>fat, box-like head
>bulky with muscle
>tiny eyes
>skulls covered in combat scars from fighting others
Was T. rex the pitbull of theropods?
>fat, box-like head. >bulky with muscle. >tiny eyes. >skulls covered in combat scars from fighting others
>fat, box-like head
>bulky with muscle
>tiny eyes
>skulls covered in combat scars from fighting others
Was T. rex the pitbull of theropods?
>Animals don't plan...
https://www.jneurosci.org/content/30/22/7705.short
https://academic.oup.com/cz/article/61/2/368/1792383?login=false
>...ACK
>IT WAS TRAINED
>ITS A LIE
>NO NO NO NO NO NO
>AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK
>I COULD PROGRAM A COMPUTER TO-
>GPT-5: You aren't conscious.
now lobotomize them and they'll have dinosaur brains.
>shitting on prehistoric planet
Why must you be so contrarian?
no because dinosaurs arent real and anthropologists are all charlatans
bro refutes evidence for dead lizards because he thinks invisible elvis will beat him up and light him on fire when he dies and walks out of his body as an invisible undying man
despite mountains of evidence to the contrary i believe animals don't have minds because it is convenient for my neurotic need to operate within a consistent ethical framework as i eat this steak and complain about gays.
beware of anyone who says anything is just something
these are universally the stupidest people on earth
No. Unlike pitbulls, t. Rex was incredibly intelligent, deceptively so for its size. So smart in fact that if they were alive today ancient people would have trained them for military applications the same way they used elephants.
Alright, schizos are here. I'm out.
they're the golden retrievers of dinosaurs
sleep tight, pupper
Sleep tight pupp.
STOP MARKING THIS POST AS SPAM GODAMMIT
>Varanid oral tissues
>Mammal nostrils
At least most of it looks proportionate, though I've always hated the prosciutto color pattern Saurian went with. I will give them credit though, they're one of the few outfits that actually changed their T. rex model to match the science instead of forcing the science to meet their fetishes.
I really liked the Prehistoric Planet model, it hits everything just right for me
While we're on the subject, does something as big as a T. rex still need camouflage? is it a case of the juveniles/sub-adults being well camouflaged, but they gain more colors as they become bigger? Then as adults you'll see bright patterning like in
for mating/display purposes
The purpose of camouflage is not to become invisible. The purpose is to break up your silhouette and make you more difficult to identify and just fall into background noise.
Consider this: Human visual systems are very good. Not the best of the best, but still good. However, even our eyes are easily tricked into becoming lazy and missing things right in front of us. There is a phenomenon known as "Road Hypnosis" where drivers will stop consciously viewing the road in front of them and drive on literal autopilot. This results in motorcycle and bicycle fatalities, because despite being literally right in front of them drivers do not expect anything other than cars on the road and so our visual system ignores motorcyclists completely.
tl;dr camouflage relies on prey and predators being complacent and lazy, so even a small amount helps.
>drivers can't see motorcyclists and run them over on accident
Hehe sure...
It's true. This has been well documented. If you don't expect to see something, you frequently don't.
>This has been well documented. If you don't expect to see something, you frequently don't.
not sure that applies to other animals. They don't seem to expect things most of the time, just react to whatever's there.
I know it's forbidden in biology to pretend humans differ from other animals, but imagination and expectation seem to be mostly human traits.
It 100% does apply to other animals. Humans are not special. The difference is really in their own individual sensory sensitivities (like a dog wouldn't fail to notice a certain smell, but may completely miss something visually; or a deer might never fail to miss a noise, but fail to see someone on the other side of a window - both situations I've experienced first hand).
I didn't say animals always notice everything
I said their failure to notice things has nothing to do with expectations since they have none.
>I said their failure to notice things has nothing to do with expectations since they have none.
You can not prove this, or even competently theorize about it. An expectation does not need language to exist. Self awareness doesn't even need language to exist. Thought can occur entirely as internal sensory hallucinations and intuition.
you do realize you are arguing with a crypto-creationist correct? this is a paleo schizo thread. he's arguing in bad faith because he needs to disagree but can not say why he really disagrees without being ridiculed by the other 3,999 religions that claim to know the true gods.
Paleoschizo is finally taking his last 7 bans seriously I think. I haven't seen him in days. Or maybe the jannies finally figured out how to rangeban his ass. Not likely.
Like I said, for someone who thinks everyone is me, you sure are dogshit at picking out my posts.
kek
you back on your meds? You've been pretty quiet.
I really haven't. You're just retarded.
>I really haven't.
then why isn't this thread 120 ALL CAPS samefag posts of schizo wojack posting?
I watched you get yourself banned 9000 times on purpose last week. Like that does anything.
I think sometimes even you get sick of the schizo posting.
>I haven't seen him in days
well unless this is him
this anon has also been on Wauf for ages. The "animals are just like people" guy. I always imagined him as a woman though.
>You can not prove this, or even competently theorize about it
Pavlov proved it easily.
animals don't have the imagination to expect things. They can be conditioned to expect things, and often are. But they don't go through life imagining what their day will be like, and they can be programmed like simple robots
you're programmed to deny this.
Pavlov proved a physiological reaction dumbshit. The exact same conditioning works on you regardless of your conscious expectations. You have a tiny, tiny mind and can't understand how thought and classical conditioning are separate. Operant conditioning on the other hand requires some thought and can be misinterpreted. Operant conditioning REQUIRES expectations to function.
>inb4 but oh i dont think humans are self aware either
I know, you're a fucking retard. You have been programmed to believe this slop for ages watching hollywood garbage like the matrix as your mind has been brutally assraped to make you believe in a mechanical world where morality is defined by economists and game theory. The perfect worker. Slave. Or golem, you could say.
The greatest mistake of behavioral studies was the statement "that there is no need to appeal to an internal apparatus" because that apparatus functions at all times. The old protties figured that any unexpected and undesired result arose from low intelligence if it were an animal, but in humans it would be conscious resistance on principal. And soon it will be a mental illness and it will be denied that your resistance was ever voluntary, just a disorder. Because if you were functioning correctly you would automatically behave correctly if the conditioning were refined enough. Resistance would be irrational, an error. You would need drugs to calm your dysfunctional emotions.
>Proof, free will is a lie, now be happy like we tell you to be happy.
People following common sense have always found that assuming an internal apparatus, a mind, yields more reliable results with all things that clearly have at least a shitty one and reduces the chance of encouraging unwanted and unexpected behaviors. Unfortunately this process requires yielding and compromising, which in the mindset of those that do not deserve their authority, all false prophets of false religions and weak, most likely inbred, funny looking men appointed to undeserved positions, is failure to prove their worth. The dog heels when they say heel, and you lose your career when you say the wrong thing. There is no discussion, damnit, obey!
>The exact same conditioning works on you regardless of your conscious expectations.
unless it doesn't.
it does, it always does. it is even possible to pull a russian army and make a 100% straight man involuntarily aroused by men (he will be, but he will hate it). and it's being used to destroy your society.
classical conditioning is by definition entirely involuntary. the effects it has on your voluntary thought can be disturbing as you try and reconcile the stuff your body is doing for no clear reason.
every time you argue that humans are no better than other animals at thinking I have to remind myself that you personally are not.
You don't understand human thought because you don't experience it.
You’re self deluding. Yes, involuntary conditioning works on you. Your entire being can be conceptualized as a mechanical system and manipulated by someone else using classical conditioning and psychiatric drugs as if it is not believed that you have free will or real self awareness. And this works. And people richer and smarter than you have been researching it and slipping it into mainstream medicine with the goal of correcting unhappy and unproductive workers and soldiers.
But because you do have free will, if the conscious mind is not bargained with it has unintended consequences like severe emotional instability, crippling fears, and apparently senseless acts of aggression.
Humans have richer awareness than any animal and more sophisticated abstract thought (to a fault) but the essence of thought and will is present in almost everything. It’s almost impossible for intelligence to evolve without it because a capable mind considers itself.
thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I believe there exists a class of humans with abilities you are incapable of recognizing because you assume everyone is just like you. And to be fair most people are like you.
but if you observe differences in human accomplishments and consider your own accomplishments fairly when compared to others I think you'll see that you might be typical, but you are not exceptional. And the people producing most of the differences between the human state and that of other animals are almost nothing like you.
Whiny nonsense. You say you think but clearly not.
I have a feeling you are arguing in bad faith and defending an unsaid argument so answer these questions
Do you believe in a god
Do you believe in good and evil
if someone else can hypnotize you, you should be able to hypnotize yourself. If someone else is conditioning you, you should be able to condition yourself. If someone is controlling you, you should be smart enough to see it and work against it.
if you fail these tests, you are indeed no different from a deer or a dog. Because your intentions are incapable of overcoming the intentions of others.
You are talking about a salivation response, you absolute fucking midwit retard. Or a flinch. As proof of free will or its absence. You fucking retard.
You smell like magic the gathering and dawkins novellas.
salivation response is the doggy version, because dogs don't think ahead and can't be conditioned to do something they lack the brains for.
that's the proof. The fact that he could only produce drool instead of complex behaviors over time. Because animals don't plan ahead. They just respond.
This is the single most braindead post i have ever read. You ooze virginity and pizza grease from every pore.
If you questioned your own beliefs as quickly and as easily as you question mine you'd find I'm right. More importantly you assume I have emotions that cause my beliefs, which indicates your beliefs are rooted in emotion. And that's fine. Your beliefs are spoon fed to you by others and you do not question them. In fact you react with anger when anyone dares question them.
Dinosaurs had much better visual acuity than deer. They likely relied very heavily on sight, and its primary purpose was either spotting prey or spotting predators. They presumably were incapable of having their senses dampened by expectations, as they don't have the part of the brain that expects things. That part of the brain was used to smell and see in dinosaurs. Not much else.
This is the second most braindead post I have ever read. Narcissists are impossible to converse with.
>Narcissists are impossible to converse with.
so are people that never had an original thought in their lives.
there's a whole population of people out there thinking for themselves. You aren't among them.
And here we see a creature that really doesn't plan. It just reacts. it doesn't even react with deeper thought it's basically vomiting out words that might work. Borderline chatbot levels of communication. Narcissists may not actually be sentient, or are willingly nonsentient because they might accidentally realize they have flaws.
I put more thought into my previous posts and anon either didn't understand or ignored the ideas entirely. She instead responded with anger. There is no reasoning with an emotional "person." They only understand emotional responses. And even those they have trouble grasping.
>Do you believe in a god
>Do you believe in good and evil
the better question is do you, and if so why?
the very first sign that someone is brainwashed and incapable of thinking for themselves is belief in the myths of their elders.
They do have expectations, Just not expectations that involve complex things like "tomorrow there will be more food" or "tomorrow I won't have to run from predators." If a deer looks around, he has two expectations: 1. Something vaguely out there may be dangerous. What is not important, but "something". And 2. If number one doesn't exist, then the deer can go about whatever they were doing safely."
If the deer doesn't spot the cougar, the deer will have an expectation of safety.
>the deer will have an expectation of safety.
not noticing danger is not the same as expecting safety.
their failure to see something dangerous the first time around doesn't predict their failure to see it when it's much closer.
also I guess to keep it in context
dinosaurs had brains more similar to trout than to deer
>I really liked the Prehistoric Planet model, it hits everything just right for me
You mean like that it's inaccurate and clearly stupid looking? Hey, if it makes people upset, that must be a good thing, right?
I know this is bait but i don't care. The only thing one can complain about with the model is the peach fuzz. That's the only bit of speculation it has.
If you knew anything about T. rex you'd know it is not fat but the skeleton itself is fucking wide. Now imagine adding muscles and skin on top
Wrong. There are many reconstructed T. rexes. It all depends on how you attach the gastralia. PP also fattened up other areas of the body unnecessarily.
No they're not. Half of them look like Pixar rejects. The other half are pure nightmare fuel.
PP is still a huge disappointment to me. With the resources they had at their disposal, they could have made the most advanced, most up-to-date, most accurate dinosaur documentary ever seen. Instead they chose to make it subversive garbage. This can never be forgiven.
I agree but most of their designs are still top tier
>t-rexes were breed by african reptilians to dino fights
>then they were adopted by female reptilians all over the world, because they thought they are gentle, misunderstood animals
>they were wrong, t-rexes ate them all
>male reptilians decide fuck it, and nuke mesozoic era into oblivion
>tiny eyes
T-rex has some of the largest eyes of any terrestrial animal ever. All other megatherapods have significantly smaller eyes.
Small in a relative way, of course. It also had a fucking enormous skull.
I always thought pitbulls looked like them.
I'd say they are above pitbulls just because if one kills you, you know it was for food