Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,478 Year: 3,735/9,624 Month: 606/974 Week: 219/276 Day: 59/34 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human Intelligence
Skeptick
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 193 (85888)
02-12-2004 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by NosyNed
02-12-2004 5:31 PM


Darwin: Savages and Negroes?
No, this is a misaprehension on a few counts:
1) It implies there is progress.
I must have misundertood the OoS and DoM. Please tell me, what "difference" did Darwin imply between "Europeans", "savages", "lowest savages", and "Negroes"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by NosyNed, posted 02-12-2004 5:31 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by NosyNed, posted 02-12-2004 7:30 PM Skeptick has not replied
 Message 125 by Sylas, posted 02-12-2004 7:40 PM Skeptick has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 122 of 193 (85893)
02-12-2004 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Skeptick
02-12-2004 5:22 PM


So, it sounds to me like Europeans are further advanced/evolved than Savages and Negroes like Darwin leads his readers to believe?
No. Europeans may have evolved from an original population of African peoples, but so did modern Africans. I thought I was very clear about that.
It's incorrect to say that modern Europeans are "more evolved" than Africans, because the Africans have had just as much time to evolve as Europeans. You think time is maybe slower in Africa or something? Or that the modern Africans are decended through less generations from the original africans than the Europeans?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Skeptick, posted 02-12-2004 5:22 PM Skeptick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Skeptick, posted 02-15-2004 2:41 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Annunaki
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 193 (85894)
02-12-2004 6:40 PM


Africa
Yes, that is where it all started, with the sumerians in sumer. These were the first people that existed. They even knew back then what we don't know now. Modern science will never compare to ancient knowledge.

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Phat, posted 02-13-2004 3:52 PM Annunaki has not replied
 Message 134 by MrHambre, posted 02-13-2004 4:14 PM Annunaki has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 124 of 193 (85902)
02-12-2004 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Skeptick
02-12-2004 6:18 PM


Re: Darwin: Savages and Negroes?
Darwins social views aren't the point. You were asking about whether we are "more evolved" than Africans.
And aside from that: One thing that struck Darwin on his Beagle voyage was how the Terra del Fuegans, although very "primative" were still the "same" as Europeans. That we were all one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Skeptick, posted 02-12-2004 6:18 PM Skeptick has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5282 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 125 of 193 (85904)
02-12-2004 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Skeptick
02-12-2004 6:18 PM


Re: Darwin: Savages and Negroes?
Skeptick writes:
I must have misundertood the OoS and DoM. Please tell me, what "difference" did Darwin imply between "Europeans", "savages", "lowest savages", and "Negroes"?
You most certainly must have. The differences Darwin implied were primarily cultural; he also used the term "uncivilised" (ref: OoS chapter 1). He did not regard human races as being different stages of evolution; but regarded them as representing the diversity of the human species.
Darwin shared the Victorian notion that European (and especially English) civilisation was a pinnacle of cultural achievement; but on the other hand Darwin did not conceive of this as an evolved phenomenon. He used the various "so-called races" (Darwin's own wording) as illustrations of what humans may achieve. He was also bitterly opposed to slavery or to notions that one race had rights over another, and in fact was very much aligned with the forces working against racism in Victorian society. He did not advocate the notion that the "savage" races or "negroes" were any closer to our non-human ancestors, or that they were in any way less human. Just less civilised.
In Origin, Darwin had almost nothing to say on the evolution of humanity. Where he speaks of "savages", it is mainly for the sake of showing what different humans can do in breeding domesticated animals. The examples of evolution in Origin are all non-human.
There is an exception in the preface, where Darwin refers to a paper by a Dr Wells from 1813, which anticipates some ideas of natural selection, and applies them to humans. But in the example given, negros are cited as the end result of selection for particular environmental circumstances; not as a more primitive progenitor.
The "Descent of Man" is of course more relevant to humanity; but here too we find a combination of scientific insight, along with Darwin's personal convictions on the rights and status of all humans. Modern evolutionary biology is a powerful force against racism, in that it emphasizes just how closely related all of humanity is, and that the various "so-called races" are not evolutionary stages in the origin of humanity at all. In this, as in much else, Darwin anticipates the position of modern biology.
Chapter 7 is "On the Races of Man". Darwin's own summary is as follows:
The nature and value of specific characters -- Application to the races of man -- Arguments in favour of, and opposed to, ranking the so-called races of man as distinct species -- Sub-species -- Monogenists and polygenists -- Convergence of character -- Numerous points of resemblance in body and mind between the most distinct races of man -- The state of man when he first spread over the earth--Each race not descended from a single pair -- The extinction of races--The formation of races--The effects of crossing -- Slight influence of the direct action of the conditions of life -- Slight or no influence of natural selection -- Sexual selection.
An extract from the chapter gives a flavour of Darwin's perspective on the close similarity of the many human races:
Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole structure be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.
...
Now when naturalists observe a close agreement in numerous small details of habits, tastes, and dispositions between two or more domestic races, or between nearly-allied natural forms, they use this fact as an argument that they are descended from a common progenitor who was thus endowed; and consequently that all should be classed under the same species. The same argument may be applied with much force to the races of man.
The full-blooded negro to whom Darwin refers above is almost certainly John Edmonston, a freed slave living in Edinburgh, with whom Darwin was on friendly terms and who taught Darwin taxidermy.
In the following paragraph, Darwin is also explicit in making the distinction between custom and capacity:
As it is improbable that the numerous and unimportant points of resemblance between the several races of man in bodily structure and mental faculties (I do not here refer to similar customs) should all have been independently acquired, they must have been inherited from progenitors who had these same characters. We thus gain some insight into the early state of man, before he had spread step by step over the face of the earth. ...
The pernicious linkage of Darwinism to Nazism is one of the most revolting and dishonest rhetorical devices employed by those who rebel against the scientific elucidation of our close relationship with the rest of life on this planet. Any person reading the Descent of Man must be struck at the gulf between Darwin's consistent treatment of all the human races as fellow humans in good standing; and Hitler's notions of a racial hierarchy or ladder. Just as Hitler distorted religion to his own ends, so too he distorted science to his own agenda; with no regard for the real integrity of either.
Those who deliberately promulgate a distorted view of Darwin in an attempt to denigrate his scientific insights by linking them to the insane distortions of a madman are themselves following the madman down the path of bending truth to fit ideology.
Reading the Descent of Man, all of it, is one of the best antidotes to this corruption.
Cheers -- Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Skeptick, posted 02-12-2004 6:18 PM Skeptick has not replied

  
Annunaki
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 193 (85927)
02-12-2004 10:10 PM


Darwin is wrong Zecharia Sitchin is right
Events Before the Deluge
- Earth Chronicles
(edited by the Queen....
The rest of this long, long post can be seen at http://EvC Forum: Is mans theory of human evolution clouded from the truth? -->EvC Forum: Is mans theory of human evolution clouded from the truth?
Please refrain from posting the exact same thing in multiple threads.)
[This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 02-12-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Sylas, posted 02-12-2004 10:49 PM Annunaki has not replied

  
Annunaki
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 193 (85928)
02-12-2004 10:17 PM


My previous message states how and when humans were created and evolved, this is not speculative, only factual.

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5282 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 128 of 193 (85942)
02-12-2004 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Annunaki
02-12-2004 10:10 PM


There is no rule 6
The Sitchin stuff was copied from Wars of God and Men, by Zecharia Sitchin, and is available from a number of sites on-line, such as The New Age University.
Forum rules prohibit unattributed posting of material in this way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Annunaki, posted 02-12-2004 10:10 PM Annunaki has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18310
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 129 of 193 (85946)
02-12-2004 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by crashfrog
02-03-2004 12:54 PM


Is human consciousness the result of a long string of random accidents?
I feel comfortable concluding that it's the result of language, actually.
Here is one for you, Crashfrog. If language developed from consciousness, how did languages become so diverse and fragmented?(Besides the Tower of Babel story)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 02-03-2004 12:54 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2004 9:40 AM Phat has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 130 of 193 (86043)
02-13-2004 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Phat
02-12-2004 11:11 PM


If language developed from consciousness
That's the opposite of what I said. Conciousness developed from langauge, not the other way around.
how did languages become so diverse and fragmented?
In exactly the same process that living populations became diverse and fragmented - isolation. When two populations split, and stop speaking to each other (as a result of culture or geographical distance) their languages naturally diverge. consider how British and American English have diverged in 200 years. Not separate languages, but definately different dialects.
For that matter, languages aren't all that different. While they all have different rules, they seem to follow the same rules for picking rules. Meta-rules, if you will. Chomsky called them "deep grammars."
Linguistics is fascinating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Phat, posted 02-12-2004 11:11 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Dr Jack, posted 02-13-2004 9:57 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.4


Message 131 of 193 (86051)
02-13-2004 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by crashfrog
02-13-2004 9:40 AM


I'm curious about your theory that language causes consciousness - how would that work exactly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2004 9:40 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2004 10:28 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 132 of 193 (86058)
02-13-2004 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Dr Jack
02-13-2004 9:57 AM


I'm curious about your theory that language causes consciousness - how would that work exactly?
What are the features of consciousness? That's sort of the question, isn't it?
Plenty of animals communicate complex symbolic information without having consciousness, like bees. There's also the phenomenon of "wild children" - human children raised (sometimes by animals, sometimes by abusive parents) without exposure to language. After a certain age they are rarely able to absorb complex language and generally display a certain lack of temporality - they seem to have no concept of the future or the past, only the present.
How does language create consciousness? I can only speculate that it is language that provides the symbolic mental framework that consciousness requires. But without a clear idea of what consciousness is supposed to be, I can only go by behavior - otherwise normal humans who lack exposure to language don't act fully conscious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Dr Jack, posted 02-13-2004 9:57 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18310
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 133 of 193 (86141)
02-13-2004 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Annunaki
02-12-2004 6:40 PM


Re: linguistics,source of ancient knowledge,etc.
Annunaki writes:
Modern science will never compare to ancient knowledge.
Let me ask you this, Annunaki. What was the source that the ancients derived their wisdom from?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Annunaki, posted 02-12-2004 6:40 PM Annunaki has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1415 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 134 of 193 (86148)
02-13-2004 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Annunaki
02-12-2004 6:40 PM


Africa, the Continent that Starts with A
quote:
They even knew back then what we don't know now. Modern science will never compare to ancient knowledge.
I love this. If we don't know it now, how do we know they knew it then? And of course modern science is so lacking compared to the ancient stuff. Mind telling me how old's the computer you're using to type this nonsense?
regards,
Esteban "Turn Left at Kilamajaro" Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Annunaki, posted 02-12-2004 6:40 PM Annunaki has not replied

  
Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 5874 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 135 of 193 (86358)
02-15-2004 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Skeptick
02-10-2004 2:45 PM


But brush up on your arguments a little, just in case the Creator, one day soon, gives you a chance to explain your willful ignorance.
And what if Amon is the True God? You'll be screwed then won't you. (I, other hand, won't be. Doing good things really helps one out doesn't it?)

Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Skeptick, posted 02-10-2004 2:45 PM Skeptick has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024