technology progresses, death recedes slowly.

In the ancient days, if your heart stopped you were dead. Then we progressed, and having your heart stopped didn't mean you were dead. You are now dead when the doctors stopp trying to restart it. And as technology progresses, I can easily imagine conditions in which, currently, you'd be pronounced dead, which will no longer be death, because we'll be able to restore functionality enough.
 

Ambiturner

<Donors Crew>
8,263
23d 14h 57m
Reactions
4,009 665 0 0
Anaerobic metabolism is not efficient. You cant sustain a high level organism with it. It is 10 times as inneficient as aerobic metabolism.

It is a biological process that is insufficient to maintain cellular life on most multi cellular organisms.

How does that changes my statement? You can also I guess say that since lungs have cells(alviolas), they dont need blood to oxygenate themselves. Lend BTFO am I right.???

I didn't define biological process, other people did, and the common thread is procceses that support life, not kill it.
What? It's whole purpose is to maintain life, whether it can do it or not indefinitely is irrelevant. We would all be dead right now if we didn't have that capability.

I'm sure you meany alveoli as well, since that typically happens after it has entered the bloodstream.

Right now you're trying to defend a point you don't understand that's basically come down to "Black's not a color its absence of a color lol!!!" Which is bizarre because James is the one that brought up what does and doesn't count as a "biological process" death and is pretty insignificant in the whole debate
 

Lendarios

Accused AnalRapist
<Donors Crew>
12,372
Reactions
6,527 10,368 0 0
I'm freezing my ass off in Nashville. Fucking wypo and innate cold resistance.

James is telling you that we do not know of any biological process that links IQ with genes.
Biological meaning the strict meaning of it.
 

Lendarios

Accused AnalRapist
<Donors Crew>
12,372
Reactions
6,527 10,368 0 0
Also sustainable is the word you are looking for, not indefinitely.
Anaerobic respiration is not sustainable for high level organism.