UberNeuman
Lifer
- Nov 4, 1999
- 16,937
- 3,087
- 126
MagnusTheBrewer
IN MEMORIAM
- Jun 19, 2004
- 24,122
- 1,594
- 126
The truth is always some third way, the integration of opposites in a higher understanding.
All knowledge is self knowledge and self knowledge is not possible when self hate motivates and demands that one never touch what one is feeling.
Real knowledge is is acquired by those with enormous faith or by those who can't block out the awareness of tremendous pain.
Some folk become the object of their love, Thy will be my will, and some lose self will in surrender. And some can do either.
Don't have the faintest notion what I'm talking about? Hehehehe
All knowledge is self knowledge and self knowledge is not possible when self hate motivates and demands that one never touch what one is feeling.
Real knowledge is is acquired by those with enormous faith or by those who can't block out the awareness of tremendous pain.
Some folk become the object of their love, Thy will be my will, and some lose self will in surrender. And some can do either.
Don't have the faintest notion what I'm talking about? Hehehehe
halik
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 81
MagnusTheBrewer
IN MEMORIAM
- Jun 19, 2004
- 24,122
- 1,594
- 126
LDS = Latter Day Saints = Mormons
LSD = what you meant...
And you call yourself a trekkie, son, I am dissapoint.
Neanderthal and Cro Magnon both had bigger brain cases then modern man, which means nothing. It is the wrinkled convoluted surface of the Human brain making an incredible amount of neural connections that mean increased intelligence.
MagnusTheBrewer
IN MEMORIAM
- Jun 19, 2004
- 24,122
- 1,594
- 126
MagnusTheBrewer
IN MEMORIAM
- Jun 19, 2004
- 24,122
- 1,594
- 126
PingSpike
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2004
- 21,758
- 603
- 126
So I actually read this entire article and it was pretty interesting. Apparently the brain has been shrinking since about 20-30,000 years ago. So Cro-Magnon man had larger brains than people do today. Cro-Magnon was actually larger and taller than us so initially it was thought the larger brains were the function of larger body size, but this isn't true either. Measured by EQ which is some kind of brain to body size ratio their brains were still larger.
Three theories are presented for why this may be:
Cro-Magnon man was in fact smarter and he was smarter because he had to be. Essentially this is the Idiocracy theory. There was no room for mistakes in his brutal world and it took a faster thinking and more inventive mind just to survive it. As modern humans developed larger populations and better safety nets stupider children could be both fed and cared for and prevented from dying, which of course removed the pressure to develop larger more expensive brains. By this theory if you teleported a Cro-Magnon child to our time and he grew up here he'd be among the brightest of us when having the benefit of our developed culture and accumulated knowledge, his innate abilities being 'held back' in the prehistoric age by a desperate fight for survival and undeveloped technology. Indeed, this group is responsible for the "cultural explosion" where cave paintings, carved flutes, etc were developed all in a short period of time after a long period of time when human culture had remained static.
There's not much to refute this idea, at least not entirely. Although it is pretty depressing.
Brains have gotten smaller because they have gotten more efficient.
The researchers cite a large amount of gene changes that affect brain development during the period after brain size started to decrease. The idea behind this is that the famines that large populations had to endure put pressure on the human brain to shrink, brains being massive calorie hogs. The much larger population of humans during this time meant the possibility for random mutations was increased as well which would have allowed these adaptions to occur whereas before they could not.
This is a nice theory because it lets us say our brains shrink while we still get to pretend we're becoming more intelligent...or at least staying the same. I can't buy that through. My guess would be we probably became more efficient at a common task like language so we could even function in society at our reduced level. I'd say no matter how you slice it we must have lost potential.
We tamed ourselves:
All domesticated animals have smaller brains than their wild counterparts. Wolves put through intelligence tests show a much greater ability to solve complex problems quickly and adapt to new situations than dogs. They are also much more aggressive. The theory here is that larger brained individuals were actively selected against through capital punishment. In other words, tribes would get together and decide that a violent individual should be put to death and he'd be removed from the gene pool...both with his greater brain size and his aggressive nature.
This certainly seems plausible. However, you have to believe that smaller brain size and docile nature are coupled together in selection. Maybe they are, but our only proof seems to come from domesticated animals. Humans weren't at all interested in selecting for intelligence, only for docile nature or obedience. One could argue there are multiple different pressures on human evolution and that the two aren't necessarily coupled. The authors make a good case though with the bonobo apes though which have smaller brain cases than chimps are much less aggressive.
The interesting thing about these theories though is they could all very well be true at the same time.
The article ends on a high note though, brain size has been on the rise again size the colonial period. It is probably due to improved nutrition.
Three theories are presented for why this may be:
Cro-Magnon man was in fact smarter and he was smarter because he had to be. Essentially this is the Idiocracy theory. There was no room for mistakes in his brutal world and it took a faster thinking and more inventive mind just to survive it. As modern humans developed larger populations and better safety nets stupider children could be both fed and cared for and prevented from dying, which of course removed the pressure to develop larger more expensive brains. By this theory if you teleported a Cro-Magnon child to our time and he grew up here he'd be among the brightest of us when having the benefit of our developed culture and accumulated knowledge, his innate abilities being 'held back' in the prehistoric age by a desperate fight for survival and undeveloped technology. Indeed, this group is responsible for the "cultural explosion" where cave paintings, carved flutes, etc were developed all in a short period of time after a long period of time when human culture had remained static.
There's not much to refute this idea, at least not entirely. Although it is pretty depressing.
Brains have gotten smaller because they have gotten more efficient.
The researchers cite a large amount of gene changes that affect brain development during the period after brain size started to decrease. The idea behind this is that the famines that large populations had to endure put pressure on the human brain to shrink, brains being massive calorie hogs. The much larger population of humans during this time meant the possibility for random mutations was increased as well which would have allowed these adaptions to occur whereas before they could not.
This is a nice theory because it lets us say our brains shrink while we still get to pretend we're becoming more intelligent...or at least staying the same. I can't buy that through. My guess would be we probably became more efficient at a common task like language so we could even function in society at our reduced level. I'd say no matter how you slice it we must have lost potential.
We tamed ourselves:
All domesticated animals have smaller brains than their wild counterparts. Wolves put through intelligence tests show a much greater ability to solve complex problems quickly and adapt to new situations than dogs. They are also much more aggressive. The theory here is that larger brained individuals were actively selected against through capital punishment. In other words, tribes would get together and decide that a violent individual should be put to death and he'd be removed from the gene pool...both with his greater brain size and his aggressive nature.
This certainly seems plausible. However, you have to believe that smaller brain size and docile nature are coupled together in selection. Maybe they are, but our only proof seems to come from domesticated animals. Humans weren't at all interested in selecting for intelligence, only for docile nature or obedience. One could argue there are multiple different pressures on human evolution and that the two aren't necessarily coupled. The authors make a good case though with the bonobo apes though which have smaller brain cases than chimps are much less aggressive.
The interesting thing about these theories though is they could all very well be true at the same time.
The article ends on a high note though, brain size has been on the rise again size the colonial period. It is probably due to improved nutrition.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter