What if you were a ancient/primitive man or women, who thought primitively like they did and did everything like them, with no knowledge of anything but what you can see and you find things around you normal because you see them all the time (i.e trees, grass,etc.) Now lets say somehow a pair of glasses were buried in a ditch and you happen to uncover them, yes modern day corrective lenses, bare with me here, you examine them and eventuality end up looking through the right side of the lenses so the poor vision you had is now perfect vision. With the one peek through the lens your understanding of the world has changed because you never seen things so clear. Now lets say you discover fire while wearing the glasses and you know what it is now and what it looks like with glasses on, you also see lighting with these glasses on and know what it looks like. A few days later, you hear there is a loud booming noise. This noise scares you and makes you drop the pair of glasses and at that second you look up in the sky to see a lighting bolt strike and hit a tree with a slight explosion part of the tree catches on fire. Now know what fire is and you know what lighting is but somehow you are amazed because in your eyes the combination of lighting, and fire makes an amazing sight specially since you never laid eyes on these without the glasses. Now you run off too the group you live with and try your best to explain what it was you saw, and everyone is amazed with you because they have no reason to think you are not telling the truth about this amazing special, new sight that your eyes witnessed. Everyone comes up with the conclusion that you have 'special eyes' as you can see things not normal.

So my question is, would you think the this sight was normal and not of 'this 'planet'? Possibly from something special?

Additional info:

You live with a group of about 10 people.
You are the leader of the group, and the others don't 'question' you.
The glasses symbolize how bad your vision was and how different everything looks, in comparison to good vision and bad vision.

Keep in mind that poor vision effects the way things look, and your perception on things.

i think you're on crack lol j/k

LOL.
I am guessing you don't get the point.

maybe its the light shooting out of your eyes...everyone sees things differently

Yes. If I was a primitive man, I would probably be very superstitous and think that the Gods or Spirits were attacking the tree. I could see a boulder and see a cliff, but a boulder coming down a cliff could be an attack. I would recognize the lightning and the fire as weapons, but would then think to myself, "Who is using them?"

I don't like your simile of glasses much. Primitive people would have depended on their vision for their very lives. There would not have been any hunter/gatherers with poor vision. People with poor vision would have been the first to get caught by the bears, tigers or whatnot.

I am glad you made a logic topic. Which makes you ask the same question about this world? Everyone here was born in to this world we live in so we accept it and assumed this is the way it is because this how the people taught you how to live.

You know what you know because this is what they teach.

So really how can you know this is the right way to live?

I think that we taste lousy and smell worse might be more reliable defenses than visual acuity.

As for hunting, dogs' daylight visual acuity is worse than ours, and they do alright. (Admittedly, we'd love to study wild wolves, but it's easier to do research on domesticated dogs:)

http://www.eyevet.info/coile1.html

And let's not get too romantic here, the hunter-gathering meat larder is not all from hunting, we're scavengers, too. Corpses don't put up much of a fight .

and suppose you could sense more... detect vibrations in it's many forms sight... sound..smell.. you could sensory perceptions can hear .. see smell things that others are not aware of.. detect your auditary sensory vibrations so can read see what you experience..what an insect or animal experiences.. can understand more of the cause and effect of any actions.. more in tune with possible outcomes....

Actually I think the link to synesthesia and man's evolution .. leaps in learning are worth exploring...

http://users.lycaeum.org/~sputnik/McKenna/Evolution/
http://mazerunner.wordpress.com/2007/10/15...s-and-language/
http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-10-cytowic.html

Isn't funny to think that 'god' could be created form a misinterpretation of an ordinary object? They could possibly come up with the term "Who is using them?" Based on the fact that they know no animals around them are not capable of using such objects and only things that can handle such objects are humans, therefore this other human creating these objects are 'different'

Maybe poor visioned hunter and gathers where second in command, if you know what I mean, for hunting as there senses are slightly modified. With this assumption primitive mans brains are not as primitive as we thought. Or since they knew what bad vision was and what good vision was, they came up with certain jobs for people with poor vision and better vision.

We figure this is the right way to live because when we started out, it was hard to survive, and over time we developed technology to help us survive, and the technology that helps us survive ends up affecting how we are in our environment? So therefore the way we live today seems to be the best and most efficient way to live as humans.

My question Ripe is how old is your ancient man/woman? I would think that anyone over the age of three, would know what lightning and fire were, and that one could cause the other, just by hearing stories from elders, if nothing else. Personally, I don't think that cavemen were as stupid as science portrays them to be.
But on to your question:

So are you asking if this sight is normal or are you asking if this sight is "not of this planet"? I'm not sure that "normal and not of this planet" makes any sense, at least not to me.
In your example, I'd say that this sight is normal, but misunderstood, as is the way with most of those normal things that seem to be misconstrued into being something that they are not, by the viewer.



Edited because I just don't seem to be able to write in my native tongue.

You forget that dog's sense of smell and hearing make up for what it loses in vision. Ours don't. Also corpses may not fight back, but other scavengers wishing to eat will.

It is believed that fire was first controlled 1.4 million years ago, witch would make our primitive man a Homo habilis, or nicknamed 'Handy man". Do you you have proof that 3-year old knows what fire is? It think it is easier for us to say now that we know what fire is right away and aany idiot would, because of the 1.4 million years of evolution of us constantly using fire. Animals seem to not know what fires really is except that it it is 'uncomfortable to be around' up close, not knowing that it can be used to cook, scare things away. And lets say animals did know what fire is, don't you think animals would try and use it? Just like Homo hanils did.?Since Homo habilis was the first genus of Homo we can assume that there brain was similar to that of animals, not knowing what fire really is but that it 'hurts' when touched. Now adding in the slight thought process that the Homo habilis had, we can see that they only know what fire is after witnessing it up close and being able to hold it it (hold it as in the end of a stick is on fire and they are holding it.) If they knew before what fire was then, wouldn't they harness it? Homo habilis had to have some memory, in order to keep using fire and re-creating it, and with this first Homo memory, this is when fire could be 'normal' thing too them. So its not a question of that they knew what it was, it is really a question of misinterpretation. And this misinterpretation could have easily happened with any genus of early homo, after hearing stories of fire and lighting is and actually seeing them in real life are two very different interpretations of what the object is, to the viewer. Specially when you have poor vision.

As for lighting I would have to say the same thing, Im sure Homo Habilis, when they first set eyes on lighting, it would scare them. Lighting is not something you see everyday, even I never seen lighting personally, only on TV, in books, etc. And I only know what it is because it was taught to me. Lighting only happens for a second when you do see it. And being able to see this 'fire' from the sky, would lead to the conclusion of "Since WE know what fire is, and only WE can is it, then where is the thing like me that is creating this fire form the sky?" Again misinterpretation of early objects due o poor vision what the question is. Misinterpretation of two objects in one place. with bad eyesight.
So for our man in the scenario, he has a misinterpretation of the combination of lighting and fire when hitting a tree. What I should have added in the story is that it was his first time seeing lighting, because of the rarity of lighting. Then the conclusion of ' this is not normal' could have been easily accepted.

Misinterpretation of two normal object to make them appear 'not normal'.



If this was the case we would assume that the Homo habilis took into account everything they did, witch would make them being able to think amazingly well for that time. Same with other early Homo's (lol)

Well with the primitive knowledge and the lack of understanding I think that a caveman would think of the glasses as some kind of way to see into a different world. But its quite obvious what would happen, there would be a power struggle as to who gets to use the glasses and they would be destroyed in the process.

if i was primitive man then i would have assumed that it was an angry god or spirits

Where did this knowledge of god and spirits come from?

Perhaps the same place as the glasses?

Studies have shown that human brains are almost designed to believe in the supernatural.

Belief in God, Gods, or Spirits exist in all cultures and probably has since the ancestors of our species began to walk on two legs and travel in groups.

A trained human sense of smell is actually more than pretty good. It is cheaper or otherwise more expedient to train dogs for some olfactory tasks, but for others (seafood inspection, for instance), humans have been known to get, and keep, the job.

Our hearing is not so bad either. There is heavy specialization for speech sounds, but that is not necessarily a net loss for a pack hunter, since we gain better communication.

It is unclear how tip-top visual acuity aids in the struggle among competing scavengers. The guest of honor isn't going anywhere, and the contestant who hides does not eat.

Aren't you the same guy who posted a thread suggesting historic UFOs were the product of bad vision? I gotta say, you're committed to the idea.

--Jaylemurph

From the dirt?
Also, i think the more people there are, the more explanations are provided for a certain event. The more explanations, the more wild the conclusion.

No I don't have proof that every 3 year old knows what fire is. All of the 3 year old's that I know, do know what it is and I imagine that a 3 year old being raised around a fire used for cooking and warmth would not only know what it is, but would probably also have a good idea of how to start a fire.
If your "Handy Man" had grown to adulthood alone, with no family and no fire, then I could see how he would be mystified by it.


That is assuming an awful lot about how humans lived and thought and acted 1.4 million years ago. As I said before, I don't believe that they were as dumb as animals, and no I don't have any proof of that either. My work with modern humans suffering from microcephaly leads me to believe that just because a person's brain is smaller than normal, doesn't mean they act or think like animals or that they can't understand something as simple as fire or lightning.

I am assuming that this Handy man has been seeing fire and lightning since birth, with his poor vision. I do see your point about the lightning hitting the tree and causing fire though and misinterpreting that event. I'm not sure why you used the glasses to explain your point, but it is an interesting thought.


That is incredible! You never see lightning? This time of the year we see lightning almost every day. I never thought that there was anyone who's never seen lightning. Amazing!

Now this makes sense to me, except for the poor vision part. There have been many gods blamed for lightning, and thunder as well. Most of the mysterious things that couldn't be explained throughout history have been delegated to some god or other until people learned what actually caused it. So yeah, I guess it could have been misinterpreted and seen as otherworldly by "handy man" regardless of his vision.


Well, the "rarity" of lightning would depend on what area of the world he lived in.
And if you change it to say that he'd never seen lightning before, then he's not misinterpreting two "normal" objects, because lightning would then be abnormal to him. So he'd be misinterpreting one normal object, fire, and one abnormal object, lightning, to appear 'not normal'.
I just have to ask, How did the glasses get there, 1.4 million years ago?

":lol: No I don't have proof that every 3 year old knows what fire is. All of the 3 year old's that I know, do know what it is and I imagine that a 3 year old being raised around a fire used for cooking and warmth would not only know what it is, but would probably also have a good idea of how to start a fire. If your "Handy Man" had grown to adulthood alone, with no family and no fire, then I could see how he would be mystified by i"

Yes, a three year old can start a fire with wood and flint, or whatever was used back then. Just like a one year old can recite the presidents names.


"That is assuming an awful lot about how humans lived and thought and acted 1.4 million years ago. As I said before, I don't believe that they were as dumb as animals, and no I don't have any proof of that either. My work with modern humans suffering from microcephaly leads me to believe that just because a person's brain is smaller than normal, doesn't mean they act or think like animals or that they can't understand something as simple as fire or lightning."

Yes it is assuming a lot, but i believe it is a logical assumption based on the fact that since habilis , 1.4 million years ago, were the first homo genus from apes. Id rather go with what science says about how smart they really were, and comparing a modern humans head diseases to apes 1.4 million years is makes no sense. Even though people with microcephaly have severely impaired
intellectual development. Saying that fire and lighting are simple to habilis also makes no sense as if it were so simple why wouldn't the 'smart' animals before them control it. Assuming the animals are smart before habils based on your idea of hablis being smarting than what we think, therefore this smarts had to come form past generations, and whats before habills is the Paranthropus, based on current evidence there is no sign they knew how to control fire. Does any of your animals know what lighting is?(if you have any)My dog hears thunder which is usually accommodated with lighting, and runs away, i think it is safe to say he has no clue what it is because he is so scared.

"I am assuming that this Handy man has been seeing fire and lightning since birth, with his poor vision. I do see your point about the lightning hitting the tree and causing fire though and misinterpreting that event. I'm not sure why you used the glasses to explain your point, but it is an interesting thought. That is incredible! You never see lightning? This time of the year we see lightning almost every day. I never thought that there was anyone who's never seen lightning. Amazing!"

Well of course I have not seen lighting, I live in the middle of a city, in California and I am only 18 years old. Ask any 18 year old down hear if they seen lighting, most, if not, all will say no. And just because I hear thunder dose not mean i have seen lighting. And I think you are assuming a lot when you say he has seen lighting since birth, since this would have to apply to all of the humans who wore born back then. Yes, fire could possibly be seen since birth but again the combination of lighting and the fire could result in misinterpretation. The glasses were a fancy way of saying his vision sucks.

"Now this makes sense to me, except for the poor vision part. There have been many gods blamed for lightning, and thunder as well. Most of the mysterious things that couldn't be explained throughout history have been delegated to some god or other until people learned what actually caused it. So yeah, I guess it could have been misinterpreted and seen as otherworldly by "handy man" regardless of his vision,"

So your saying a blind man could misinterpret lighting for an angry god?



"Well, the "rarity" of lightning would depend on what area of the world he lived in. And if you change it to say that he'd never seen lightning before, then he's not misinterpreting two "normal" objects, because lightning would then be abnormal to him. So he'd be misinterpreting one normal object, fire, and one abnormal object, lightning, to appear 'not normal'. "
Woops i made a mistake, forgot I said he saw the lighting first with the glasses, same with fire.


Magic.