There was no advanced ancient civilization

[ShadowSot]

1 minute ago, Piney said:

The IQ of H. Sapien hasn't changed and neither has our ingenuity. That ingenuity just allowed us to step up a technological ladder.

 

Right, but he's proposing a fantastically high iq. Humans had a general increase of iq from our conditions, but his proposal is a group of creatures in a fairly stable environment with a stable behavior.just poking at a flaw in the story. 

[ShadowSot]

1 minute ago, Ell said:

It took her three years to mine and forge and assemble.

And how long for testing, trail and error, developing from rudiments. Discovering radio waves and applying them. Inventing the needed metallurgy and finding the necessary crystals. Ect. You're setting arbitrary numbers. 

1 minute ago, Ell said:

It is a desert world. Their brains evolved to be big to deal with the heat.

That's... Not really a good idea. 

1 minute ago, Ell said:

Their IQ evolved due to sexual selection: any male that had energy to waste on irrelevant intellectual feats had to be extremely healthy.

It is a hypothetical.

Which you're presenting as a response to a real world discussion. I'm pointing out it doesn't really make any sense. 

[Piney]

26 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

Right, but he's proposing a fantastically high iq. Humans had a general increase of iq from our conditions, but his proposal is a group of creatures in a fairly stable environment with a stable behavior.just poking at a flaw in the story. 

Actually, I think as life became easier, our I.Q.s dropped with the exception of the few people who need systemizing and technical skills. 

But I got what your driving at especially since there is no such thing as stable behavior and a stable environment. 

[Piney]

34 minutes ago, Ell said:

It is a desert world. Their brains evolved to be big to deal with the heat. Their IQ evolved due to sexual selection: any male that had energy to waste on irrelevant intellectual feats had to be extremely healthy.

Hunter-gatherer languages are more complex than urban dwellers, along with their philosophy because they have plenty of spare time to sit around and think. 

It took 3 years and 4 of us to figure out how Archaic flintknappers in the Eastern U.S. heat treated their stones creating  better knapping material with stronger and sharper edges. 

As for the brain evolving bigger? No, it would have to evolve a better cooling system and perhaps shrink. 

[XenoFish]

15 minutes ago, Piney said:

Actually, I think as life became easier, our I.Q.s dropped with the exception of the few people who need systemizing and technical skills. 

But I got what your driving at especially since there is no such thing as stable behavior and a stable environment. 

I think you're right. Knowledge is now at our fingertips, no need to memorize anything. Nor is there a need to do something when you can pay someone else to do. 

[ShadowSot]

I can agree, due to specialization. But I think that digital interactions could lead to a rebound on that. See 3 d printing, creative engineering and such. Still specialized, but allows a greater use of ingenuity. We're still very early on in development, with upfront costs getting lower daily. 

[Ell]

49 minutes ago, Piney said:

As for the brain evolving bigger? No, it would have to evolve a better cooling system and perhaps shrink. 

Under a tropical sun bigger brains are relatively cooler.

[Piney]

Just now, Ell said:

Under a tropical sun bigger brains are relatively cooler.

Tropical and arid are two different climates.

Tropical hunter-gatherers have to easiest available resources, so they have the most time to think deeply but technology is not driven because it's only driven by warfare and lack of resources.

The wheel was invented by nomadic herders who needed to move and find more resources. Metallurgy was developed by nomadic herders who needed the resources of others. 

[Essan]

2 hours ago, Piney said:

Tropical and arid are two different climates.

Tropical hunter-gatherers have to easiest available resources, so they have the most time to think deeply but technology is not driven because it's only driven by warfare and lack of resources.

The wheel was invented by nomadic herders who needed to move and find more resources. Metallurgy was developed by nomadic herders who needed the resources of others. 

Which is one reason why Amazonian, New Guinean and other tropical rain forest dwelling tribes still (or until recently did) live in the stone age - they never had any need to develop better technology.   What they had provided for all their needs.

[Thanos5150]

3 hours ago, Piney said:

The wheel was invented by nomadic herders who needed to move and find more resources. 

You said in effect this same thing 7 months ago which I replied:

Quote

 

This is by no means "fact", if correct at all, given that the wheel appears almost simultaneously across parts of Europe and the Near East coupled with the inherent uncertainties of absolute and/or relative dates which can be off by centuries either which way. The fact is no one is exactly sure where it was "invented" which is where the overwhelming majority of scholarship has left it at. And part of this argument it originates with PIE cultures is a linguistical one which its application as a dating method is speculative at best. 

And the Cucuteni–Trypillian culture, which is where these early examples were found, were hardly "nomads" with monumental architecture and several urban centers ("mega-sites") with upwards of 15,000 inhabitants predating the wheel finds (miniature models) by several centuries.  

 

 

[littlebrowndragon]

8 hours ago, Piney said:

They aren't anymore because of the thinking skills it takes to gather and maintain resources. 

Some "hunter-gatherer" cultures which were classified as "tethered nomads" turned out to be advanced "agro-foresters" whose resource management practices are still being discovered. 

Again, being categorised as "more advanced", does presuppose that the abilities required for gathering and maintaining resources is more advanced than the abilities needed to live hand-to-mouth.  For example, improvisation must be extremely important in the latter compared to the former.  Also, I think that the latter, hunter-gathering, would require a far greater understanding of, and harmonising with, the natural world in all its complexity.  For example, people would be hunting wild animals rather than killing domesticated animals which are more or less on the doorstep.

So, your arguments - or those of scientists - do not yet convince.

[Hanslune]

7 hours ago, Piney said:

Hunter-gatherer languages are more complex than urban dwellers, along with their philosophy because they have plenty of spare time to sit around and think. 

It took 3 years and 4 of us to figure out how Archaic flintknappers in the Eastern U.S. heat treated their stones creating  better knapping material with stronger and sharper edges. 

As for the brain evolving bigger? No, it would have to evolve a better cooling system and perhaps shrink. 

Also a problem with the size of the birth canal andbaby skull sizes - we are pushing the limit now which is why human birth seems so difficult compared to other mammals.

[Abramelin]

54 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Also a problem with the size of the birth canal andbaby skull sizes - we are pushing the limit now which is why human birth seems so difficult compared to other mammals.

Maybe other mammals can endure more pain than we can?

Or maybe they show less pain for god knows what reason (like fi. safety, not being discovered by predators)?

 

[Piney]

4 hours ago, littlebrowndragon said:

Again, being categorised as "more advanced", does presuppose that the abilities required for gathering and maintaining resources is more advanced than the abilities needed to live hand-to-mouth.  For example, improvisation must be extremely important in the latter compared to the former.  Also, I think that the latter, hunter-gathering, would require a far greater understanding of, and harmonising with, the natural world in all its complexity.  For example, people would be hunting wild animals rather than killing domesticated animals which are more or less on the doorstep.

So, your arguments - or those of scientists - do not yet convince.

I'm saying that hunter-gatherers are just as advanced in thinking as us. Maybe more so.

[Essan]

Who is more advanced?  Those who need 24 hour access to their smartphones?  Or those who see no need for smartphones at all?

[jaylemurph]

6 minutes ago, Essan said:

Who is more advanced?  Those who need 24 hour access to their smartphones?  Or those who see no need for smartphones at all?

What a false dichotomy.

A smartphone — even though I suspect the bigger point here is really about the internet rather than phones — is like every other tool: it’s only as good as the person using it.

Refusing to use a better tool isn’t a sign of a more advanced mind or society; it’s hipsterism. 

—Jaylemurph 

[Hanslune]

HG's know stuff that is of interest and needed for them to survive, we do the same thing. There is some commonality but in general we are HSS with different views so far apart that is hard to recognize the similarities.

[Essan]

58 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

What a false dichotomy.

A smartphone — even though I suspect the bigger point here is really about the internet rather than phones — is like every other tool: it’s only as good as the person using it.

Refusing to use a better tool isn’t a sign of a more advanced mind or society; it’s hipsterism. 

—Jaylemurph 

Were we really so less clever when we could live our lives without checking up on some bimbo on instagram every 5 minutes?

The point is technology in itself does not mean anything.   Who is more advanced?  The person who can catch, raise or grow their own food?  Or the person who needs a mobile phone with which to order a pizza?   And wouldn't know a bramble from deadly  nightshade?

[jaylemurph]

38 minutes ago, Essan said:

The point is technology in itself does not mean anything.   Who is more advanced?  The person who can catch, raise or grow their own food?  Or the person who needs a mobile phone with which to order a pizza?   And wouldn't know a bramble from deadly  nightshade?

It depends entirely what kind of environment they're in.

Mr Scrambles-together-dinner-from-the-bush isn't going to be too flush in midtown New York City if he's strapped for cash, but I'd do okay there with a debit card and smart phone. And there's a reason I avoid the Bush.

--Jaylemurph

Edited February 15, 2021 by jaylemurph

[Piney]

1 hour ago, Essan said:

Who is more advanced?  Those who need 24 hour access to their smartphones?  Or those who see no need for smartphones at all?

I can use my flip phone as a mobile hotspot if I ever desire to bring my Think Pad on a site.......but I don't.

1 hour ago, jaylemurph said:

What a false dichotomy.

A smartphone — even though I suspect the bigger point here is really about the internet rather than phones — is like every other tool: it’s only as good as the person using it.

Refusing to use a better tool isn’t a sign of a more advanced mind or society; it’s hipsterism. 

—Jaylemurph 

What's more durable when your walking around the woods looking for things that need removing or leaving alone?  If it's not broke, don't fix it. 

[Harte]

1 hour ago, jaylemurph said:

It depends entirely what kind of environment they're in.

Mr Scrambles-together-dinner-from-the-bush isn't going to be too flush in midtown New York City if he's strapped for cash, but I'd do okay there with a debit card and smart phone. And there's a reason I avoid the Bush.

--Jaylemurph

"...avoid the bush." LOL

Harte

[littlebrowndragon]

14 hours ago, Piney said:

I'm saying that hunter-gatherers are just as advanced in thinking as us. Maybe more so.

Thank you.  I misunderstood what you were saying.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

17 hours ago, Harte said:

"...avoid the bush." LOL

Harte

Alexander the Greek did much the same.

[janesix]

On 2/13/2021 at 9:08 AM, littlebrowndragon said:

I'm wondering about the definition of "advanced" in this context.  Why are hunter-gatherer cultures considered less advanced, I wonder?  Does that mean that, for example, Aboriginal Australians, if any still live traditionally as hunter gatherers, are less advanced than settled peoples?

yes, it does.

[Abramelin]

32 minutes ago, janesix said:

yes, it does.

According to 'western standards' it does.