6 Discoveries that science can't explain

[Bob]

The Genius of China: 3,000 Years of Science, Discovery & Invention
Robert Temple
Inner Tradition
ISBN 159477-217-7
2007, 254 pp.
$41.00
www.innertradtions.com

Product Description
Synopsis
This title offers a captivating look at the unparalleled achievements of ancient China later adopted by the West. From the suspension bridge to the decimal system, China's contributions in engineering, medicine, maths, science, warfare, transportation and music helped inspire the West's agricultural and industrial revolutions. Based on the immense scholarship of the late Dr. Joseph Needham - the world's foremost sinologist - Robert Temple now captures the spirit and excitement of centuries of ingenuity in this highly accessible, lavishly illustrated volume.

Inside This Book (Learn More)
First Sentence
Growing crops in rows, and taking care to weed them thoroughly, may seem to us to be obvious and necessary processes. Read the first page
Browse Sample Pages
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index | Back Cover
Search inside this book:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Genius-China-Ro ... 545&sr=1-1
______________________________________________________________

The book is richly illustrated. Take a browse from the above website---its pretty amazing what the "ancients" knew and understood. The Yin/Yang theory was a rich framework from which many ideas evolved [besides medicine and martial arts].


See also my review in Journal of Asian Martial Arts, Volume 17, Number 3-2008, pp. 72-73.

[TaoJoannes]

Personally, I think that "people" (homo sapiens) have always been about as smart as they are now. But, it's like Galileo and the authorities: i.e., there is always someone who sees further or deeper than everyone else, but is shut down. The reason we can't explain those things is because we just aren't as smart as some of our ancestors. None of us are Leonardos, and most of us couldn't be rocket scientists, either. Hey, though, I'll bet they thought the first guy to say "why don't we make a wheel" was out of his mind. Then again, how smart can we be when so many of us can't live without an iPod or internet access.

I agree with this, but think it's a bit simple. Technology and consciousness advances by leapfrogging previous discoveries and ideas. The work of one person makes the work of another possible. So while your ten year old may not be "smarter" than your father, they are jumping into the process a little later and adapt to the current situation, versus creating a different sort of world-view and then including new information into a slowly changing paradigm, so they can actually work an iPod without wiping it clean every time they do an iTunes update.

[Steve James]

I agree with this, but think it's a bit simple. Technology and consciousness advances by leapfrogging previous discoveries and ideas. The work of one person makes the work of another possible. So while your ten year old may not be "smarter" than your father, they are jumping into the process a little later and adapt to the current situation, versus creating a different sort of world-view and then including new information into a slowly changing paradigm, so they can actually work an iPod without wiping it clean every time they do an iTunes update.

Well, I think you're talking about something slightly different. My 11 year old grandson does not have as much of the same type of knowledge that I do; but, he has lots more of other forms of knowledge. But, better yet, put it like this, every scientist after Newton stood on his shoulders; but, how many imagined the theories of general and special relativity? Why did einstein disagree with Bohr?

I agree with you that this is not a simple process.I don't believe that the "species" is any more intelligent than it was 60,000 years ago. In fact, I doubt that --without prior knowledge-- few, if any, contemporary humans would invent a wheel or a bow and arrow. Did you ever read Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel"? His first anecdote is about being an educated westerner in the rain forest with an 8 year old Papuan. He found out right away how unintelligent he was.

[TaoJoannes]

I agree with this, but think it's a bit simple. Technology and consciousness advances by leapfrogging previous discoveries and ideas. The work of one person makes the work of another possible. So while your ten year old may not be "smarter" than your father, they are jumping into the process a little later and adapt to the current situation, versus creating a different sort of world-view and then including new information into a slowly changing paradigm, so they can actually work an iPod without wiping it clean every time they do an iTunes update.

Well, I think you're talking about something slightly different. My 11 year old grandson does not have as much of the same type of knowledge that I do; but, he has lots more of other forms of knowledge. But, better yet, put it like this, every scientist after Newton stood on his shoulders; but, how many imagined the theories of general and special relativity? Why did einstein disagree with Bohr?

I agree with you that this is not a simple process.I don't believe that the "species" is any more intelligent than it was 60,000 years ago. In fact, I doubt that --without prior knowledge-- few, if any, contemporary humans would invent a wheel or a bow and arrow. Did you ever read Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel"? His first anecdote is about being an educated westerner in the rain forest with an 8 year old Papuan. He found out right away how unintelligent he was.

Yeah, I think I strayed from the point a little.

What I meant was, grampa is more likely incapable of understanding and advancing our current state of technology due to his perspective. If Leonardo were alive today, the nature of his work would reflect upon the current state of things, and the ideas that would come to his mind by being subjected to the current level of consciousness and technology would be much different than those generated during the Renaissance.

What I'm trying to say is that certain ideas and ways of thinking about things are not possible until certain other ideas have already been established. History is full of examples of this, from steam engines to the light bulb.

[Steve James]

What I'm trying to say is that certain ideas and ways of thinking about things are not possible until certain other ideas have already been established. History is full of examples of this, from steam engines to the light bulb.

I agree. What I meant was that only certain people (individuals) --who are very rare-- are able to exploit those new possibilities. For ex., "fire"is a fundamental basis for most technology. Yet, thousands of years after thousands of years of working with it (as a species), how many individuals in technologically advanced societies could create it the same way "men" did it 10,000 years ago?

My point in the first post was that we, in general, don't have the "knowledge" that our ancestors had. But, it isn't because "they" as a species were smarter. And, we can't go to the moon because we are smarter. Many of our advancements have been the products of happy accidents ... and, I'd say that the major reason we can go to the moon now is because Newton found the need to predict the trajectories of missiles. Maybe if we were "smarter", we'd be in a much less technological society.

So, I agree that the "paradigms" shape the advancements, and that looking at it that way, technological progress happens in a linear way. I just don't think that indicates any differences in relative intelligence among those societies that develop differently or have different intentions. Not that you mentioned it or intended it, but I don't buy any explanation of phenomena on earth that is of alien origin.

[TaoJoannes]

I agree. What I meant was that only certain people (individuals) --who are very rare-- are able to exploit those new possibilities. For ex., "fire"is a fundamental basis for most technology. Yet, thousands of years after thousands of years of working with it (as a species), how many individuals in technologically advanced societies could create it the same way "men" did it 10,000 years ago?

Of course, 95% are civilized content, word?

I believe we fundamentally agree on this. Just exploring the mindspace.

[Steve James]

Oh yeah, it's just an interesting topic. I totally agree that we stand on the shoulders of "giants". But, many apples must have fallen on somebody's head, yet only one guy imagined the idea of gravity from it. Now, it's obvious to schoolkids. That's real genius. Anyway, what all this means is that there is some interesting stuff right out there in front of our eyes that most of us just can't imagine ... yet.

[TaoJoannes]

Anyway, what all this means is that there is some interesting stuff right out there in front of our eyes that most of us just can't imagine ... yet.

Or even bother to notice.

[qiphlow]

... there is some interesting stuff right out there in front of our eyes that most of us just can't imagine ... yet.

or behind or eyes, perhaps...

[Steve James]

It is possible that the inner space of the mindscape is bigger than outer space.

[qiphlow]

i have a feeling that distinctions such as bigger/smaller don't have much meaning when dealing with one's innner space.

[Steve James]

When, then why make the distinction between inner and outer? or even mind and not mind?
But, if there's a better word, we can use that.

[Darth Rock&Roll]

wanna fuck your noodle?

consider this:

Supposing the big bang is correct, then all matter and all energy were at one time infinitesimally compacted into a single point, of which all things are inherently still a part of.
Therefore, we are each other and all of us are all things as all things are each of us and there is no duality at all in fact there is no "you" or "me" and there is only "are".

In the zone yet? yeah? time to golf then. you can't lose!

[Doc Stier]

consider this:

Supposing the big bang is correct, then all matter and all energy were at one time infinitesimally compacted into a single point, of which all things are inherently still a part of.
Therefore, we are each other and all of us are all things as all things are each of us and there is no duality at all in fact there is no "you" or "me" and there is only "are".

Darth:

You just described the essence of India's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy! All is One.



Doc

[gretel]

but then of course it's possible that i am the walrus.

gretel