> . 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.