26

Re: Our relationship with technolgy.

The reson things are lost is because of lack of technology. There was no filing system, yes things were written down but they were hid in caves or could have been lost in fires or floods. There were no computer backup programs, it was written maybe more then once but not kept protected. Things fade over time, memories are lost. Information that could have been right may have just been forgoteen or confused over time.

27

Re: Our relationship with technolgy.

Humans can learn and remember only about two bits per second. So even if you did nothing but learn 12 hours per day for a hundred years, the total would only be 3 billion bits - less than what can be stored on a regular compact disk.      -    Bell Labs Study in Scientific American, 1994 (Minsky)

The school systems today are without a doubt, more advanced compared to those from hundreds of years ago. While the adults of our age may be concerned with the level of entertainment we enjoy, the 21st century is ideally the  century of learning.  A considerable amount of a young person's life is spent learning, arguably more than those children from the time of Christ.  If it was possibly to compare an 18-year old from 2006 and an 18-year old from years before Christ's death, the "modern" teen would be exceptionally smarter. Not because the "stuff" he knows is more complex, but because he has spent more time cramming that "stuff" into his brain.

28

Re: Our relationship with technolgy.

Kesela wrote:
msommer wrote:

]
What do you consider lost knowledge of our ancestors?  Today's world is filled with new ideas of what is "smart". Times have changed, so have we really filled our heads with useless stuff or just different?

The lost knowledge of our ancestors encompasses a great many things. One example is the Aztec calendar that stops in 2012. As well, there are great sculptures that only make sense when seen from the air. What happened? what did they know? Things that should have been remembered are lost.

So i guess you feel that it is more important to remember the knowledge of our ancestors instead of technology.  I agree with you that some of the wisest things in history have been forgotted but that is only because of the constant dwelling on todays advancing technology.

29

Re: Our relationship with technolgy.

Just because the modern teen has crammed more stuff into his brain doesn't make him smarter. There is no proof that time makes a human brain able to absord information. If the stuff he knows is no more complex then a later age teen then how can cramming in more stuff make the modern teen smarter?

30

Re: Our relationship with technolgy.

This comes back to the question of what do you define as smarter?  Obviously the information crammed into the brain of a modern day teenager is going to be far different than that a teen before christ's death.  It depends what you consider 'smarter'.

31

Re: Our relationship with technolgy.

Who is smarter? You also have to think what each age had. Back in the days they didn't have computers. I don't think because I know more about computers then my mom that I am smarter then her. In many ways she is alot smarter then me and in some ways I am smarter then her. If you put eveyone in the same day and age we would all be equally smart

32 (edited by msommer 2006-09-01 13:37:50)

Re: Our relationship with technolgy.

exactly what i was saying!  you could define smart as memorizing every book in the library or you could define smart as developing new technologies.  it all depends on your perspective.

33

Re: Our relationship with technolgy.

Here is my definition of smarter.

"More time spent learning."

As I stated before, a modern-day teenager has spent "more time learning", than someone in the 1st century.

For example:  Croth & Msommer both go to the same school. You are both in the same class, Bio 20. Croth and Msommer both spend 80 minutes during the day, learning absolutely nothing but what is taught in that class.
When Croth returns home, she relaxes in front of the T.V. and her learning for the day is stopped there. Msommer goes to her job, where she learns to properly create....say.....a ceramic pitcher. For that day, and until Croth has spent the same amount of time learning, Msommer will "technically be smarter".

34

Re: Our relationship with technolgy.

zelliott wrote:

Here is my definition of smarter.

"More time spent learning."

As I stated before, a modern-day teenager has spent "more time learning", than someone in the 1st century.

For example:  Croth & Msommer both go to the same school. You are both in the same class, Bio 20. Croth and Msommer both spend 80 minutes during the day, learning absolutely nothing but what is taught in that class.
When Croth returns home, she relaxes in front of the T.V. and her learning for the day is stopped there. Msommer goes to her job, where she learns to properly create....say.....a ceramic pitcher. For that day, and until Croth has spent the same amount of time learning, Msommer will "technically be smarter".

What's your definition of useful  learning? Perhaps will croth was watching t.v. she learned that a new shoe is in stores or all the names of characters on a show. Whatever we do we learn something regardless of what we learn.

35

Re: Our relationship with technolgy.

Croth could have been watching the news or something other then senseless cartoons(not that i don't like cartoons) but she could have been watching something more then dumb TV shows. msommer will only use this skill if she wants to become a ceramic pitcher maker for the rest of her life. What is learning if it will not become a useful skill?

36

Re: Our relationship with technolgy.

or christina and marissa

37

Re: Our relationship with technolgy.

josienichols wrote:

Croth could have been watching the news or something other then senseless cartoons(not that i don't like cartoons) but she could have been watching something more then dumb TV shows. msommer will only use this skill if she wants to become a ceramic pitcher maker for the rest of her life. What is learning if it will not become a useful skill?

I would agree, What is learning if you don't need in later. When will anyone with a normal average job ever need polynomials and trigonometry?