XogGyux wrote:No they are not.
Point to an example provided that is not standing. Do not just assert something.
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?
The knowledge we have about the lives of Galen, Aristotle, Newton, Feymman, Weinberg, Dawkins, Gates is very sufficient to draw conclusions about their lives, character, conduct and achievements. Yourself being unaware of it or finding it daunting does not mean that we lack this knowledge.
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.
Indeed, your reply is once again an absurd strawman, because a brain-dead person is not a like-for-like example. You are still insisting that unless a person is born brain-dead then they do embody the wisdom of all the ages without even trying and simply by virtue of being born today.
This is abjectly false.
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.
Your rationalisation of Galen's education is ignorant at best. And your presumptions are evidence of that ignorance.
1) Galen's education uncannily resembles that of a modern education at elementary & secondary level and then one would proceed to a tertiary academy level for more in-depth investigation of a particular subject.
2) To compare cognition one would have to abide by the like-for-like which sets the potential scenarios at fair level for comparison of cognition itself. A modern doctor can compare with Galen in the fields where that is possible. Galen understands modern diagnosis(he created it) and further:
3) Galen changed the "ancient doctors/shamans/witchdoctors" to modern doctors, he had the cognition to move past the established humors and into surgery, diagnosis, examination, he threw the table over for "ancient doctors" and almost got killed for it several times. This current Galenic medicine's table will be thrown over again by a guy or gal who will not just simply add something onto the existing system(Galen did not add something to the shaman's book he discredited it entirely) but someone who will move past this existing cave and into immortality and undo the entire profession as we know it just as Galen undid eventually the profession of the ancient doctor and wiped it off the map for those following his tradition like modern doctors do, but not for those who don't(.ie Amazonian tribes, or the hobo on the street). Galen moved outside his cave and changed the entire paradigm. He knew that the existing system of his time was based on traditional assumptions instead of science and he spent his life applying real science to the field to the extent that it was humanely possible. He was fully aware of the limitations of his profession without serious anatomy, he was switched on about the limitations of his profession and that is evidence of his cognition. Are you aware of your own cognitive limitations or of the limitations of fellow humans around you? Have you turned the tables over? The same applies to Aristotle who made extremely amazing assumptions about biology and the microcosm while being fully aware that his are estimated assumptions. The things that you accuse them that they did not know as evidence of their "ignorance" which you then erroneously transpose as "lack of cognition" turns the joke on you because they were both fully aware of their own limitations, we do not laud them for their assumptions(right or wrong) we laud them for their cognitive process to make these assumptions(which were unavailable before them and which enabled us to be where we are) and for the systemic processes they left behind which enabled us to become modern and find better ways to move past their assumptions and into evidence by using tools to achieve that evidence, but "us" is just a generalisation, it does not include the hobo on street, or Amazonian tribes, or people who choose(as a matter of lifestyle) to remain ignorant. And that is what Potemkin tried to explain to you earlier about Aristotle.
4) Your claim that humans today are born upgraded does not stand up to logic and I do not see how this argument of yours would demonstrate otherwise even if we assume it as entirely true. How can the hobo on the street make cognitively better arguments than Galen, Plato or Newton without delving deep into a relative subject?
As I said the potential is there for the hobo on the street to surpass them, but unless one actually does so, it does not magically happen simply because one is born in the present.
Xog wrote:Perhaps more importantly, there is nothing to say we cannot do it better.
Of course, as I have told you repeatedly. The potentiality is there for us to do it better, but that does not mean that all of us actually do it better. Just like Cuba is not doing it better as we speak but much worse than before and it is not just Cuba but several other individuals and groups just as well.
Do you know of other people that turned the tables over? Newton, Einstein, they did not just add a little bit onto their respective field, they transformed it for them and all future generations.
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.
When a craft or skill is lost, it's lost forever, without undergoing a process of slow devolution, it is rather immediately gone. The next generation of humans has zero cognitive skill on that lost craft.
The 6 cognitive skills are these ones.
When one compares the lifestyles of today with the lifestyles of the past, one can clearly see that today domestication is severely reducing the input values for these skills.
Do you believe that the hobo on the street is cognitively superior to Newton or Plato for being born today?
...take your common sense with you, and leave your prejudices behind...