[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Granting that for the sake of the argument, how is a screwdriver an example of a power tool? That’s what you were asked for.
[/QUOTE]
it is not a power tool. I merely stated that I once saw one take his cage apart using a screwdriver.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Read a book or two when you get a chance. Make one of them a dictionary.
[/QUOTE]
Actually I’m one of those people who, when they notice that most people use a term and mean different things then those I mean when I use it, take a second look at my use of said term.
You, as can be seen in this and other threads, cling to the notion that you and only you know the true meaning of the word, communication be damned! So, sadly, not even reading a dictionary would do you any good…
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
it is not a power tool. I merely stated that I once saw one take his cage apart using a screwdriver.
[/QUOTE]
Gahh. Have you not a shred of integrity? You stated it in answer to a request for a cite of chimps using power tools.
I am unsure whether I have ever seen a poster in this forum with less credibility. You appear to lack the wherewithal to support what you say scant seconds after the words leave your mouth.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
The concept of intelligence evolution is not one of my own, you understand. It’s one that many remarkable intelectuals subsribe to.
[/quote]
I’m pretty sure their interpretation and yours are pretty far apart. That is to say, I’ve never heard anyone seriously claiming modern humans were biologically different than bronze-age humans.
I’d still like to see a video clip of a primate riding a motor scooter on his own initiative. That site describes primates trained to do tricks, presumably for paying customers. I rather doubt any of them ever thought “hmm, the banana festival is in town. I better hop on the Harley and ride over there.”
[QUOTE=DiggitCamara]
Actually I’m one of those people who, when they notice that most people use a term and mean different things then those I mean when I use it, take a second look at my use of said term.
You, as can be seen in this and other threads, cling to the notion that you and only you know the true meaning of the word, communication be damned! So, sadly, not even reading a dictionary would do you any good…
[/QUOTE]
Oh by no means is that true. Diction is very important. It’s our tool for communication. We have books to make sure we’re on the same page with word meanings. I don’t usually bend to passing trends of words like “hip”. You see, “hip” is a part of the human body and we need to retain that meaning lest the ignorant cause our language to break down into meaningless noises and phrases that are easily confused between segments of the population.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
I’m pretty sure their interpretation and yours are pretty far apart. That is to say, I’ve never heard anyone seriously claiming modern humans were biologically different than bronze-age humans.
[/QUOTE]
I have not claimed any biological difference. Let’s see if my interpretation of Stepen Hawking is in line:
"But with the human race, evolution reached a critical stage, comparable in importance with the development of DNA. This was the development of language, and particularly written language. It meant that information can be passed on, from generation to generation, other than genetically, through DNA.<snip>
This has meant that we have entered a new phase of evolution. At first, evolution proceeded by natural selection, from random mutations. This Darwinian phase, lasted about three and a half billion years, and produced us, beings who developed language, to exchange information. But in the last ten thousand years or so, we have been in what might be called, an external transmission phase. In this, the internal record of information, handed down to succeeding generations in DNA, has not changed significantly. But the external record, in books, and other long lasting forms of storage, has grown enormously. Some people would use the term, evolution, only for the internally transmitted genetic material, and would object to it being applied to information handed down externally. But I think that is too narrow a view. <snip>
The time scale for evolution, in the external transmission period, is the time scale for accumulation of information. This used to be hundreds, or even thousands, of years. But now this time scale has shrunk to about 50 years, or less. On the other hand, the brains with which we process this information have evolved only on the Darwinian time scale, of hundreds of thousands of years. This is beginning to cause problems.
We certainly can not continue, for long, with the exponential rate of growth of knowledge that we have had in the last three hundred years. An even greater limitation and danger for future generations, is that we still have the instincts, and in particular, the aggressive impulses, that we had in cave man days.
There is no time, to wait for Darwinian evolution, to make us more intelligent, and better natured. But we are now entering a new phase, of what might be called, self designed evolution, in which we will be able to change and improve our DNA. There is a project now on, to map the entire sequence of human DNA. It will cost a few billion dollars, but that is chicken feed, for a project of this importance. Once we have read the book of life, we will start writing in corrections.
Laws will be passed, against genetic engineering with humans. But some people won’t be able to resist the temptation, to improve human characteristics, such as size of memory, resistance to disease, and length of life. Once such super humans appear, there are going to be major political problems, with the unimproved humans, who won’t be able to compete. Presumably, they will die out, or become unimportant. Instead, there will be a race of self-designing beings, who are improving themselves at an ever-increasing rate. "
I think I’m pretty much on track with Stephen Hawking’s interpretation of intelligence evolution.
[QUOTE=ralph124c]
That after 160 years of research, NO paranormal phenomena have ever been proven? We hear all about psychics-but where are they? None of them have ever been proven to have predicted anything. Likewise for “telepathy” or “psychokinesis”-the late J.B. Rhine spend his whole life trying to prove that these abilities existed-and NONE of his experimental results have ever been confirmed.
So, the point is moot-paranormal effects either :
I can tell you some of them are: working in hospitals around the world, working for police departments, on national television talk shows, on radio talk shows, writing books, giving lectures, holding seminars, mainly just proving they exist and will continue to exist.
You are correct, no science research has or will prove psychic phenomenon.
But then that doesn’t mean it’s not there. The announcement by “science” that psychics are no more has been greatly exaggerated.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Oh by no means is that true. Diction is very important. It’s our tool for communication. We have books to make sure we’re on the same page with word meanings. I don’t usually bend to passing trends of words like “hip”. You see, “hip” is a part of the human body and we need to retain that meaning lest the ignorant cause our language to break down into meaningless noises and phrases that are easily confused between segments of the population.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, man. It is on now, dude.
Daniel
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Oh, man. It is on now, dude.
Daniel
[/QUOTE]
A telekinetic once tried to levitate me. I was moved .
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Oh by no means is that true. Diction is very important. It’s our tool for communication. We have books to make sure we’re on the same page with word meanings. I don’t usually bend to passing trends of words like “hip”. You see, “hip” is a part of the human body and we need to retain that meaning lest the ignorant cause our language to break down into meaningless noises and phrases that are easily confused between segments of the population.
[/QUOTE]
My interest in this thread was waning, but perhaps a bit of silly “The English language is going to hell in a handbasket! Repent, for linguistic anarchy is nigh!” will perk it right back up.
Also, you’re complaining about “hip”? In this day and age? That’s just not very hip, is it?
[QUOTE=Indistinguishable]
My interest in this thread was waning, but perhaps a bit of silly “The English language is going to hell in a handbasket! Repent, for linguistic anarchy is nigh!” will perk it right back up.
Also, you’re complaining about “hip”? In this day and age? That’s just not very hip, is it?
[/QUOTE]
Not at all hip. I went to have my hip checked out. The doctor was a heavy cat , took my temperature, said I was cool.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Black and Decker and Caterpillar are testamnets to human intelligence, not strength.
[/quote]
However, youir claim that increased technology somehow resulted in increased intelligence is exactly mirrored by the analogy that increased technology resulted in increased strength. In reality, each developed according to human intelligence, and neither demonstrates a rapid growth or evolution of either strength or intelligence.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
They in fact demonstrate the evolution of intelligence to mitigate the primal importance of strength. The industrialization of the human race has abstracted us from our more primitive ancestors. Greater importance of cognative ability along with the circumvention of natural selection in modern man has freed areas of the brain to tackle other thoughts in lieu of constant primal means of survival. Intelligence has increased.
[/quote]
Nothing you have posted indicates that there is any reason to believe this. What you appear to have confused is time. With less technology, it requires more time to be devoted to survival, permitting less leisure to wander about thinking grand new thoughts. Take any human, today, with your purported increase in intelligence, and set that human down in a wilderness situation without tools and, (if their lack of training did not kill them in a short time), they would no more spend long hours in cognitive development than would their ancestors.
Again, you are confusing the results of technological advancement with some sort of evolutionary development.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
“Newborn chicks which have small brains are able to correctly perceive partially occluded objects as one object. However, human babies were likely to perceive it as two separate objects (Langer, 2004). This study demonstrates that intelligence develops over time, and if intelligence can develop over time in one individual, it is possible for intelligence to develop over time for an entire population. Since intelligence can develop and because popular views on intelligence and types of intelligence are changing, there has also been increased pressure to revise methods of testing intelligence; for which the most common measure is currently modifications of the Wechsler intelligence test (Esters, 1999).”
[/QUOTE]
Nice quote that appears to be irrelevant to the discussion.
Certainly human intelligence has developed and it is possible that human intelligence has continued to evolve and improve throughout the centuries. Your claim, however, was that there was a rapid evolution in intelligence in just the last 300 years. Nothing you have posted supports that claim.
Here is a counter claim: the intelligence that you claim has developed rapidly in three hundred years should, based on the reasons you gave for its rapid evolution, have been tied closely to cultures in Europe and North America, followed by Asia and South America, then Africa, and finally the Pacific islands (based on the diffusion of technological advances).
Thus, Pacific Islanders should have evolved much more slowly in intelligence (lacking your spurs to evolve) and should be far behind Europeans in intelligence. However, all the Polynesian and Melanesian kids that my sister has met in Seattle have streuck her as being very smart and all of them have gone to college. (I know it is an anecdote, but it is far more evidence than you have provided.) In fact, there is no group in the world whose members have routinely failed to advance when given the opportunity to get equivalent education (barring interfering cultural barriers).
From what I can see, you are simply confusing increased knowledge with actual intelligence. Making a claim for increased increased intelligence having recently evolved requires a biological foundation. Disparate people who were not subject to the same environmental factors should be far less intelligent. I see no evidence of that or any reason to believe it.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
I think I’m pretty much on track with Stephen Hawking’s interpretation of intelligence evolution.
[/QUOTE]
You’re not. He appears (based on the unsnipped portions) to have said that the increased rate of knowledge will require manipulation of the body in order to permit advances in intelligence, not that the body already has undertaken that advancement. (Yeah, I know that he threw in that phrase about biological evolution being too narrow, but the reality is that a human baby of 400 years ago, stolen in a time machine and raised, today, would be quite capable of learning everything we have learned in our educational systems and any other usage is either metaphorical or wrong.)
Uh-oh… could you speak a little louder, tom?
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Let’s see if my interpretation of Stepen Hawking is in line:
[/QUOTE]
Tom’s already pointed out it isn’t, but I’d like to add that Hawking is also engaging in futurism writing. He’s good at it, but he is also speculating rather than using evidence, and extrapolating rather than proving. If you want to talk of science being one exploded fallacy after another, I guess I’m free to talk about mountains of predictions of social trends that never came to pass. At least the replaced science was useful in its heyday.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
You’re not. He appears (based on the unsnipped portions) to have said that the increased rate of knowledge will require manipulation of the body in order to permit advances in intelligence, not that the body already has undertaken that advancement. (Yeah, I know that he threw in that phrase about biological evolution being too narrow, but the reality is that a human baby of 400 years ago, stolen in a time machine and raised, today, would be quite capable of learning everything we have learned in our educational systems and any other usage is either metaphorical or wrong.)
[/QUOTE]
Un huh. Lets look at what I said:
[Quote=Iknewit]
The evolution of intelligence has surpassed Darwinian evolution. The information in our DNA can not catch up with the information we have accumulated through intelligent evolution. <snip>
One of the greatest leaps in intelligence came about with the ability to actually write and store information outside of the human brain. Beforehand, the limitations of recall and short term memory prevented certain pieces of information from being preserved for later use in logical deduction. Things could be learned and forgotten, skipping over many opportunities for logical anaylisis in a life span, not to mention over generations.
[/Quote]
Let’s see what Stephen said. (Hint: I gleaned these ideas directly from his writing)
[Quote=Hawking]
In this, the internal record of information, handed down to succeeding generations in DNA, has not changed significantly. But the external record, in books, and other long lasting forms of storage, has grown enormously. Some people would use the term, evolution, only for the internally transmitted genetic material, and would object to it being applied to information handed down externally. **But I think that is too narrow a view. We are more than just our genes. ** We may be no stronger, or inherently more intelligent, than our cave man ancestors. But what distinguishes us from them, is the knowledge that we have accumulated over the last ten thousand years, and particularly, over the last three hundred. **I think it is legitimate to take a broader view, and include externally transmitted information, as well as DNA, in the evolution of the human race. **
[/Quote]
See, I’m pretty sure you are wrong about what Stephen Hawking thinks here. He believes that the external record has become a legitimate part of human evolution. He makes a good argument and I agree. Regardless of where the information is stored, it is now part of our collective intelligence.
Right or wrong, regardless of your opinion of the matter, there is no mistake of what Spephen Hawking intends here.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Tom’s already pointed out it isn’t, but I’d like to add that Hawking is also engaging in futurism writing. He’s good at it, but he is also speculating rather than using evidence, and extrapolating rather than proving. If you want to talk of science being one exploded fallacy after another, I guess I’m free to talk about mountains of predictions of social trends that never came to pass. At least the replaced science was useful in its heyday.
[/QUOTE]
Un huh. You too.
Let’s lookee here for you too:
[Quote=Stephen Hawking]
I think it is legitimate to take a broader view, and include externally transmitted information, as well as DNA, in the evolution of the human race.
[/Quote]
Proceed with squirming.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
Proceed with squirming.
[/QUOTE]
Not in my repertoire. Sure, Hawking thinks it legitimate. Good for him. How does it prove that power tools reflect an evolution of intelligence?
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Not in my repertoire. Sure, Hawking thinks it legitimate. Good for him. How does it prove that power tools reflect an evolution of intelligence?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think there is any proof Bryan. It’s just a bit of thought on the subject.
[QUOTE=Iknewit]
I don’t think there is any proof Bryan. It’s just a bit of thought on the subject.
[/QUOTE]
Y’know, to simplify things, could you put any statement you can actually prove in red, or something?
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Y’know, to simplify things, could you put any statement you can actually prove in red, or something?
[/QUOTE]
Ok.