|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there any indication of increased intellegence over time within the Human species? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It takes intelligence to invent better tools. Or where do you think the tools come from? Absolutely. Intellegence is needed. But does it take more intellegence to create the first variation or the subsequent improvements? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
jar writes: It takes intelligence to invent better tools. Or where do you think the tools come from?
Absolutely. Intellegence is needed. But does it take more intellegence to create the first variation or the subsequent improvements?
Hi jar, I think we are probably barking up the wrong tree when we think that innovation (whether "creating the first variation" or "subsequent improvements") is in some way synonymous with intelligence. A people who have been in the news recently are the Piraha of Brazil. George Monbiot recently reveiwed work by Dan Everett in the Guardian:
quote: The lack of innovation in the Piraha people can hardly be laid down to lack of intelligence (after all they are not subhuman). Monbiot puts it down to their cosmology; Everett himself doesn't really seem to make it clear. Personally, I suspect that innovation has often been nurtured by necessity, and by contact with other ethnic groups and copying/modifying their innovations. If you are completely isolated as a culture and have no immediate necessity to invent the personal digital assistant, then you end up like the Piraha. But it doesn't mean you don't have the normal intelligence of any other human. I must admit I'm no anthropologist, but I found Everett's work interesting. There is a nice little website here which describes the people and shows some of the pictures they have drawn with coloured crayons. I hope some of you find this interesting too. Best wishes, Mick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
It has been this unique thought process in mind that has gotten both my insights into science and the trouble I have had with people. OK the secret is now out.
It was from this thinking that I was able to winnow out a lot of biologically claimed statements that could not "match" any brain I had thought. It is not a secret to my brother as he even wrote a science fiction book about this idea, I talked over with him on a daily basis in our teens, of distributive brain power calling on the FBI and national security issues to harness the fictional gravity wave solition travelling around in our brains. I was lucky enough to have Dr. Gladyshev in Moscow bring this notion back to reality by work that went on at Yale rather than Cornell. My hat is off to him. It still might be possible to cobble up a specific causal structure that Ben is after ecologically and shows how behavior itself can change the chemistry, in the same external or exogenous sense, as frequently as I have given it thought but that indeed would not be knowledge and only a mere power that I posses. Instead it seems my network connection was severed and I had to post from a different IP. Who knows maybe Jar was correct and big brother is googling thi.ss.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
An improvement in tools shows an increase in intelligence. Prior homonids had several million years to improve their tools and did not. Neanderthals made some advances but got no further in the 1.5 (? - IIRC) that they were around. In just a few tens of thousand years Cro Magnon made huge advances and has continued doing so ever since.
That to me is clear evidence of increased intelligence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JavaMan Member (Idle past 2319 days) Posts: 475 From: York, England Joined: |
It is not a secret to my brother as he even wrote a science fiction book about this idea What's your brother's book called? Was it ever published?
I was lucky enough to have Dr. Gladyshev in Moscow bring this notion back to reality What is it that impresses you about Dr. Gladyshev's work? I've read a couple of his papers (prompted by your many references to him!), but I can't see why you find his ideas so exciting. He seems like just another scientist with ambitions to become a dietician-cum-alchemist (I'm half expecting a whole rash of books on The Gladyshev Diet to appear on the bestseller lists next year). The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
You know, I can not remember the title. He wrote it while he was completing a PhD in Physics while studying the magnetic field at the University of Texas in Austin. He never published it. It was quite long however. This was back in the late 80s and early 90s and at that time I was still thinking in older "themes", consequently I was also still somewhat married to these resonant ideas and was taken aback by Greg's thought that the soliton could be extracted from space and time. If it exists it just was space/time of Einstein and no national security issues could ever arise from its non-science fiction status. Now, that you mention it, I guess I will ask him for a copy. He probably has it backed up somewhere if he has lost his hard copies.
As to how phenomeonlogical thermodynamics and Figenbaum's (kinematic) interest in Goethe's SUBJECTIVE theory of light are concerned.... well that will take me forever even given Newtonian physics. Yes, indeed when I first ran across an older version of Georgi's work at Mann Library of Cornell I had given it no more thought than the many different attempts to speak greatly in biology relative to standards but even within that cognition I was struck by the attempt to single out a level of hierarchy between the molecule and macromolecule determinately. This notion of supramolecularity had never been taught in Chemistry Class by Nobel Laurets and I had already found that "density" was not suffient to explain diversity. (The biologists were all on about "density-dependent" populations etc). This notion however was not original with Dr. Gladyshev. What was impressive from the biological standpoint was that it "seemed" to deal with thermodynamics in ways that were defintely correct when compared to how it was handled in evolutionary theory prior. This of course did not mean as you thought that we need necessarily import Russian water all of a sudden (I dont know if there are any patents in the US or on your side of this water even today). So when I first correspnded with Dr.Gladyshev I had started to say that I would need to understand statistical mechanics BEFORE I could really get into what he was doing EVEN THOUGH I HAD READ FROM HIM IN PRINT THAT THIS WAS NOT NECESSARY. He wrote back EXACTLY what he had already written. That might not be a sign for you that the person corresponded with knows what they are talking about but when it comes from me I always have changed my thought before I write back so I knew it was correct. Suffice it to say that by reading Schrodinger on statistical physics and some early textbooks on the subject I DO understand that the differential equation set up IS different. I had never found a need before to use this much math in biology because the best applied mathematicians were stuck on a particular model or some issue relative to density dependence ONLY. I need to write a lot of physics now. I am 40 and it took me this long to master biology. I hope it doesnt take that long with physics and math needed to continue. Now, it may be that this will change some of physics. I would be too exicted about that possiblity but I can sense that. That is probably something you do not. I dont know. As to biology (and the hyberbolic reference to "behavior" inter thread alia) it has enabled me to think through the history of the discovery of the genetic code in NEW ways. I am now able to think about how male garter snakes might be able to have adpated macrothermodynamics to "fake" a female lipid stucture. I can concieve of dynamic relations between glycogen decomposition biochemistry and Gladyshev's law, and I have a 'new' idea that recombination (as a genetic concept) and chaismata formation are seperable in such a way that one can dispense with Weismann sholarship when discussing if an adpative oversight occurred OR what the significance of non-adaptive traits are. These are all ongoing "threads of thought" and by pursuing all of them I doubt the design of them could ever be elimiated as Ruse reports that certain evos and philosophers of science would like to see scientific creationism disposed to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JavaMan Member (Idle past 2319 days) Posts: 475 From: York, England Joined: |
I was struck by the attempt to single out a level of hierarchy between the molecule and macromolecule determinately. This notion of supramolecularity had never been taught in Chemistry Class What are these 'supramolecular structures'? They seem to be integral to Gladyshev's theory, but I've no idea what they correspond to. Can you give me an example? The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
references
recent presentationI dont have pdfs just now so I didnt read it. I have read other things by Lehn. quote:@Management trainee till Nobelstiftelsen - NobelPrize.org The field has indeed expanded and there are indeed whole books on the subject. This annotated article might assist in delimiting what counts as supramolecular and what does not.Supramolecular Chemistry and Nanotechnology It seems that it has been the analogy to information technology that has pushed this thinking in chemistry on. Of course different philosophical views on chemistry might result in different evaluations being made as to if this is anything but typed hype. I dont think it is. There should be some better connections being made to simple acid-base differences and the molecular theory of the chemical bond but chemistry is alos not my field. It will be helpful to biologists struggling with the meaning of geneic selectionism however. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-20-2005 03:32 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
sorry double post
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-20-2005 03:31 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mick Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 913 Joined: |
mr jack writes: An improvement in tools shows an increase in intelligence. Not necessarily. Would you say Europeans are more intelligent than australian aboriginals? For that matter, would you say you (who can use a notebook computer) are more intelligent than your grandfather (who just used a notebook), or that a contemporary moron who drives a pickup is more intelligent than Plato, who travlled by donkey? Mick This message has been edited by mick, 08-20-2005 04:38 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JavaMan Member (Idle past 2319 days) Posts: 475 From: York, England Joined: |
Thanks, Brad. Those references, particularly the last one, are very informative. Ironically, it's precisely the field I specialized in during my chemistry degree, although we didn't use the term 'supramolecular structures' in those days (I was at college around the time Lehn and Pedersen were awarded their Nobel Prize).
The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Yes, I would say Europeans are more intelligent than Aboriginals. Not genetically, but there is good evidence that living in the kind of environments that we do increases our intelligence (as measured by IQ).
That, however, is missing the point. We're comparing the intelligence of species, not the intelligence of individuals or groups within a species. While Aboriginals may not have the tools of westerners they still have better tools than the Neanderthals. The only homo sapiens group I can think of who might not have done were the (now extinct) native people of Tasmania. What is clear is that Aboriginies are perfectly capable of managing to understand, use and develop "European" technology while there is no evidence that any group of Neanderthals living contempary with Cro Magnon man ever managed to reproduce their technology even when they encountered it. In a few thousand years Cro Magnon man made strides forward in tool production and design unseen in a million years of Neanderthal life. Now there are other explanations than increased intelligence but I don't think any of them are any where near as likely. And, finally, the OP asked if there was 'any indication of increased intelligence' - improved tool use is definetely an indication even though it is not proof.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Quote:
"An improvement in tools shows an increase in intelligence. Prior homonids had several million years to improve their tools and did not." Two problems with these statements. First, you don't have to increase intelligence to improve tools. The first person to make a lipped bowl instead of an unlipped bowl may have just set the bowl down upside by accident. I agree that radical changes - fletching an arrow, or the development of a spear thrower are good indicators of thought being applied to the process of tool making, but it's very hard to make those distinctions when looking at simple tools. Second, the suggestion that prior hominids didn't improve their tools is misleading. What you are really saying is that they didn't improve their stone tools. For all we know, they had a wide variety of ever more complex wooden tools. The stone handaxes may have served a specific purpose and been well suited for it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2492 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Quote:
"Yes, I would say Europeans are more intelligent than Aboriginals. Not genetically, but there is good evidence that living in the kind of environments that we do increases our intelligence (as measured by IQ)." Wow! That's pretty racist. It sounds like what you are trying to say is this: "Modern Europeans score better on European standardized testing than peoples who are culturally isolated." I don't think anyone is gonna disagree with that, just like a Frenchman will score better than a Russian on a test given in French. But that certainly doesn't make one group "more intelligent" than the other. The reason at Europeans have enjoyed a great deal of technological success has MUCH MUCH more to do with availablity of resources and consistancy of climate. Much of the technology of early European society would work as well in England as it would in Germany. The livestock is essentially the same, as are the planting and harvesting seasons, the weather conditions, etc. If someone invents something there, it can easily be exported to or imported from one location to the next. However, in "vertically alligned" areas, Africa for example, what works for the people of Egypt is of little use to the people of the Congo or Kenya. They can't trade their technology because a camel saddle doesn't help a jungle dweller just like a fish trap won't help you kill a lion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Wow! That's pretty racist. No. It's a statement of fact. Facts are never racist.
The reason at Europeans have enjoyed a great deal of technological success has MUCH MUCH more to do with availablity of resources and consistancy of climate. Well, duh!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024