|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 20, 2014 22:02:53 GMT -5
You express yourself quite clearly japhy, no worries. Confidence in another in English has two meanings: 1) Someone that you "take into your confidence" by confiding in them, in other words, someone you share a secret or other private matters with, someone you feel close to. or 2) someone who you are convinced is competent, often in the context of a competitive situation, in other words, someone who you think is a winner, for example "I'm confident that you won't burn the pancakes". Trust, on the other hand, both combines and transcends both meanings of confidence in another. While sharing a secret ("confiding in someone") is a particular example of trust, trust captures a more general implication of a vulnerability on the part of the one doing the trusting to the one that is trusted. Examples would be that a spouse might trust that their husband or wife is faithful, or that this guy is trusting that the crowd won't drop him:  While it would be correct in both those examples to say that the trusting sole had confidence about a characteristic of the ones that they trust, that idea misses a nuance that can best be expressed by the idea that there is an intimacy between the one that trusts and the one that is trusted. Accurate. It is quite curious however that the term Confidence Man connotes the exact opposite, a con man (or woman) who deceives to gain one's confidence to fleece one, scam, steal their money, or other objects of value, by their willingly turning it over, AKA grifter. sdp Great illustration: the con-man betrays the trust of his mark. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 20, 2014 22:06:08 GMT -5
Why yes Mr. Sapien, the appearance is of a "few" lucky breaks along the way.  It's possible the stuff I read could be out of date w/r/t "out of Africa". For instance, the last I heard the consensus had flipped as to whether or not there is any Neanderthal DNA in the pool (from no to yes). It was interesting though that the geneticists and the archeologists were able to converge on the point, and other than the Neanies there hasn't been any other hominid discovered that was close enough to us to breed with. sounds like you're not too confident in your findings after all. trust can be a fickle biotch....  obviously the Neanies were ill prepared for the inevitable confrontation with the warmongering sapien sapiens. Thats the thing about science: if a conclusion is unquestionable then it's not science anymore. It's the certainty of uncertainty in action, which is just a great clue to the thinking mind of how incomplete the process of reasoning is in isolation. Good point about trust.  ... it's not that intellectual conclusions should necessarily be distrusted, but in the falling away the primacy of them is subject to the same sort of letting go of anything that's held dear by the individual. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 20, 2014 22:16:43 GMT -5
obviously the Neanies were ill prepared for the inevitable confrontation with the warmongering sapien sapiens. ha, ha, I guess I was wrong. apparently my mind fabricated an fictitious story based on faulty hearsay. go figure...  The timing and geography suggest Neanderthals may have overlapped with modern humans for 2,600 to 5,400 years, opening the door for genetic and cultural exchanges between the two groups for millennia.
These findings suggest that modern humans did not rapidly replace Neanderthals in Europe — say, via violent means. Rather, the Neanderthal extinction "might have been more complex and drawn out than previously thought," said Highamgoo.gl/2cfqt4Well, not so fast! A few thousand years seems like a long time by a subjective standard of modern time scales but you can apply the "but-for" test in this instance. Would Neanderthal have gone extinct if not for the Homo incursion? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 20, 2014 22:31:07 GMT -5
Well first off, it's all 2nd hand information for a certainty. Drawing conclusions based on 2nd hand information requires trust. Those ideas are based on a few different books on the concepts of mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam. If you're interested in the technical details of how they got there (which, to the scientists, would be the shiniest of glosses ) let me know and I'll exbloviate. What's more interesting to me are the details that just because the genetics point back to the common ancestors, that doesn't mean that those two peeps 1) lived at the same time or b) were the only peeps that were alive at the times that they lived. It only means that through the generations, the bloodlines of the descendants of everyone else that lived at the same time these two did eventually died out. Most of the stuff on that list are either primarily or heavily dependent on 2nd hand information, but you can notice that you're always in at least indirect contact with the Earth and you could go stand out on your street when traffic is light and experience the fact that there is an unbroken chain of asphalt between you and I, just as you now experience the copper wire and glass fiber that connects us as you read these words. Another experiment that can be done that has nothing to do with 2nd hand information is to ask "where does my body end and the world begin?". I have seen TV programs on both "Adam" and "Eve". I believe Eve was the subject of a Nova program by the same name, I believe some 10+ years ago. If I recall correctly Y-chromosome Adam was the subject of a NG documentary by Spencer Wells called Journey of Man (and a companion book of the same name). Quite interesting, Wells traced DNA around the globe. Yes, both originated in Africa, and yes, they were separated by thousands of years. According to Wells, an explosion of intelligence about 50,000 years ago was accompanied by man leaving Africa to explore the planet. sdp It's difficult to pinpoint when complex culture first started to emerge. The two disciplines that approach that question are Anthropology and Archeology, and to state their theories they have to resort, to at least some degree, to inferring the evidence of absence from the absence of evidence. That's what's interesting and exciting about testing those models with information from the two different disciplines of genetics and the branch of archeology that specializes in reconstructing the climate record. In turn, that's led to a run at the old consensus about the date for the first emergence of towns and cities, which put that as recent as about 10,000 years ago. Studying the climate has led to hard data to back up the idea that since ocean levels where so much lower during the ice ages and the shorelines from that time now underwater that there were earlier undiscovered civilizations. The myth of Atlantis was unhelpful in this regard as a handy and succinct meme to discredit any serious investigator who would have challenged the consensus. So the 50k number is interesting because the bone folks say that modern Homo's started to emerge as early as 150K years ago, and if it's right, then for 100K years peeps ran around looking alot like we do today but living a very very primitive life. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 21, 2014 0:48:42 GMT -5
You express yourself quite clearly japhy, no worries. Confidence in another in English has two meanings: 1) Someone that you "take into your confidence" by confiding in them, in other words, someone you share a secret or other private matters with, someone you feel close to. or 2) someone who you are convinced is competent, often in the context of a competitive situation, in other words, someone who you think is a winner, for example "I'm confident that you won't burn the pancakes". Trust, on the other hand, both combines and transcends both meanings of confidence in another. While sharing a secret ("confiding in someone") is a particular example of trust, trust captures a more general implication of a vulnerability on the part of the one doing the trusting to the one that is trusted. Examples would be that a spouse might trust that their husband or wife is faithful, or that this guy is trusting that the crowd won't drop him: While it would be correct in both those examples to say that the trusting sole had confidence about a characteristic of the ones that they trust, that idea misses a nuance that can best be expressed by the idea that there is an intimacy between the one that trusts and the one that is trusted. Accurate. It is quite curious however that the term Confidence Man connotes the exact opposite, a con man (or woman) who deceives to gain one's confidence to fleece one, scam, steal their money, or other objects of value, by their willingly turning it over, AKA grifter. sdp I don't know why it's curious. A con man operates by gaining the confidence of another. The term 'confidence' has the same connotation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2014 2:49:50 GMT -5
obviously the Neanies were ill prepared for the inevitable confrontation with the warmongering sapien sapiens. ha, ha, I guess I was wrong. apparently my mind fabricated an fictitious story based on faulty hearsay. go figure... The timing and geography suggest Neanderthals may have overlapped with modern humans for 2,600 to 5,400 years, opening the door for genetic and cultural exchanges between the two groups for millennia.
These findings suggest that modern humans did not rapidly replace Neanderthals in Europe — say, via violent means. Rather, the Neanderthal extinction "might have been more complex and drawn out than previously thought," said Highamgoo.gl/2cfqt4If you check the dateline on this link you'll see that this is all new information. |
|
|
|
Post by japhy on Aug 21, 2014 3:08:59 GMT -5
You express yourself quite clearly japhy, no worries. Confidence in another in English has two meanings: 1) Someone that you "take into your confidence" by confiding in them, in other words, someone you share a secret or other private matters with, someone you feel close to. or 2) someone who you are convinced is competent, often in the context of a competitive situation, in other words, someone who you think is a winner, for example "I'm confident that you won't burn the pancakes". Trust, on the other hand, both combines and transcends both meanings of confidence in another. While sharing a secret ("confiding in someone") is a particular example of trust, trust captures a more general implication of a vulnerability on the part of the one doing the trusting to the one that is trusted. Examples would be that a spouse might trust that their husband or wife is faithful, or that this guy is trusting that the crowd won't drop him: While it would be correct in both those examples to say that the trusting sole had confidence about a characteristic of the ones that they trust, that idea misses a nuance that can best be expressed by the idea that there is an intimacy between the one that trusts and the one that is trusted. Hey laughter, thank you for the very detailed explanation :-). Also thanks to siver,sdp and enigma for their contributions. I like English, only here in these discussion I realise that I am sometimes a bit handicapped since I don't really know the connotations of some words. On the other hand side I have the feeling that my conditioning works different in English. A lot of conditioning seems to happen through language. But I am going far off topic now and will stop here. Japhy |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2014 4:26:01 GMT -5
So the 50k number is interesting because the bone folks say that modern Homo's started to emerge as early as 150K years ago, and if it's right, then for 100K years peeps ran around looking alot like we do today but living a very very primitive life. why two very's?  no matter where on the timeline you are, you'll always be at the leading edge.. and besides, you don't miss what hasn't been invented yet |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2014 4:39:42 GMT -5
ha, ha, I guess I was wrong. apparently my mind fabricated an fictitious story based on faulty hearsay. go figure... The timing and geography suggest Neanderthals may have overlapped with modern humans for 2,600 to 5,400 years, opening the door for genetic and cultural exchanges between the two groups for millennia.
These findings suggest that modern humans did not rapidly replace Neanderthals in Europe — say, via violent means. Rather, the Neanderthal extinction "might have been more complex and drawn out than previously thought," said Highamgoo.gl/2cfqt4If you check the dateline on this link you'll see that this is all new information. aye. must have been syncronicity at play when a Neandie article shows up on a business blog I read, on the same day I had been talking about them just to make me wrong .. hehe |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2014 4:48:45 GMT -5
ha, ha, I guess I was wrong. apparently my mind fabricated an fictitious story based on faulty hearsay. go figure... The timing and geography suggest Neanderthals may have overlapped with modern humans for 2,600 to 5,400 years, opening the door for genetic and cultural exchanges between the two groups for millennia.
These findings suggest that modern humans did not rapidly replace Neanderthals in Europe — say, via violent means. Rather, the Neanderthal extinction "might have been more complex and drawn out than previously thought," said Highamgoo.gl/2cfqt4Well, not so fast! A few thousand years seems like a long time by a subjective standard of modern time scales but you can apply the "but-for" test in this instance. Would Neanderthal have gone extinct if not for the Homo incursion?yep, by suicide if nothing else. they were short, hairy, bowed legged, had large brows and noses .. so they must have been mocked and ostracized terribly in school, and the community at large...  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 21, 2014 5:44:15 GMT -5
Well, not so fast! A few thousand years seems like a long time by a subjective standard of modern time scales but you can apply the "but-for" test in this instance. Would Neanderthal have gone extinct if not for the Homo incursion?yep, by suicide if nothing else. they were short, hairy, bowed legged, had large brows and noses .. so they must have been mocked and ostracized terribly in school, and the community at large... At least they weren't hyperminders! Reefs would have left them alone! It's fun to imagine stuff about them. I used to wonder whether the legends about trolls and ogres could have been inspired by that cohabitation period, but it was so so long long ago. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 21, 2014 5:46:07 GMT -5
So the 50k number is interesting because the bone folks say that modern Homo's started to emerge as early as 150K years ago, and if it's right, then for 100K years peeps ran around looking alot like we do today but living a very very primitive life. why two very's? no matter at what point on the history line you live, you're always on the leading edge.. and you don't miss what hasn't been invented yet Right, well, it would have been 100k years where there was zero change in fashion and dudes never ever updated their tool sets.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2014 6:53:19 GMT -5
yep, by suicide if nothing else. they were short, hairy, bowed legged, had large brows and noses .. so they must have been mocked and ostracized terribly in school, and the community at large... At least they weren't hyperminders! Reefs would have left them alone! It's fun to imagine stuff about them. I used to wonder whether the legends about trolls and ogres could have been inspired by that cohabitation period, but it was so so long long ago. hyperminding is so easy even a caveman could do it  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2014 12:20:58 GMT -5
If you check the dateline on this link you'll see that this is all new information. aye. must have been syncronicity at play when a Neandie article shows up on a business blog I read, on the same day I had been talking about them just to make me wrong .. hehe Synchronicity, Perfect unfolding. Same, Same.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 21, 2014 15:23:29 GMT -5
At least they weren't hyperminders! Reefs would have left them alone! It's fun to imagine stuff about them. I used to wonder whether the legends about trolls and ogres could have been inspired by that cohabitation period, but it was so so long long ago. hyperminding is so easy even a caveman could do it "uga booga! I never pointed to the East for bison! Now I draw your giraffe! uga, booga!" |
|
... it's not that intellectual conclusions should necessarily be distrusted, but in the falling away the primacy of them is subject to the same sort of letting go of anything that's held dear by the individual.
no matter where on the timeline you are, you'll always be at the leading edge..
