Novel Neurological/Genetic Organization & brain growth

[Cory Duchesne]

Hey people,

I'll let you in on my latest wonderings.

Anthropology of late, recognizes that the brain of pre-humans (homo-sapien) developed into the larger human brain relatively quickly.

Many anthropologists and biologists reasonably speculate that the growth-spurt of the brain corresponds to the advent and rapid growth of hunting. Hunting skills developed, insofar as intellectual sharpness developed. The sharpness of intellect probably developed through the demands and pressures of hunting. Increased brain size had been the result of man's sudden inclination to hunt, eat meat, and think more analytically.

The hunting phenomenon developed in sophistication relatively quickly, and therefore the human brain grew in size and sophistication relatively quickly.

After man reached the top of the food chain, his diet had significantly been altered. His protien consumption had probably doubled many times over.

This sudden increase in his protein intake may also explain the sudden development and growth of his brain. He began, quite drastically, consuming more and more protien, and thinking more and more analytically.

These seem like very reasonable speculations to me, and not very hard to understand.

Before I take this post beyond the basic foundation I just laid and into an area that is more relevent to title of this post, perhaps some of you may want to contribute or make corrections.

[tharpa]

Most of these 'anthropological' theories are based on pure speculation, not even qualifying as science, let alone Philosophy.

For fun, try reading 'Devolution', which gives a Vedic interpretation of the whole monkey business known as 'evolution'.

He wrote 'Forbidden Archeology' as well.

http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/ has some links, I think, to some of his later work. I didn't like 'Devolution' but thereare some good points in there, not least of which is the very idea of devolution itself, which intimates that mind precedes body and that physical incarnations are a step down from a higher order versus our materialist assumptions that we have organistically clambered out of lightning-struck muck.

In Spenglerian terms, this is the sort of belief-system you would expect to find in the declining ("Civilisation/Urban") phase of a cultural cycle, in this case the West's.

[Blair]

This sudden increase in his protein intake may also explain the sudden development and growth of his brain. He began, quite drastically, consuming more and more protien, and thinking more and more analytically.

I don't think so. protein had an influence on the structure of the human organism as a whole, making it more refined in some ways, but not on the mental processes and inclinations towards types of thought. The human is very much an animal.

Any person can display characteristics of reason and intelligence, which have a resemblance of quality in a social aspect, but push them furthur, they will be dumbfounded. Culture is what defines behaviour. Monkeys are capable of the same.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Prince wrote:

I don't think so. protein had an influence on the structure of the human organism as a whole, making it more refined in some ways, but not on the mental processes and inclinations towards types of thought. The human is very much an animal.

I don’t think Cory is suggesting that protein intake caused the philosopher. He is saying that the drastic change of diet may have a relationship to the macroevolution changes in the brain at this time period.

Moreover the way I read this is that he is saying that the drastic protein intake possibility has a relationship to the drastic period of neocortex growth that human beings experienced.

Before the hunter period, the brain of human’s was predominately controlled by both the mammalian and the reptilian cortex.

But suddenly, a macroevolution took place forming a new division (neocortex) which was capable of much more complicated forms of communication, organization etc..

This theory is an attempt to account for the macroevolution change using causal relationships from the environment.

Any change in nature cannot happen through magical means in that there must be some sort of causal interaction with the environment.

A drastic brain change indicates that there must have been a drastic change externally in the organism’s behavior patterns.

Overall, I'm not certain whether an increased intake of protein could cause a drastic change such as this, but it is definitely a starting point for discussion.

I'll throw my own spin on this.

Perhaps the african homo sapiens did experience some neocortex growth due to hunting communication and drastic protein intake....

But imagine that as this herds travelled to higher and higher latitudes, there was more friction on them, and survival was increasingly difficult. I would imagine that they would need all sorts of different types of knowledge to be able to survive the winters and much more complex forms of thinking would be required to make it through the cold months.

So perhaps the friction caused by the cold climate is what created massive intellectual development in humans.

The black africans who stayed in Africa were stunted in terms of intellectual capacity is concerned because their brains didnt experience the same sorts of friction and therefore they were never challenged.

They could just roam freely and collect food year round. They did not have to contrive ways to survive in the winter months.

This theory may provide additional insight into man's drastic period of neocortex growth.

This would also explain why the blacks have a notorious reputation for being slow intellectually, they never needed to think.

it was only white man living in the cold climates that had to develop higher modes of thinking in order to survive.

[DHodges]

Many anthropologists and biologists reasonably speculate that the growth-spurt of the brain corresponds to the advent and rapid growth of hunting. Hunting skills developed, insofar as intellectual sharpness developed. The sharpness of intellect probably developed through the demands and pressures of hunting. Increased brain size had been the result of man's sudden inclination to hunt, eat meat, and think more analytically.

This was all probably tied very closely with the development of language. Communication is important to hunting in groups - but is even more important within social groups, in terms of establishing dominance relations and mating.

it was only white man living in the cold climates that had to develop higher modes of thinking in order to survive.

I have to call bullshit on that. Africa is a dangerous place, to put it mildly. Also, for humans - as for most populations - the competition within the group is (generally?) more significant than the pressure from the outside environment, in terms of which individuals reproduce.

This would also explain why the blacks have a notorious reputation for being slow intellectually, they never needed to think.

Another explanation for that reputation might be the existence of bigots and racists.

[Cory Duchesne]

Cosmic prostitute,

What sort of explaination do you have for the fact that black people have about the same sized heads/craniums as white people?

cosmic_prostitute wrote:
it was only white man living in the cold climates that had to develop higher modes of thinking in order to survive.

I wouldnt go so far as to say 'higher modes of thinking'. As man migrated further and further north, he certainly became more inventive, and yes, this was in order to protect himself from the cold environment. We certainly owe industrialism to the inventiveness of those who found themselves whitening over many generations of northern migration. However, Dont forget that the virulent spread of Alcohol, guns, religion, sugar, slavery, steel, and germs are things we owe largely to this so called 'higher mode of thinking' of our whiter ancestors. Not to mention the superficial neurotic obsessions with fashion and customs that both spawed from and engendered british snobbery. What about serial killers? Not too many black serial killers.

Like Jared Diamond said, when white man returned to africa after a gene-altering absence, he was puzzled by the health and agricultural efficiency of the african people.

After failing to support himself through his own crops, he pillaged, robbed and enslaved the inferior black men, and slowly invested Africa.

The white, elitist, and viciously racist minority that have ruled africa for the past century have done a disgustingly unintelligent job of governing the black people. Before white man showed up and took the reigns, africans were living at a level of intelligence that white man seems to have a very hard time acknowleding / 're-discovering'.

[Cory Duchesne]

Tharpa: Most of these 'anthropological' theories are based on pure speculation, not even qualifying as science, let alone Philosophy.

Tharpa: I didn't like 'Devolution' but thereare some good points in there, not least of which is the very idea of devolution itself, which intimates that mind precedes body and that physical incarnations are a step down from a higher order versus our materialist assumptions that we have organistically clambered out of lightning-struck muck.

Tharpa,

I don't see how valuing a perspective that says mind precedes matter is any less speculative, and any more scientific or philosophical that what my original post said.

Although, personally, I would prefer the universe to be inherently mentalisitc - as David Bohms implicate order suggests. I would prefer there to be a higher level of order and energy within matter - an order and energy that is pure mind. I would prefer 'literal immortality'. I would prefer to live forever. I would prefer an afterlife in a higher or different dimension. But that doesnt mean I allow myself to believe what I prefer to believe.

I see logic in Darwinian Natural selection. Natural selection is not something I prefer to believe, but it is something that just seems irrefutably true. I do not totally subscribe to an all encompasing darwinian ideology, but there are certainly aspects of evolutionary theory that are indeed close to truth.

Tharpa, do you at least believe that, as humans, we were once much more hairy, slouched over, with smaller brains? Do you at least believe that there was a time when we didnt eat meat? If you look at our teeth, you can see that we were not originally meat eating creatures. If so, we would have teeth like dogs and cats.

[tharpa]

Tharpa: Most of these 'anthropological' theories are based on pure speculation, not even qualifying as science, let alone Philosophy.

Tharpa: I didn't like 'Devolution' but thereare some good points in there, not least of which is the very idea of devolution itself, which intimates that mind precedes body and that physical incarnations are a step down from a higher order versus our materialist assumptions that we have organistically clambered out of lightning-struck muck.

Tharpa,

I don't see how valuing a perspective that says mind precedes matter is any less speculative, and any more scientific or philosophical that what my original post said.

Agreed.

Although, personally, I would prefer the universe to be inherently mentalisitc - as David Bohms implicate order suggests. I would prefer there to be a higher level of order and energy within matter - an order and energy that is pure mind. I would prefer 'literal immortality'. I would prefer to live forever. I would prefer an afterlife in a higher or different dimension. But that doesnt mean I allow myself to believe what I prefer to believe.

I see logic in Darwinian Natural selection. Natural selection is not something I prefer to believe, but it is something that just seems irrefutably true. I do not totally subscribe to an all encompasing darwinian ideology, but there are certainly aspects of evolutionary theory that are indeed close to truth.

You don't specify those aspects you agree with and those you don't, except they are some that are 'certainly' close to the truth. Which ones?

Tharpa, do you at least believe that, as humans, we were once much more hairy, slouched over, with smaller brains? Do you at least believe that there was a time when we didnt eat meat? If you look at our teeth, you can see that we were not originally meat eating creatures. If so, we would have teeth like dogs and cats.

No, I don't 'believe' any of that. In terms of evolution, it seems apparent that there is quite a bit of intra-species adaptation, but there is no evidence I have been able to see, and quite a bit to the contrary, that any one species has evolved into another. Most of the major species alive today came forth after the Pre-Cambrian explosion (?, can't remember exactly), such as dogs, cats, monkeys, humans etc., at least according to the fossil record which most scientists in the field, including Darwinianists, agree is the most reliable, above genetics for example. I did not buy or read Cremo's 'Forbidden Archeology', but one thing impressed me greatly: after receiving endless slanders and dismissals from established scientists all over the world despite having presented clearly documented and verified fossil evidence of human fossils from long before australopithecus, for example (now acknowledged to be an ape in any case), and others, he then published a second book featuring much of the back and forth correspondence he 'enjoyed' with the professionals. Although I didn't read it, I suspect that it was similar, albeit with probably more technical details, to the 'fracas' on the Quinn website which he enjoyed with such institutionalised luminaries. In any case, the fact the would publish the rebuttals and his re-rebuttals speaks for something.

Also, Darwin himself said that if there were any evidence of non-random mutation/development, including the notion of irreducible complexity which he described without that specific term, then the natural selection theory would collapse.

Using my own humble powers of observation and deduction, I find it inconceivable that the human organs of speech could randomly develop. Rather, ignoring any pressure from what I have been told by the legions of materialist scientists who have dominated our view the past century or so, it seems clear to me that we are born with the faculty of speech because we are creatures who are born to communicate and it is this basic faculty, or 'desire', which shapes the body, not the body which has randomly developed the faculty.

Alternatively, one might argue that we have an innate need to communicate and therefore somehow squeeze evolving genetic structures over time in order to gradually allow such capabilities to blossom forth in new organs and capabilities. This, however, is also far from random genesis.

Although illusory from a certain point of view, as Quinn explains nicely in his last 'Voidness' chapter, nevertheless there are many, many instances of order in the the known universe, certain improbabilities in terms of the relations of acids and alkalis in the formation of proteins, in the structure of molecular particles and so forth. Although not in and of itself indicative of any purposeful Creator per se, nevertheless there is no evidence that I can see with my eyes or mind to indicate that the entire affair is based on chance. Even if it were, then we would need something to better explain scientifically the extraordinary level of organisation, structure and continuity that exists in all life forms, both organic and in organic. How have the cockroach, the shark, the fruit fly and so forth managed to remain so essentially unchanged for so long? What triggers spurts of random genesis and then turns them off? Surely it is not the intellect of the fruit fly or cockroach? If it is a purely mechanical/biological random progression that got the cockroach to its level of perfection, how does such a mindless progression know to turn off the mutation switch? And why is it that in even more adaptive species, such as dogs and humans, most mutations appear to be mal-functions, not mutations at all, and many of them are not passed on genetically in any case, since they were simple scripting errors during gestation - and there are remarkably few of them given the extraordinary complexity of living organisms as each of us can observe without having to take any scientists word for it.

My ability to see, hear, smell, walk, touch and think are way beyond any possible mechanical understanding of biological systems that I could ever hope to achieve. The brain is 90% water or something, the consistency of porrige. How does such an almost unformed situation manage to provide such incredible sophistication and dependability? Even if you do accept random genesis as one part of the dynamic, darwin's theory does not come close AT ALL to explaining the underlying order and brilliance AND dependability of life as we see it all around, even how molecules stay within cells, cells within organisms and so forth.

Personally, I think most of this debate is made emotional because really there is a battle between material scientists and monotheistic fundamentalists, making it seem if one rejects Darwin one accepts Genesis, that there are no other options. This is rarely debated or considered, which is why any notion of irreducible complexity, which is an intelligent, easily substantiated theory, is too often ignored since fundamentalists use it, their detractors casting hyperbolic labels like 'wishy-washy, faith-based' science, whereas in fact there own approach is no less faith-based, the faith being that our universe was built with physical building blocks alone, even though quantum science proved a long time ago, and as Quinn well explains, form is only, and never more than, simple appearance, not actual substance. So ultimately this is a philosophical debate, but the language used is always that of science, or so-called science, and therefore it falls short.

I have gathered here that Quinn more or less approves of evolution theory in general terms, but I am sure if he wished to deconstruct it he could do so easily.

Personally, I think that introducing luck or random genesis into a causally interdependent paradigm is inconsistent. The very notion of 'luck' implies that things happen mysteriously. Well, everything happens mysteriously, not just that which seems to be mysterious, or lucky. So I think it is a false notion altogether.

[Tharan]

If protein diets and hunting skills are the prerequisites to intelligence, then shouldn't lions and tigers and bears be our wizardly overlords?

[Cory Duchesne]

Tharpa: In terms of evolution, it seems apparent that there is quite a bit of intra-species adaptation, but there is no evidence I have been able to see, and quite a bit to the contrary, that any one species has evolved into another.

Oh, I see what you mean. Ok, fine.

Tharpa: Alternatively, one might argue that we have an innate need to communicate and therefore somehow squeeze evolving genetic structures over time in order to gradually allow such capabilities to blossom forth in new organs and capabilities. This, however, is also far from random genesis.

So your saying its more likely that 'genetic structures are squeezed out' in correlation to urges?

Ok, well......(1) Do you agree with me that desire/urge has an inseprable relationship to a feeling of frustration, limitaiton, theat of abandonment/death, isolation PLUS the perception of a possibility? I say there cannot be desire/urge without a feeling/perception of limitation - which is the foundation of perceiving greater possibility.

The feeling of Isolation, alientation and the threat of abandonment and death IS limitation, and only in such a condition of limitation can there be the perception or imaginings of a greater, less-limited possibility. The whole of all of that is desire.


And (2) Do you agree that as genetic structures are squeezed out of nothingness (do due the demands of desire)and become integrated into the organism, that the appearance of the species would change?

And would this physical change (inner, and appearance wise) occur 'between' birth and death of this one organism?

In other words, are their miniscule mutations happening within me right now, mutations whose intensity is corelated with the intensity of my desire, perception and feeling of limitation?

And does the reorganization and advancement of my genes mutate the genes of humanity? Or do they have to feel similar urges, desires, and have similar perceptions?

And are genes the foundation of desire and perceptions quality?

And how does this physical inward and outward change of the one organism effect the surrounding family of that organism?

Cory: Natural selection is not something I prefer to believe, but it is something that just seems irrefutably true. I do not totally subscribe to an all encompasing darwinian ideology, but there are certainly aspects of evolutionary theory that are indeed close to truth.

Tharpa: You don't specify those aspects you agree with and those you don't, except they are some that are 'certainly' close to the truth. Which ones?

I suppose, like you said above, I believe in evolution insofar as intra-species adaptation. I believe a species, as a group, is comprised of organisms that are not equal. There is a heirarchy based on strenghts and weakness. Those who are idealy suited to win the affection of the female, and those who are ideally suited to attract males, are those who will most readily pass their genes on.

When a child is born mentally retarded, exceptionally over-weight, or even homo-sexual, he is going to have a much harder time passing his genes on.

Natural selection favors mentally quick, slim, strong and hetro-sexual genes.

That doesn’t mean that mentally retarded people, fat people, and homo-sexual people don’t manage to pass their genes on, but not as easily as those who are more ideal for wooing the female.

If you look at a litter of puppies, often the ‘runt’ gets muscled out by the bigger puppies - often the runt starves if you don’t do something about it.

Antibiotic resistance is worth considering as well.

The fact is that enormous numbers of the most dangerous bacteria and viruses have evolved to be resistant to the antibiotics or other drugs that used to be effective against them. An obvious example is the HIV virus, which, as we know, is capable of rapidly evolving resistance to drugs that once were effective against it.

[Cory Duchesne]

Tharan: If protein diets and hunting skills are the prerequisites to intelligence, then shouldn't lions and tigers and bears be our wizardly overlords?

highlighting the relationships between a growth spurt in brainsize with the advent of excessive Protien consumption and hunting skills was not meant to be sold as a 'total explanation' tharan.

If you read the post I just made before this one carefully, you might find that it compliments your theory of how novel genetic code is squeezed out in correspondance to desire.

(Edited in July 6th) - Tharan, when I wrote this I had confused you with Tharpa. oops. So I take it you do not value how novel genetic organization is squeezed out of nothingness in correspondance to desire? I don't neccesarily either. But Tharpa seems to, and it was Tharpa who I thought you were.

[tharpa]

Cory asked: "So your saying its more likely that 'genetic structures are squeezed out' in correlation to urges? "

Well, I offered that as a possible argument for the materialist point of view, but even if it works that way on some level, still the real question is : 'where does the urge to communicate/speak come from such that it could fashion tongues and voice-boxes? Certainly this is more than a random affair, if I can use that almost dirty word 'certainly'! Or: because the person in the organism WANTS to see, it grows eyes, and yet, being blind, how would it 'know' that such a thing as sight is possible?

This is why I favour the ancient oriental (vedic and other ) views that actually physical incarnations started off in more mental, or god realms, and then devolved down from there, i.e. first there was sight in a realm without seeming solidity, also telepathy, then we had bodies with eyes, and bodies with speech capabilities. I am not saying I believe in this necessarily, but I suspect that as a story - which is what materialist-based evolution theory is - it comes closer to how things work right now, as well as how they worked earlier, although from this point of view it is not necessary for there to be an 'earlier'.

As to your many other questions and observation which I didn't copy before entering this tiny reply box, let me just offer the following in response without being specific to any one point, all which I enjoyed considering.

They say that we are social animals, we humans. I agree. But also look how a flock of birds wheels together all of a sudden, in perfect formation although it is a somewhat chaotic, i.e. not mechanically precise, manoevre. I think this illustrates both how organic processes work, a form of 'orderly chaos' as my teacher loved to put it, but also how ALL species in our world, but especially the more intelligent ones, are a group process.

Sometimes I imagine that who and what we are is the Universe finding a way to have lots of little local points of awareness, like stars in the sky if you will, that can communicate their particular point of view to each other. And of course, there is a clear hierarchy in this process, both horizontal and vertical. Vertically speaking, the way we usually think of hierarchy, there is a real difference between how ants communicate and humans. Ants - and most animals - are basically self-contained, communicating only basic stuff. There is a weasel who comes to visit my humble trailer in the woods from time to time and helps keep down the mouse population. He comes in, roams around, doesn't pay the slightest attention to me, then leaves. I am not on his agenda, being neither predator nor prey. A human entering my domain will look around and then zero in on me, ready to exchange greetings and so forth. Humans look into each others' eyes, play with each others emotions and reactions in a way that is truly delightful, a way for the universe to have a conversation with itself. But the weasel is also having a conversation with the universe, albeit much of that conversation is a somewhat desperate, bloody affair, and he doesn't usually develop great 'people skills', learn how to sing songs, write poetry, or contemplate Totality. Still, he does inter-relate, and such inter-relation is a form of communication.

As to how this relates to evolution, I think weasely beings with weasely strengths and weakness in our particular world/environment with certain temperature and vegetation and other species in the mix, end up propogating the species known by us as 'weasels', and those with human desires and proclivities give birth to human species. Take away those sorts of predispositions, aka 'desires' in buddhist parlance, and the species will die off. Or if the conditions are not right, such as the ice melting and ruining the ability of polar bears to feed themselves, of course that is another way they will die off.

I think a polar bear is a family of bears who moved north and adapted to ice and snow, became white and so forth. Forest bears adapted to forests and are brown. But as to where a BEAR comes from versus a coyote, fox, wolf, lynx, eagle etc., well I am not so sure.

There are buddhist texts in the abhidharma treasuries that try to spell out the particular desire-syndromes that give rise to each species (insects are mouth-oriented, birds are comfortable in the air element and so forth) but I think few are translated and in any case, this is the sort of thing that is best revealed from one's own insight when one can see that deeply into phenomena oneself.

If there is some other issue that I have not responded to that you would like me to stab at, feel free. Obviously, I like nattering about these things....!

Finally, I appreciate that we have had a little discussion about this without necessarily being in agreement about darwin etc. and without having to get all excited/hysterical about it. I find all these things interesting, but not worth getting excited about , and certainly not insulting people with whom one might disagree, something that often happens, especially on forums I gather!

[tharpa]

PS As if on cue, an old movie I am watching called 'Monkey Business' with Cary Grant, Ginger Rogers and Marylin Monroe started a scene in which Cary Grant, a stuffy Professor who has inadvertently taken a formula altered without his knowledge by one of his lab monkeys who poured it into the laboratory water cooler (!), has regressed to being a ten-year old boy. (It is a youth formula). He is sitting around in a circle with all the other boys in the neighbourhood and leading them in an Indian war dance. All the kids immediately respond to sitting around in a circle, enacting a ritual, assuming different parts of the song, banging drums etc. You don't have to train children to be this way; they all are in every culture. The first thing infants learn to do is pay attention and learn how to function in the group, the main business therein involving communication, the first manifestation of which is the cry, and then the laugh.

(Old Japanese used to say that the human had not been fully born until its first laugh, usually around the third month.)

Truly, one of the main drives in a human being is to communicate. All this stuff about simply hunting and gathering is just basic maintenance. Nearly all primitive tribes evidence profusion of cultural forms, most of which involve communication. Gathering food etc. is very important, but hardly the main business of the group. I suspect this was true of the very first human group ever, if there ever was just one. I just don't buy that we grew gradually from slime!!

[suergaz]

Hi tharpa

Truly, one of the main drives in a human being is to communicate. All this stuff about simply hunting and gathering is just basic maintenance. Nearly all primitive tribes evidence profusion of cultural forms, most of which involve communication. Gathering food etc. is very important, but hardly the main business of the group. I suspect this was true of the very first human group ever, if there ever was just one. I just don't buy that we grew gradually from slime!!

Now why deny slime its primal desire?! For a first group, a beginning? Take heed, there's no need! Is the one needful thing not infinity?
:D

[tharpa]

I'd say that the one un-needful thing is infinity!!

[suergaz]

Necessity may have mothered that invention, but infinity only needs itself. :D

Everything remains a thing for us in definition.

[DHodges]

Also, Darwin himself said that if there were any evidence of non-random mutation/development, including the notion of irreducible complexity which he described without that specific term, then the natural selection theory would collapse.

"Irreducible complexity" arguments are pretty roundly demolished, I would say, in the book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, which is certaily worth a read.

Using my own humble powers of observation and deduction, I find it inconceivable that the human organs of speech could randomly develop.

The whole reason evolution (natural selection) works is because it is not random. It is the genetic response of a population to an environment.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Dhodges wrote:

Another explanation for that reputation might be the existence of bigots and racists.

I don’t think so, another question that I have been considering is why is it less likely for a black man to become a philosopher compared to a white man? And this is not being a racist Dhodges, this is merely looking at statistics and history which any sane man can do no?

There appears to be mental differences that need to be determined.

Cory wrote:

After failing to support himself through his own crops, he pillaged, robbed and enslaved the inferior black men, and slowly invested Africa.

Yes I agree that white man’s clever stupidity has caused a lot of damage in the world, but this clever stupidity is also a vital part of man’s evolutional process. If man is just plain stupid without cleverness then he doesn’t have a prayer, but if he is cleverly stupid meaning that he has a sufficient intellect that may be able to get him out of the mess that he’s created for himself then he may be able transcend clever stupidity altogether.

Perhaps another prerequisite for wisdom is clever stupidity combined with a hypersensitivity to suffering.

So if a man is just stupid and dull in terms of the way he responds to his own suffering then he is lost.

And statistically speaking Black men will most likely be stupid as opposed to cleverly stupid so the chances of them becoming philosophers is drastically lowered.

In my opinion, statistically speaking black men are in the same boat as women in terms of intellectual capacity and potential is concerned.

However I acknowledge that the white masses are stupid as well, but the white man’s gift from the cosmos is his clever stupidity because it appears to be a vital ingredient for a radical transformation of the psyche.

So this theory is attempting to draw the relationship between black man’s intellectual handicap and evolutionary biology. Moreover it appears that white man’s clever stupidity has something to do with adapting to cold climates as the black ancestors migrated north.

[Cory Duchesne]

Even if Cosmic prostitute's view is not entirely correct, he is right when he says: 'just because he sees blacks as intellectually inferrior, doesnt mean he's racist'.

The few black intellecuals who I think stand out (probably many more i'm not aware of).

Bill Cosby, Chris Rock, Malcom X, certain members of the black panthers and Marthin luther king I suppose are good examples of black men who have emerged as significant intellectual forces.

During his life, Malcolm X went from being a young street-wise Boston hoodlum to becoming one of the most prominent black nationalist leaders in the United States. As a militant leader, Malcolm X advocated black pride, economic self-reliance, and understanding the politics you are born into. He ultimately rose to become a world renowned African American/Pan-Africanist and human rights activist.

I think the sort of trajectory Malcom X's life painted was really an inevitable one, a neccesary one for a black man emerging intellectually.

Any black intellectual exemplar should dwell on encourage his people to attain very fundamental values which are neccesary for further growth.

The reason why white philosophers tend to take things further intellecutally is because the have the sufficient pride/self esteem, economic self-reliance, and an understanding of politics - and black people (mostly due to racism) don't.

Dhodges is also right when he says racism is the more significant factor when it comes to explaining the intellectual plight of blacks.

For example, during a comedy act, Chris Rock explained how, during the apex of slavery, white man would kill any blacks who showed any sort of intellectual power (namely the ability to read), and forced the more muscular and stocky to breed by locking them in rooms with females who also couldnt read. If they found out you could read or write, they would kill you.

And thus we have the superhuman atheletic genes, and intellecutal short-comings of the general black population.

Racism/irrational hatred of white-man is thus a much more significant factor in explaining the intellectual short-comings of blacks.

I also realized this:

When man began further exploring the world, he encountered 'northern' native tribes who he noted were living healthfully and without nearly as much labor as he understood was neccesary.

I don't see how native, indigineous, primitive cultures are inferrior to even the greatest philosopher in this regard.

The philosopher is generally just a dusty old vain crank who knows alot of history, has a bunch of opinions, but who, in contrast to the virility of healthy native cultures, is impotent and sterile.

The sage on the other hands, preaches the importance of primitive intelligence, awareness and returning to, and cooperating with nature.

The philsopher and sage are both just freakish outgrowths protruding from the back of a culture of diseased dusty brains.

The sage says - my people are sick, and health is living more like the natives once did.

That is not to say that natives were not a bit obbsessive compulsive when it came to their theories of 'the other world' - but at least their 'otherworld' theories had a relationship to their natural world and led them to treat nature sensibly.

The more intellectual victorian whitemans religion allowed his imagination to create otherness in a way that completely disregarded the world he was already living in, and thus forests that supported natives for 1000's of years were destroyed in a 100 years.

I know you think this is a romantic notion Dhodges, but I think the Garden of Eden story can be taken literally in a magical cartoony way - or it can be interpreted realistically. I don't think it is unreasonable to point out the virtues of native cultures. They are indeed a facinating study and offer a profound contrast to industrialized culture.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Cory wrote:

And thus we have the superhuman atheletic genes, and intellecutal short-comings of the general black population.

Yes, this is a good explanation in terms of US African Americans that originated from the deep south, but this only represents a very small fraction of the black genepool.

Over the last a few centuries, millions of educated blacks have escaped Africa’s disorder and traveled to the western world to live, but we haven’t seen one black sage emerge as of yet….

I’m not certain myself, but I’m still trying to figure out whether there is genetic superiority in terms of race is concerned.

Moreover if one measures superiority based on the probability of maturing into a sage then there appears to be genetic superiority in terms of the individual and the actual gender itself.

so what about race?

Do some racial adaptations prevent the emergence of sages?

Are some racial mutations more favorable in the emergence of sages?

For instance: years ago while dating an ex-girlfriend who was half black, I attended a family gathering and noticed that all members had established elaborate feminine games that seems to have been going on for years. It was so elaborate that is was impossible for one to enter into the group morality. However it was quite irrational and insane and I have never observed anything like it within a white family. Also if you ever attend a black church gathering, the people are incredibly sensual and the entire ordeal is based on the continence of excitement/personal gratification.

Perhaps as more and more white males transform psychologically, it will alter the global genome making it easier for inferiors such as women and blacks to go all the way as sages, but again this is only a hypothesis that maybe incorrect.

But I'm still not certain whether the existence of a sage in this world actually changes the genetic template of the whole.

it is quite evident that the meme that the philosopher leaves behind helps those who are already genetically predisposed to receive it, but were those who are genetically predisposed to receive wisdom affected genetically by the dead sage or is it all just pure luck?

if it is all just pure luck and the global genone of humanity is not slowly changing then this is truly a sad state of affairs indeed.

[R. Steven Coyle]

Your assertion depends on what your definition of a sage entails. Different cultures all have their own brand of wise men: A modern example of the black sage is found through out hip-hop. My arm just fell asleep.

You get the idea.