BHM's Homesteading & Self-Reliance Forum

Posting requires Registration and the use of Cookies-enabled browser


Go Back   BHM Forum > After Sunset > Philosophy

Philosophy Any non-religious philosophical discussions.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 05-14-2015, 01:24 PM
jvcstone jvcstone is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: North Central Texas
Posts: 1,792
Default

Back to the original post----I suspect that as far as mental capacity, we are pretty much the same as early homo sapiens, and possible not much more advanced than some of the earlier homo species. As you stated, it was first the development of language (which probably predates our species by many years) and then a means of recording that language that has enabled the rapid transition from first agriculture about 10,000 years ago to where we are now.

On the other hand, I believe, and the archaeological record does show that pre agricultural humans and our fore-bearer (and some contemporary) species were much more robust than modern man. Evidence from fossil remains indicate that much of modern health problems did not arise until our species began eating food substances that our systems had not evolved to digest readily. Also, on the genetic side, many weak genes that would not have been as easily passed forward in the paleo world are commonly passed on now. IE. I have been extremely near sighted since early childhood---corrected by glasses in our modern world. In a world where survival depended on one's heightened sensual awareness, I doubt that I would have survived long enough to pass such a genetic weakness forward. You got to know what's coming at you to spark the flight or flee instinct.

In other words, I suspect that we (as a species) are no more intellegent than our cave living ancestors, and a lot weaker in terms of physical strength and health. Our paleo ancestors didn't live as long because of environmental hazards, but died a lot healthier than we moderns do.

JVC
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-14-2015, 05:29 PM
Lurch Male Lurch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 218
Default

I took a class on hunter/gatherers recently. Some surprising things were taught such as they generally lived longer than originally thought. They had leisure time. Logic would indicate that if they made artwork then their lives were not a constant struggle for survival. Their teeth were in better condition than alot of today's people. They ate more raw foods than we do. The data came from the few hunter/gatherer tribes that are still around today. Such as the Kalahari Bushmen, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-15-2015, 01:18 AM
Jjr's Avatar
Jjr Male Jjr is offline
Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: NWLA
Posts: 836
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jvcstone View Post
In other words, I suspect that we (as a species) are no more intellegent than our cave living ancestors, and a lot weaker in terms of physical strength and health. Our paleo ancestors didn't live as long because of environmental hazards, but died a lot healthier than we moderns do.
JVC
I disagree completely in your statement that modern man (we) are no more intelligence than our cave living ancestors.

Most people today equate intelligence with formal education which is also a very false concept. We have all encountered some highly educated individuals that did not have any knowledge of the real world and were as the story goes, "To dumb to come in out of the rain." My point is not to take anything away from these highly education & intelligent individuals that may have forgotten more than I will ever know about some specialized subject, but to illustrate the point that they are so focused and concentrated in such a small spectrum of life they are still painfully missing a good dose of common sense. But as one of my colleagues was fond of saying, "Common sense is not really that common anymore!"

Then on the other hand, most of us have encountered people who did not have the opportunity to obtain a formal education which were highly intelligent. Often self taught, but also learned well from life's experiences. And we are continually learning as we age, from our experiences in life.

Now back to that quote above, If you had said, you did not believe modern man (we) have no greater intellectual capacity than our cave living ancestors, I probably would not have made a comment and I believe the original poster has also made this same error in asking his original question.

I have no doubt Mr. Cave Man was capable of thinking and working out solution to his problems, and I would not call the Cave Man dumb; but his intellectual capacity was in no way developed to the intelligence level of Modern Man. Having the capacity for knowledge and learning (intellectual capacity) and actually having the knowledge and learning (intelligence) are like I said about equating formal education with intelligence; they are not one and the same.

Cave Man and Modern Man may have similar intellectual capacity, but they are centuries apart in intelligence. Given the same opportunities as Modern Man, the Cave Man MIGHT, prove equally intelligent.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-15-2015, 07:58 PM
MissouriFree's Avatar
MissouriFree MissouriFree is online now
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: central missouri woods
Posts: 17,121
Default

Don't confuse intelligence with knowledge.
Intelligence is the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations.
Knowledge is information, understanding, or skill that you get from experience or education.

Jvc was correctin use of the term intelligence.
__________________
work like you don't need the money- love like you never been hurt and dance like no one is watching !!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-16-2015, 04:22 AM
Kachad Male Kachad is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: MN
Posts: 1,468
Default

As was mentioned before, I think there is a big difference with getting good nutrition when developing and education.

I think if our ancestors had access to full nutrition, they would develop more physical and mental capacity than they might have had. Same thing today, I would guess.

Education, access to knowledge and scientific processes seem to be critical too.

My opinion is that if you took two babies with good potential from today and 5K years ago, gave them the same nutrition and education, they would develop the same potential.

If you went back 50K years, I'm not so sure they would develop the same potential.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-16-2015, 04:21 PM
Lurch Male Lurch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 218
Default

I think that just like today, there are smart people and not so smart people. The difference being that maybe 50k years ago, the not so smart ones didn't survive. If there is any shred of accuracy to Natural Selection etc, the smart genes would prevail over the centuries, giving rise to the people of today. That was why I named this thread like I did. Ergo, humans of today are the culmination of thousands and thousands of years of the smarter genes being passed on through the generations. I do believe, however that with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, alot of the natural laws got thrown out of the window.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-16-2015, 08:53 PM
Kachad Male Kachad is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: MN
Posts: 1,468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
I do believe, however that with the advent of the Industrial Revolution, alot of the natural laws got thrown out of the window.
... or the selection criteria has changed significantly. I'm thinking of the highly intelligent specialized people that excel in a focused area of expertise but lack in a many other areas, like common sense. Seems that before the IRev the rules may have favored individuals that had those share of skills distributed amongst many different aspects of life.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-17-2015, 01:58 AM
Jjr's Avatar
Jjr Male Jjr is offline
Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: NWLA
Posts: 836
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissouriFree View Post
Don't confuse intelligence with knowledge.
Intelligence is the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations.
Knowledge is information, understanding, or skill that you get from experience or education.

Jvc was correctin use of the term intelligence.
The definition of intelligence is still being debated by the experts in the field of psychology, and has been so for in excess of a century now, since the times of early modern philosophizers all they way into the present day. Intelligence is a term that is still very controversial in its meaning, with the experts being unable to completely agree upon it meaning, so to have a civil philosophical discussion here, there must first be an agreement on what certain terms mean.

Even then the discussion is useless, because there is no way any of us can prove our beliefs beyond the point of acceptance with the other participants, or at least I very seriously doubt anyone will concede in their beliefs to another.

I am not a philosopher or, psychologist either one, and I certainly will not return to the "Philosophy" section of this forum ever again.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-21-2015, 12:45 PM
Lurch Male Lurch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jjr View Post

I am not a philosopher or, psychologist either one, and I certainly will not return to the "Philosophy" section of this forum ever again.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-21-2015, 02:26 PM
rubyyarn's Avatar
rubyyarn Female rubyyarn is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: SW Virginia
Posts: 1,113
Default

Philosophers aren't usually known for their quiet, good manners. Look what they did to Socrates because he had ideas different from others. Imagine all the yelling and table thumping that went on in the coffee houses of the 1700s.

Or put a conservative and a liberal in the same room and see what happens
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-21-2015, 05:14 PM
Lurch Male Lurch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubyyarn View Post

Or put a conservative and a liberal in the same room and see what happens
They hopefully would say, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Evelyn Beatrice Hall 1868-1956
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-21-2015, 08:02 PM
rubyyarn's Avatar
rubyyarn Female rubyyarn is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: SW Virginia
Posts: 1,113
Default

Yeah. Then one would call the other a moron and make remarks about ancestry and it would be game on!
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-22-2015, 08:03 AM
doc doc is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: central WI--finally!
Posts: 1,473
Default

A coupla thoughts:

-Evolution thru "mutation /natural selection/survival of the fittest" refers to a specific example of a more general concept seen in mathematical game theory. Things exist as they do in the universe because this is the most likely, in the probabilistic sense, state.

-"survival of the fittest " actually refers to "reproductive fitness", not "the strongest, fastest, smartest." Is a dandelion any less fit than an Olympic sprinter with a PhD? The dandelion is actually the more fit.

-the larger the population (ie-more "successful"), the LESS likely new mutations will have an impact on the overall survival of the species. Although "better", a new mutation will be "diluted out" in the population and be less likely to have an impact on future generations.

-a new invention by a single genius (like Borlaug and his "Green Revolution") will do little to pass his "intelligent genes" on, but it can allow the survival, and therefore, the ability to pass on "less intelligent genes" by many millions, thus causing the "dumbing down" of the general population.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-26-2015, 02:45 PM
Lurch Male Lurch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 218
Default

Slightly off topic- do you ever wonder why is it that some species never seem to change at all through the eons? I'm referring to the Shark, although I'm sure there are others. Maybe when a good and proven design happens, it gets locked in because it works so well?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-29-2015, 12:39 PM
jvcstone jvcstone is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: North Central Texas
Posts: 1,792
Default

True that the "type" shark has been around for a long time (400 million years) basically unchanged, sharks have continued to evolve over the ages. There are several thousand species of shark described in the geologic record, and currently some 1100 species swimming around the oceans.

We should all be grateful that megalodon no longer cruses the waters of the gulf;

http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/otherp...-Megalodon.htm

a pretty good site if your interested:

http://www.elasmo-research.org/educa...s_predator.htm

JVC
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -2. The time now is 01:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 1996 to Present. Backwoods Home Magazine, Inc.