Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Take the Pyrimids, Stonhenge, the Nazca Lines, Even Noah's Ark. How do we explain how to make these structures?  Even with all of our computers and knowledge we still can't explain all of these wonders. Now obviously our knowledge has accumulated over the years but as for pure intelligence I believe we are digressing. This is reflected in the Bible as well. We have recorded stories of men living to be hundreds of years old. The further you get from the garden the shorter average lifespans get. I don't see why our mental status wouldn't mimic our physical stature.

I think the decline in mental status is a problem associated with education, at least when speaking about recent times.

Many people, too, approach intelligence the wrong way. Intelligence isn't how fast you can process information, it's about creativity and innovation. There have been extremely innovative and creative human beings in the past 300 years. Kant is the first example that pops into my mind. Einstein is another. Bach, too.

The thing about intelligence (and this is my own personal opinion on the matter which I hold for a number of well thought out reasons) is that, no matter how good your brain is at processing information, it takes a good education to organize your mind and make it more efficient.

While we cannot explain how such structures were made, that's simply because we haven't thought of the method. But there's plenty of things we have thought of that they hadn't thought of. And that doesn't take away from the beauty of Bach's music or a St. Paul's Cathedral, which are results of the incredible creativity and intelligence of the artists, in terms of both devising methods (e.g., counterpoint, or new methods of construction) and going about the process of creating and designing something beautiful.

wait, we can't explain how stonehenge and the pyramids were built? since when?

What's confusing about it exactly? Slaves, levers, and pulleys.

I think it's unknown, still, although there are theories.

I found this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques but haven't digested it all yet.

I don't understand what's so confusing about the pyramids and stonehenge, or what relevancy that even has to the topic of life on other planets in the first place. We can't explain Noah's Ark because we can't even prove it existed. That's not to say that it didn't but being that the thing was entirely made of wood it would have decayed completely decades ago. (Not to mention the logical impossibility of fitting that many animals on ANY ship that could be built at all but I'm not getting in to a biblical debate in a life on other planets thread)

I think the regression was about the question of intelligent life. There are many animals on our planet which have the brain capacity for what we call intelligence, but lack the sociological conventions that allow for science, religion, etc.

I think that one would have a hard time arguing, from a Darwinian standpoint, that intelligence (as we speak of it in humans) is a necessary outcome of natural selection, which is directly relevant to questions of astrobiology.

Yes, but are there more of us or more cockroaches and whose situation is more tenable?

Quote from: michaeljl on May 19, 2012, 11:24:21 PM

I think that one would have a hard time arguing, from a Darwinian standpoint, that intelligence (as we speak of it in humans) is a necessary outcome of natural selection, which is directly relevant to questions of astrobiology.

What?  How would you get that? Advancing intelligent turned us from a survival of the fittest species like everyone else in to a society where overcoming the elements is one of the last things our species needs to worry about, at least in our first world countries. We've come so far as a species we capture our former natural enemies and put them in cages so we can look at them and marvel at how "majestic" they are.

Natural selection isn't "advancement," it's survival of the fittest. To argue that it is a necessary outcome of natural selection, you'd have to show how science would eventually be a necessary adaptation, and show that the environmental factors would be there for it to happen. Just because it seems "better," doesn't make it necessary, and the question at hand is whether it is necessary or contingent.

Consider language, for instance. Many animals have various ways of communicating, but their languages are nowhere near as sophisticated as ours. Well, why don't animals eventually "evolve" to the point of having language? They don't because their simple mode of communicating is efficient for their way of life and environmental factors.


 I think if you look at human history, the development of theoretical science is in fact contingent on the Greeks. Sure, the Babylonians and Egyptians had ways of doing math and calculating things, but they didn't actually have theory--it's a Greek invention, and contingent on historical factors.

cockroaches reproduce faster, take up less space, and require less natural resources to survive. What of that has to do with intelligence? Oh and also from an evolutionary standpoint when humans and cockroaches meet, who wins?

Depends on the environment they have to adapt to.

I think the cockroach example is often used because in the event of a nuclear holocaust it's thought that cockroaches would survive. This is a perfect example of the less intelligent beating the more intelligent over a seemingly minor issue of adaptivity.

Also, we might all get wiped out by solar flares soon. Google it.

My simple but all inclusive answer to this is based on the idea that we were never meant to die. If we were an imortal ageless being (sinless) eventually our planet would become overpopulated. We would need to expand our reach to other planets and over time the far corners of the universe.  Which also makes sense because the universe is ever expanding. Basically I belive we were desigend to be interplanetary beings.


But no I don't think aliens are out there...

Sorry to quote myself but a rabbit trail got split off of this quote which buried the post at the end of page 1, any comments on the other life sustainable planets out there that may have been intended for our use from the beginning?

Honestly, that's not even close to an explanation, (I'll give you the Pyrimids) but seriously, I don't think your seeing the complexity of these progects. Sense your big into reaserching your answers (this is a good thing  ) why don't you explain where the stones for Stonhenge came from? How the tribes knew how to place the stones perfectly in place to focus sound waves to the exact central point of the circle. Explain how the Nazca lines were built with exacting precision (were talking perfectly parallel lines over hundreds of yards long and very large shapes with perfect symetry) And how about a new one. Explain the freakish accuracy of the of the Myan calendar?

Theses are still just a few examples. And when you actually try to Fully explain how They did It you will realize how truly astonishing They really are.

I'm not saying you have to agree with my point or perspective but to try and slap down answers to these questions is kind of ridiculous.

but can't find any imminent danger...

Whew. I was worried something disastrous would result like our technological generation being reverted to the Stone Age.

...other than our power shutting down.

Oh. Snap.

And in order to keep the thread on topic, I see no issue with human ingenuity being solely responsible for the previously mentioned marvels of the ancient world. People have always been creative, industrious, and intelligent. Besides, the microchip is more impressive than the Pyramids, Stonehenge, the Parthenon, etc. combined.

Explain the freakish accuracy of the of the Mayan calendar?

Same way the Babylonians did it...

Explain how the Nazca lines were built with exacting precision (were talking perfectly parallel lines over hundreds of yards long and very large shapes with perfect symmetry) And how about a new one. Explain the freakish accuracy of the of the Myan calendar?

The same way we'd do it today, they used (albeit much more primitive) survey equipment (bottom of page 11).