3 ms·

Ok, fair, 2000 wasn't that long ago. :D I was assuming it was a placeholder for "very distantly old humans." Such that my question mostly still stands? Agai

by taeric 2y ago

Ok, fair, 2000 wasn't that long ago. :D I was assuming it was a placeholder for "very distantly old humans." Such that my question mostly still stands? Again, I'm largely inline with the view that this will be difficult to test. However, I'm also comfortable in saying that you can tell intelligence levels between people. Again, with a caveat that I don't think it is reducible to a single number. (Such that I think I also think it is fair to say most views of intelligence, in the colloquial sense, are not transitive.) As an example, as much as I loved my grandparents, I have zero difficulty saying that a few of them would never be able to score as well on some problem solving tests as a few of the kids in the current generation. At the same time I know some people in their 80s that I will never be able to compare with. Again, I don't expect it is a straight line, along the time axis. I also don't know that I agree that every person 2000 years ago just didn't do calculus because they weren't taught it.

next_xibalba 2y ago
You might be conflating knowledge with intelligence. Remember that modern humans benefit from the discovery and dissemination of 100,000 years of human learning. For example, most of us take arithmetic for granted. We might even consider someone who does not know arithmetic to be "dumb". Same goes for algebra, trig, calc, diffeq, etc etc. But those are all "knowledge" (i.e. a trained skill), not necessarily "intelligence". Math was discovered, in fits and starts, over 1000s of years across the globe by 10s or 100s of thousands of individuals, each contributing their drop to the stream whose current carries us along. Same goes for all other areas of human knowledge. To my awareness, there is nothing in the fossil record to suggest that an anatomically modern human (Homo sapiens), which may have first emerged as much as 500,000 years ago, would be distinguishable from currently living humans. Here's a thought experiment: We have a time machine. We travel back 500k years and abduct a pair of Homo sapiens (male and female). We transport them forward in time to our present. We cause them to breed and produce offspring. During gestation, they live in a modern environment (nutrition, shelter, etc.). At birth we take the newborn infant and give it to a modern, contemporaneous couple to raise. Is there is reason to believe it (the infant) would not emerge as a normal, modern adult? If there is no reason, what does that imply about intelligence? Is knowledge separable from it? Or is knowledge a necessary component of it? Or is knowledge itself "intelligence"? For my part, I think it is a distinct attribute, but I assign a low probability to that belief.
- taeric 2y ago
  Maybe? But I'm asking for reasons to think one or the other. Again, I am largely agreed with the idea. But, evidence is not as clear cut. We had entire civilizations that never utilized wheels. Writing was not universal across all humanity. Would I prefer that it is only access to technology that confers advantages that we see in developing thought? Absolutely. I'm not able to categorically assume it, though.

by taeric 2y ago

next_xibalba 2y ago

You might be conflating knowledge with intelligence. Remember that modern humans benefit from the discovery and dissemination of 100,000 years of human learning. For example, most of us take arithmetic for granted. We might even consider someone who does not know arithmetic to be "dumb". Same goes for algebra, trig, calc, diffeq, etc etc. But those are all "knowledge" (i.e. a trained skill), not necessarily "intelligence". Math was discovered, in fits and starts, over 1000s of years across the globe by 10s or 100s of thousands of individuals, each contributing their drop to the stream whose current carries us along. Same goes for all other areas of human knowledge. To my awareness, there is nothing in the fossil record to suggest that an anatomically modern human (Homo sapiens), which may have first emerged as much as 500,000 years ago, would be distinguishable from currently living humans. Here's a thought experiment: We have a time machine. We travel back 500k years and abduct a pair of Homo sapiens (male and female). We transport them forward in time to our present. We cause them to breed and produce offspring. During gestation, they live in a modern environment (nutrition, shelter, etc.). At birth we take the newborn infant and give it to a modern, contemporaneous couple to raise. Is there is reason to believe it (the infant) would not emerge as a normal, modern adult? If there is no reason, what does that imply about intelligence? Is knowledge separable from it? Or is knowledge a necessary component of it? Or is knowledge itself "intelligence"? For my part, I think it is a distinct attribute, but I assign a low probability to that belief.

taeric 2y ago
Maybe? But I'm asking for reasons to think one or the other. Again, I am largely agreed with the idea. But, evidence is not as clear cut. We had entire civilizations that never utilized wheels. Writing was not universal across all humanity. Would I prefer that it is only access to technology that confers advantages that we see in developing thought? Absolutely. I'm not able to categorically assume it, though.