Is humanity getting dumber and dumber? - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15207076
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. :eek:

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. :lol:

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? :roll:

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. :roll:

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? :roll: 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.
#15207083
noemon wrote:Industrialisation certainly changed the clock of the worker from their previous condition of agrarian serfdom. Turned him more into a robot than an artisan, craftsman, thinker or time-keeper, tasks that require mental faculties. That is certainly true.

Urban liberal societies are more fast paced than agrarian serf societies, this is clearly true for urban societies of the antiquity.


A Chronology of Increasing Stupidity
(obviously incomplete; feel free to suggest revisions)

1. The clock is invented: people now must follow a particular rhythm. This robs humans of natural spirituality and time for reflection. Clocks inevitably lead to "time mandates" which limit human freedom to respond to life events in a spontaneous, natural way. This decreases social interaction - which is critical for wisdom.

2. Middle Eastern religions are globalized: masses of worker bees have their spirituality and philosophy truncated by feel-good slave fiction. "If you do what I tell you, you will live with superman forever," becomes a normal worldview. Anything that contradicts this "official stupidity" is harshly repressed.

3. Industrialization: Huge drop in lifespans, general health, work week expands to maximum for human survival, chemicals enter diet and drinking water, frequent periods of mass panic and civil unrest and quelled with ideologies, repression.

4. Mass media, cars, and suburbia: These are the final nails in the coffin of human wisdom. Today, most humans living in developed countries get their socialization from commerce, rarely speak spontaneously to strangers or neighbors, and are completely mesmorized by the information-flow coming out of their tiny screen.

► Show Spoiler

Image
The ancients had slaves instead of mindless worker drones and it should be said that the Greek and Roman slaves exhibit far more human decency, art, science and education than the kind of people Smith is thinking about.

Likewise, the First Nations called people "slaves" if they lived among a foreign nation, and responded to orders from the people of this nation. In other words, if they were employees.

It was abnormal to be an "employee" and take orders from strangers. It was considered the ultimate loss of personal integrity - being employed by someone who isn't your own family or band.

Giving up personal sovereignty in order to make gadgets for tyrants.... caused a huge amount of stupidity by allowing controlling classes access to everyone's education standards, daily routine, diet, attitudes, etc.. Today's employee would be considered the most miserable (and stupid) slave by First Nations standards from 500 years ago.

"How high would you like me to jump?" is not the type of question that leads to fruitful enquiry (knowledge).
#15207092
XogGyux wrote:Actually, it was you the one that started making a pissing contest about "cognition".
If you go back to the my 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.


Fixed it for you. You claimed that if I was stuck in a desert island with you and Galen, I should choose you instead of Galen because you are supposedly smarter than he is. Your argument that this allegeldy proves your superior cognition over Galen was not just addressed by myself but by Potemkin also. In this post you call Galen, an intellectual "baby" to juxtapose him with yourself the "adult". I and Potemkin explained to you why you 're wrong. You have not said anything other than "nonsense". Galen figured out how to perform cataract surgery using his own wits and while living under a ban on performing experiments on human anatomy. If I broke my leg or hand, he would repair it far better than you would. You can not even argue in good faith.

If you are going to retract and admit you 've been wrong, just do it mate. But please, do not waste my time with supposed misunderstandings.

Xog wrote: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


How is the dictionary definition of cognition different than mine? :hmm: Elaborate. I do not see any difference. What difference do you see?

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 cumulative knowledge of all humanity is greater now than in the past. I've told you this several times. For the individuals however it is a different story relative to the demographic, time and place. Why are you in the bad habit of beating dead horses? Is that a hobby of yours to be making tautologies?

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.


It's fact that you were unaware of Galen's cataracat surgery, of the boiling of water to purify it from particles of decomposed matter, of his invention of modern diagnosis and of his tomes referencing thousands of patients and individuals. I am not interested on what podcasts you listen to. Why would I be? It doesn't change the fact of your lack of awareness, nor of your arrogance to assert contradictory things that proved your lack of awareness.

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.


Indeed, it is extremely dishonest on your part to be setting up straws instead of engaging with the actual topic. I will gladly show you Galen's references to other people once you tell me, why? What will I achieve in this topic by doing that? Why do you ask? What is the point you are trying to make? Spit it out as you are required by basic decency and I will gladly oblige. Since you fail to forward the conversation I can only assume that your entire modus operandi is to muddle the waters as you have been doing all along. Suppose for the sake of argument that Galen, Plato and Aristotle never mentioned a single individual other than themselves as you claimed while celebrating your total ignorance on the classical Greek literature of dialogue, what then? What's the point you are trying to make?

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.


You are not the cumulative product of the entire human technology like a car is the product of the cumulative technology of a car company, and even that is debatable, as I will show you below.

Neither am I, and neither is QatzelOk and neither is the hobo on the street. But why are we not the cumulative products of the entire history?

That is the serious question here.

But even with a processed product like cars, car manufacturers have dropped a lot of amazing technology due to cost and have caused cars to devolve. Case in point the Citroen Xantia Activa, it holds the historical world record on the moose test which is quite a significant test since 1996, the second car is the Porsche GT3 RS, lots of modern cars fail to pass the test even at 30mph. Why did this devolution happen? Citroen sold the license to Rolls Royce and Mercedes of its hydropneumatic suspension and after a few years the original concept was dropped by all 3 major companies due to costs. It is now only being used in tanks for comfort and gun accuracy. All cars are worse off now because of it. This has happened to humans so many times in history that is abjectly ridiculous to claim that all humans alive today embody the wisdom of all the ages.

Frankly, I did not expect someone to insist so much on something so obvious as this while claiming that he is the embodiment of all human knowledge.

Ancient humans were not boiling water to specifically kill micro-organisms that caused disease, nor did they possess the knowledge of these organisms.


They called them particles of decomposed matter and they did boil the water to clean it of these particles.

Source.

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?


I have mentioned the bell curve several times. The people on the left(rising) side are intellectually superior to the people on the right(declining) side. This cycle takes place among social groups several times across space time.

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.


Galen is a "baby", while you are the adult embodiment of the entire medical knowledge of all history. Got it.

I understand that this may make you feel good about yourself, but it's ridiculous.

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?


Yes it would, because it is direct evidence that you do not have the cognition to navigate/process/perceive that world, so how are you cognitively superior to Galen despite your advantage in knowledge?

Let me ask you this... didn't the mob convict and sentence socrates to death? is socrates less right for this?


1) Socrates was sentenced to death for turning people against democracy openly and unashamedly. Still, his accusers regretted it immediately & set up a statue for him at their expense, he was idolised and his attacks on democracy were internalised and studied by the same democracy that condemned him. Talking about the wisdom of the Athenians, even his accusers. That is not the reason the first guy you'd meet, would kill you.

2) As I said in my previous post you are failing miserably at the cardinal Socratic rule of being aware of your own personal limitations and you are seeking to enhance your personal worth with the technological legacy of others. It's comical.

Just this alone is real evidence of subpar cognitive ability.

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.


I know you very well by now, you believe that your current morality should never be challenged, talked to or discussed and you are willing to destroy any thread, conversation, topic that discusses morality(.ie our way of life) and which may criticize the current state of prevalent social mores. You do not accept any criticism of the current moral model and you are effectively an Inquisitor who seeks to derange any topic that may criticize the ongoing lifestyle of the western individual. But you fail at that when you deal with me and that is why you prefer dealing with anti-vaxxers & memes. Sorry.

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.


No, that is not what I am saying that you meant. I addressed what you said without using or changing the word atom in that context. I used the word atom in a different context than you did and totally separately from the 2 arguments because we are indeed attempting to split the atom/person but you do not want to engage in such an exercise, so it points out your hypocrisy of posing as the guy "who is splitting the atom", when you cannot even split the human from humanity.

Sorry again, but these are relatively smart stuff that ought to be pointed out.

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.


The pidgeon example "was a trap" as you claimed, but no, now it was a real argument that discredited "human navigation". Get a grip please.

How is the dictionary definition of cognition different than mine? :hmm: Elaborate. I do not see any difference. What difference do you see? Navigation is perceiving space & time.

If you disagree, just say so, I can take your word for that.


I already did that but you responded that it is inferred by my statements. Prove the inference then. No? You can't? So it is not infered? Pick a choice. Use a randomizer if you have to.

LOL, and I am the arrogant one!


Yes indeed, I do not claim to be superior to people in the past. I recognize my limitations against titans like Plato, Aristotle, Galen, Einstein, Feyman, Lycurgous, Pericles and others. I do not claim to be better or smarter than them. You are.

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.


As I said earlier, you can only operate within the realms of the anti-vaxxers. You do not wish, like or seek to go beyond the surface of anything. You are using "humanity" however it suits you in every instance. Was humanity better off during WW2 than it was in the decade preceding it? No? Why? Weren't the totality of human technology/smartness higher during WW2 than it was the previous decade?

I do not care how you interpret QatzelOk, you are disputing my posts which have absolutely nothing to do with the totality of human technology.

You have still failed to explain how "amazing total humanity" excludes the Amazonian tribes or sub-saharan Africa, or hobos on the street, or many other places where people have no relation to that amazing super technology. You cannot even break down the argument to groups because without the total soup of humanity, you have nothing to say because your brain/cognition can only reach up to there.


The decadent youth argument... Ok, boomer.


Cool, amazing argument. Social mores challenged = "boomer", a slogan/meme to dismiss anyone and anything that challenges the supremacy of the existing moral code. I was born in 1984, just for your information.

And this cognitive specimen is allegedly superior to the "babies" of the antiquity, middle-ages, renaissance, industrialisation, age of enlightment, etcetera. You assert your supremacy over every single individual born before you because you can go as far as: "New iPad Best iPad ever".

You, Godstud, Qatz, the hobo on the street, all superior mental beings to Plato, Aristotle, Einstein, Marco Polo, Rafael, Michelangelo, Adam Smith, Napoleon! cause you were born later, easies!

:lol: :lol:

----------------

You argued that Galen had a lot to discover and that today we have less to discover than he did, so we have less opportunity to achieve the same lengths in distance that he or others covered. This is an interesting position. Saturation is evident, but is it difficult to achieve such lengths because the amount of knowledge is finite and we are approaching the end of all knowledge or because of something else?

If knowledge is infinite, the argument that opportunity for knowledge lessens is untrue. So why are we covering less and less distance in an infinite space?
#15207127
noemon wrote:Fixed it for you. You claimed that if I was stuck in a desert island with you and Galen, I should choose you instead of Galen because your cognition is superior. Your argument that this allegeldy proves your superior cognition over Galen was not just addressed by myself but by Potemkin also. In this post you call Galen, an intellectual "baby" to juxtapose him with yourself the "adult". I and Potemkin explained to you why you 're wrong. You have not said anything other than "nonsense". Galen figured out how to perform cataract surgery using his own wits and while living under a ban on performing experiments on human anatomy. If I broke my leg or hand, he would repair it far better than you would.

You tell me, how many cataract surgeries did Galen Perform and how many restored vision to the patients?
How is it my fault that Galen was unable to perform dissections of humans? If anything this shows that the environment of antiquity was not fruitful for the advancement of human knowledge (cognition), and therefore, if anything, modern times are far superior when it comes to acquiring knowledge. Modern humans are not at fault for the past.
If I broke my leg or hand, he would repair it far better than you would.

Interesting... Would you let any modern physician treat your conditions strictly following Galen's methods and teachings? LOL
And I am the one arguing in bad faith...
How is the dictionary definition of cognition different than mine? :hmm: Elaborate. I do not see any difference. What difference do you see?

I'll let you figure that out by yourself.
The cumulative knowledge of all humanity is greater now than in the past. I've told you this several times. For the individuals however it is a different story relative to the demographic, time and place.

It is not "just" the cumulative knowledge. The speed at wich we are expanding this knowledge is also accelerating at a exponential rate. Over 95% of what we do in medicine today has been discovered in the past century, perhaps even 99%. Wrap your head around that... Galen's wrong teachings were taught and learned for over a millennia! and in the last 100 years nearly everything that we do in medicine came to be.
We are acquiring knowledge faster than at any other period of time in history.
It's fact that you were unaware of Galen's cataracat surgery, of the boiling of water to purify it from particles of decomposed matter, of his invention of modern diagnosis and of his tomes referencing thousands of patients and individuals. I am not interested on what podcasts you listen to. Why would I be? It doesn't change the fact of your lack of awareness, nor of your arrogance to assert contradictory things that proved your lack of awareness.

LOL you are wrong, again. So all I have to say now is:
Nonsense.
Indeed, it is extremely dishonest on your part to be setting up straws instead of engaging with the actual topic. I will gladly show you Galen's references to other people once you tell me, why? What will I achieve in this topic by doing that? Why do you ask? What is the point you are trying to make? Spit it out as you are required by basic decency and I will gladly oblige. Since you fail to forward the conversation I can only assume that your entire modus operandi is to muddle the waters as you have been doing all along.

Fine, if you refuse to have the discussion, then we don't have to. I understand.

Case in point the Citroen Xantia Activa, it holds the historical world record on the moose test which is quite a significant test since 1996, the second car is the Porsche GT3 RS, lots of modern cars fail to pass the test even at 30mph. Why did this devolution happen?

The first thing you have to consider, were the cars being designed to compete in the moose test? You cannot infer a "devolution" if the primary goal of the Porsche GT3 RS was not to beat another car in the moose test. The Porsche is designed to be a fast sport car, a track car, and in this, it clearly beats the citroen xantia activa. The article also mentions it :eh: .
The analogy being, a humming bird, is not an animal that has "devolved" because it cannot longer live in the sea. Evolution has shaped this bird to fill a different role than its ancestor.
Similarly, the Porsche GT3 RS was designed by engineers to fill a radically different role than that of the Citroen Xantia Activa. If you consider track performance, then all of the sudden the Pursche GT3 is a massive evolution compared to the xantia.
Now. A more accurate comparison would be to compare cars that were designed for the same purpose. Is a 1996 Civic any better at being a car than a 2020 one? Probably not, slower, less safe, less spacious, less amenities, less gadgets, etc.
You are trying to prove something that really does not exist. Seems to be trend.

Citroen sold the license to Rolls and Royce and Mercedes of its hydropneumatic suspension and after a few years the original concept was dropped by all 3 major companies due to costs. All cars are worse off now because of it.

Are they really worse? Cost is definitely part of the equation to assess if something is better or not.

This has happened to humans so many times in history that is abjectly ridiculous to claim that all humans alive today embody the wisdom of all the ages.

I wouldn't use those exact words because it can be misinterpreted. But mostly yeah. Humanity today is better off in every sense than before.

They called them particles of decomposed matter and they did boil the water to clean it of these particles.

Source.

Click the blue words, once in the page, scroll up to the top, and read.
There you will find:
The miasma theory (also called the miasmatic theory) is an obsolete medical theory that held that diseases—such as cholera, chlamydia, or the Black Death—were caused by a miasma (μίασμα, Ancient Greek for "pollution"), a noxious form of "bad air", also known as night air. The theory held that epidemics were caused by miasma, emanating from rotting organic matter.[1] Though miasma theory is typically associated with the spread of contagious diseases, some academics in the early nineteenth century suggested that the theory extended to other conditions as well, e.g. one could become obese by inhaling the odor of food.[2]

The miasma theory was advanced by Hippocrates in the fourth century B.C.[3] and accepted from ancient times in Europe and China. The theory was eventually abandoned by scientists and physicians after 1880, replaced by the germ theory of disease: specific germs, not miasma, caused specific diseases. However, cultural beliefs about getting rid of odor made the clean-up of waste a high priority for cities.[4][5]


I don't know what else I can do for you.

Galen is a "baby", while you are the adult embodiment of the entire medical knowledge of all history. Got it.

I understand that this may make you feel good about yourself, but it's ridiculous.

Depends on how wide you cast the lens. If we only consider prehistoric humans-present... then absolutely yes.
Now, if you widen the lens to include all human history, including the future that has not happened. Then, assuming humanity last a long time, then, we probably are all babies, and the adults have not arrive yet.

Yes it would, because it is direct evidence that you do not have the cognition to navigate/process/perceive that world, so how are you cognitively superior to Galen despite your advantage in knowledge?

Your hypothesis is incorrect. If I put you in a cage with lions, that does not prove that you have a cognitive deficiency because you were unable to "navigate/process/perceive" that world.

1) Socrates was sentenced to death for turning people against democracy openly and unashamedly. Still his accusers regretted it immediately & set up a statue for him at their expense, he was idolised and his attacks on democracy were internalised and studied by the same democracy that condemned him. Talking about the wisdom of the Athenians, even his accusers. That is not the reason the first guy you'd meet, would kill you.

2) As I said in my previous post you are failing miserably at the cardinal Socratic rule of being aware of your own personal limitations and you are seeking to enhance your personal worth with the technological legacy of others. It's comical.

Just this alone is real evidence of subpar cognitive ability.

LOL
Nonsense.

I know you very well by now, you believe that your current morality should never be challenged, talked to or discussed and you are willing to destroy any thread, conversation, topic that discusses morality(.ie our way of life) and which may criticize the current state of prevalent social mores. You do not accept any criticism of the current moral model and you are effectively an Inquisitor who seeks to derange any topic that may criticize the ongoing lifestyle of the western individual. But you fail at that when you deal with me and that is why you prefer dealing with anti-vaxxers & memes. Sorry.

What a sense of grandeur you ahe there... "But you fail at that when you deal with me" Are you the same person claiming to be humble just a couple of posts earlier?

You can challange "my current morality" all you want. If you happen to say something that actually makes sense I'll consider it. I really have no issues with that.

No, that is not what I am saying that you meant. I addressed what you said without using or changing the word atom in that context. I used the word atom in a different context than you did and totally separately from the 2 arguments because we are indeed attempting to split the atom/person but you do not want to engage in such an exercise, so it points out your hypocrisy of posing as the guy "who is splitting the atom", when you cannot even split human societies or individuals from the soup of all "cumulative humanity".

Sorry again, but these are relatively smart stuff that ought to be pointed out.

Disengenous.

The pidgeon example "was a trap" as you claimed, but no, now it was a real argument that discredited "human navigation".

It is both. It is a logical trap. Reductio ad absurdum

How is the dictionary definition of cognition different than mine? :hmm: Elaborate. I do not see any difference. What difference do you see? Navigation is an extension of perceiving space & time.

With that, I cannot help you.
A word definition is a pretty basic thing. I don't know how I can properly explain something on a reply? What guarantees do I have that the words I am using to explain it to you carry the same meaning to you? Perhaps you think meaning = car and explaining = boat, the same way that cognition = navigation and atom = person. For all I know, when reading my words you might be thinking about cheese and tulips.
It is very bizarre, really, very bizarre.

Yes indeed, I do not claim to be superior to people in the past. I recognize my limitations against titans like Plato, Aristotle, Galen, Einstein, Feyman, Lycurgous, Pericles and others. I do not claim to be better or smarter than them. You are.

Let me ask you this. Would you exchange your place in this world with that of Galen? If you had the opportunity to get a magic wish, would you, without any thought, choose to live Galen's life instead of your own?

As I said earlier, you can only operate within the realms of the anti-vaxxers. You do not wish, like or seek to go beyond the surface of anything. You are using "humanity" however it suits you in every instance. Was humanity better off during WW2 than it was in the decade preceding it? No? Why? Weren't the totality of human technology higher during WW2 than it was the previous decade?


I do not care how you interpret QatzelOk, you are disputing my posts which have absolutely nothing to do with the totality of human technology.

I am sorry for the inconvenience caused :lol:

You have still failed to explain how "amazing total humanity" excludes the Amazonian tribes or sub-saharan Africa, or hobos on the street, or many other places where people have no relation to that amazing super technology. You cannot even break down the argument to groups because without the total soup of humanity, you have nothing to say because your brain/cognition can only reach up to there.

No. I don't have to. Some individuals are not necessarily better off, that is true, that is indisputable. I don't think the people living in north Korea are doing well, nor do I think certain populations in the americas/africa are doing particularly great either. But in the aggregate, we are doing far better. Adjusted for population size at different times in history, we have less famine, less diseases, violence, more rights, more literate people, etc. We are living the best time in history.
On average, you can have small dips during short periods of times, and not every sub-population is going up at the same time or at the same rate. But as an aggregate, huaminty is doing far better today that at any other point in history.
And if you don't think so, just let me know what point in history would you want to get transported to if you had a chance.... I certainly would not take the chance if I was offered it :lol:
Cool, amazing argument. Social mores challenged = "boomer", a slogan/meme to dismiss anyone and anything that challenges the supremacy of the existing moral code. I was born in 1984, just for your information.

My condolences. You have not aged well :lol: .

You, Godstud, Qatz, the hobo on the street, all superior mental beings to Plato, Aristotle, Einstein, Marco Polo, Rafael, Michelangelo, Adam Smith, Napoleon! cause you were born later, easies!

Yes.
I am not claiming to be virtous for the luck of being being born at the time that I am. But objectively, Godstud, Qaatz, the hobo on the street are superior versions.
Let me ask you this. In the olympics, runner A gets a 10secs, runner B gets a 9.8secs. B is supposed to get the gold medal, A is supposed to get the silver. Do you ever see "well, B technically has a lower number, but A was lost his parents at 8 years of age, so he had a rougher life, therefore, A gets the gold"?
No!
If we objectively compare most of these figures with modern humans, they don't even stand a chance.
If you put emotions aside, and critically evaluate the situation, there is really no hesitation to be had, there is no ambiguity.

:lol: :lol:

:lol: :lol:

Finally:
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.

I didn't have the time earlier to go more in depth on this. Like I said.
This is romanticizing the past, through the tunnel vision of a history written only by a very small portion of the individuals.
The ancients "competing for an olive branch" is ideolization...
Is Galen's society's "morals" superior to ours? Really? Slaves and gladiators? Crucifixions?
:lol:
#15207134
XogGyux wrote:You tell me, how many cataract surgeries did Galen Perform and how many restored vision to the patients?
How is it my fault that Galen was unable to perform dissections of humans? If anything this shows that the environment of antiquity was not fruitful for the advancement of human knowledge (cognition), and therefore, if anything, modern times are far superior when it comes to acquiring knowledge. Modern humans are not at fault for the past. Interesting... Would you let any modern physician treat your conditions strictly following Galen's methods and teachings? LOL


Knowledge is not cognition. Being is not becoming. Fundamentally basic distinctions for formal logic to exist. He performed enough surgeries to become the prime doctor of his age and for his methods to be followed 1200 years later.

How many cataract surgeries were successfully performed 1000 years after Galen?

I'll let you figure that out by yourself.


Extremely bad faith. You claim that the dictionary definition of cognition is different than mine. How? Explain.

We are acquiring knowledge faster than at any other period of time in history. Let me ask you this. Would you exchange your place in this world with that of Galen? If you had the opportunity to get a magic wish, would you, without any thought, choose to live Galen's life instead of your own?


You are not doing anything of the sort, neither am I. Others filling up medical journals is not making any dent on my individual cognition.

Blathering on absurdly ad infinitum about the supremacy of linear time for technology is irrelevant to an individual's cognition.

I understand.


I can see your strawmen from miles away. I understand and accept your concession that you are unable to justify or explain yet another strawman.

The first thing you have to consider, were the cars being designed to compete in the moose test? You cannot infer a "devolution" if the primary goal of the Porsche GT3 RS was not to beat another car in the moose test. The Porsche is designed to be a fast sport car, a track car, and in this, it clearly beats the citroen xantia activa. The article also mentions it :eh: .


The Citroen Xantia 1996 is faster around a corner than a Porsche GT3 RS of 2021 and faster than any other supercar ever created. The new Toyota Rav 4 is unable to maneuver around a corner even at 30mph. The Xantia did it at 58 miles per hour and the second best car of all time the Porsche GT3 RS did it at 52mph.

The analogy being, a humming bird, is not an animal that has "devolved" because it cannot longer live in the sea. Evolution has shaped this bird to fill a different role than its ancestor.
Similarly, the Porsche GT3 RS was designed by engineers to fill a radically different role than that of the Citroen Xantia Activa. If you consider track performance, then all of the sudden the Pursche GT3 is a massive evolution compared to the xantia.
Now. A more accurate comparison would be to compare cars that were designed for the same purpose. Is a 1996 Civic any better at being a car than a 2020 one? Probably not, slower, less safe, less spacious, less amenities, less gadgets, etc.
You are trying to prove something that really does not exist. Seems to be trend.


You are trying to prove that devolution does not exist. It's ridiculous. As is your claim that a hobo on the street is smarter than Einstein.

Click the blue words, once in the page, scroll up to the top, and read.
There you will find:
I don't know what else I can do for you.


It's very boring to discuss with people that instead of substance they rely on memes. Miasma Theory being replaced by Germ Theory does not make the ancient world ignorant to the boiling of water to purify it from bad particles which is what you claimed you would teach the ancients to do. Potemkin already explained this to you.

Your hypothesis is incorrect. If I put you in a cage with lions, that does not prove that you have a cognitive deficiency because you were unable to "navigate/process/perceive" that world.


Oh dear, another strawman using the animal kingdom and a very poor one at that. Me vs who, you vs who in the lion pit? Me vs myself? You are not making sense in your poor attempt to change the goalposts & veer away from the hypothesis just to say something.

What a sense of grandeur you ahe there... "But you fail at that when you deal with me" Are you the same person claiming to be humble just a couple of posts earlier?


You are the one who said this about me again, not me. I just quoted your words. You are also the one claiming that you and the hobo on the street are mentally superior to Einstein and Galen because you were born later.

Is Cuban society or individuals superior today than it was 50 or 100 years ago?

You can challange "my current morality" all you want. If you happen to say something that actually makes sense I'll consider it. I really have no issues with that.


Children playing with ipads and tiktok 12 hours a day, "nonsense" you said. Drivers being unable to use their cognition to navigate to a destination, "nonsense" again. Little girls filling up their faces with botox and silicon, "nonsense" I presume. Children committing suicide for not receiving enough likes from their peers on instagram, "nonsense" you proclaim again.

You have said "nonsense" in this post 4 times already for every argument you do not have a reply.

:knife:

It is both. It is a logical trap. Reductio ad absurdum


Your pidgeon analogy to a human is absurd nonsense indeed. As described from the start. If you want to claim that pidgeons perceive space and time better than humans and as such they have superior cognition, please go ahead. Though I am certain that certain people possibly have devolved so much that there might be pidgeons who can actually outperform them.

I am sorry for the inconvenience caused :lol:


It's a pleasure, without you, I would not be able to drive these points home.

Nevertheless, disputing my arguments while lying that you are addressing QatzelOk's every time my arguments demonstrate your desperation is just more evidence of your bad faith.

that is true, that is indisputable.=


Good, you are getting there.

But in the aggregate


The aggregate is the tool of propagandists. The average beds in hospitals do not tell the story of those areas were no beds are available, the average GDP growth does not tell the story of the industries gone and dusted, the average car does not tell the story of the supercars.

It's a simplistic tool for simplistic minds that can only produce simplistic tautologies and that is why more serious people(administrators, scientists, statisticians) move beyond general averages and break it down to like-for-like, area, industry, profession, income, etcetera. And like-for-like, humans are far stupider than individuals in the past, except during the bells of golden ages.

The ancients "competing for an olive branch" is ideolization...


How?

Is Galen's society's "morals" superior to ours?


Galen's morals(that is his conduct throughout his life in his interactions with other humans) are definitively superior to your morals, that is your conduct in life with fellow humans. You can see that clearly by reading your texts and his texts. An abject individualist using social collectivism to pump his own individual value and worth is quite the spectacle. Another irony that you are unable to see the hypocrisy while accusing others of it.

Yes. I am not claiming to be virtous for the luck of being being born at the time that I am. But objectively, Godstud, Qaatz, the hobo on the street are superior versions [to Einstein, Plato, Aristotle, Napoleon].


:lol:

If you put emotions aside, and critically evaluate the situation, there is really no hesitation to be had, there is no ambiguity.


Indeed, there is no ambiguity at all. Qatz, yourself and the hobo on the street are not smarter human specimen to Einstein, Galen, Newton or Plato. It's quite amazing that you do not understand how foolish this is.
#15207146
QatzelOk wrote:A Chronology of Increasing Stupidity
(obviously incomplete; feel free to suggest revisions)

1. The clock is invented: people now must follow a particular rhythm. This robs humans of natural spirituality and time for reflection. Clocks inevitably lead to "time mandates" which limit human freedom to respond to life events in a spontaneous, natural way. This decreases social interaction - which is critical for wisdom.

2. Middle Eastern religions are globalized: masses of worker bees have their spirituality and philosophy truncated by feel-good slave fiction. "If you do what I tell you, you will live with superman forever," becomes a normal worldview. Anything that contradicts this "official stupidity" is harshly repressed.

3. Industrialization: Huge drop in lifespans, general health, work week expands to maximum for human survival, chemicals enter diet and drinking water, frequent periods of mass panic and civil unrest and quelled with ideologies, repression.

4. Mass media, cars, and suburbia: These are the final nails in the coffin of human wisdom. Today, most humans living in developed countries get their socialization from commerce, rarely speak spontaneously to strangers or neighbors, and are completely mesmorized by the information-flow coming out of their tiny screen.


Devil's advocate response, for people getting smarter, then dumber:

1. Printing press invented - mass access to books and newspapers etc.

2. Scientific method discovered and spreads during enlightenment period, leading to the subservience of religion, liberal democracy/secularism, and medical/technological innovations.

3. Industrialization means people move into cities and the masses are no longer illiterate subsistence farmers.

4. Late industrialization decadence - Society becomes wealthy and life becomes easy, so people become spoiled, entitled and lazy. Education standards drop, parents and teachers let kids get away with everything. Everyone is offended by everything. Everybody is coddled. Laziness and ease of life means people become obese, and purposeless life causes mass anxiety and depression. Adults are too lazy to have children so replace kids with pets, birth-rates plummet, necessitating mass immigration.

5. Internet causes information access explosion, fringe ideologies and conspiracy theories flourish, people retreat into their political bubbles while demographic changes due to low birthrates and mass immigration cause cultural schisms and political polarization widens due to mass panic. Mass media taps into people's desire for political bubbles to increase profits, media doubles-down on ideological bullshit to grab eyeballs, creating post-fact society. The youth are poisoned by their dumb-fuck ideological teachers/profs and garbage media.
#15207159
noemon wrote:Knowledge is not cognition. Being is not becoming.

If you actually took the time to read and process the information you would not be making sloppy mistakes such as this one. Read the sentence:
Me wrote:If anything this shows that the environment of antiquity was not fruitful for the advancement of human knowledge (cognition), and therefore, if anything, modern times are far superior when it comes to acquiring knowledge.

I am clearly referring to acquiring new knowledge and advancing human knowledge through this acquisition of knowledge.
Perfectly in line with the common use of the word and the definitions of multiple sources that I provided you.
How many cataract surgeries were successfully performed 1000 years after Galen?

I don't know? How many? How many were performed under Galen? You tell me, you seem to know.

You are not doing anything of the sort, neither am I. Others filling up medical journals is not making any dent on my individual cognition.

Blathering on absurdly ad infinitum about the supremacy of linear time for technology is irrelevant to an individual's cognition.
Maybe you are not. You need to pick up your slack.
Anyway, the thread is about humanity, not about me or you. Luckily for you, you are part of humanity.
Is that the best you can do to prove the decadence of humanity? Trying to pick our lowest member in today to compare it to an illustrious member in the past and hopefully, you get a point? That is pathetic.

I can see your strawmen from miles away. I understand and accept your concession that you are unable to justify or explain this strawman.

Can't get anything pass you, can I? LOL

The Citroen Xantia 1996 is faster around a corner than a Porsche GT3 RS of 2021 and faster than any other supercar ever created. The new Toyota Rav 4 is unable to maneuver around a corner even at 30mph. The Xantia did it at 58 miles per hour and the second best car of all time the Porsche GT3 RS did it at 52mph.

Wrong again. You never see the whole picture. That you find one car that performs exceptionally well in one test, only proves that this one car is better at this single task. It does not prove that it is better at any other task, let alone prove that the whole car industry is in decadence and thus proving that humanity is in decadence.
It is absurd.
Furthermore:
The Citroen Xantia 1996 is faster around a corner than a Porsche GT3 RS of 2021 and faster than any other supercar ever created.

I think you misunderstand the moose test. It is an obstacle avoidance test, not an around the corner test.

You are trying to prove that devolution does not exist. It's ridiculous.

You always make this mistake. The person that makes the claim has the burden of proof. You make the claim that humans are devolving, it falls on you to prove that humans are devolving. You have the burden of proof if you are making this claim.

As is your claim that a hobo on the street is smarter than Einstein.

What's your problem with a hobo? Why are you being so judgemental with hobos?

It's very boring to discuss with people that instead of substance they rely on memes. Miasma Theory being replaced by Germ Theory does not make the ancient world ignorant to the boiling of water to purify it from bad particles which is what you claimed you would teach the ancients to do.

If it is boring, then just stop it. I am not forcing you to be bored, apparently you are choosing it.
Again. Why you do something is just as important. If an ancient roman grabs a cup of water, inspects it and does not see any particles, why would he bother boiling it if there are none?
Potemkin already explained this to you.

So now you speak for him? Needing some validation?

Oh dear, another strawman using the animal kingdom and a very poor one at that. Me vs who, you vs who in the lion pit? Me vs myself? You are not making sense in your poor attempt to change the goalposts & veer away from the hypothesis just to say something.

LOL go back and read the context.

You are the one who said this about me again, not me. I just quoted your words. You are also the one claiming that you and the hobo on the street are mentally superior to Einstein and Galen because you were born later.

Is Cuban society or individuals superior today than it was 50 or 100 years ago?

How many times do we have to go through this. Read the tittle of the thread.
"Is humanity getting dumber and dumber"?
It does not say anything about specific geographies (cuba) or specific people (you or me). It is the TOTALITY of humanity.
You think you will trick me because one country is worse off for the past few decades? LOL

Drivers being unable to use their cognition to navigate to a destination, "nonsense" again. Little girls filling up their faces with botox and silicon, "nonsense" I presume. Children committing suicide for not receiving enough likes from their peers on instagram, "nonsense" you proclaim again.

None of that proves absolutely anything.
"girls filling up their faces with botox and silicon"... Are you unaware of Corsets? They are not a new invention. What about feet binding? You are aware of that practice? Or circumcision? Or neck rings? People doing silly things to alter their appearance is not new. You just happen to have a problem with the new trend. That is a YOU problem, not a Humanity problem.

You have said "nonsense" in this post 4 times already for every argument you do not have a reply.

And it will likely continue as this thread gets longer. Prepare.

Your pidgeon analogy to a human is absurd nonsense indeed.

That was the point, It is reductio ad absurdum.

If you want to claim that pidgeons perceive space and time better than humans and as such they have superior cognition, please go ahead.

I am not claiming this. I brought up the example as showcase of the absurdity that it is to call "cognition = navigation". It was absurd by design.

And like-for-like, humans are far stupider than individuals in the past, except during the bells of golden ages.

LOL.
Well. No, you are incorrect. But I'll take this opportunity to ask you again. What period of time contained the smartest humans? 50,000 BC? 100 AD? 1712? I am genuinely curious in your answer.

Galen's morals(that is his conduct throughout his life in his interactions with other humans) are definitively superior to your morals, that is your conduct in life with fellow humans.

Well, that is incorrect ofcourse. And yet another ad-hominem attack. But I'll move past that because I don't care for your attacks. You did not address my question. I did not ask you about a singular individual, I asked you about the society as a whole. Will you answer this or dodge it like you usually do? Your choice.

It's quite amazing that you do not understand how foolish this is.

I'll make sure to take your words seriously, after all, you are an expert on foolish :lol:
#15207206
So according to our friend Xog here:

1) The aether of humanity acquiring more knowledge is evidence of an upgraded cognition among the entire human population. Filling up academic journals is causing the instant upgrade of the intelligence of the hobo on the street, the Amazonian tribe, the Chav and the obese guy on the telly. Can't you guys feel your neurons firing up every second of the day while upgrades are being downloaded straight to your brain from humanity's supercomputer pumping upgrades into your frontal cortex? No? perhaps you need whatever Xog is smoking. Can't you people feel that the aether of 'humanity' is making sure we all keep up with the latest scientific discoveries that all humans understand and comprehend with total clarity thus magically improving our cognition and turning us into upgraded models every second of the day?

2) Cuban society, economy and individuals are superior today than they were 50 or 100 years ago. Humanity is superior and that includes all the humans in it, except for those who aren't who perhaps should not be called humans at all. For general information purposes, this is what is reductio ad absurdum.

3) Humanity was cognitively superior during WW2 than the decade preceding it.

4) The hobo on the street as well as Xog are cognitively superior to Einstein, Michelangelo and Plato because they were born later and as such they embody all the wisdom of the ages, they are supposedly upgraded models because time allows only for upgrades and never for downgrades on anything at all. He is upset I now used the lowest denominator to demonstrate the absurdity of his argument just as he was upset when I used the highest denominator on a like-for-like basis because he insists religiously that all modern humans [all society/ all humanity], from the highest to the lowest are cognitively superior to the people of previous times. As I said several times, take the upper classes of today vs the upper classes of 1920 or 1820 or 330BC. Take Trump vs Pericles if you prefer. Or the Bushes vs the Medicis. Or Boris and Andrew vs Victoria. Take any pick actually and one will observe the devolution for individuals or groups right before their eyes. If it is a difficult pill to swallow, ignore it, chastise it, hubrisize it. You should never under any circumstances get out of your comfort zone considering yourselves as the most supreme beings ever.

5) Devolution can not happen to humans or social groups, or companies, or countries or cars or to anything ever. So don't worry, whatever you do, the only way is up for you, so don't do anything at all and certainly not anything that challenges your ideas or the supremacy of your personal existence. The supercomputer is pumping all the new upgrades into your brain directly. He calls devolved countries that have devolved before his eyes as "my tricks", instead of real examples that prove that societies do devolve and rapidly so once they adopt a way of life(.ie morals) that is unsuitable.

6) Totally abstract and undefined average aggregates tell a better story than breaking statistics down to groups, areas, profession, income on a like-for-like basis. Companies are better off looking at average aggregate revenue from the point of founding to their dissolution, ignoring everything in between and simply allowing the companies to follow the wind, the wind always goes up according to Xog, instead of looking at like-for-like sales per year, month, season. According to our friend, the only way things can go is up and when things do go down it's all 'trickery' that should be ignored. Of course, if companies took his advice they would collapse immediately which is exactly what happens to humans who refuse to identify their own ups and downs and instead opt for an existence of ignorance and bliss where everything is imagined to be going up regardless of what is actually happening and what has indeed been happening throughout the ages.

The irony is that he fails to comprehend that the devolution happens when one follows advice or rationale such as his.

7) A car rapidly changing directions to avoid a "moose" is "not going around a corner", because the obstacles are not technical corners over straight lines. :roll: The car "does not corner" apparently and that is why several cars are overturning and flipping over even at 30mph. Corporations can never devolve any one of their products because they are awesome people who move everything forward for the sake of science, so trust them with your lives, they know what you need better than you do.

8 ) Pidgeons can perceive space and time better than humans and the average pidgeon can navigate better than the average human, he claims. This pidgeon superiority according to him proves that cognition has nothing to do with navigation, despite navigation being the perception of space and time. Has he shown that pidgeons are superior navigators to humans? Of course not, has he shown that cognition is not required to navigate? Neither. Still does not stop him from arrogantly claiming that he has achieved both because according to him any absurd statement is the same as a 'reductio ad absurdum' argument. So you heard it here first folks, any absurdity that anyone comes up with is at the same time mathematical evidence for that absurdity.

Interesting scientific fact that further buttresses my rather obvious argument is that humans do have a similar magnetic 6th sense as pidgeons do, most of us have simply devolved to the point of being unaware of it, according to science:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... geons.html


---------------------

Devolution happens to individuals, societies, countries and states. The only way to avoid devolving is to recognize the social mores that are causing that and change these bad habits. Social groups and individuals that understand this, survive, thrive and undergo several bell curves instead of just 1, social groups and individuals that do not understand this and are happy to convince themselves that they are the most superior people for having the privilege of being born in the present, devolve and eventually disappear in the ether.

Being born in the present does not grant anybody with the cumulative wisdom of all the ages by the miracle of birth.

This ridiculous millennial "privilege" is the exact reason why so many people are so pathetically arrogant without having achieved anything at all.

Lastly, it is not just the fact that most modern individuals are cognitively inferior on a like-for-like basis to their past counterparts, but the entire humanity is significantly inferior to its projected potentiality. If ancient Greeks achieved X with Y knowledge, why can't Americans achieve X on the nth with Y knowledge on the nth? It is not just about recognizing that one or more particular western society is the best "humanity" has ever had it but about understanding how much better one can be when one takes into account the knowledge & resources that one has in their availability compared to other societies in the past who produced better like-for-like humans with much less knowledge and technology.

If knowledge is infinite(after all why would it be anything less), the argument that opportunity for knowledge lessens as we move through time is untrue. So why are we covering less and less distance in an infinite space?
#15207273
@noemon
It is quite clear that the end of the discussion is here. Now you are not even having an attempt to hide the endless fallacies in the argument. GL.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the thread.

I am maximally confident of my position, humanity is better off today than at any point in time and there is no credible evidence of inferior cognition today or as a progression, furthermore this does not make sense.

The evidence is quite clear, the fact that today humanity is advancing our knowledge at a faster pace than ever before is pretty good evidence for this.
For instance, 2 years ago, COVID did not exist, today there is tons of information about the subject, therapeutics, studies. In Just 2 years NEJM reports over 800 articles, the lancet has 6000 and ~ 1300 are research articles, we had various vaccines, antibodies, antivirals, immunomodulatory. Compare that to the timelines for HIV a few decades earlier or even hepatitis C, which took the better part of a decade to discover the virus https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02932-y, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2523562/. And before this, it took the better part of a century from early days of germ theory until the first antibiotic.

This is not just in medicine, we see the parallel on physics, chemistry, genetics, etc. In view of this evidence, the thought that humans today are in any way inferior to our counterparts is just preposterous at face value and the evidence to proof such a claim should be a great deal more robust than "teenagers are putting silicon and botox in their faces today" or "an old car did better on test X" or "a driver got confused with GPS". This is insane. You are not happy with how people choose to use tik tok? too bad for you!
#15207282
That technology is higher today than in the past is not debatable and this has been said a million times. It's a dead horse. You keep going back to it because you have nothing else to contribute to my argument for individual cognition.

It's not possible to claim higher cognition for your individual self by calling upon the achievements of others.

With available technology and resources, the virus could have been done away with much earlier or even entirely prevented.

The covid medical achievements have not in way enhanced my or your cognition in any way shape or form. We do not get upgraded over the air and we are not upgraded models. That should be rather obvious.

If anything, Covid laid bare what can be achieved by showcasing the stasis of humanity unless it's faced with a cataclysmic event.

Teenagers putting botox, or kids getting stupified or corporations dropping amazing stuff is hardly a needle in the ocean the problem is that this "humanity" is proactively encouraging these goals as a religion.

The medical field is one of very few fields that enjoy continuity across the ages due to its utility, but even that continuity hardly makes the doctors any better than their predecessors on a like-for-like basis. Being born later is not what does it but actually being cognitively superior by doing, studying, behaving and operating in a superior way. The potentiality is there for people to be superior but mere time does not magically make them so.

It is not enough being born in an era with superior knowledge but becoming cognitively superior in order to actually be so.
#15207298
noemon wrote:You keep going back to it because you have nothing else to contribute in my argument for individual cognition.

For the record. I am not trying to contribute to your argument. I don't think you have an argument at all.

It's not possible to claim higher cognition for your individual self by calling upon the achievements of others.

Yet, you can make an argument for "lower cognition" (whatever that means) for modern humans?

My position is this. Measuring "cognition" is a tricky thing when we do it at present times. Who is cognitively superior? Magnus Carlsen or Lang Lang? Steven Dawkins or Steven Weinberg?. As if that task was not daunting enough, you claim that people from antiquity were higher, so apparently, with limited historical evidence, you are able to measure or at least estimate the "cognition" of individuals and come to the conclusion that they are indeed superior to current ones.
If you could truly prove that, this might actually be worthy of a Nobel prize.

The evidence does not support your theory. Logic does not support your theory either.

The sad part... how depressive would be if the best of humanity was behind us... if our future was doomed to be a spiral down into decadence and moral/intellectual "devolution".
The HUBRIS! of that claim competes with geocentrists of the past.
#15207301
XogGyux wrote:For the record. I am not trying to contribute to your argument. I don't think you have an argument at all.


Yet you are still talking -spamming- to me.

Yet, you can make an argument for "lower cognition" (whatever that means) for modern humans?


That is because I am aware of humans who were superior to me and to all the characters real or imagined around me as a matter of fact.

My position is this. Measuring "cognition" is a tricky thing when we do it at present times. Who is cognitively superior? Magnus Carlsen or Lang Lang? Steven Dawkins or Steven Weinberg?. As if that task was not daunting enough, you claim that people from antiquity were higher, so apparently, with limited historical evidence, you are able to measure or at least estimate the "cognition" of individuals and come to the conclusion that they are indeed superior to current ones.
If you could truly prove that, this might actually be worthy of a Nobel prize.


The like-for-like makes things interesting because it sets the potential scenarios in place. One only has to chart the bell curves of the particular achievements. Our historical knowledge is extensive actually and certainly more than enough when it comes to remapping the social groups that achieved those achievements with a lot of historical detail.

The evidence does not support your theory. Logic does not support your theory either.


Not according to this thread where I demonstrate the verity of the logic with real evidence.

The sad part... how depressive would be if the best of humanity was behind us... if our future was doomed to be a spiral down into decadence and moral/intellectual "devolution".
The HUBRIS! of that claim competes with geocentrists of the past.


It is hubris indeed to rely on the laurels of others or that of an imagined collective humanity because that is precisely what leads to decadence both on an individual and on a social level.

The potentiality is there for people to be superior but mere existence in time does not magically make them so.

It is not enough being born in an era with superior knowledge but becoming cognitively superior in order to actually be so.

Unless one understands this deeply, it is not possible for someone to actually become that knowledge + the extra bit of available knowledge and consequently more. That is the only way these achievements are made possible, by those understanding Galen or whoever Galen started the seed of whatever one is looking at, profoundly + everything else up to their own time, then and only then do they become those upgraded models which then enables them to overcome that barrier and move the field forward.

To get the updates one has to install the operating system first.
#15207336
Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation


That is because I am aware of humans who were superior to me and to all the characters real or imagined around me as a matter of fact.

I am aware that this is your perception, you made it clear. However, you have offered little to not evidence to justify this belief.
One only has to chart the bell curves of the particular achievements.

Interesting theory. How do you have a mathematical model that allows for correction to account for the field of excellence and year of accomplishments? Are you also going to include variables to account for events that can be attributed purely to luck such as Alexander Flemming discovery of penicillin or Colombus's "discovery" of the Americas? :lol:

Our historical knowledge is extensive actually and certainly more than enough when it comes to remapping the social groups that achieved those achievements with a lot of historical detail.

Our historical knowledge is minuscule in comparison to their lives. Thinking otherwise is at best naive, at worse hubris.

Not according to this thread where I demonstrate the verity of the logic with real evidence.

You didn't do such a thing.

The potentiality is there for people to be superior but mere existence in time does not magically make them so.

Yes, it does. You might make the argument that it is not fair and that perhaps if any of these illustrious individuals were born today they would have offered more to humanity, but that is simply speculation.
#15207339
I am aware that this is your perception, you made it clear. However, you have offered little to not evidence to justify this belief.


All the examples provided are still standing.

Our historical knowledge is minuscule in comparison to their lives. Thinking otherwise is at best naive, at worse hubris.


Another tautology, of course it is miniscule in comparison to the totality of their lives, that is still the case today, but it is great enough for us to be able to reconstruct their social lives to a very detailed extent as we have several records of interactions between different individuals on paper and stone. And that is sufficient for us to understand Parallel Lives of people in time, especially for the people that are responsible for particular achievements.

You are proving your total ignorance of historical people from the past.

Yes, it does. You might make the argument that it is not fair and that perhaps if any of these illustrious individuals were born today they would have offered more to humanity, but that is simply speculation.


It has nothing to do with fairness, it is evident reality that most of the people living in this era do not embody the wisdom of all the ages and it is quite hilarious that I need to tell you this.

It is not enough being born in an era with superior knowledge but becoming cognitively superior in order to actually be so.

Unless one understands this deeply, it is not possible for someone to actually become that knowledge + the extra bit of available knowledge and consequently more. That is the only way these achievements are made possible, by those understanding Galen or whoever Galen started the seed of whatever one is looking at, profoundly + everything else up to their own time, then and only then do they become those upgraded models which then enables them to overcome that barrier and move the field forward.

One cannot receive upgrades without installing the operating system.
#15207352
noemon wrote:All the examples provided are still standing.

No they are not.
Another tautology, of course it is miniscule in comparison to the totality of their lives, that is still the case today, but it is great enough for us to be able to reconstruct their social lives to a very detailed extent as we have several records of interactions between different individuals on paper and stone.

No it is not sufficient. Even today, with people that are alive today, comparing the cognitive abilities of two individuals is a difficult if not impossible task. Who is the cognitively superior person? Lang Lang or Carlsen? Bill Gates or Buffet? Steven Dawkins or Steven Weinberg?
And that is sufficient for us to understand Parallel Lives of people in time, especially for the people that are responsible for particular achievements.

And I clearly disagree.

You are proving your total ignorance of historical people from the past.

:lol: Or perhaps it is just your ignorance and I am correct in here.

It has nothing to do with fairness, it is evident reality that most of the people living in this era do not embody the wisdom of all the ages and it is quite hilarious that I need to tell you this.

You might find it hilarious but I just find it sad that you need to come up with these ridiculous claims which are not based on fact to conjure a vision for reality that it is distorted and inaccurate.

It is not enough being born in an era with superior knowledge but becoming cognitively superior in order to actually be so.

I never said it was enough. You can be born with brain damage and in the present (and for that matter in the past) and be objectively cognitively inferior, that is not the point I made, nor a logical conclusion of what I have said. This is a strawman.

One cannot receive upgrades without installing the operating system.

Second time you say this. So I suppose you really REALLY want it to be addressed.
Like I have said before. Humans are not computers. A human brain is not a microchip. You cannot assume that if you feed more/better information to a human, you will get a more/better constellation of achievements.
Carlsen is the highest-rated chess player in the world, possibly in history. The guy has a brilliant mind. Yet, you cannot just teach him chemistry and expect a nobel prize or teach him medicine and expect the cure for cancer. Today, just to get into most medical schools you need prerequisites on calculus, biology, chemistry (organic and inorganic), statistics. None of these fields truly existed on his time (certainly not calculus or chemistry) but you would assert without any shadow of a doubt that not only he would meet the requirement but excel on them. This is doubtful at best, we know that a human excelling in a field does not mean will excel in another field. Galen was not a doctor, he was an ancient doctor. The only thing you know for sure he can succeed is at being an ancient doctor. The discipline that today we call medicine, does not resemble much of what he knew.
#15207364
noemon wrote:Take any 2 humans, from any profession and compare the 2 humans sans technological aids, one from today and from the past. From any industry, from any profession given that the 2 are like for like and identify which of these 2 humans has superior cognition. I highly doubt you will ever be able to find a single example that shows the modern human as having more cognitive function than the one from the past.

A very clear and obvious example is the use of GPS for drivers. 20 years ago you had to find the location, ask for directions and generally be able to navigate. Today if the GPS makes an error most drivers have the inability to correct the error on their own using their own wits(cognition) and if the GPS takes them to a very wrong route, they will follow it until it's too late.

The average modern driver is far stupider than the average driver just from a mere 30 years ago. This applies to a whole bunch of other things and depending with who you are comparing yourself to, the differences can be quite insanely masssive.

There's no way that humans are better or smarter at all things today than before, in fact we've lost a great deal of knowledge on how to do a great many things, so I get your points.

So when we say "are humans smarter today or in the past?" it totally depends on what areas we're talking about, there's almost infinite areas of human knowledge/skill. Baby boomers have far better social skills than millennials, but a lot of boomers can't figure out how to fix simple problems on their computer and are technically far less proficient. When you gain one thing you often lose something else, because our focus determines our reality and our proficiencies. We don't have to know how to milk livestock or write in cursive because they're far less relevant to our survival now.

In terms of areas like science, math, philosophy, critical thinking etc we're light-years ahead of where we were 1000 years ago. We have made medical and technical adaptations so advanced that our life expectancy has skyrocketed, and at a societal level we treat people much better because of things like human rights. But while we're more peaceful and physically healthier we're also suffering much more psychologically and socially due to more isolation, smaller families etc.
#15207370
Unthinking Majority wrote:There's no way that humans are better or smarter at all things today than before, in fact we've lost a great deal of knowledge on how to do a great many things, so I get your points.

So when we say "are humans smarter today or in the past?" it totally depends on what areas we're talking about, there's almost infinite areas of human knowledge/skill. Baby boomers have far better social skills than millennials, but a lot of boomers can't figure out how to fix simple problems on their computer and are technically far less proficient. When you gain one thing you often lose something else, because our focus determines our reality and our proficiencies. We don't have to know how to milk livestock or write in cursive because they're far less relevant to our survival now.

In terms of areas like science, math, philosophy, critical thinking etc we're light-years ahead of where we were 1000 years ago. We have made medical and technical adaptations so advanced that our life expectancy has skyrocketed, and at a societal level we treat people much better because of things like human rights. But while we're more peaceful and physically healthier we're also suffering much more psychologically and socially due to more isolation, smaller families etc.


I agree with the general sentiment but would like to clarify something. To the extent that we have "lost" a skill (for instance spencerian writing), there is no force that would prevent any modern human to do so in today's world.
It is funny that you mention cursive writing, I am a huge fountain pen nerd with a fairly sizable collection and I dont know how to write except cursive :lol: So it is certainly not a lost skill yet!
Perhaps more importantly, there is nothing to say we cannot do it better. I am also a big mechanical watch nerd, so I will be using another personal example. Take for instance mechanical watches. It is quite clear that the "golden times" (pun intended :lol: ) of mechanical watch-making are long gone. Patek, LeCoultre, Lange, genius watchmakers of their time. However, despite traditional watchmaking is an ever shrinking field, the most complicated and impressive watches are modern ones https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-on ... 1640878318.

Now, all of this is merely flexing. Humanity does not "need" another complex mechanical watch. As far as "the function of a watch" goes, a cheap and simple $15 casio is far more reliable, accurate and with more functions, than any mechanical watch in existence. An apple watch is like comparing a tesla to a unicycle.
#15207374
XogGyux wrote:I agree with the general sentiment but would like to clarify something. To the extent that we have "lost" a skill (for instance spencerian writing), there is no force that would prevent any modern human to do so in today's world.

Indeed. And even Spencerian cursive handwriting was itself a recent innovation from the late 19th century. Before then, italic handwriting was fashionable, and before then cursive handwriting didn’t exist - there was simply no need for it, just as there is no real need for it now. Things rise, flourish and then decline. But people nowadays, if properly trained, are just as capable of writing in Spencerian cursive as they ever were. They just don’t need to.

It is funny that you mention cursive writing, I am a huge fountain pen nerd with a fairly sizable collection and I dont know how to write except cursive :lol: So it is certainly not a lost skill yet!

Cool. I’m a fountain pen nerd myself (my collection is mainly based around vintage Parkers and vintage Montblancs). The best fountain pen I own is my vintage Montblanc 149 from 1990 or 91. It’s a transitional model with an ebonite feed and a brass piston mechanism (which is why I can date it to within a year or two). It’s the perfect writing machine. Nothing else even comes close. :)

Perhaps more importantly, there is nothing to say we cannot do it better.

Precisely. Craft skills have been lost because of changing technology and changing priorities, but it’s a big step to go from that to asserting that there has been a cognitive decline, especially over as short a time period as just a generation or two. Evolution simply doesn’t work that quickly.
#15207379
Potemkin wrote:You are simply asserting that you have more, and better, medical knowledge than Galen. Which is undoubtedly true. But are you more intelligent than Galen was? This is much more doubtful. Somebody (I forget who) once said that the measure of an educated person is whether or not they accept that Aristotle was one of the greatest thinkers who ever lived, despite the fact that we now know that almost everything he ever wrote was wrong. This is the point which I think @noemon is trying to make.


We remember great thinkers because they were the first to innovate on something, not because they were greater than those that followed. It's all a matter of timing. Also, great thinkers stand on the shoulder of giants. We remember the great names but many more contributed to their thoughts. This is particularly true of someone like Aristotle for example.

Needless to say the average human is a lot more intelligent than ever.
#15207388
Igor Antunov wrote:by the greek, romans

Not a practical source of power.

Image

An aeolipile or Hero's (c. 10–70 CE) engine

Perhaps... there are things you can do to mitigat[…]

In 2014, on February 14. Abe started again the &q[…]

The 9.5 million count is deceptive, since it inclu[…]

That might be ok and even good for a short period[…]