3 ms·

I agree with the spirit of what you're saying but you go too far, ironically asserting without any supporting logic that the intelligence of homo sapiens has re

I agree with the spirit of what you're saying but you go too far, ironically asserting without any supporting logic that the intelligence of homo sapiens has remained static for the last 2,000 years. But I suppose the disagreement hinges on what is meant by intelligence. Here's a thought experiment: if you removed all technology (tools, writing, vast stores of knowledge) from a human child and raised them in this vacuum, would they be more or less intelligent? Would they understand their place in the solar system and the structure of the cosmos? Would they know how to protect themselves from sickness (germ theory)? Would their vocabulary and ability to express themselves be less or more? Of course these questions don't have definitive answers and you can play the game the other way, arguing that modern humans would die in a couple weeks if transported back to caveman times. But it's a poor model to view intelligence as some static property independent of technology, environment, gene mutation, sexual selection and all the other strings in the web of existence.

naikrovek 4y ago
"intelligence," as I used it, is the ability to learn, to use what you've learned to solve problems, and to accurately predict the future outcomes of today's decisions. my knowledge of the horsehead nebula has no positive or negative effect on my ability to learn how to make concrete or to use that knowledge to actually make thae concrete. intelligence is not simple memorization of fact, it is a collection of understanding, and the ability to both grow that understanding and to use it to accomplish things that you don't yet know how to do. we are continuously surprised by what we learn about ancient cultures, because we assume they were intellectually inferior to us. the Lycurgus Cup is a great example of something that some people still view as a lucky accident. Anyone who has actually learned to make physical things and worked to refine their skill in making things will know in their soul that the colors in that cup are clearly intentional and the product of intelligence and time. our belief that only contemporary humans have control over and understanding of the their world is just simply wrong, I think. we discover new evidence from ancient civilizations which surprise us all the time. is there enough evidence to prove that we aren't smarter than people 100-200 generations ago? I don't know. there certainly is a lot of evidence that ancient civilizations knew more than we believe they knew, and that is significant when you think about how long that evidence needs to last to be discovered today, and that those things which do last long enough are recognized for what they are before they are discarded because of a bad assumption. how much evidence has been lost? we only see a tiny fraction of the evidence that would have existed at the time. these discoveries happen frequently enough for me to have no problem believing that there is a great deal about ancient civilizations that we think we know which we actually do not know. that's a rambly comment but it's all I have time for before the edit window closes.

naikrovek 4y ago

"intelligence," as I used it, is the ability to learn, to use what you've learned to solve problems, and to accurately predict the future outcomes of today's decisions. my knowledge of the horsehead nebula has no positive or negative effect on my ability to learn how to make concrete or to use that knowledge to actually make thae concrete. intelligence is not simple memorization of fact, it is a collection of understanding, and the ability to both grow that understanding and to use it to accomplish things that you don't yet know how to do. we are continuously surprised by what we learn about ancient cultures, because we assume they were intellectually inferior to us. the Lycurgus Cup is a great example of something that some people still view as a lucky accident. Anyone who has actually learned to make physical things and worked to refine their skill in making things will know in their soul that the colors in that cup are clearly intentional and the product of intelligence and time. our belief that only contemporary humans have control over and understanding of the their world is just simply wrong, I think. we discover new evidence from ancient civilizations which surprise us all the time. is there enough evidence to prove that we aren't smarter than people 100-200 generations ago? I don't know. there certainly is a lot of evidence that ancient civilizations knew more than we believe they knew, and that is significant when you think about how long that evidence needs to last to be discovered today, and that those things which do last long enough are recognized for what they are before they are discarded because of a bad assumption. how much evidence has been lost? we only see a tiny fraction of the evidence that would have existed at the time. these discoveries happen frequently enough for me to have no problem believing that there is a great deal about ancient civilizations that we think we know which we actually do not know. that's a rambly comment but it's all I have time for before the edit window closes.