Could the uprisings be the "end of an age" the Mayan calendar was referring to?

reply to post by RSF77


if i could i will give you 1 billion star... until now i 'v read on this thread only comments full of certainty, bloated by the ego and I am always suspicious of people who have all the answers, but what you wrote is really full of common sense ...

We are nearing at the endgame of the "age of illusion". This is the end of the hypnosis.

The people are starting to wake up from their slumber. No longer will we sleep in the red amniotic fluids while these parasites feed off of us.

reply to post by RSF77


People are not more intelligent today. The ancient Greeks, Egyptians, and Babylonians did math more complicated than most people ever learn. The ancients built structures of great size and did it with simply technologies. These accomplishments are impressive even today. Intelligence is no different. There is more knowledge that has been accumulated over the ages. That is the difference.

reply to post by RSF77


This post makes no sense. Obviously we aren't outgrowing anything cause there is no growth in human knowledge. Just an inflated ego of a species who dreams of superiority but ends up being the most pathetic species a live.

we'll if it is that people are 'waking' and the 28th is when the time is then it does make sense, because of the mass uprisings.

reply to post by hypr2011


The 28th is what? It is a date selected by Lungold and latched onto by Calleman. It is not of importance to the Maya. There are no long count prophecies. So why do you think this makes sense?

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by RSF77

 

People are not more intelligent today. The ancient Greeks, Egyptians, and Babylonians did math more complicated than most people ever learn. The ancients built structures of great size and did it with simply technologies. These accomplishments are impressive even today. Intelligence is no different. There is more knowledge that has been accumulated over the ages. That is the difference.

I would beg to differ. You are blind if you can't see the advancement humanity has made since any of those civilizations. In the past century alone, more progress has been made than anything we have ever done.

Originally posted by crohny
reply to post by RSF77

 

This post makes no sense. Obviously we aren't outgrowing anything cause there is no growth in human knowledge. Just an inflated ego of a species who dreams of superiority but ends up being the most pathetic species a live.

That is your personal perspective, in fact, our knowledge has outgrown our ability to restrain and control it culturally. We have nuclear weapons pointed inward towards our planet all across the globe, how do you suppose we gained the knowledge to make this stuff, but not use the technology responsibly?

If only it wasn't for human nature.

Too bad we had to emerge from tribes of aggressive, sexually aggravated monkeys.

reply to post by RSF77

I would beg to differ. You are blind if you can't see the advancement humanity has made since any of those civilizations. In the past century alone, more progress has been made than anything we have ever done.

The progress people have made does not mean that people are more intelligent today. The ancient civilizations were built by people as intelligent as people today. Intelligence is the ability to acquire knowledge and to be able to apply that knowledge. Progress is made by accumulating more and more knowledge. The ability to acquire and to apply is the same.

The advancements that have been made are in knowledge and not in intelligence.

Originally posted by stereologist

 

The progress people have made does not mean that people are more intelligent today. The ancient civilizations were built by people as intelligent as people today. Intelligence is the ability to acquire knowledge and to be able to apply that knowledge. Progress is made by accumulating more and more knowledge. The ability to acquire and to apply is the same.

The advancements that have been made are in knowledge and not in intelligence.

Well... intelligence is one of those concepts that it's exact definition is up for debate, but this is a debate I'd rather not have. If I was to reach into my gut and pull out an answer, I would still say that people are far more intelligent today for whatever reasons (internet, increasing complexity of society, games, etc).

The ability to apply and collectively accept the knowledge is where we fail. I would venture to say that out of simplicity and smaller populations, ancient people were able to accomplish this better than we can now. That is only because we have a lot more on our plate now I think.

reply to post by RSF77


Look at what the ancients were able to accomplish. The pyramids they constructed are amazing. People are still so amazed by this incredible constructions that they make up wacko stories about being helped by aliens. Who is more intelligent? Is it the ancient civilization that was able to organize crews and use limited technologies to accomplish these feats or the weenies that claim it is impossible and can't be done even today? Who is more intelligent? Is it the seafarer with their knowledge of the stars that populated the Pacific or the dork at the keyboard that pretends that there must have been land and they walked there.

People just do not seem to realize how incredible people have been the last several thousand years as they invented writing, invented navigation, invented construction methods, invented metal refining, etc. As far as complex societies goes, we are going backwards where technology makes it easier to text than socially interact. People would rather play games by themselves or watch movies by themselves or be alone and talk on the phone than interact. Texting is ruining the ability to write and communicate effectively. I read a short story by a poster. It was absolutely awesome. I'm sure the poster is not a solitary person. The writing was too vivid to have been the expressions of a modern hermit that technology allows.

reply to post by stereologist


True, though I wouldn't call that intelligence.

I would call it a lack of nuts AKA lack of ability to apply anything learned, or to desire knowledge at all. I guess you call it intelligence.

A space shuttle is a lot harder to construct than a big pyramid, intellectually speaking. Though it may be more different labor-wise. The fact is, not only seafarers, but everyone who has access to the internet has the ability to learn the stars if they wish.

The option is there for a lot more people now days, hence a more generally intelligent humanity. That is not to say that unrest has not been occurring throughout human history, but the process of revolutions of different natures is the actual driving force behind the advancement of human culture and a major factor in the rise of human intelligence.

reply to post by RSF77


Still you do not understand what intelligence means. You are confusing intelligence with knowledge. They are very different. You can see that is this rather awkward sentence.

I would call it a lack of nuts AKA lack of ability to apply anything learned, or to desire knowledge at all.

Below is another clear statement that you are confusing knowledge and intelligence.

The option is there for a lot more people now days, hence a more generally intelligent humanity.

Take the time to learn the difference.

Below are several definitions for intelligence from several different sites.

education.yahoo.com...

a. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
b. The faculty of thought and reason.
c. Superior powers of mind.

en.wikipedia.org...

How to define intelligence is controversial. Groups of scientists have stated the following:

from "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" (1994), an editorial statement by fifty-two researchers:

A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.[5]

from "Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns" (1995), a report published by the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association:

Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person's intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all the important questions, and none commands universal assent. Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen, somewhat different, definitions.[6][7]

www.merriam-webster.com...

a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)

reply to post by stereologist


This is why I said I didn't want to debate the definition of intelligence, because I don't like getting into super literal arguments with people who don't know any better.

reply to post by RSF77


So you admit that you confused the words intelligence and knowledge. Thank you.

The meanings of words are important. The intelligence of people does not seem to have changed. What has changed is the knowledge we have of the world around us. Another term often misunderstood by people is wisdom.

Learning the proper meanings of words is important.

reply to post by stereologist


Doesn't that pretty much say what I have been preaching? minus the forum ego.

Or would your rather sit around arguing about what "intelligence" means exactly?

Did I not call this out a few posts back? This is my last response.

I think some people get confused with the whole 'end of the world' thing...so...lemme break it down. The 'end of the world' is GOING to happen. Why? Because the 'world' means: the arrangement of things. It has NOTHING to do with humanity or planet earth....and everything to do with our SYSTEM!

It's MY belief...based on research, and a 'gut feeling' that we are getting closer and closer to the world's end. I feel...with GREAT conviction....the system people have grown accoustamed to...is about to collapse. The banking system, governments, school systems, healthcare, etc...is all gonna go down the tubes quickly!

Those that haven't prepared themselves, on how to 'survive' are gonna suffer, most. Those that have gotten away from the system...and actually prepared themselves...are gonna have a hard time....but will 'make it'; and be far better off than those that weren't prepared!

So, if i were you...what i would do...is ween yourself from the system. Stop banking, quit your job...and work your skills, stop watching television; drastically cut back on your spending; find another way to get around town, besides the S.U.V.; oh, and most importantly......learn how to FAST!

Learn how to discipline your body...by not eating, everytime your stomach growls. Eat to live, and don't live to eat. Stock up on your canned foods and water...hygiene supplies...bartering items...board games...and whatever else you're gonna need to 'SURVIVE'...cuz that's where we're headed. Survival of the fittest.

See you on the other side!

reply to post by nuttin4U


Can you provide any reasons you think other than some "feeling" that this is going to happen? For example, can you point to a time in history when this sort of thing happened? I simply doubt any collapse would be as complete as you state.

reply to post by RSF77

Or would your rather sit around arguing about what "intelligence" means exactly?

I never wanted an exact definition. I simply called you out on the big mistake that people are more intelligent today than before. That is not true. We may have more knowledge, but not more intelligence.

There are those that think ancient peoples were not smart. They sometimes use this to argue that the grand structures they built were built my ancients due to their lack of intelligence. I am not arguing that you are one of those. I am arguing that you do not understand the difference between intelligence and knowledge.

What is noticeable is that you made no effort in your recent posts to support your mistake. Instead you have complained about me pointing out this not uncommon mistake.

The ancients were intelligent. They invented the beginnings of many branches of math.They invented writing. They used their available knowledge and technologies to construct things we are still in awe of.