Racial differences...

[Tellos Athenaios]

Neanderthals had bigger brains. Perhaps they were more intelligent than us. Usually, it is hypothesised that they lacked in verbal capacity. Which makes for the intruiging possibility that superior peoples were driven to instinction by us, by our more ant-like, or network intelligence.
If one can not easily verbally exchange ideas, then the individual needs a lot of creativity, spontaneous problem solving ability. This, the Neanderthal may have excelled in.

Neanderthals appear to have created superior tools with less labour and less material required to create them which also produced better results when wielded. (It's easier & faster to cut some hides with Neanderthal toolkits than it is with those made by “our ancestors”.)

Of course, the real winner would be a population that adopted aspects of the Neanderthal's superior brain. Incorporated, say, a few percent of their genes into their own design. Interestingly, the great artistic revolution of modern man ocurred around the same time that the interbreeding with the Neanderthal occured. Could your innate desire to express yourself non-verbally, to convey ideas non-verbally, be your inner Neanderthal? Is not the caveman brute, but Picasso the true face of the Neanderthal?

No, as far as we know it is the exact opposite. The Neanderthals appear to have had no interest in the fine arts whatsoever, judged by the fact that in the German cave systems where Neanderthals and “our ancestors” lived in close proximity you can pretty much identify which cave belonged to which group by the simple expedient of checking for the existence of artwork/musical instruments. If such artifacts are present then it is not a Neanderthal cave. Similarly rock paintings are not a Neanderthal past time either. (Despite the fact that the populations of Neanderthals during the occupation of those German caves would've been higher than that of “our ancestors” who were pretty much new to the area.)

Further these objects show marked similarity so it would seem that what is really going on is that “our ancestors” maintained much larger social networks (family ties, perhaps) and engaged in art and music as means to express ideas and/or reinforce such ties which presented a much more rapid spread of new ideas, news and technology among “our ancestors” than Neanderthals; so that the Neanderthals were effectively obsoleted (and as time wore on it meant inbreeding with attending health problems was probably a powerful factor too) rather than driven into extinction per se.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have this hierarchy in my mind. A pidgeon over a cockroach. A cat over a bird. An ape over a cat.

I do stop there. There is more glory in being a rising ape than a fallen angel.

On the other hand, only Angels know when they are fallen. Self-awareness is an extraordinary gift.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

On the other hand, only Angels know when they are fallen. Self-awareness is an extraordinary gift.

Amen I say to you, Amen.

[drone]

Further these objects show marked similarity so it would seem that what is really going on is that “our ancestors” maintained much larger social networks (family ties, perhaps) and engaged in art and music as means to express ideas and/or reinforce such ties which presented a much more rapid spread of new ideas, news and technology among “our ancestors” than Neanderthals; so that the Neanderthals were effectively obsoleted (and as time wore on it meant inbreeding with attending health problems was probably a powerful factor too) rather than driven into extinction per se.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Louis VI the Fat]

On the other hand, only Angels know when they are fallen. Self-awareness is an extraordinary gift.

I see this as trying to climb back onto the tree, back to the nest, to relieve oneself of responsibility.

Is there, in all of the world's thousand's of religious tales, a story more glorious than that of the monkey that dared to leave the shelter of the trees. That saw the wide open plains, and ventured out there. That erected itself, that he could gaze upon the horizon and see the stars?
The microscope is my temple, discovering the very matter we are made of. The telescope, gazing at the very origin of the universe, is my cathedral, soaring upwards to the heavens.

What glory to the man who dares to let go of his mother's hand, dares to let go of master and god, who stands tall, walks proud and upright!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That saw the wide open plains, and ventured out there. That erected itself, that he could gaze upon the horizon and see the stars?

Why does man look up at an empty sky? What other creature does that?

[Louis VI the Fat]

There are more things in heaven and earth, Philipus, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.*


The heavens are not empty, once devoid of almighty beings, these illusory projections of oneself, these mirrors and mirages.

The heavens, once freed, are vast, rich, overwhelming. Enobling.


*Contrary to dominant - but in my opinion, unforgivably mistaken - tradition, here with the emphasis on 'your'.

[A Nerd]

If I may interject, I had to, smelled philosophy...

Imagination is God, if you beleive in it than it is true. Infinate wisdom and possibility is a reality if you reach out to the extended hand of thought.

Continue now, I hope I didn't derail the thread! :)

[Louis VI the Fat]

If I may interject, I had to, smelled philosophy...

Imagination is God, if you beleive in it than it is true. Infinate wisdom and possibility is a reality if you reach out to the extended hand of thought.

Continue now, I hope I didn't derail the thread! :)

Would you be awfully disappointed if I'd say that one who conflates imagination with reality suffers from a symptom of Schizophrenia that attempts to make sense within a severe thought disorder?

There are pills for that.



More to the point, different races suffer from schizophrenia at different rates.

[A Nerd]

Would you be awfully disappointed if I'd say that one who conflates imagination with reality suffers from a symptom of Schizophrenia that attempts to make sense within a severe thought disorder?

Every tangible reality begins with a delusional imagination. If one was to say that good fortune and opportunitiy could be achieved just by thinking (imagining) about how to attain it, then I would be proud to have schizophrenia and would refuse the medication some inanimate object told me to take. How did said object develop such a medication however? I guess such delusions of grandgieur are innate.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I was perhaps a tad too cruel.

Reality is in many ways perception of reality. This I agree with. However, if I perceive myself to be a hummingbird and fly off the Eiffel tower in pursuit of nectar, reality has means to prove me otherwise.


More's the better, then, for the existence of the Backroom, where I can perceive myself to be a Richard Leakey, Milton Friedman, Derrida and Habermas alike, undounted by reality's rather more limited means here to prove me otherwise, limited as they are to mere blatant facts to the contrary, which I can stubbornly persist in perceiving not to exist. Bless the human imagination. Maybe there is a benevolent God after all.

I guess such delusions of grandgieur are innate.

I think I shall have little trouble in convincing the regular Backroom visitor that 'innate delusions of grandeur' are more prevalent among certain European races than others.

[A Nerd]

However, if I perceive myself to be a hummingbird and fly off the Eiffel tower in pursuit of nectar, reality has means to prove me otherwise

You're being to rigid. Reality is real to he who thinks it. If you think you are a hummingbird, you are a hummingbird. The hummingbird will fly forever and as gracefully as he thinks he can. THis leads us to the outside viewer who is witness to his own reality (and is also witnessing the hummingbird, or lack there of). You are not a hummingbird and will fall to the ground and meet your death. True I suppose, but the hummingbird still flys. How can one be aware of death if his reality has no cognition there of? Perhaps in an afterlife he still flys...perhaps in a lack of an afterlife he is unaware that he still flys, there seems to be little difference. Before I lose myself (need more input) let's go here: How long is a reality? A lifetime? A second? How long is how long? The hummingbird flew for 34 years (the age of the observer) as he fell off the tower. To conceive thought in another person's brain and try to make it similar to your thought pattern is impossible. A rigid reality affects your five physical senses, a flux reality affect the infinate number of the remaining non physical senses. The overly simplified convolution that is mental science will tell you in text that these exist only in delusion. Delusion provides insight into a certain sense of creativity with out effort, and effortlessness to which some want to study and vainly categorize. He who quoted 'I think therefore I am' must have been bipolar (or schizo, etc) according to some. Hopefully I made sense, I forgot to take my meds today. Oh, when you breathe, take time to think, the air that keeps you alive might not be there. ;)

[Hosakawa Tito]

"Two monks were arguing about the temple flag waving in the wind. One said, "The flag moves." The other said, "The wind moves." They argued back and forth but could not agree.The Sixth Ancestor said, "Gentlemen! It is not the wind that moves; it is not the flag that moves; it is your mind that moves." The two monks were struck with awe."- The Mumonkan Case 29, translation by Robert Aitken

[Beskar]

Reality is what multiple people can observe independently.

However, I sometimes wonder that in the "eyes of other people" as it were, you find out that your version of 'red' is actually 'green' to them, or weird and interesting differences between the minds observing the same thing.

[A Nerd]

you find out that your version of 'red' is actually 'green' to them

I've actually thought about this, it could be true. Also, should one beleive that the sense of touch and the sense of sight are in agreement, considering the understanding of the environment? Does the hand feel form and consistancy as the eye persieves it? Or if the hand had eyes or the eyes had hands would the appearance be starkly different? Not to mention what one person sees as beautiful or touches with pleasure might not be the same to another that sees or touches the same thing.

"Two monks were arguing about the temple flag waving in the wind. One said, "The flag moves." The other said, "The wind moves." They argued back and forth but could not agree.The Sixth Ancestor said, "Gentlemen! It is not the wind that moves; it is not the flag that moves; it is your mind that moves." The two monks were struck with awe."-

Is every man in a vegetative state merely being entertained by a mind that can percieve light in darkness? Sort of like that movie about WWI...I think it was called 'Johnny get your gun' but I can't remember. Great flick none the less.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Is every man in a vegetative state merely being entertained by a mind that can percieve light in darkness? Sort of like that movie about WWI...I think it was called 'Johnny get your gun' but I can't remember. Great flick none the less.

"Johnny Got His Gun." Depressing, but brilliant flick.

[Ironside]

I've actually thought about this, it could be true. Also, should one beleive that the sense of touch and the sense of sight are in agreement, considering the understanding of the environment? Does the hand feel form and consistancy as the eye persieves it? Or if the hand had eyes or the eyes had hands would the appearance be starkly different? Not to mention what one person sees as beautiful or touches with pleasure might not be the same to another that sees or touches the same thing.

Colours have a meassurable effect on the mind that's fairly general (red, yellow "warm colours. Makes you active", Green, Blue "cold colours. Makes you calm". Green clothes to reduce the efffect of blood stains etc) so colours do seem to be a more general perception.

The difference between touch and eye sight is quite drastical though. One of the biggest is that unlike touch, anything you see looks different from a different angle. Sincce your brain has worked with this during your entire growth, you won't usually notice it. But it is somewhat of a problem for those who regain sight after being without it for a few decades.

[A Nerd]

The difference between touch and eye sight is quite drastical though. One of the biggest is that unlike touch, anything you see looks different from a different angle. Sincce your brain has worked with this during your entire growth, you won't usually notice it. But it is somewhat of a problem for those who regain sight after being without it for a few decades.

It would seem like the sense that is most dominant and most heavily relied upon isn't necessarialy be the most accurate. Perhaps that's why blind people can sometimes 'amazingly' get around with such little effort. I was watching a documentary once where these bind fellows could get around, even ride bicycles and the like, by making clicking sounds remenicient to what bats do and had no effort moving about in real world environments! It was quite interesting.

"Johnny Got His Gun." Depressing, but brilliant flick

Thank you for the correction. One of my favorite movies!

[Ironside]

It would seem like the sense that is most dominant and most heavily relied upon isn't necessarialy be the most accurate. Perhaps that's why blind people can sometimes 'amazingly' get around with such little effort. I was watching a documentary once where these bind fellows could get around, even ride bicycles and the like, by making clicking sounds remenicient to what bats do and had no effort moving about in real world environments! It was quite interesting.

Those pictures you don't understand what they are showing, until you have a sudden realation and can now see it? That's the starting position for the whole world for eye sight. So it will go something like oh that "blur is a face" at the start. Can be worth mentioning that those returning eye sight surgeries are often causing (sometimes suecidal) depression for the patients. That blurry eye sight is still too dominant to go back and it can still cost you the confidence you had with your other senses, without giving you confidence with your eye sight.

[A Nerd]

Those pictures you don't understand what they are showing, until you have a sudden realation and can now see it? That's the starting position for the whole world for eye sight. So it will go something like oh that "blur is a face" at the start. Can be worth mentioning that those returning eye sight surgeries are often causing (sometimes suecidal) depression for the patients. That blurry eye sight is still too dominant to go back and it can still cost you the confidence you had with your other senses, without giving you confidence with your eye sight.

I can understand how much of a shock it must be. Considering whatever the world 'looked like' when the blind person couldn't see, then all of a sudden when sight is gained, everything could perhaps look very different for what they previously had perceived. It must be frightening and confusing, no wonder they get depressed and consider suicide. Like stepping in to a completly different world or time and not knowing how to handle such a drastic change. Also consider the potential fear of losing the intimacy they had with other senses, a certain protective and comforting relationship, that could be potentially be lost forever when dependency of sight is subconsiously learned. Like losing a parent or a passionate lover.

[Kadagar_AV]

Does racial differences exist?

I for one, can tell a huge difference between, say, a Bulldog and a Siberian Husky. Both when it comes to looks, of course, but also behavior. Reading newspapers and stuff, or magazines directed to dog/cat owners, the talk of race is everywhere.

But, if we talk about humans, talk about race is a no-no... "we are all one race, the human race!".

Is this really correct? I for one can see racial differences. Colour of skin, type of hair, shape of eyes... The list goes on. Is the fact that africans excel at long distance running only a cultural question?

Is it then so far fetched to assume that the difference doesn't stop at the physical attributes, but that there also exist cognitive differences? These cognitive differences might then of course depend on physical differences in the brain...

Isn't it time to lift the taboo around this, and study it some? We have whole other techniques now than last it was tried. Hey, the science might even be beneficial in many ways in the struggle to unlock and understand the human genome.



















Oooops, sorry for being off topic!

[A Nerd]

Sorry. I thought the thread was dead and could be put to sleep with some philosophy. :) I'll attempt to refrain in the future.

[Reenk Roink]

Does racial differences exist?

Short answer, yeah, most likely, but most likely not in the way you are speculating.

I for one, can tell a huge difference between, say, a Bulldog and a Siberian Husky. Both when it comes to looks, of course, but also behavior. Reading newspapers and stuff, or magazines directed to dog/cat owners, the talk of race is everywhere.

Yeah I can tell the difference between a white person, a black person, and an Asian person too.

But, if we talk about humans, talk about race is a no-no... "we are all one race, the human race!".

Yeah we say that because it is a nice thing to say accurate about our own status as human beings which is a pretty important foundation of a lot of our social and cultural frameworks. We also recognize different races and ethnicities of course, not a melting pot but a tossed salad.

Is this really correct? I for one can see racial differences. Colour of skin, type of hair, shape of eyes... The list goes on. Is the fact that africans excel at long distance running only a cultural question?

Pretty much, just like Canadians and hockey. Do you have evidence to the contrary of biological differences between African long distance runners and other long distance runners?

Is it then so far fetched to assume that the difference doesn't stop at the physical attributes, but that there also exist cognitive differences? These cognitive differences might then of course depend on physical differences in the brain...

Why should we assume that such cognitive differences between races are due to biology inherently when we haven't seen any evidence for that and rather we see that the differences in academic and intellectual achievement (which in itself isn't a great way to infer cognitive differences by the way) seem to disappear when certain environmental factors are different, most importantly economic factors but also some social issues?

This has been said repeatedly in this thread before but give us one reason why we should assume what you want us to? You're just rehashing your position, we already know what you feel Kadagar. But you gotta convince us.

Isn't it time to lift the taboo around this, and study it some? We have whole other techniques now than last it was tried. Hey, the science might even be beneficial in many ways in the struggle to unlock and understand the human genome.

How exactly would we understand the human genome by looking at race any better than we are doing now? What are you exactly purporting? That we try and test whether there are intellectual differences between races and then go ahead and conclude that this is biologically underpinned despite the vast amounts of evidence to the contrary that it IS environmentally influenced rather than biologically (the Asian American immigrant thing - race is held constant, environment is the variable). Somehow that will help us better understand the human genome?