Posts by Anonymous

You really messed up this time! You’ve gone and screwed everything up for everyone. It's over. It's done.

What's the deal with this stuff?

That’s just not true at all 😁

What would you bet? 😁

Sound & Fury said:
First off, you’re being pretty patronizing here...

My bad... I guess it's just an unfulfilled parental instinct kicking in... I'm working on it...


Biological evolution is the theory that groups of organisms change with the passage of time. This process is driven by the necessity for organisms to compete for essential resources to survive and reproduce. It’s an ongoing process spanning millions of years, rather than a completed event, though there’s plenty of debate regarding the extent to which humans are currently evolving.

That definition is incredibly vague. Besides, you can't grasp the concept of evolution in just three sentences. For instance, it's hard to categorize differences in the chemical composition of digestive enzymes under simple morphological or physiological changes. The real key is the alteration of genetic material.


If you were implying in your posts that the human brain is still changing... and if I added that human evolution can't be "finished" if we are still changing... then how does that contradict the definition you provided?

By that logic, bodybuilding would count as evolution too.

Look, I never said evolution was over or that human intelligence is definitely increasing... I'm not claiming either side is fact. I just noticed what seemed like a logical inconsistency in your argument based on my own interpretation... I prefer to question things rather than just take an answer at face value...

And that bodybuilding analogy... honestly, it's a bit silly.
Let me put it this way:
You’re arguing that with every generation, intelligence rises and the number of neurons and synapses in the brain increases... meaning intelligence grows. If we follow that logic, humans will evolve into some kind of super-intelligent species in a few thousand years because we live in such a politically correct society... eventually, someone like Reiner will release a program or documentary claiming that hugging kids is vital for neuron and synapse development... and gullible people will swallow those politically correct programs, resulting in a collective generation of "super-intelligent and happy" kids with massive amounts of neurons and synapses. 😁
Unless, of course, you have some theory suggesting that spanking kids in childhood triggers a desire to hit the gym, making every generation more jacked...🙄

Regarding evolution... I know perfectly well that looking up a term in a dictionary isn't enough to understand it... but regardless, the claim that "human evolution is dead" is just one theory held by some scientists that many others don't agree with at all.

...who are coming to shake things up in paradise...

got a sharp tongue.....🙂 🙂 🙄 🙄

Sound&Fury said:Look, Blijedooka, biological evolution is just the shift in a species' genetic makeup driven by natural selection. Period. It’s simple. Back in the day, only the most fit individuals were surviving long enough to have kids, but nowadays, people tend to pass away mostly after they've already reproduced, and practically anyone can have children (as Krleža once joked: making a baby is easy—try making an umbrella if you're such a genius). Now, sociological evolution is about changing living conditions, basically raising the standard of living. Those environmental factors actually shape the brain. While the brain has certain genetic predispositions like any other organ, it’s incredibly malleable—like a lump of clay (or more scientifically, lipoproteins). Unlike, say, your liver, the social environment a kid grows up in has a massive impact on how their brain develops.

First off, you're being way too patronizing...

Second, you didn't even specify what you meant... You said human evolution is finished. You weren't clear about whether you were talking about biological, social, or even some kind of astronomical type of evolution...

But let's see what the actual definition says:


Biological evolution is the theory that groups of organisms change with the passage of time, causing their descendants to differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors. This process is dependent on the need of organisms to compete for the things which are essential to them individually to survive and reproduce. It is a continuing process that has been going on for millions of years, rather than a finished event, although there is some debate over the degree to which human beings are evolving now.

If you've been implying in your posts that the human brain is still changing... and then I pointed out how contradictory it is to claim human evolution is "finished" if we are still changing... doesn't that fly right in the face of the definition above?

.

Sound & Fury said:Look, plants don't have ears, so comparing them to Mozart or weeds just doesn't make sense—it’s honestly pretty ridiculous. But here's the thing: the human body is basically one giant tactile receptor because of how interconnected our neurological network is. If you stimulate it, you trigger increased neurological activity. And more activity means more beneficial chemicals flowing to the brain. Take a seat, Okice, and listen up. It's been known for ages that physical affection plays a massive role in the development of all mammal infants, though we're only starting to pin down the hard science lately. I've gotta run, but I promise I'll send over some sources where you can actually read about this.

P.S. I added a few extra thoughts to my previous post.

That bit about the plants was sarcasm, which clearly flew right over your head... 🙄 I wasn't actually trying to compare plants to the human body... I was just trying to point out how nonsensical certain scientific theories are when even the experts can't agree on them...

Anyway, I didn't invent the theory that plants grow better to classical music; some "scientist" came up with that.

I do agree, though, that the way parents treat their kids definitely reflects in how those children behave as adults... but I'm not so sure there's a direct link to intelligence...
I don't want to risk looking foolish by making sweeping claims about "socially inept" people... but I honestly can't remember ever reading a biography of any "great" historical figure who was absolutely coddled as a child... I have read theories suggesting that overindulged kids often grow up to be weak, indecisive, and passive adults...

Feel free to keep being your own primary source... then I'll play the role of the skeptic providing links... maybe we'll eventually reach a consensus. 😉

Jose Palmer2

Ultimately, I still hold onto my conviction that humanity is steadily moving toward a sociological sweet spot for reaching our intellectual peak. Social environments—especially during childhood and adolescence—play a massive role in how the brain develops.

Human evolution has reached its finish line. Evolution is driven exclusively by genetic mutations within sperm cells (that’s a point made by Dr. Smith, one of the top geneticists and the author of the book "To the Blood," which was adapted into a documentary aired on NBC, which he also hosted). Given our massive global population and the fact that natural selection has basically been sidelined by vastly improved healthcare, natural evolution, as far as the human race is concerned, is over.

This is bugging me though… if human evolution is actually over, how is it possible that the human brain continues to change and our intelligence keeps climbing?

When you're dealing with a small population, evolutionary shifts can actually be spotted in much shorter timeframes. Humans are a perfect example here. The remains of the earliest *Homo sapiens* date back roughly 100,000 years.

Just a quick tangent here… it's a bit misleading to call modern *Homo sapiens* the earliest *Homo sapiens*. They definitely aren't. Anatomically modern humans, or *Homo sapiens sapiens*, appeared about 100,000 years ago. Meanwhile, early *Homo sapiens* were actually archaic *Homo sapiens*, dating back about 500,000 years. Those archaic humans branched into two distinct groups: Neanderthals and modern *Homo sapiens* (*Homo sapiens sapiens*).

I forgot to mention one more super important little detail. Rob Reiner, the director famous for *When Harry Met Sally*, once filmed a documentary on this. And what am I talking about? Well, it's the scientifically backed fact that children who receive more love and attention in their early years end up with a higher number of neurons and synapses. I'm primarily talking about physical affection here. Kids need to be cuddled, and that physical touch is vital for brain development.

And because of all those factors, it's pretty certain that a spoiled kid growing up in the comfort of Western civilization has a much better shot at developing a sophisticated neural network than people living in the Eratosthenian era.

So, I guess that means Socrates, Archimedes, Pythagoras, Aristotle, and all those other geniuses from 2,000 years ago... were just better loved and pampered by their parents than most of us are today...

Honestly, it feels to me like that Reinerian documentary and the theory about childhood affection boosting neuron counts might be rooted more in political correctness than hard science… but hey, what do I know? 🙄

The whole thing reminds me of that theory about plants growing better when you play Mozart for them...🙄

Nooo, that’s not what I meant. I wasn't talking about things being "unreal" (even if that sounds cool), but more like, say, an imaginary new project.

(I’m actually getting vibes of David Holmes + Cibo Matto + Toe)

Tool (production) and Luna (from Chicago)

Alright, let’s dive into the good versus the bad...

Abstract concepts like "good" and "evil" aren't physical phenomena, so you can't actually touch them or turn them into matter...

It’s different from other semi-abstract ideas—take colors like red or yellow, for instance. You can actually perceive those through a medium...

Just like those colors, references are essentially imagined constructs. Everyone interprets them however they see fit... subjectivity rules.😁

Now, about civilization...

I'm curious, what’s your definition of civilization?

There have been several distinct civilizations on this planet throughout history, so comparing them is definitely possible. But if you're talking about a singular, global human civilization... then we'd have to compare us to some alien race, and that's where I disagree. I'll explain my reasoning in a bit...

Great to see you back here 😉 🙂))

By the way, killer post

driftingowl27 said:1. Lilja 4-ever - Lukas Moodysson
2. All Or Nothing - Mike Leigh
3. Talk to Her - Pedro Almodóvar

Hey driftingowl27, you didn't mention you were into Almodóvar or Leigh...😉 I still haven't gotten around to watching anything by Lukas...😢

You know I was torn about putting Leigh on my list too... but Kiarostami is just in a league of his own🙂 plus, Lantana was such a massive surprise...🙂

So now you're a movie critic too, huh?!😲 😎 😉

I catch movies at the local Cinema, maybe on VHS if I'm feeling old school,
but whatever I miss in theaters, I just order or pick up on
DVDs from online retailers.

silentpanther15 said:😲 😲 😲

I mostly just stick to going to the Cinema, but even once a week feels like too much for me! I honestly don't get how people find so much free time... 😕

That’s my full-time job 😉

I hit the cinema quite a bit... I'd say I catch about 4 or 5 movies a week at the local theater... otherwise, it's all about DVDs

matija said:Nah, the biggest shift is actually about self-awareness and education. A long time ago, you didn't necessarily need an education just to get by in life $\rightarrow$ today, it’s a requirement. As for self-awareness, people have this skewed perception of their surroundings (take nature, for example) $\rightarrow$ just look at vegetarians: "we won't eat anything with a face."

Plus, people have gotten too comfortable taking everything for granted, which basically halts any real progress. Our civilization is packed with incredible inventions, science, and breakthroughs, but how much does the average person actually understand or even know how to replicate? Seriously?

I think a lot of people are either missing Django's point or just refusing to see it...

Here is what Django was getting at... if you took Eratosthenes and dropped him as a baby into modern society... he wouldn't grow up to be any different from anyone else. Or, if you did the opposite and placed a baby version of today's George or Pete into Eratosthenes' era... that kid would grow up looking and acting just like any other peer from that time period..
Because, honestly, a human being from two and a half thousand years ago is fundamentally the same as a human being today... there hasn't been some massive evolutionary leap in the meantime...

In this context, social intelligence is irrelevant because it's always present... and frankly, it can even be used to manipulate people...
If you swapped the baby of a prince with the baby of a janitor... a royal baby raised in a poor, uneducated janitor's family would most likely grow up behaving like a janitor, while the janitor's baby raised in a palace would grow up acting like a prince...

stormylynx14 said:Exactly. That kid could easily ask their parents why they didn't just fix their genome if they actually had the technology on hand to do it.

In some sort of GATTACA-style society... that’s probably how things would play out...

But in today's world, where everyone talks a big game about progress but hasn't actually pulled the trigger yet? It would probably be the exact opposite...

First off, let’s clear the air on one thing... what does it actually mean to distinguish between a genetically modified human and a "natural" one?

What even defines "natural"?

I mean, hasn't nature been genetically tweaking everything in its path since the beginning of time?

Think about it: what’s really the difference between a woman who holds out for a partner who has piercing blue eyes, a PhD in nuclear physics, and the physique of an Olympic athlete—hoping to pass those traits down to her kid—and scientists using gene selection to design that exact same child?

My biggest hang-up with this whole debate is the rights and interests of the unborn... because honestly, who is asking them if they actually want to be engineered this way?