Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 23 Feb 2007 14:01:05 -0800 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> . What he understood and was exposed to was necessarily limited to
> his immediate surroundings. So, I would argue that while he was no
> less smart than modern man the structure of his thought and belief
> was far more localized.
>
I believe this thread is conflating 'smart' with the the underlying
equipment. Paleo man had the same underlying biological structure,
the mental infrastructure was inferior in terms of development and
complexity. The software of language, culture and technological
development.
Language itself is born during the Paleolithic era, though writing
not until communities come about as a result of agriculture.
However Paleo man had a superior engagement with his surroundings and
IMHO had a hugely more engaged relationship with the natural
environment around him/her. The 'smarts' this thread is talking about
were used to live and learn about the natural world as only basic
technologies existed...fire, basic woodcraft/stonecraft, leather
working perhaps. It's obvious I don't live in the paleolithic as my
software can't project very far into that kind of lifestyle.
I would imagine Paleolithic man and woman had an immense store of
knowledge about the world around them and how to survive within it on
harsher terms than we have to cope with in the developed world at least.
So, in terms of the smarts/software needed to live in the Paleo
world, we're dumb. Bring a Paleo adult forward in time to the
present, and they would lack the smarts/software to be successful.
|
|
|