100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Brainiacs | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
As a society, we are NOT getting smarter. In fact, the reverse is true, masked only by the illusion created by technology. Greater minds than our own existed long before technology, with the only real difference being the lack of communication, and as a result, a lack of technological progress with no other brilliant minds to continue their efforts. Jerry Springer Steve Wilkos The pyramids Stonehenge The natives of this town, and just about every small town in this state Southern California, for the past 40 years Grade point averages The internet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have we really stalled so much in our intellectual road of evolution that we rever those intelligents of hundreds to thousands of years ago as though they are rare, unique or unduplicated? I keep hearing this in the religious/political/scientific threads. Intelligence from a hundred to thousand years ago should have been outgrown by now if we are truly evolving and growing. We should be smarter than that by now, wouldn't you think? Not discounting their wisdom but we should have by passed it intellectually, emotionally, etc... by now. My opinion here. I see more problems in clinging to what may be holding us back than revering the wisdom of old. I think some perspective is in order. In terms of history, what we know of science today had its beginnings less than 350 years ago, 400 if you want to consider that Copernicus challenged the world with his idea that the earth was not stationary and it was not the center of which all the physical realm revolved. It was not until 1619 that Kepler completed the third of his 'laws' for planetary motion. In the 1640's Galileo gave us the law of inertial and a useful version of the telescope. It wasn't until 1684 that Newton brought all that earlier work together with explicit mathematical formulas for the universal law of gravity. From there we had to wait for the industrial revolution and for technology to take us further. As all that was going on the world was at constant war, colonization and dealing with new forms of governments, slavery, and international trade. In other words we had to grow up. We had to have some equality, some properiety and a sense of community with was brought about through nationalism - a simple concept of propaganda. But it worked. To appreciate where we are, sometimes you have to look back to where we were. WWI was trench warfare, tanks only appeared at the end. Planes came into existence for WWII. In 1909 there was only about 400 miles of paved road in the whole United States. The majority of people who died succumbed to diseases like influenza, taburculosis and something as natural as child birth. How could anyone with this knowledge thing we have not 'EXPLODED' in exponential ways since science began? Archimedes wasn't science? Pythagoras wasn't science? Ptolomy wasn't science? The Book of Optics written in 1011 in Arabia wasn't science? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
people seem to believe some really weird shiit
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Tue 12/01/09 06:35 PM
|
|
In terms of history, what we know of science today had its beginnings less than 350 years ago Archimedes wasn't science? Pythagoras wasn't science? Ptolomy wasn't science? The Book of Optics written in 1011 in Arabia wasn't science? She said, science as we know it. Its true, the science of the Greeks was a pale shade of science today, and really for good reason. Long response needed . . . Now Arabia that is another story, I agree there, that is really the beginning's of modern science, until religious upheaval burned it to the ground. Then it started over like Di mentions . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a society, we are NOT getting smarter. In fact, the reverse is true, masked only by the illusion created by technology. Greater minds than our own existed long before technology, with the only real difference being the lack of communication, and as a result, a lack of technological progress with no other brilliant minds to continue their efforts. Jerry Springer Steve Wilkos The pyramids Stonehenge The natives of this town, and just about every small town in this state Southern California, for the past 40 years Grade point averages The internet. Jerry Springer - a lawyer turned capitalist (he likes money) Steve Wilkos (who's that?) The pyramids - so we found better use of space for graves. Stonehenge - what about it - does it do something? The natives of this town, and just about every small town in this state What is the relevance here? the only natives I know are still trying to get back rights to the land that was taken from them. Southern California, for the past 40 years Well no sense giving it back to Mexico now - seems they've moved back in. Time to learn spanish. (it's ok though, we really are smart enough) Grade point averages - at least we now have schools and enough kids in them to get statistics. Maybe we need to get the government out the school business and make states responsible for the education of their own kids. Oh, but wait - some states couldn't afford schools that's why the government got involved. Social economics - redistribution of wealth (through taxes) But hey, look how may kids are in our schools - compared to 100 years ago or compared to the rest of the world it's still a great advantage. The internet. - our finest achievement yet - at least in communication, and in infomation and the best opportunity we have to see the world and to facilitate change within it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have we really stalled so much in our intellectual road of evolution that we rever those intelligents of hundreds to thousands of years ago as though they are rare, unique or unduplicated? I keep hearing this in the religious/political/scientific threads. Intelligence from a hundred to thousand years ago should have been outgrown by now if we are truly evolving and growing. We should be smarter than that by now, wouldn't you think? Not discounting their wisdom but we should have by passed it intellectually, emotionally, etc... by now. My opinion here. I see more problems in clinging to what may be holding us back than revering the wisdom of old. I think some perspective is in order. In terms of history, what we know of science today had its beginnings less than 350 years ago, 400 if you want to consider that Copernicus challenged the world with his idea that the earth was not stationary and it was not the center of which all the physical realm revolved. It was not until 1619 that Kepler completed the third of his 'laws' for planetary motion. In the 1640's Galileo gave us the law of inertial and a useful version of the telescope. It wasn't until 1684 that Newton brought all that earlier work together with explicit mathematical formulas for the universal law of gravity. From there we had to wait for the industrial revolution and for technology to take us further. As all that was going on the world was at constant war, colonization and dealing with new forms of governments, slavery, and international trade. In other words we had to grow up. We had to have some equality, some properiety and a sense of community with was brought about through nationalism - a simple concept of propaganda. But it worked. To appreciate where we are, sometimes you have to look back to where we were. WWI was trench warfare, tanks only appeared at the end. Planes came into existence for WWII. In 1909 there was only about 400 miles of paved road in the whole United States. The majority of people who died succumbed to diseases like influenza, taburculosis and something as natural as child birth. How could anyone with this knowledge thing we have not 'EXPLODED' in exponential ways since science began? Archimedes wasn't science? Pythagoras wasn't science? Ptolomy wasn't science? The Book of Optics written in 1011 in Arabia wasn't science? I did say "modern science". That doesn't mean there were not great thinkers before that there just weren't many people who were education and not mass communication and for the most part people just survived. When you have population of millions and only about 400 or so have any education at all, while the rest are serfs and farmers - you can't expect a lot of scientific advances - in spite of the occasional genius. You can't take things out of context. For example - where did pythagoras live? What kind of communication existed which would carry his ideas to a world of poeple. And even when it began making the rounds who was there to read it? How many schools where there, who ran them, and how many attended? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In terms of history, what we know of science today had its beginnings less than 350 years ago Archimedes wasn't science? Pythagoras wasn't science? Ptolomy wasn't science? The Book of Optics written in 1011 in Arabia wasn't science? She said, science as we know it. Its true, the science of the Greeks was a pale shade of science today, and really for good reason. Long response needed . . . Now Arabia that is another story, I agree there, that is really the beginning's of modern science, until religious upheaval burned it to the ground. Then it started over like Di mentions . . . Yes - thank-you and you are quite right about Arabia. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
more technology has , in my opinion, greatly reduced our NEED to be creative, or inventive, or even hard working in many cases. Msharmony...so while debating on the internet..you rather be creative and run or fly across the continents to give your post in a letter by hand instead of just using your computer to post No, but I would have rather become accustomed to getting to know the people right next door and communicating with them instead of those across the ocean whom I will most likely never interact with. I would have rather become accustomed to changing the channel by hand then sitting and pushing a button, I would have rather become accustomed to walking or riding a bike to the local store instead of driving. I certainly would rather people have had their conversations at home in privacy instead of behind me at the theater or next to me on the bus or in my company. I would have rather children learn to compute basic math in their head instead of learning to rely on calculators. I would rather people learn how to spell correctly instead of relying on spell check,,etc,,,, I think people with less technology are actually the stronger culture, forced to use their own God given intellect and strength and the most likely to survive..but thats just my opinion. As far as jobs, I think the average job does not require a whole lot of intellect,,but that is my opinion again. Most jobs require repetition of something that is shown to them,,not much logic and application though. Msharmony...everything you named was due to some form of technology, you wanting to visit your next door neightbor...how did they become your next door neighbor when one of both of you had to use technology to move furniture or travel to that destination, did you call or ring their doorbell or did you just walked into their house you wanting to revert back to the days when you had to get up to change the channel on the television ...but yet you had a television (technology) you would ride the bike to the store instead of driving...so why not walk to the store...isn't a bike (technology) if technology prsent a problem then it's very easy to leave everything behind and go live in a forest ...but people do not resort to that because technology makes their life better technology does for the body what the body can't do or need help doing ...it displays how the human thought process have over acheived themselves |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have we really stalled so much in our intellectual road of evolution that we rever those intelligents of hundreds to thousands of years ago as though they are rare, unique or unduplicated? I keep hearing this in the religious/political/scientific threads. Intelligence from a hundred to thousand years ago should have been outgrown by now if we are truly evolving and growing. We should be smarter than that by now, wouldn't you think? Not discounting their wisdom but we should have by passed it intellectually, emotionally, etc... by now. My opinion here. I see more problems in clinging to what may be holding us back than revering the wisdom of old. Most intelligence today and even back 30,000 years derived and is fundamentally built from a foundation point. Complex mathmatics are built off rudimentary skills of counting which derived from being able to know how much game one had caught and so forth, which eventually lead to I have 3 deer, I will trade you for 100 heads of maze. Now I am just giving examples, but you see how we start almost a beginning foundation and build a chain futher into we reach our current time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
more technology has , in my opinion, greatly reduced our NEED to be creative, or inventive, or even hard working in many cases. Msharmony...so while debating on the internet..you rather be creative and run or fly across the continents to give your post in a letter by hand instead of just using your computer to post No, but I would have rather become accustomed to getting to know the people right next door and communicating with them instead of those across the ocean whom I will most likely never interact with. I would have rather become accustomed to changing the channel by hand then sitting and pushing a button, I would have rather become accustomed to walking or riding a bike to the local store instead of driving. I certainly would rather people have had their conversations at home in privacy instead of behind me at the theater or next to me on the bus or in my company. I would have rather children learn to compute basic math in their head instead of learning to rely on calculators. I would rather people learn how to spell correctly instead of relying on spell check,,etc,,,, I think people with less technology are actually the stronger culture, forced to use their own God given intellect and strength and the most likely to survive..but thats just my opinion. As far as jobs, I think the average job does not require a whole lot of intellect,,but that is my opinion again. Most jobs require repetition of something that is shown to them,,not much logic and application though. Msharmony...everything you named was due to some form of technology, you wanting to visit your next door neightbor...how did they become your next door neighbor when one of both of you had to use technology to move furniture or travel to that destination, did you call or ring their doorbell or did you just walked into their house you wanting to revert back to the days when you had to get up to change the channel on the television ...but yet you had a television (technology) you would ride the bike to the store instead of driving...so why not walk to the store...isn't a bike (technology) if technology prsent a problem then it's very easy to leave everything behind and go live in a forest ...but people do not resort to that because technology makes their life better technology does for the body what the body can't do or need help doing ...it displays how the human thought process have over acheived themselves better is a subjective term, however, I would agree that I enjoy things like television and furniture but too much of anything is a bad thing,, my belief is that TECHNOLOGY has become TOO MUCH a part of our existence and survival and makes us weaker as a culture instead of stronger. Its kind of like the difference between having one piece of pie and eating the whole darn thing. Someone who does the former occasionally is much less likely to be as unhealthy as one who does the later regularly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
television does make us dumber
it's the only activity in a persons life where they stare at a fixed point in space for extended periods of time. brain activity while watching television decreases to the point to where it's indistingiushable from the brain activity of a sleeping person. and most people do it for hours every day |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its kind of like the difference between having one piece of pie and eating the whole darn thing. Someone who does the former occasionally is much less likely to be as unhealthy as one who does the later regularly. Msharmony...you need a stove (technology) to cook the pie....you're still giving examples that use technology...gives some examples with no technology |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
television does make us dumber it's the only activity in a persons life where they stare at a fixed point in space for extended periods of time. brain activity while watching television decreases to the point to where it's indistingiushable from the brain activity of a sleeping person. and most people do it for hours every day try watching Nova instead of Sponge Bob square pants |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonrandom mating Migration Genetic Drift Natural Selection Mutation I think Nova Roma has got it right. You can't expect to get humans genetically smarter if there have been no mutation that made that happen. Maybe that mutation has happened, maybe not. We don't know how smart the population was 50,000 years ago. Remember, it's not only the smartest of the smartes that give an indication of a group's iq, but their average IQ as well as the standard distribution and the shape of the propbability distribution curve. So, unfortunately, a blanket statement "there has been no mutation, people are not getting smarter, evolution failed us" is actually a very bold, but completely unsupportable statement. Aside from that, the current normal living condition in societies favours the 100 IQ point +/- 20 point population to vigorously reproduce. There is no natural selection in favour of the super smart. Aside from that, there is some funny genetic engineering, inasmuch as the more wealthy a person is, the easier it is to avoid the chance of reproducing. The physical beauty also does not give a rise to that person's reproductive efficiency. This is selective breeding, and artificial restriction on the non-random mating. Take the American society: The most powerful person in it, the President, is not given free range to reproduce his DNA freely and abundantly in the population. This is an undue restriction on historically a non-random mating. I do not know what "genetic drift" is. I do know that environmental changes can favour some individuals and groups over others. I don't think this is happening to man. Even the Swine Flu (N1H1) that had a potential to reduce the number of humans has been nullified. Migration only is effectual in evolution in two aspects: If the cross-mating between individuals stops, and if the environments are hugely different. Neither is a factor for the Human Race. So in conclusion, the mutations may already been happening, but not so much in the area of IQ, or not noticable if indeed at all; and high IQ does not automatically translate into increased reproduction rate for the smart ones. I.e. non-random mating has been largely removed from practice, inasmuch as diffusing talents of individuals. The environment, thus the natural selection, is moot. So is geophysical distances of members. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
cashu
on
Wed 12/02/09 06:49 PM
|
|
Have we really stalled so much in our intellectual road of evolution that we rever those intelligents of hundreds to thousands of years ago as though they are rare, unique or unduplicated? I keep hearing this in the religious/political/scientific threads. Intelligence from a hundred to thousand years ago should have been outgrown by now if we are truly evolving and growing. We should be smarter than that by now, wouldn't you think? Not discounting their wisdom but we should have by passed it intellectually, emotionally, etc... by now. My opinion here. I see more problems in clinging to what may be holding us back than revering the wisdom of old. it depends on how you are looking at (we) . there are a lot of very smart people doing some magnificent work in the sciences . They are not the dim wits that you meet in the hall ways or bars or places where dim bulbs go . Or I mean the really cool people go for breed every night |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are smarter but not wiser. (just to spur conversation, not to be annoying) Where does wisdom come from? Good question! Obviously not age, although older people tend to be wiser. However, many aren't. Some children are very wise. My guess it does come with age, but not the physical age of the person you are looking at here. I think it takes many lifetimes to achieve real wisdom. Well, not everyone believes in multiple lives.... Could it be life experience? Children who are sheltered from life, but have a top notch education. Might be exteremely intelligent, but not wise. Wisdom is a combination of smarts, experience, good observation, good processing and good application. Intelligence is the gathering and storing of information. Sometimes lacking the application or processing what the information means at a real life level (common sense). My opinion of course |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have we really stalled so much in our intellectual road of evolution that we rever those intelligents of hundreds to thousands of years ago as though they are rare, unique or unduplicated? I keep hearing this in the religious/political/scientific threads. Intelligence from a hundred to thousand years ago should have been outgrown by now if we are truly evolving and growing. We should be smarter than that by now, wouldn't you think? Not discounting their wisdom but we should have by passed it intellectually, emotionally, etc... by now. My opinion here. I see more problems in clinging to what may be holding us back than revering the wisdom of old. here is the reason why. To have lot's of money and influential power, all you need is money.  And today, money most of the time is either inherited or gained by corruption or being at the right place and the right time, and did not involve thinking. So basically, those who control our lives the most, companies, corporations and the few wealthy aren't that smart and neither have any plans for pushing for a more advanced world, for more education, especially they want the opposite. The dumber the people are the better, since you will convince a dumb man faster than a smart one. Welcome to the new generation slavery, which is global now. Enjoy your status as a sheeple, but God forbid you try to brake out, you will not only be rejected by those who hold power, but the rest of the sheeple will turn against you, either jealousy or careful and well executed propaganda to incite hate against you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
cashu
on
Wed 12/02/09 06:45 PM
|
|
television does make us dumber it's the only activity in a persons life where they stare at a fixed point in space for extended periods of time. brain activity while watching television decreases to the point to where it's indistingiushable from the brain activity of a sleeping person. and most people do it for hours every day try watching Nova instead of Sponge Bob square pants ==================================================================== try reading a good book or talking to a geek . do things with your brain . there are more doing smart things now days than ever before . there just not the people most of you well find at the bar sit next to you or at the next days girls house . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Watching television too much destroys creativity and depletes energy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its kind of like the difference between having one piece of pie and eating the whole darn thing. Someone who does the former occasionally is much less likely to be as unhealthy as one who does the later regularly. Msharmony...you need a stove (technology) to cook the pie....you're still giving examples that use technology...gives some examples with no technology Balance is key. I never stated that NO technology was the answer, it is just my opinion that we have TOO much technology that serves little purpose but to make us lazier thinkers or doers. |
|
|
|
|
