User Tag List

First 910111213 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 122

  1. #101
    What is, is. Arthur Schopenhauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    1,158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Supernaut View Post
    The evolution of the human brain and the development of the central processing unit have striking similarities? What? How so? Please list examples.
    Sigh.

    And why would a brain becoming smaller necessarily have ANYTHING to do with a brain becoming more efficient?
    Smaller brain + equal or higher output = a more efficent brain based upon size. It would require less mass. Less mass results in many benefits.

    Let me clarify what I'm saying: The necessity of the average person to TAX THEIR BRAIN and use RAW BRAINPOWER (which results in the strengthening of neural connections) has been gradually reduced over time. We have computers and calculators now that can do everything for us. There isn't as much thinking that the average person is forced to subject themselves to on a day-to-day basis anymore, because so many things that previously required raw brainpower to perform are now automated.
    You make it sound as if people are to catered hand and foot by calculators that are capable of doing absolutely everything, and this is incorrect. I don't think, throughout history, that the average person had subjected themselves to much thinking anyways. That's probably why they're average. In any case, I'd like to see the proof that calculators have caused the brain to shrink. The idea seems outrageous to me.

    Here's what I'm NOT saying, which is what you seem to have interpreted: I'm NOT saying that humans are no longer driven to learn and figure things out, no longer competitive, suddenly incapable of creating a developed education system, etc.
    Uh............

    That's a natural byproduct of compounding facts and knowledge that humans have amassed and compiled over time and not necessarily a reflection of us having better, more efficient brains now.
    Except for the fact that the things continue to grown at a faster and faster rate instead of slowing down or coasting.

    I'm more curious to see the effects of the internet era on the brain and brain usage/function/problem-solving/thought processes 30-50 years from now. We're still in the relatively early stages of what is probably the most revolutionary technological discovery of all time, and not nearly enough time has elapsed to accurately analyze/predict how humanity will be affected. I'm predicting an intellectual nosedive as technology becomes more and more advanced and automated.
    Har. You seem to be doing a good job of pioneering that nosedive. Just kidding. Har har har.
    INTJ | 5w4 - Sp/Sx/So | 5-4-(9/1) | RLoEI | Melancholic-Choleric | Johari & Nohari

    This will not end well...
    But it will at least be poetic, I suppose...

    Hmm... But what if it does end well?
    Then I suppose it will be a different sort of poetry, a preferable sort...
    A sort I could become accustomed to...



  2. #102
    Junior Member Supernaut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MagnificentMind View Post
    Sigh.
    Haha, no, seriously. I'm begging you. Please give me ANY example of the evolution of the brain being so "strikingly similar" to the development of the CPU. This is by far the most nonsensical thing anyone has said in this thread thus far, and you've yet to substantiate your claim.

    Smaller brain + equal or higher output = a more efficent brain based upon size. It would require less mass. Less mass results in many benefits.
    You still haven't sold me on the "equal or higher output." Accomplishments compounding over time, knowledge and information compounding over time, and the technology to store and share all of this information is NOT EVIDENCE for the higher brain output of modern humans. For a Te user, the evidence part should be easy, right?

    Oh, and "less brain mass results in many benefits" --- such as? Never mind, I can already sense that you're going to refuse to substantiate this ridiculous claim as well because you're basing that statement on absolutely nothing. You'll probably just quote this paragraph and put something like "Sigh." again like you tend to do when you don't have a counter-argument but wish to appear too intelligent to respond. Really dude, if you obviously have a reason for disagreeing with something, why not share it?

    You make it sound as if people are to catered hand and foot by calculators that are capable of doing absolutely everything, and this is incorrect. I don't think, throughout history, that the average person had subjected themselves to much thinking anyways. That's probably why they're average. In any case, I'd like to see the proof that calculators have caused the brain to shrink. The idea seems outrageous to me.
    It's not really like that; and it's not limited to only calculators. Everything is becoming increasingly simplified (and yes, we do have access to more complex information than ever before, but that doesn't mean that too many people are going to go out and seek it or make use of it). What I'm arguing is that modern day-to-day activities impose less brain stress than past day-to-day activities as a result of more developed technology. This is very much a Ti-construction and not something that I can prove to you objectively. You either recognize it in the world around you or you don't. If you want to hear it out of the mouth of someone else, though, I'd read this for starters: Is Google Making Us Stupid? - Magazine - The Atlantic

    Uh............
    Zzzzzz.

    Except for the fact that the things continue to grown at a faster and faster rate instead of slowing down or coasting.
    You could reduce the worldwide average IQ by 25 points and you'd still see fantastic development and progress when you introduce revolutionary new technology like the internet to humankind. Progress like this is to be expected, and like I said earlier, is not indicative ofus having more developed brains today.

    Har. You seem to be doing a good job of pioneering that nosedive. Just kidding. Har har har.
    Less ad hominem and more actual debate, please.

  3. #103
    What is, is. Arthur Schopenhauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    1,158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Supernaut View Post
    Haha, no, seriously. I'm begging you. Please give me ANY example of the evolution of the brain being so "strikingly similar" to the development of the CPU. This is by far the most nonsensical thing anyone has said in this thread thus far, and you've yet to substantiate your claim.
    I did that in the second paragraph of my last post.

    You still haven't sold me on the "equal or higher output." Accomplishments compounding over time, knowledge and information compounding over time, and the technology to store and share all of this information is NOT EVIDENCE for the higher brain output of modern humans. For a Te user, the evidence part should be easy, right?
    Flynn effect

    Oh, and "less brain mass results in many benefits" --- such as? Never mind, I can already sense that you're going to refuse to substantiate this ridiculous claim as well because you're basing that statement on absolutely nothing.
    Neuroscience and intelligence

    The brain is a metabolically expensive organ, and consumes about 25% of the body's metabolic energy in some species. Because of this fact, although larger brains are associated with higher intelligence, smaller brains might be advantageous from an evolutionary point of view if they are equal in intelligence to larger brains.
    ----

    You'll probably just quote this paragraph and put something like "Sigh." again like you tend to do when you don't have a counter-argument but wish to appear too intelligent to respond. Really dude, if you obviously have a reason for disagreeing with something, why not share it?
    Sigh.

    It's not really like that; and it's not limited to only calculators. Everything is becoming increasingly simplified (and yes, we do have access to more complex information than ever before, but that doesn't mean that too many people are going to go out and seek it or make use of it). What I'm arguing is that modern day-to-day activities impose less brain stress than past day-to-day activities as a result of more developed technology. This is very much a Ti-construction and not something that I can prove to you objectively. You either recognize it in the world around you or you don't. If you want to hear it out of the mouth of someone else, though, I'd read this for starters: Is Google Making Us Stupid? - Magazine - The Atlantic
    More unfounded opinion.

    Zzzzzz.
    Ditto.

    You could reduce the worldwide average IQ by 25 points and you'd still see fantastic development and progress when you introduce revolutionary new technology like the internet to humankind. Progress like this is to be expected, and like I said earlier, is not indicative ofus having more developed brains today.
    Uh, a person with an IQ of 75 isn't going to be doing that well...

    Less ad hominem and more actual debate, please.
    It wasn't ad hominem... It was a joke.
    INTJ | 5w4 - Sp/Sx/So | 5-4-(9/1) | RLoEI | Melancholic-Choleric | Johari & Nohari

    This will not end well...
    But it will at least be poetic, I suppose...

    Hmm... But what if it does end well?
    Then I suppose it will be a different sort of poetry, a preferable sort...
    A sort I could become accustomed to...



  4. #104
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Supernaut View Post
    I think it's a definite possibility that our brains are shrinking due to under-stimulation, though I'd like to see the research behind the study in OP's post.
    If anything, modern brains are overstimulated, not understimulated. You haven't proven that decreased mass correlates with decreased intelligence. In fact, the reverse is true. As our brains (and bodies) have been getting smaller over the past 50,000 (not 5,000) yrs, we have become more "intelligent" as that term is usually understood. (see The Flynn Effect)
    The increase in IQ is only now starting to drop off in developed nations, in developing nations, the effect is still evident. One explanation is that the increase is due to the stimulating effects of technology on abstract reasoning capability.
    Of course, you can argue about definitions of intelligence all day long, but working with the data we have makes sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by MagnificentMind View Post
    I've always imagined genetics overtaking technology in the distant future. I personally think it's wisest and fitting -development wise- to stay ahead of ones creations but that isn't how things currently work. Eventually though, perhaps the human brain can be engineered to outpace any sort if A.I. program.

    Personally, I think A.I. should be sitting in the passenger seat. Transhumanism and whatnot are where the real advancements are. That's my opinion anyways.
    Genetics is technology. Technological evolution out-paces organic evolution, this is fact.
    However it is ultimately implemented is irrelevant.
    Quote Originally Posted by MagnificentMind View Post
    He didn't say that because CPU's have been getting smaller, that the brain is following in that path. No, he simply stated that the relationship between the evolution of the human brain and the development of the CPU have striking similarities.
    It's a fallacious analogy. CPUs have been engineered to be smaller. Intelligent design is at work.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  5. #105
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    My brain is definitely getting smaller reading this thread.



  6. #106
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLocalJesus View Post
    This is something I find pretty funny. I usually don't put an equal sign between brain size and intelligence...
    Me neither.

    What's happening is that the human population is becoming female. The female brain is somewhat smaller then the male. It's happened to fish, now it happens to humans.

  7. #107
    What is, is. Arthur Schopenhauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    1,158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    It's a fallacious analogy. CPUs have been engineered to be smaller. Intelligent design is at work.
    I suppose.
    INTJ | 5w4 - Sp/Sx/So | 5-4-(9/1) | RLoEI | Melancholic-Choleric | Johari & Nohari

    This will not end well...
    But it will at least be poetic, I suppose...

    Hmm... But what if it does end well?
    Then I suppose it will be a different sort of poetry, a preferable sort...
    A sort I could become accustomed to...



  8. #108
    Senior Member ColonelGadaafi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    Si
    Socionics
    ESTP
    Posts
    774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Morgan Le Fay View Post
    If anything, modern brains are overstimulated, not understimulated. You haven't proven that decreased mass correlates with decreased intelligence. In fact, the reverse is true. As our brains (and bodies) have been getting smaller over the past 50,000 (not 5,000) yrs, we have become more "intelligent" as that term is usually understood. (see The Flynn Effect)
    The increase in IQ is only now starting to drop off in developed nations, in developing nations, the effect is still evident. One explanation is that the increase is due to the stimulating effects of technology on abstract reasoning capability.
    Of course, you can argue about definitions of intelligence all day long, but working with the data we have makes sense.
    The Flynn effect is bogus and based on what i would call highly subjective factors in a even more obscure conclusion based on a unsubstantiated assumption. The same two emeritus researchers support the conclusion made by Phillipe J .Rushton who states that there is some kind of racial hierarchy of intelligence determined by genetically belonging to the respective group of Europeans, East-Asians and Sub-Saharan Africans. So citing the Flynn effect as a relevant factor is highly questionable considering the implications and agenda held by the author of the "Flynn-effect"(The guy actually believes that certain part's of the world have the same mental performance as people classified as mentally handicapped). The sources for the theory is highly questionable so to speak.

    But i agree with you're initial premise. Our brains are getting smaller because the evolutionary advantage of being larger, muscular and what else is being compensated by our sedentary lifestyle and global dominance as a species. We no longer struggle with nature to conceive nourishment. It's a similar process to the new genetic mutation of newer generations lacking molars, which is a redundant trait from when mankind had a harder unprocessed diet. The large Molars provide the extra volume required to chew raw or partially processed food.
    "Where can you flee? What road will you use to escape us? Our horses are swift, our arrows sharp, our swords like thunderbolts, our hearts as hard as the mountains, our soldiers as numerous as the sand. Fortresses will not detain us, nor arms stop us. Your prayers to God will not avail against us. We are not moved by tears nor touched by lamentations."

  9. #109
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    I do not think it would be right to say that just because stuff is "no longer needed" it goes away. If that were true the selection would be stable. Larger bodies would have to be disadvantageous.
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  10. #110
    What is, is. Arthur Schopenhauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    1,158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Haphazard View Post
    I do not think it would be right to say that just because stuff is "no longer needed" it goes away. If that were true the selection would be stable. Larger bodies would have to be disadvantageous.
    We don't have fins.
    INTJ | 5w4 - Sp/Sx/So | 5-4-(9/1) | RLoEI | Melancholic-Choleric | Johari & Nohari

    This will not end well...
    But it will at least be poetic, I suppose...

    Hmm... But what if it does end well?
    Then I suppose it will be a different sort of poetry, a preferable sort...
    A sort I could become accustomed to...



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-27-2015, 09:23 PM
  2. The long-term effects on the health of humanity due to generations of IVF use
    By iwakar in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-02-2013, 10:34 PM
  3. Exploring status quo bias in the human brain
    By heart in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-18-2010, 01:29 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO