So, I was thinking about our race. The Mayans, Egyptians, Greeks....very intellectual civilizations but, is it fair to say that they were the first observers of all of their advances? For example, all of these societies apparantly had sophisticated celestial models....advanced enough that after some regression, we didnt re-learn much of it until several hundred years ago. So, were these groups of people able to make these observations, and accurate predictinos as a result, from several hundred years worth of work? Or, were our evolutionary ancestors more intellectual than we give them credit for, able to make and record in some form or another accurate and consistent observation? this would require a certain amount of understanding of their surroundings as well, keep in mind. My dog can make observations, but he isnt staring at the stars...see what Im saying?
thats a fair statement. Probably the truth. but, let's speak relative to our own intelligence. How long have we actually been, even remotely comparable?
man its all just 1 amazing journey and its a cool topic but you just got to go with it and hang on for the ride.
One thing I question all the time is why are humans so much more evolved intellectually than other species. Why do we have the ability to take this planet as "our own". How do I have the ability to write on this forum, while almost no species are close to understanding what I am doing.
Where do evolutionary ancestors come into play when we talk about Mayans and ancient Greeks and Egyptians? They were just a few thousand years ago. Actually, the Mayans are still around and their big states survived well into the first millennium AD. Evolution's not that quick.
If intelligence is a measure of knowledge and knowledge is derived from perception and understanding... consider this... The human brain receives something like 4 million nerve signals a second, but only 2,000 of those are actually analyzed and processed. I'd say we have a long way to go. (Pretty sure those numbers are accurate)
thats precisely my point. The mayans, egyptians, etc WERENT that long ago. They didnt have any substantial technological advantages to us... so, no computer models to illustrate a pattern based on only a small input of data. no highly refined lenses for improved observation so, the only thing that could have enabled them to make these observations would be the accumulation of millenias worth of carefull watching, memory and history (oral, written, who knows what we dont know about our ancestors) the question I am asking, does anyone actually think these people were able to understand these aspects of nature with only a few hundred years worth of work?? I dont. So, our evolutionary ancestors must be given credit for at least some of the ground work, right? we have found evidence that man used stone tools much earlier than we previously thought. How much of a leap in intelligence is it to go from fashioning tools and being able to apply them, and watching the stars and being able to record them?
that is something Ive heard before, and from experience, I can say that I cant discount it. The effect of enlightenment after my first experiences with cannabis and psilocybin were both too significant to describe. there are so many alkaloids in nature, currently. There's a school of thought that says we have a lot less available to us now than was previously available. So, I can definately buy that theory.
What kinds of sophisticated observations are we talking here? One problem with that is that ancient societies were far more literate than you give them credit for. Even the Mayans had an extensive literature, we just destroyed most of it before realizing it might not all have been devil-worship. The Egyptians had been literate for thousands of years BC. And the thing about both the Egyptians and the Mayans is that they were big into astrology. They spent a lot of time observing the stars, and I know the Egyptians did find at least one pattern that helped them predict the future (Evidently Sirius happened to be in a certain area of the sky at around the same time that the Nile flooded), so that might have given them an impetus to study the stars looking for more patterns.
Well, like you are saying, I don't think there was an intellectual leap between then and now; Cro-magnon was probably at least as intelligent as us, he just didn't have the benefit of at least a hundred thousand years of learning before him like we do. I mean hell, I don't think I would have figured out fire, the wheel, or how to work flint, and that's assuming I'd have lived to adulthood, which I almost certainly wouldn't have. So I think really, there probably wasn't a big leap from primitive society to modern civilization, just a gradual accumulation of techniques and technology. That said, agriculture was probably the most important innovation. Agriculture allows people to form stable societies and bigger populations in cities. And a population that's not always on the move can more easily observe the stars or pursue other tasks not directly related to hunting, gathering, and tribal socialization.
right. I also know that I would not be able to create even a moderately accurate star-chart in my lifetime, especially if it had not already been done. would you be able to? this is what Im trying to get at. How long must we have been reasonably intelligent to allow these societies to have this knowledge? some of their celestial / astrological calenders were remarkably expansive. There is a grouping of 5 or 6 stars that held significant meaning to the egyptians, because of the timing of its appearances. The pleites? I cant remember atm, but it sounds like you may know what im talking about. point is, some of the cycles they predicted werent just on 5 or 10 year loops, but on the magnitude of hundreds or thousands of years. mayan calender, as an example. (note, I dont put weight into the mayans predictions, but strictly from the celestial observation standpoint, they were pretty accurate) edit the egyptians were able to comprehend relative elevation, probably even on locations that werent close to each other. sun temples were build on elevated plateaus, and more tall / narrow, to be 'closer' to the sun. construction tecniques of many ancient civilizations was absolutely astounding. many engineers today would still be intimidated in replicating the tasks with similar materials.
Agriculture is a great point. It most certainly played a role in the stability of society, and as such our ability to pass on knowledge. probably got the ball rolling... but, if our evolutionary ancestry was more acute than we give them credit for, how far back did it go? Sure, I know there is no way to achieve precision in answering this question.... I just want to know what people think. ----- honestly, I think, much as this poster stated, our ancestors were probably not lacking much in brain power from ourselves. When you have no fire, being able to consistently create a spark can be a daunting task. the first wheel was probably considered 'controversial' in some circles. lmao, think about that. people arguing that the wheel would never work. it must be the accumulation of knowledge, and as I believe that our acquired knowledge is gaining at an accelerating pace, we can assume working backwards that the trend is also true. but, there would be some implications to this. Namely, that we take our own intelligence for granted. i dont want to ramble more of what I think atm....anyone else?
In one of my classes a few years back, I think it was stated that modern man has been around for about 100,000 years.
Wherever did you get the idea that anybody said they started making star-charts in one generation? Look, fully modern humanity has existed for roughly 100,000 years. As far as we can tell, there have been people doing agriculture for about 10,000 years. We can see evidence of urban civilizations about for six thousand years. I mean, think about it. From the year Jesus was supposedly born, in Roman Judea, to the year GW was elected, was 2,000 years. Fucking long time, right? Well, as far as we can tell, people just as smart as you and me have been walking, talking, fucking and dying for fifty times as long. And it took them twice that period of time to go from "shit, if I just plant my own seeds I don't need to keep walking around to find food!" to living in cities maybe a tenth the size of Seattle. The development of civilization by no means is regarded as having been quick. History classes aren't generally very good at showing the scale of history or just how long it took ancient societies to get to the point where they were building colossi.
right, so im suppost to assume that they were recording the stars and passing that knowledge down before they learned how to cultivate their own food? do you not see the leap in that logic? Im saying, arguing that cultivation was a trait acquired 10000 yrs ago seems false. I think we're saying the same thing, you seem to be frustrated by that...
It's generally agreed that agriculture is probably 10k years old. http://www.adbio.com/science/agri-history.htm And for the record, the latest counts put Homo Sapiens Sapiens at about 200K years old.