aw jeez.
Nigel Short: Women's brains not chess brains
Sort:
Elubas wrote:
"For me it's where we are heading. Who knows, maybe another disaster will derail all of humanity and we'll be back to hunting/gathering again?"
It is interesting that a lot of our advancement is just us adopting what our immediate predecessors did and so on. So like for example not many of us learn farming anymore, so if it got to the point where we needed it, we would be in some trouble. And maybe then we'd unlearn a lot of what we learned trying to farm and just trying to survive. It is interesting and scary to think that our advancement is so fragile.
But yeah I don't think we are inherently smarter than civilizations of thousands of years ago. It's mainly about what information we're exposed to and such. But again, I don't think most people, when making the evolution argument, are talking a few thousand years ago; they're talking more like a few million.
Personally, I think humanity is evolving much more rapidly. I think we are already outstripping evolution. With the computer age we may leave it behind. All those millions of years will seem like nothing if we continue on this path. Perhaps "evolution" as we know it may no longer be very relevant. Or, we can go back to the "state of nature". There are many possibilities now. Perhaps those evolutionary differences are a matter of use it or lose it and we're starting to lose it. I wonder how long it would take for androgyny to set in?
Masamune314 wrote:
Elubas wrote:
"For me it's where we are heading. Who knows, maybe another disaster will derail all of humanity and we'll be back to hunting/gathering again?"
It is interesting that a lot of our advancement is just us adopting what our immediate predecessors did and so on. So like for example not many of us learn farming anymore, so if it got to the point where we needed it, we would be in some trouble. And maybe then we'd unlearn a lot of what we learned trying to farm and just trying to survive. It is interesting and scary to think that our advancement is so fragile.
But yeah I don't think we are inherently smarter than civilizations of thousands of years ago. It's mainly about what information we're exposed to and such. But again, I don't think most people, when making the evolution argument, are talking a few thousand years ago; they're talking more like a few million.
Personally, I think humanity is evolving much more rapidly. I think we are already outstripping evolution. With the computer age we may leave it behind. All those millions of years will seem like nothing if we continue on this path. Perhaps "evolution" as we know it may no longer be very relevant. Or, we can go back to the "state of nature". There are many possibilities now. Perhaps those evolutionary differences are a matter of use it or lose it and we're starting to lose it. I wonder how long it would take for androgyny to set in?
Androgyny? That's interesting. Do you suppose that androgynous people are something we'll see more in the future? Would you say it's a state the Universe prefers?
just a tic, I'll ask it.
@SheridanJ re: androgyny:
I do not know. A lot of people think the universe is set up on the yin/yang principle of contrast, but I think it's more complicated than that. I don't think it's just 2 dimensions. In nature, male/female copulation is relatively new. Now, it helps with having more combinations of genes for more variety, which may help with providing more mutations for natural selection, but I am really wondering if we aren't on the path to becoming cyborgs. No, really, not in the form we see in sci-fi but some kind of hybrid. I have no idea if we will be androgynous, but maybe we'll settle into stasis (if that is correct term). Who knows?
Just ask an evolutionist theoryist if you want to know for definate. they are bound to know which book the answer is in, the absolute definitive answer that is.
Masamune314 wrote:
@SheridanJ re: androgyny:
I do not know. A lot of people think the universe is set up on the yin/yang principle of contrast, but I think it's more complicated than that. I don't think it's just 2 dimensions. In nature, male/female copulation is relatively new. Now, it helps with having more combinations of genes for more variety, which may help with providing more mutations for natural selection, but I am really wondering if we aren't on the path to becoming cyborgs. No, really, not in the form we see in sci-fi but some kind of hybrid. I have no idea if we will be androgynous, but maybe we'll settle into stasis (if that is correct term). Who knows?
You raise interesting points. The universe being 2 dimensional - I've heard others say that as well. I've heard that scientists believe (have found evidence) that our 3 dimensional world is a hologram. Very similar in concept to a "real" hologram that's in fact 2 dimensional but creates the illusion of 3 dimensions. And the cyborgs you mention. Yeah, what if technology went so far that the Internet would become something internal, integrated into the body. I can imagine that happening too.
like in a butt plug ?
richie_and_oprah wrote:
10 dimensions known.11 is likely.
It goes to 11. :)
richie_and_oprah wrote:
10 dimensions known.
11 is likely.
Yes I've heard that too. It's quite easy cause I don't know anything.
May 19, 2015
0
#1652
Well, you know something. You know you remind me of v1....
....
richie_and_oprah wrote:
I think the bigger joke here, that Nigel and others may have missed, is that men's brains are not chess brains either.
Well yes. That's probably because there ain't no thing as a chess brain. Chess is a game and doesn't require brains 
Very pleasant music, love it ;-)
what kind of crazy world do you people in ???
no reason.
more piccies!!
He had a nickname didn't he? Something like "Dr. benzedrene" haha.
"For me it's where we are heading. Who knows, maybe another disaster will derail all of humanity and we'll be back to hunting/gathering again?"
It is interesting that a lot of our advancement is just us adopting what our immediate predecessors did and so on. So like for example not many of us learn farming anymore, so if it got to the point where we needed it, we would be in some trouble. And maybe then we'd unlearn a lot of what we learned trying to farm and just trying to survive. It is interesting and scary to think that our advancement is so fragile.
But yeah I don't think we are inherently smarter than civilizations of thousands of years ago. It's mainly about what information we're exposed to and such. But again, I don't think most people, when making the evolution argument, are talking a few thousand years ago; they're talking more like a few million.