Pinch Paxton Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 How advanced do you think you are compared to a caveman? Do you think of yourself as a far improved version of a caveman? Let me throw something at you. We work as a hive of information. This hive of information, could be compared to the strength of ants when they work in groups. Can each of us as individuals build a TV set? Engineer a car? Manufacture a computer, or have the knowledge of how to do such things from birth.... Imagine that you have been born into a group of cavemen. You have the same brain as you have now. Would the cavemen notice a difference between you, and them? Would you do things that would greatly impress them? Or are we actually just Cavemen fooling ourselves? Small steps are taken by giants! Einstein born into cavemen would make a difference I feel, but not the average man. We are cavemen with the advantage of a more intellectual environment. Therefore evolution is an awfully slow process for us. What do you think? Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iglak Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 i think of myself as a lot better thatn the average (steryotypical) man, who i think of as a tiny bit better than cavemen. we have an intellectual environment, yes, but most of us are a lot wiser that cavemen. knowlege has absonutely nothing to do with genetics, and we live in a world with a whole lot more knowlege than the cavemen did. our ability to gain knowlege faster and make connections between sets of knowlege is what makes us different from cavemen (supposedly), and is probably somewhat genetic. also, our physical features are different from the steryotypical caveman.... well, that's my 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted November 5, 2003 Author Share Posted November 5, 2003 So you are placed into an environment with grass, trees, rocks, flint, bones, and wood. What object do you think that you could engineer without any outside influences? Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 With flint, bone and wood (and vines if you are able to find them) it is a fairly simple matter to make basic tools. With those, and the resources you listed, you can make ropes, shelters, timber, boats, kindling, rudimentary clothing and probably a lot more that I'm too tired to think about right now. A knowledge of basic physics principles would help (fulcrums, leverage etc), which is something we are far more likely to be conversant with than Joe Caveman. I'm off to bed now anyway so no moving me to Caveman Island while I'm asleep * eyes thread suspiciously * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted November 5, 2003 Author Share Posted November 5, 2003 Hmm but all that knowledge is what I said earlier, part of your hive environment. You would have to literally invent all of those things all by yourself. If you made an axe with a vine, and a club, and a flint you would be looked on as a genius! Are you sure that you would be a genius if you were born into those times? You would have invented the axe? All those other things that you mention, I find unlikely. That would be such a huge step to make for one person. I think that you are over estimating your natural intelligence, the intelligence that you were born with. Remember that it is unlikely that you would even be able to speak properly. You might have a few rudimentary words that you could use. But not much information would be passed on to you. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Ahh right, I see what you mean. I thought you were describing some sort of "Wife Swap" scenario. Ummm... it's a little difficult to say. I can't very well know what I'd know if I didn't know what I know. Argh, my brain. Bedtime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iglak Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Pinch Paxton said in post #3 :So you are placed into an environment with grass, trees, rocks, flint, bones, and wood. What object do you think that you could engineer without any outside influences? that depends. do i have any knowlege of today's world? what function am i trying to make something for? how much primative knowlege do i have? without any knowlege, i could probably make: a club, an axe, a basic log bridge, a fire - by trial and error, and by observing that hitting two pieces of flint together makes sparks, possibly some sort of primative shelter, possibly a spear, possibly a sail boat - if i noticed that wind pushes things and bowls float, and a working electric generator ... wait i probably wouldn't be able to make: a saw, a bow & arrow, a good sailboat a good shelter any sort of string anything similar or above those... i can't currently think of anything else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted November 5, 2003 Author Share Posted November 5, 2003 No knowledge of todays world. Just the same brain, but with a fresh start as a caveman baby. It is hard to imagine how intelligent we are from birth, compared to how intelligent a cave baby is from birth. Personally, I believe that only Einstein, and others like him would invent an axe, and a couple of other things. I believe that we gain knowledge in very tiny steps, and that great men are moving our feet for us. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iglak Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Pinch Paxton said in post #8 :No knowledge of todays world. Just the same brain, but with a fresh start as a caveman baby. It is hard to imagine how intelligent we are from birth, compared to how intelligent a cave baby is from birth. Personally, I believe that only Einstein, and others like him would invent an axe, and a couple of other things. I believe that we gain knowledge in very tiny steps, and that great men are moving our feet for us. Pincho. as a baby... it would be hard to build anything since i don't even really know how to walk, lol. as a caveman outcast that was never aloud to learn anything... i would have seen people with clubs, so i could make that. if i find a pointy rock, then after some random/accidental experimenting, i could make a pick. from that pick, i could quickly learn about axes, and make a crude axe. if, at one point in time, i accidentally drop some flint i picked up, and it lands sharply on another piece of flint, and there just happens to be some flammable matterials that the sparks from the flint hit, then i would see fire, and would be able to reproduce it. from that i could quickly make a torch. after much sitting under a tree, protecting me from the rain, i could possibly find a few logs, angle them correctly, throw mud, dirt, grass, twigs, and leaves over it, and make a primative shelter. if i notice that logs float, and i happen to like riding on logs in a lake. i could possibly learn how to paddle, and possibly be carrying a big piece of bark, or a big leaf to offer better shelter. if there happened to be strong wind, then it could push the bark/leaf, which would push me, which would push my log. then i could carry a big piece of bark with me whenever i traverse the lake, so that, if the wind is blowing in the right direction, i could let it push me. i might be playing with a pointy stick one day and poke a pile of leaves. i would notice that the pointy stick would poke through the leaves, and pick them up. i could figure out that i could pick up many things with a pointy stick. i might even poke it at mild animals (not anything that can really protect itself) for food. i probably would not develope a throwing spear though. that's about all i can think of again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted November 5, 2003 Author Share Posted November 5, 2003 But with the same accidents would the cavemen also create those things? Are you doing things that they would not be able to do? Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Basically the difference here is free time. Cavemen, or primitive man, didn't quite have the happy go lucky day to day existence that you might perceive from the teachings in school. The majority if their day would be taken up with activities, such as hunting, eating, tending the group, scouting, gathering edible vegetation, looking after the children etc. The tedious tasks required to stay alive in the harsh environment take up all the time given in a day (apart from cave painting, apparently, the lazy slobs). Precious little time would be set aside for idle contemplation. We know from history that the majority of advances that are made in logic or invention came from people who had a lot of free time to contemplate things. The Greek philosophers who founded modern civilization had a democracy that exited through the slaves that provided the working class, freeing the time up for the Greeks to pursue more cerebral tasks. Einstein himself had a menial job that allowed vast amounts of time for his idle speculation of relativity. If he had worked in a farm from dawn to dusk, his theories would probably never have emerged. Your probably right, just because all you see of primitive man is flint tools and the occasional painting you don't assume that they were mentally subnormal. Take the Incas for example, their civilization was incredibly advanced when Europe was still in the popular 'live in a cave' phase. Their enviroment and culture gives them quite a lot of free time to do stuff not relating to staying alive, hence the jump ahead of the rest of civilisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted November 5, 2003 Author Share Posted November 5, 2003 Yes that's my point, they weren't mentally subnormal compared with our own natural knowledge. I just wanted to point that out. I wanted to make clear that our evolution, or rather the evolution of our brains, is not greatly significant, compared with our intelligence. We should not overestimate ourselves compared with them. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 I'd say it's quite probable that we're more intelligent, because our brains have become more used over the past x thousand years, so some form of microevolution is likely to have taken place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Interesting, there would have to be some sort of Global I.Q. test, possibly hosted by Phil Schofield and Bob Monkhouse. That would sort out how smart we are as a species. Bit harder to work out the primitive man's I.Q. though, there would have to be some sort of Jurassic Park style shenanigans to bring back a group for comparative study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 IQ tests aren't an absolute measure anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 They are when Phil Schofield and Bob Monkhouse write them. Also, they are super funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iglak Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 Pinch Paxton said in post #12 :Yes that's my point, they weren't mentally subnormal compared with our own natural knowledge. I just wanted to point that out. I wanted to make clear that our evolution, or rather the evolution of our brains, is not greatly significant, compared with our intelligence. We should not overestimate ourselves compared with them. i agree, but what level of caveman are you talking about? at some point along the evolutionary line, we developed big brains... are you talking about cavemen before, after or during that process? also, who's to say that our brains aren't still slowly evolving bigger? when i say big brain, that can include brain ability, it does not have to be limited to size. time could be a factor, but it is also possible that if they had little time, then they would have tried to find a way to get more time so that they could discover things. if they were determined, they could have possibly found a way. P.S. i don't know if a "normal" caveman could do the things i said, if they had the time i implied and the need i implied. that's the semi-unanswerable question that you were asking... and i can't really answer.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted November 5, 2003 Author Share Posted November 5, 2003 I am talking about our nearest ancestors. Erm not Neanderthal man, the other one which I can't remember the name of...Homo Erectus, or whatever he was called. Anyhow the one with the same skull as ours. Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iglak Posted November 5, 2003 Share Posted November 5, 2003 hmm... if they have the same basic skull as ours, then i would say we develope things faster than they did because we have a bigger emphasis on inventing things in today's society. i would say that if i didn't have any knowlege, and the Homo erectus (or whatever) didn't have any knowlege; and if we kept our personalities, then i would be able to invent more than him/her, because i come from a society that puts a lot of emphasis on the ability to invent things, and the ability to make connections between pieces of information. but, i don't think it is because we have a more evolutionally developed brain. i think we have more developed brains, but not primarily because of genetic evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinch Paxton Posted November 5, 2003 Author Share Posted November 5, 2003 You could be right. Einstein had a denser brain than most people, so maybe our density has increased over time, which would keep the shape of the skull pretty much the same. Lol! Puts a new meaning on the saying "Are you dense or what!" Pincho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted November 23, 2003 Share Posted November 23, 2003 well an awful lot of what we do today is copied stuff, it would be difficult to say how innovative a modern brain would be in that sort of situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now