Debates
31 May 05
01 Jun 05
So here's my point.
Intelligence isn't static, it can't be.
As an individual's mind is stimulated that individual becomes more or less intelligent depending on what stimulation it gets.
Take away a fundamental positive stimulant like education and replace it with watching a herd of goats and being hungry all day and i'm pretty sure that the mind won't be as sharp as that of say the even slighty more educated African who gets a meal every day.
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by Black LungI guess our differences are in the meaning of the word intelligent..
I believe that intelligence is nurtured. It's a deeper perception of life. With a lack of stimulation then intelligence will suffer.
So am I way off?
I would losely think of it as a measure of a persons ability to learn and adapt to their surroundings, i.e something you are born with.
A person might spend 30 years of their life locked up in a cell but once they came out they wouldn't be any less intelligent (just a little crazy 😉 )
Maybe you are right though, intelligence is a very tough thing to measure.
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by Black LungBut an intelligent person doing that would probably have an excellent knowledge of goats!
So here's my point.
Intelligence isn't static, it can't be.
As an individual's mind is stimulated that individual becomes more or less intelligent depending on what stimulation it gets.
Take away a fundamental positive stimulant like education and replace it with watching a herd of goats and being hungry all day and i'm pretty sure that the ...[text shortened]... 't be as sharp as that of say the even slighty more educated African who gets a meal every day.
What about before civilisation took hold on this planet? When we were all living under the stars. Were people less intelligent then?
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by dk3nnyI would say yes, compared to man of today, but that's an argument in favor of evolution.
But an intelligent person doing that would probably have an excellent knowledge of goats!
What about before civilisation took hold on this planet? When we were all living under the stars. Were people less intelligent then?
Ape - Learns how to walk, for example, starts pondering on the possibilities that this new discovery holds and a whole new realm of thought is opened.
Ape man - Has already been tought all the ins and outs of walking by the previous generation. Hence he or she can spend his time doing other things like making a fire. So his mind is occupied with more challenging and stimulating ideas.
Millions of years later we are thinking about the Internet and have instant access to amazing works of literature and we have millions of years of Nurturement behind us.
Genetic memory, I suppose is also a possibility.
So ya I'd say we are more Intelligent than pre-civalised man.
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by Black LungHomo Sapiens now are no more intelligent than those who lived in caves.
I would say yes, compared to man of today, but that's an argument in favor of evolution.
Ape - Learns how to walk, for example, starts pondering on the possibilities that this new discovery holds and a whole new realm of thought is opened.
Ape man - Has already been tought all the ins and outs of walking by the previous generation. Hence he or she ...[text shortened]... suppose is also a possibility.
So ya I'd say we are more Intelligent than pre-civalised man.
We're more educated, and we have more technology at our disposal, but that's the only difference.
Intelligence is innate - its what you're born with. Everything else is learned.
01 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by Black LungYou make a very big jump from Ape-man to today.
I would say yes, compared to man of today, but that's an argument in favor of evolution.
Ape - Learns how to walk, for example, starts pondering on the possibilities that this new discovery holds and a whole new realm of thought is o ...[text shortened]...
So ya I'd say we are more Intelligent than pre-civalised man.
You're taking about evolved intelligence. I'm talking about just 3000+ years ago (pittens in evolution terms), when we were pretty much the same biological entity that we are now..
Except we didn't live in cities and there was a lot less of us.. We are standing on the shoulders of their ideas to form cities, start farming etc..
They were no less intelligent that us, i think.
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by dk3nnyI stand under correction but I'm pretty sure that there's evidence of civilisation long before the time you give. There's a city in Zimbabwe somewhere.
You make a very big jump from Ape-man to today.
You're taking about evolved intelligence. I'm talking about just 3000+ years ago (pittens in evolution terms), when we were pretty much the same biological entity that we are now..
Except we didn't live in cities and there was a lot less of us.. We are standing on the shoulders of their ideas to form cities, start farming etc..
They were no less intelligent that us, i think.
Well I've got no way of proving my claims but it makes sense to me . You could very well be correct but I'd like ta see you prove it 😉
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by RedmikeActually, according to Dictionary.com it's something like this:
Disagree all you like - that's the definition of the word. Its not just my opinion.
"in·tel·li·gence
The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
The faculty of thought and reason.
Superior powers of mind."
No reference to inate there.
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by Black LungThe earliest urban forms date to c.7000 BC, although fully-fledged cities do not really come into play until c.3000BC, in Mesopotamia
I stand under correction but I'm pretty sure that there's evidence of civilisation long before the time you give. There's a city in Zimbabwe somewhere.
Well I've got no way of proving my claims but it makes sense to me . You could very well be correct but I'd like ta see you prove it 😉
The earliest occupations at Great Zimbabwe were 400AD, although it reached its peak between 1100-1500 AD. It is only during this period that it would be classified as a "city".
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by Black LungRight. The dictionary definition doesn't use the word innate, so that proves your point that intelligence isn't innate.
Actually, according to Dictionary.com it's something like this:
"in·tel·li·gence
The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
The faculty of thought and reason.
Superior powers of mind."
No reference to inate there.
You're really using your capacity to apply knowledge there.
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by RedmikeMaybe not less intelligent, but definitely more ignorant. It doesn't take a genius to realize that population control, the wearing of condoms, educating the morons that having unprotected sex with a virgin doesn't cure AIDS, and good farming practices will go a long way to helping Africa...but in reality, Africans pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, as Martin Luther King once said, is the real way to ending the misery that poverty is bringing.
What?
Africa suffers from a lack of intelligence?
Like - Africans are less intelligent than the rest of the planet?
Seriously?
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by Black LungNo, you are not way off....lack of proper diet and health care definitely affect intelligence....indirectly, and therefore ignorance is rampant....
I believe that intelligence is nurtured. It's a deeper perception of life. With a lack of stimulation then intelligence will suffer.
So am I way off?
01 Jun 05
Originally posted by chancremechanicMaybe I'm just being pedantic, but ignorance is litlle to do with intelligence.
Maybe not less intelligent, but definitely more ignorant. It doesn't take a genius to realize that population control, the wearing of condoms, educating the morons that having unprotected sex with a virgin doesn't cure AIDS, and good farming practices will go a long way to helping Africa...but in reality, Africans pulling themselves up by their bo ...[text shortened]... as Martin Luther King once said, is the real way to ending the misery that poverty is bringing.
Its to do wth education.
People in Africa are no less intelligent than the rest of us.
They may be, on the whole, less educated and therefore more ignorant, but that's not the same thing.
And I agree about Africans being allowed to solve their own problems.