A Thread Concerning Human Understanding.

Discussions unearthing human history including cultural anthropology, linguistics, etc.

A Thread Concerning Human Understanding.

Postby RidetheWalrus on March 29th, 2008, 5:59 pm 

- ...Our species has almost certainly not shown any improvement in innate capacity since the Upper Palaeolithic.
- ...It would be surprising if raw human mental capacity had (changed fundamentally).
- So short a time could hardly suffice for genetic changes comparable to those of earlier eras.
- ...There are many more of us upon whose talents humanity can draw and ... human achievements are cummulative.

(JM Roberts, "History of the World"; 1976)

James Flynn (on the "Flynn Effect") argues that modern humans are capable of highly abstract reasoning. Here then, we simply have a greater number of cerebral 'tools' or 'methods' at our disposal. This explains the rising IQ levels year on year.

(JR Flynn, "What is Intelligence?"; 2007)

These popular examples reflect a growing consensus; that humans are successful only insofar as they have access to good information. Perhaps this is evidenced by the technological hiatus of the Dark Ages.

Do you agree?

(N.B. The title of this thread is a pastiche of Locke's "An Essay..." and Hume's "An Enquiry...")
RidetheWalrus
Member
 
Posts: 280
Joined: 24 Sep 2007


Postby Forest_Dump on March 30th, 2008, 4:18 am 

I am not sure how you are working this one. How are you defining success? I know some of these guys had issues with the politics, etc. of the "Dark Ages" but that only applied to some areas (Europe) and off hand, I am not sure our species was any more or less successful there and then.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8758
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Postby RidetheWalrus on March 30th, 2008, 10:43 am 

Forest: In this context, "success" is synonymous with "progress". Little progress is made, by definition, during a Dark Age. The point that surprises me is that, in the absence of a "databank" (in Europe this is attributed to the decline of written language), humans show no mental, technological or even cultural improvement.

And after all, do you believe that we are no more intelligent (innately) than we were 12000+ years BP? If we were to somehow lose the Internet, would we regress to a post-WWII society (or even further)? Some have argued that there exists a point at which culture and tradition take the reins of evolution. This is slightly worrying because when civilisation fails we are left with nothing but a biological scaffold, and a tenuous one at that, so it seems.
RidetheWalrus
Member
 
Posts: 280
Joined: 24 Sep 2007


Postby Forest_Dump on March 30th, 2008, 12:33 pm 

My point would be that you seem to be suggesting that there is some objective criteria against which we can universally measure success or progress. I am not so sure we can do that. I would agree that we see progress in some things. But I think we pay a price for that in other ways. So sure, I can agree we have progress if measured against increased technology, perhaps a longer healthier life, a greater awareness of the dangers in believing in race, etc. But I think we have paid a price in reduced wealth for most of us, longer work hours and subsequent loss of family life (including family diasporas), environmental degradation, reduced political and economic stability and independence, etc. Now which of these you might alternately judge to be progress vs. regress will probably be up to you. I'm just not sure how you would suggest that there is any kind of objective measure.

No I do not believe we have seen any indication that there has been any indication of significant increase in cognition except what might be related to increased health during development and education. Secondly, while I do not think we understand yet the connection between biology and "culture" (see the pdf I posted elsewhere), I do not see any reason to presume that we are all that free of our biological scaffolding. I just am not sure just what that biological scaffolding is.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8758
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Postby wolfhnd on April 1st, 2008, 8:53 pm 

Cultures are like organisms they tend to age and die but they also give birth to new cultures in the process. That the evolutionary process of competition and the survival of the fittest should apply seems reasonable to me. How cultural evolution and genetic evolution interplay is not clear to me. Judging from the number of poor people in the world I can't say that I see any immediate connection. In fact the poor may inherit the earth if we blow ourselves up with nuclear weapons. This is too complex a question in my opinion.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4525
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Postby psionic11 on April 1st, 2008, 11:06 pm 

Jumps of magnitude. That's what informed intelligence does. Feedback loops.

I would not go so far as to say that humans are ONLY successful insofar as they have access to good information. I would say intelligence (plastic adaptability to environmental challenges) enhances survivability, while (good) information enhances intelligence. Whether that "success" translates into broader sociological strategies is a complex process dependent on the politics and technology of the times. The team can get by based on numbers and established strategies, while the star player can sometimes perform equally or better than the team.

But what is your hidden point anyway? Is this some speculation into what would happen if humanity suddenly is robbed of major civilizational benefits? The classic sci-fi theme of a future Stone Age era again? Our current knowledge (by both the academic specialist and the filtered down common knowledge of the masses) of what happens why and how to influence that outcome far surpasses what we knew 10 millenia ago... it's not so much the point of whether our innate intelligence has evolved, but more a point that our self-consistent knowledge has evolved, and it is that knowledge that enables "success", not just intelligence alone. On several levels.
User avatar
psionic11
Active Member
 
Posts: 1331
Joined: 15 May 2006
Location: Orlando, FL


Postby Mark J on May 5th, 2008, 7:10 am 

This is slightly worrying because when civilisation fails we are left with nothing but a biological scaffold, and a tenuous one at that, so it seems.


I would suggest that what has happened in the Lebanon and old Yugoslavia over the last 30 years would suggest that your worries are well founded.

I might also suggest that our progress is only progress if you define the society we live in as having progressed from its predecessor. For every new skill our children learn so quickly that we struggle with, I’d suggest that they have failed to gain others that we learned at their age as a matter of course.

I just am not sure just what that biological scaffolding is.


May I suggest hindbrain, "When the going gets tough the animal gets going".
Mark J
Member
 
Posts: 142
Joined: 29 Mar 2008


Postby Removed user on May 5th, 2008, 8:57 am 

Human society is greatly defined by its technology, which is as much or more a part of the ongoing culture than of the individual. Case in point: very few of us, even those versed in electrical engineering, could actually build a radio, much less a computer, from scratch (do you know how to make glass and blow a vacuum tube, smelt copper, etc.?). Take 100 humans each, from now and from, say, Athens of 2500 years ago, strip them both of their gadgets, and strand each group in a remote place for an extended period of time -- I’d bet that neither would fare as well as a similar number of Paleozoic humans would, nor advance any faster.
Removed user
 


Postby charles brough on October 20th, 2008, 10:41 am 

wolfhnd wrote:Cultures are like organisms they tend to age and die but they also give birth to new cultures in the process. That the evolutionary process of competition and the survival of the fittest should apply seems reasonable to me. How cultural evolution and genetic evolution interplay is not clear to me. Judging from the number of poor people in the world I can't say that I see any immediate connection. In fact the poor may inherit the earth if we blow ourselves up with nuclear weapons. This is too complex a question in my opinion.


It is as though evolution functions to increase a species ability to increase in numbers as a sort of survival security mechanism. In my work, I define "success" and "progress" in terms of the human race as being "the increase in sustainable human numbers brought about by the cultural accumulation of more accurate science and hence more effective technology." This is key to the feeling or sense that we have "progressed because we have increased our cultural heritage."

In response to an earlier post from another poster, I ask how reliable are tests that purport to show our I.Q. is increasing? I have been unable to find any evidence that our "progress" has been due to any biological change. Most of our cultural progress has occurred in the last 40,000 years. Just how much really significant biological evolution could have occurred in such a short span of time?

charles
http://atheistic-science.com
charles brough
Banned User
 
Posts: 74
Joined: 26 Feb 2008
Location: FLORIDA


Postby veraphilia on February 15th, 2009, 11:42 am 

In understanding human understanding it may be useful to look at the Savanna Principle, which is a theory proposed by Satoshi Kanazawa that "wiki: asserts that the environment that molded the human brain through natural selection is drastically different than the world humans currently live in. This disparity between what man was designed to do and what he currently can do leads to a host of societal difficulties". Although evolution via natural selection is an ongoing process, I would hesitate to think that our genetics have changed much over the course of history. What has 'evolved' since the beginning of history is the accumulated body of knowledge. With the development of writing human beings were able to transmit their knowledge and ideas verbatim from generation to generation. New generations need not learn everything all over again for themselves, or be victim of inaccurate oral transmissions. Science depends on this accumulation of 'data' in order to grow. So although our genetics (and brain) may be roughly the same since prehistory, the amount and types of information available has grown exponentially and that is certainly the basis of our 'intelligence' today.
User avatar
veraphilia
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 43
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: Maine, USA


Postby Bill Davis on February 15th, 2009, 2:37 pm 

What is success? What is superior?

I am very effective at what I do in the world I live in. Transplant me to another part of the world and I am ignorant and incompetent. Transplant me to other places in time and I am as an imbecile.

What we often misapprehend in "ancient" cultures is just how intelligent they were. They noted with no instruments change in their environment and as such were able to know when to move across mountains to new grazing fields for their flock. They teased out metals from rock and formed it into tools. They recalled detailed stories of their ancestors without the advantages of being able to write and read. They could look at plants in the forest and identify which ones were safe to eat and which ones had shown medicinal properties.

What we tend to see in the rising "intelligence scores" is often the focus we put on the skills tested within. We should have whole sections on identifying which clay from the ground is more suited for firing to form a basin. While we are at it, add one on tracking animals based on slight disturbances in ground cover.
User avatar
Bill Davis
Member
 
Posts: 924
Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Location: Virginia


Postby Forest_Dump on February 15th, 2009, 5:11 pm 

Well, I am certainly with you there. As someone who spends a lot more time outside than most, I tend to amaze students, etc., with my ability to make stone tools, spot and identify flowers and plants, birds and animals, etc. Of course, then I look like an idiot when up against a real pro like many First Nations elders. And as far as social skills go, I have yet to come across a city dweller who has the expertise of most rural folks who have had to learn how to live with and get along with the same people their entire lives. As commonly noted, if city folk don't like someone, the can easily ignore them and not know their neighbors or even just move away permanently. Now granted, more truly "egalitarian" folk will "vote with their feet" and move away as well when they don't like someone or something. But they will be far more likely to move back in a year or two and pick up as though nothing ever happened. That, in fact, is a key difference. In the city, you can ignore your family except maybe for special occasions. Many of the First Nations folks I know never really move from their families. Instead, they will count their families in the many hundreds and sometimes more than a day's travel away by car and just change which family members they will live among on a constant basis.
User avatar
Forest_Dump
Resident Member
 
Posts: 8758
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Location: Great Lakes Region


Postby wolfhnd on February 16th, 2009, 2:36 am 

No matter how well learned a person may be in terms of adapting to the "natural" environment, nor the possession of countless oral histories will they ever approach the stored knowledge that is made possible by a written language. To think of knowledge as anything other than a form of intelligence where the quality and quantity of data determines adaptability is misleading. While it may be true that knowledge does not intelligence make, the absence of knowledge surely precludes intelligence above a very rudimentary form. The quantity and quality of data a culture processes and thus it's cultural IQ is independent in someways from the intelligence of the individuals that make up that culture. Much like the swarm intelligence evolution has given an ant colony, cultural evolution is not dependent on any single individuals ability to process or possess information.

There is a tendency today to ignore the great advantages bestowed on us by technology that is so cheaply acquired and readily available. Ultimately the human races survival is dependent on technological advancement more than it is on the intelligence of the peoples who comprise it.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4525
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: A Thread Concerning Human Understanding.

Postby Objective on August 14th, 2010, 9:48 am 

There is a tendency today to ignore the great advantages bestowed on us by technology that is so cheaply acquired and readily available. Ultimately the human races survival is dependent on technological advancement more than it is on the intelligence of the peoples who comprise it.


I think that technology without intelligent people is impossible. The greater mass of people will always use technology mindlessly but without that small group of thinkers and doers there wont be technology. Perhaps the increasing visualization of certain technologies may even do the acquisition of intelligence damage and in that sense destroy its own creator - the human mind. Ultimately the survival of man is dependent on the mind and not on its products although the latter may help.
Objective
Member
 
Posts: 129
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Location: South Africa


Re: A Thread Concerning Human Understanding.

Postby mtbturtle on August 14th, 2010, 10:44 am 

Objective wrote: Ultimately the survival of man is dependent on the mind and not on its products although the latter may help.


A mind that fails to produce anything dies.
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 10229
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: A Thread Concerning Human Understanding.

Postby neuro on August 14th, 2010, 1:11 pm 

mtbturtle wrote:
Objective wrote: Ultimately the survival of man is dependent on the mind and not on its products although the latter may help.

A mind that fails to produce anything dies.

or possibly the survival of man is dependent on their products not destroying the Earth:
a mind that produces what it cannot control may die as well.
User avatar
neuro
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2635
Joined: 25 Jun 2010
Location: italy


Re: A Thread Concerning Human Understanding.

Postby mtbturtle on August 14th, 2010, 5:59 pm 

neuro wrote:or possibly the survival of man is dependent on their products not destroying the Earth:
a mind that produces what it cannot control may die as well.


the Darwin Awards record their efforts. :)
User avatar
mtbturtle
Banned User
 
Posts: 10229
Joined: 16 Dec 2005


Re: A Thread Concerning Human Understanding.

Postby Objective on August 18th, 2010, 1:19 pm 

Objective wrote:
Ultimately the survival of man is dependent on the mind and not on its products although the latter may help.

mtb wrote:
A mind that fails to produce anything dies.


All minds die but some leave a legacy - the mind is production manifest but that is old news i am sure. Some simply produce what is required to extend life - others produce that which makes life worthwhile.
Objective
Member
 
Posts: 129
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Location: South Africa


Re: A Thread Concerning Human Understanding.

Postby Venus on February 15th, 2014, 12:21 pm 

RidetheWalrus wrote:- ...Our species has almost certainly not shown any improvement in innate capacity since the Upper Palaeolithic.
- ...It would be surprising if raw human mental capacity had (changed fundamentally).
- So short a time could hardly suffice for genetic changes comparable to those of earlier eras.
- ...There are many more of us upon whose talents humanity can draw and ... human achievements are cummulative.

(JM Roberts, "History of the World"; 1976)

James Flynn (on the "Flynn Effect") argues that modern humans are capable of highly abstract reasoning. Here then, we simply have a greater number of cerebral 'tools' or 'methods' at our disposal. This explains the rising IQ levels year on year.

(JR Flynn, "What is Intelligence?"; 2007)

These popular examples reflect a growing consensus; that humans are successful only insofar as they have access to good information. Perhaps this is evidenced by the technological hiatus of the Dark Ages.

Do you agree?

(N.B. The title of this thread is a pastiche of Locke's "An Essay..." and Hume's "An Enquiry...")

No, I disagree.

I think that humans in the Western world are actually getting less intelligent, thanks to industrialization and 'career women'.

See for instance this article referring to a study on it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/2 ... 93846.html
User avatar
Venus
Banned User
 
Posts: 1408
Joined: 23 Oct 2013



Return to Archaeology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests