- 13 Jan 2022 14:12
#15207076
Actually, it was you the one that started making a pissing contest about "cognition".
If you go back to the original reference of Galen in this thread, is about being stuck in an island with Galen vs a modern physician. Cognition is not mentioned at all. Furthermore, later on your last post you try to use cognition as "navigation", you can if you must, but that is not how this word is used in modern terms, I have absolutely no interest in debating linguistics or word root origins.
Cognition: the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.
This is how the word is used in modern times, this is the only definition that I care about at this time. There is absolutely no evidence that a modern human is inferior in acquiring knowledge and understanding this knowledge.
https://www.industrytap.com/knowledge-d ... hours/3950
In fact, human knowledge is growing exponentially, essentially invalidating any notion that modern humans have some sort of inferior "process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience and the senses", cognition.
And to the extent that cognition applies to the process of acquiring knowledge, the fact modern society has far more robust systems for acquiring/generating/sharing knowledge, modern societies do indeed have a greater cognitive force than prior ones.
You are wrong.
So many things!
Like I said before. I have known about Galen, and the history of medicine for quite a few years. I am a big fan of podcast Bedside rounds, have been listening for years! and that is basically what the presenter does, discuss the history of medicine and the context. To this... big LOL.
Nobody is trying to undermine anyone's legacy. I simply stated the facts and context.
This does not look like an honest way to have a debate. If you have evidence/information that can move the conversation further? Why hoard this information for yourself? Is your goal to have an intellectually honest discussion or your goal is to humiliate your opponent?
Grow up, provide the information so we can move further in the debate.
Ofcourse it does. How can you possibly separate modern human from the history and circumstances that made us modern? You can't. We are the product of all the experiences, history, circumstances that preceded us.
Its like making the claim... "old cars are better than modern ones". Then, someone else replies "well, that is obviously not true, a modern car has engine that can propel the car faster, breaks that can bring it to a still quicker, they are more reliable and safer" and then the first person complains "well, the old car is still better if you remove the tires, the engine, the breaks, the onboard computer, seatbelts, composite materials, etc."
You cannot remove what makes you, YOU and still be YOU.
LOL you are not refuting anything I have said. You bold "very elaborate water purifying systems" as if it proves anything. I already explained to you that purifying is a loaded term that can imply many things, you can purify water by killing bacteria, or you can purify water by performing a religious dance to remove it from spirits, or you can purify it for a variety of reasons. At the end of the day, ancient romans were mostly ignorant about germ theory.
The "very elaborate" part is an equally ambiguous term. You can have a very elaborate machine that does nothing:
Ancient humans were not boiling water to specifically kill micro-organisms that caused disease, nor did they possess the knowledge of these organisms. To the extent that this might have occurred, it was merely by chance. Both articles specifically and unambiguously state this, as I quoted you before and as I quote you now:
Claiming what you did, is anachronistic and ignores the proper flow of time.
Interesting claim. I don't agree with your claims but I will engage on some hypotheticals.
The world of Galen had more unknowns than our world today. So obviously, he had far more opportunities to discover things, including things that today we find mundane. Are you suggesting, that if humanity advances forward for millennia, and we manage to make every conceivable discovery ever... that last person in the line of succession, is by necessity, intellectually inferior to everyone that preceded?
LOL
I am done beating the proverbial dead horse. If you wish to maintain your inaccurate and anachronistic views of history, suit yourself.
I don't know. Did he? You seem to be the expert on the matter.
I am not trying to insult anyone. You, however, seem to take insult to everything I say.
Like I have said before. A baby is not stupid because is a baby. Galen is a baby in terms of humanity's history. Like a baby, he made many mistakes as he learned. I don't have any emotional link to this guy, I can be objective on my assessment.
In the hypothetical of time travel, this statement would probably be fairly accurate/reasonable. Then again, I ask.. Would me, ending up killed be some sort of proof that I am wrong? Let me ask you this... didn't the mob convict and sentence socrates to death? is socrates less right for this?
I don't really understand the point of this claim to be honest. Are you trying to make me fearful of ancient greeks killing me for my thoughts? Now, that would be ridiculous!
I am neither fearful, biased nor contemptuous towards morality or the term. You simply have not made a coherent argument to justify why It needs to be considered when evaluating whether humanity is getting dumber and dumber.
Furthermore, I am not interested in having a morality argument with you because I know exactly where it is going to lead. Been there, done that, it is boring and frankly useless. I rather waste my time talking to anti-vaxxers than having that conversation with you again.
LOL. Projection my dear, projection.
No it does not.
When I mentioned atom I did in reference to "splitting the atom". Are you seriously trying to make the argument that in that context I was trying to say "splitting the person/individual"?
Very disingenuous claim. This is desperate.
You are not sorry. It bothers me just to the extent of having another fellow human being deceitful. It is not big deal really, I have to deal with far worse on a daily basis.
This obsession makes you blind.
No Greek words bother me, I don't speak Greek and I have not said anything in greek. I was communicating in English and will continue to do so. Atom is an English word. you can find it on an English dictionary, and it has an English meaning.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/atom
Stop trying to derail this conversation, eroding and altering what we mean with each word is very disengenous.
Actually no. Go back and read. I reject your claim of cognition -> Navigation. I thought I was very clear when we discussed the Pidgeon example. I am not interested in having a debate on what a word means or whats the root or original language of the word or any of that crap. Go grab a dictionary, look up cognition and see what it says:
From dictionary.com:
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries. ... =cognition
Google:
Wikipedia:
I am not going to descend into the pit with you.
Yeah yeah yeah. you are a very humble person. Just like Trump? The "most humble person".
Lets skip to the point that you share with us who would be the archetypical person in antiquity that you think you compare to and how is it that you believe that you are grossly inferior to this person.
And I rejected this notion several posts in the back. Navigation is not cognition. See Pidgeon example. We cannot have a discussion if we are not talking the same language.
If you disagree, just say so, I can take your word for that.
After a while of hammering the same point, it is easier to just say that. Specially when my earlier posts already address the point.
LOL, and I am the arrogant one!
You are now cherry picking. Read the title of the thread. It says "HUMANITY", it encompasses the totality of humans. It is not limited to those that live in greece or spain or Guatemala. You are trying to make this a pissing contests about the glory days of civilization X vs Y. Just read the post. Furthermore, as if that was not enough, keep in mind also the CONTEXT, Mr @QatzelOk is an individual that is constantly complaining about civilization, technology and humanity in general, this is not just my opinion, this has been noted by numerous members of our community. I reject the notion/relevance of individual sub-population "golden ages" as a scape goat to justify relative periods of excellence. Humanity as a whole is being considered, not just snippets of history and geography. As such, the totality of humanity is undoubtedly better off today that at any other point in history, and on average, it is an increasing curve, perhaps with modest local valleys and hills.
Well, no. We cannot even agree on the meaning of words!
The decadent youth argument... Ok, boomer.
LOL.
And this is the problem with a romanticized history.
Actually there is nothing "clear" from the OP since it is his usual brand of bizarre. But whatever.
Nonsense.
noemon wrote:You asserted all on your own that you are cognitively superior to Galen(the founder of medicine). Your sob immigrant story does not justify all the nonsense you have posted to make yourself feel special, nor does it demonstrate any kind of special adaptive qualities you might possess. You moved from Cuba to the US along with several other million people, that does not mean that you are smarter than Galen.
Actually, it was you the one that started making a pissing contest about "cognition".
If you go back to the original reference of Galen in this thread, is about being stuck in an island with Galen vs a modern physician. Cognition is not mentioned at all. Furthermore, later on your last post you try to use cognition as "navigation", you can if you must, but that is not how this word is used in modern terms, I have absolutely no interest in debating linguistics or word root origins.
Cognition: the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.
This is how the word is used in modern times, this is the only definition that I care about at this time. There is absolutely no evidence that a modern human is inferior in acquiring knowledge and understanding this knowledge.
https://www.industrytap.com/knowledge-d ... hours/3950
In fact, human knowledge is growing exponentially, essentially invalidating any notion that modern humans have some sort of inferior "process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience and the senses", cognition.
And to the extent that cognition applies to the process of acquiring knowledge, the fact modern society has far more robust systems for acquiring/generating/sharing knowledge, modern societies do indeed have a greater cognitive force than prior ones.
You are wrong.
The below is the extract from your source about boiling water which you posted after you were informed that the ancients already boiled their water to clean it, contrary to your claim otherwise that you would teach them that when you went back in time.
The fact is that you know absolutely nothing about Galen, you were totally unaware that Galen promoted the boiling of water to purify it, you were totally unaware he performed cataract surgeries, you were totally unaware he invented medical diagnosis. You are totally unaware of Greek literature and the way that Galen, Aristotle, Plato, etcetera recorded the entire environment around them including all the characters, patients, slaves, craftsmen, etcetera. You have been caught ignorant with your pants down consistently yet that does not stop you from trying to undermine Galen to make yourself feel superior to him by appropriating his legacy as evidence of your superior cognition.
So many things!
Like I said before. I have known about Galen, and the history of medicine for quite a few years. I am a big fan of podcast Bedside rounds, have been listening for years! and that is basically what the presenter does, discuss the history of medicine and the context. To this... big LOL.
Nobody is trying to undermine anyone's legacy. I simply stated the facts and context.
You are projecting, the 3 or 4 or 5 names that you can conjure up are the extent of your knowledge of Greek literature. The funny part is that you are generalizing your own ignorance as evidence that these guys did not record any other people/cases/surgeries/experiments other than themselves.
Please do tell me, when I show you evidence of this and crash yet another "point" of your own ignorance and imagination, what argument will you concede in this conversation? Instead of going further into your strawman by asking "why I am asking this" as is predictable, it would be nice if you actually provided any context for your argument as would be rational.
This does not look like an honest way to have a debate. If you have evidence/information that can move the conversation further? Why hoard this information for yourself? Is your goal to have an intellectually honest discussion or your goal is to humiliate your opponent?
Grow up, provide the information so we can move further in the debate.
Your argument invokes the cumulative technology of an era as evidence of your own personal and individual cognition. Comical.
Ofcourse it does. How can you possibly separate modern human from the history and circumstances that made us modern? You can't. We are the product of all the experiences, history, circumstances that preceded us.
Its like making the claim... "old cars are better than modern ones". Then, someone else replies "well, that is obviously not true, a modern car has engine that can propel the car faster, breaks that can bring it to a still quicker, they are more reliable and safer" and then the first person complains "well, the old car is still better if you remove the tires, the engine, the breaks, the onboard computer, seatbelts, composite materials, etc."
You cannot remove what makes you, YOU and still be YOU.
The below is the extract from your source about boiling water which you posted after you were informed that the ancients already boiled their water to clean it, contrary to your claim otherwise that you would teach them that when you went back in time.
LOL you are not refuting anything I have said. You bold "very elaborate water purifying systems" as if it proves anything. I already explained to you that purifying is a loaded term that can imply many things, you can purify water by killing bacteria, or you can purify water by performing a religious dance to remove it from spirits, or you can purify it for a variety of reasons. At the end of the day, ancient romans were mostly ignorant about germ theory.
The "very elaborate" part is an equally ambiguous term. You can have a very elaborate machine that does nothing:
Ancient humans were not boiling water to specifically kill micro-organisms that caused disease, nor did they possess the knowledge of these organisms. To the extent that this might have occurred, it was merely by chance. Both articles specifically and unambiguously state this, as I quoted you before and as I quote you now:
In the ancient times, people determined the purity of water by taste, and this method has been found to be incorrect later on.
The major motive for water purification was better tasting drinking water, because people could not yet distinguish between foul and clean water. Turbidity was the main driving force between the earliest water treatments. Not much was known about micro organisms, or chemical contaminants.
Claiming what you did, is anachronistic and ignores the proper flow of time.
Individuals can only be judged based on what they achieve with what they already have. You see, QatzelOk is not smarter than Galen because he has the privilege of being born today and neither do you. To prove your claimed superior cognition or that of another(any other, take your pick) you would need to prove that you achieved a greater distance of progress than the individual you are comparing yourself or someone else to. And you are not even aware of what Galen did or about who he wrote.
Interesting claim. I don't agree with your claims but I will engage on some hypotheticals.
The world of Galen had more unknowns than our world today. So obviously, he had far more opportunities to discover things, including things that today we find mundane. Are you suggesting, that if humanity advances forward for millennia, and we manage to make every conceivable discovery ever... that last person in the line of succession, is by necessity, intellectually inferior to everyone that preceded?
Teaching you the proper use of the Greek word 'tautology' and showing your arguments to be tautological is nothing special just just meh.
LOL
Ancient doctors boiled the water to purify it from what they described as particles of decomposed matter and used taste to test the results since they did not have microscopes but they did have the knowledge that boiling the water purifies it from these particles. You claimed that you would teach them something that they already know and as such your claim remains as false as it gets.
I am done beating the proverbial dead horse. If you wish to maintain your inaccurate and anachronistic views of history, suit yourself.
Did Galen remove cataracts from eyes to remove evil spirits also?
I don't know. Did he? You seem to be the expert on the matter.
You are trying to insult Galen as a "witch doctor" while totally failing to rationalise his immense scientific contributions as the founder of modern medicine.
I am not trying to insult anyone. You, however, seem to take insult to everything I say.
Like I have said before. A baby is not stupid because is a baby. Galen is a baby in terms of humanity's history. Like a baby, he made many mistakes as he learned. I don't have any emotional link to this guy, I can be objective on my assessment.
Somehow you are under the erroneous impression that such abject irrationality would fly in the antiquity and that people like you, making such arguments, would survive or even thrive. But you wouldn't, they would very likely kill you the very moment you told them something as stupid as this.
In the hypothetical of time travel, this statement would probably be fairly accurate/reasonable. Then again, I ask.. Would me, ending up killed be some sort of proof that I am wrong? Let me ask you this... didn't the mob convict and sentence socrates to death? is socrates less right for this?
I don't really understand the point of this claim to be honest. Are you trying to make me fearful of ancient greeks killing me for my thoughts? Now, that would be ridiculous!
You are fearful, biased and contemptuous towards the term 'morality'. It terrifies you for some reason. I can only imagine that it's because you are evidently unaware of its actual meaning.
I am neither fearful, biased nor contemptuous towards morality or the term. You simply have not made a coherent argument to justify why It needs to be considered when evaluating whether humanity is getting dumber and dumber.
Furthermore, I am not interested in having a morality argument with you because I know exactly where it is going to lead. Been there, done that, it is boring and frankly useless. I rather waste my time talking to anti-vaxxers than having that conversation with you again.
You can hardly follow through a conversation without celebrating your arrogance and ignorance.
LOL. Projection my dear, projection.
Atom means person/individual in Greek and it is the context that it was correctly used.
No it does not.
When I mentioned atom I did in reference to "splitting the atom". Are you seriously trying to make the argument that in that context I was trying to say "splitting the person/individual"?
Very disingenuous claim. This is desperate.
I'm sorry this bothers you for some reason.
You are not sorry. It bothers me just to the extent of having another fellow human being deceitful. It is not big deal really, I have to deal with far worse on a daily basis.
And I'm sorry that you are unable to force your very limited understanding of Greek to a Greek person.
This obsession makes you blind.
What games of equivocation are you referring to and why does the meaning of Greek words bother you? Elaborate.
No Greek words bother me, I don't speak Greek and I have not said anything in greek. I was communicating in English and will continue to do so. Atom is an English word. you can find it on an English dictionary, and it has an English meaning.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/atom
Stop trying to derail this conversation, eroding and altering what we mean with each word is very disengenous.
You have yet to make a single argument against my definition of cognition and its Indo-European cognates. You are still ranting about the cumulative technological superiority of all humanity in 2021 as evidence of your personal individual congitive superiority. Still comical.
Actually no. Go back and read. I reject your claim of cognition -> Navigation. I thought I was very clear when we discussed the Pidgeon example. I am not interested in having a debate on what a word means or whats the root or original language of the word or any of that crap. Go grab a dictionary, look up cognition and see what it says:
From dictionary.com:
1.- the act or process of knowing; perception.
2.- the product of such a process; something thus known, perceived, etc.
3.- knowledge.
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries. ... =cognition
the process by which knowledge and understanding is developed in the mind
Google:
the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.
Wikipedia:
refers to "the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses"
I am not going to descend into the pit with you.
Whoever I would compare myself to from the past on a like-for-like basis I would do so from a position of humility rather than arrogance and under the hypothesis that I am cognitively inferior to them once the tech available to me and to them is removed for a fair comparison between our mental faculties.
Yeah yeah yeah. you are a very humble person. Just like Trump? The "most humble person".
Lets skip to the point that you share with us who would be the archetypical person in antiquity that you think you compare to and how is it that you believe that you are grossly inferior to this person.
I defined cognition several posts back, a few times already. It is cognate with perception and navigation:
And I rejected this notion several posts in the back. Navigation is not cognition. See Pidgeon example. We cannot have a discussion if we are not talking the same language.
How is it inferable? Demonstrate the inference.
If you disagree, just say so, I can take your word for that.
You are asking how, I give you an example, and your reply is "nonsense". Wow! Such amazing debating skills.
After a while of hammering the same point, it is easier to just say that. Specially when my earlier posts already address the point.
Morality is the way that we live our lives, including the way of how we use various technologies within our lives. I'm sorry that this is so complicated and impossible to comprehend for you. I truly am, you are an educated doctor whose prejudice & morality prevent you from having any kind of constructive conversation. Still that does not prevent you from asserting your cognitive superiority against people with much higher intellectual faculties.
LOL, and I am the arrogant one!
Still pretending that the answer provided and quoted by you does not even exist.
I have provided several and have explained to you that this is not about cumulative humanity and told you that putting all of humanity in the same soup is an idiotic exercise and how could it not be? Are Amazonian tribes enjoying the same human tech & civilisation as Americans? Golden Ages are achieved by particular social groups, not the entire inhabitants of the planet.
Surely even you can understand this very simple thing?
Others have already mentioned Aristotle and we have already discussed this several times. The argument however is not specific to a date even though 330BCE has been used several times as a placeholder. Several groups of people have undergone a Golden Age, some people have had several of those and have had several bell curves of Golden Ages. Greeks in the 4th BCE, again in the 2nd CE, 7th CE, 11CE. French people in the 18th CE, English in the 18th, Jews in the 19-20th CE and a lot of others. The personages and individual achievements developed by these people during their Golden Ages surpass those of their predecessors and that is the only time that this is true.
You are now cherry picking. Read the title of the thread. It says "HUMANITY", it encompasses the totality of humans. It is not limited to those that live in greece or spain or Guatemala. You are trying to make this a pissing contests about the glory days of civilization X vs Y. Just read the post. Furthermore, as if that was not enough, keep in mind also the CONTEXT, Mr @QatzelOk is an individual that is constantly complaining about civilization, technology and humanity in general, this is not just my opinion, this has been noted by numerous members of our community. I reject the notion/relevance of individual sub-population "golden ages" as a scape goat to justify relative periods of excellence. Humanity as a whole is being considered, not just snippets of history and geography. As such, the totality of humanity is undoubtedly better off today that at any other point in history, and on average, it is an increasing curve, perhaps with modest local valleys and hills.
No? So you agree with me then?
Well, no. We cannot even agree on the meaning of words!
Cognitive drain and boost is the direct result of the way these people live their lives(aka morality).
The decadent youth argument... Ok, boomer.
A social group striving for excellence is different to a social group striving for instant gratification. Athletes competing for an olive branch are different than athletes competing for money and doping.
LOL.
And this is the problem with a romanticized history.
This very obvious issue is clearly touched upon by the OP and the sources the OP posted and it all boils down to this dreaded word of yours, morality and ethics.
Actually there is nothing "clear" from the OP since it is his usual brand of bizarre. But whatever.
Try to say something more than "nonsense" this time.
Nonsense.