> > Rustom Mody wrote, on Monday, April 10, 2017 11:50 PM > > > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 11:26:47 AM UTC+5:30, Deborah Swanson > > wrote: > > > The great ancients were no less endowed with intelligence than we are, > > > they simply directed it to different ends. > > > > And just when I was convinced by the all-knowers that my gpa > > was a monkey you've spoilt my complacence > > Good! It's unhealthy the way modern folk strut around > thinking they're the smartest humans to ever walk this earth. > We've gone farther with technology than any other time or > culture, but invention (and innovation) is only one aspect of > intelligence. > > > > ... medical astrology... > > > > whether that is hooey or scepticism of it is hooey, I dont > > know [Yeah I genuinely don't know what that term means for you] > > I don't know that anyone does. I use a very strict > interpretation of the orginal rules that you won't by find > googling "medical astrology". (I know, I've tried, in the old > Google as well as the new.) There's no pretension to mystic > art in my form, but mine's a lot more accurate and > information rich, so far as I can see in the few writings > about it. I think concentrating on the actual and valid > relationships while ignoring all the mysticism yields more > useful results. I know the ancient Greeks were wed to their > gods and I forgive them for that. I just think they would > have done better without the mythology. > > > However you may be interested in > > http://blog.languager.org/2016/01/how-long.html > > which is a > motley collection of the incredible > > persistence of humans to erroneous ways and outlooks and > > their damaging consequences > > I think you also talk about the incredible persistence of > other concepts and perceptions, notably in music and > mathematics (which were always linked in earlier times). > > I would find your other examples of erroneous thinking a bit > skewed in lengths of time. Tofler was right in Future Shock. > We've accelerated our intellectual development since the > Middle Ages, though I don't think it's because we're any > smarter. I can't remember exactly when it was that the human > brain reached it's current size and mental capacity, but it > was shortly before the time of the ancients. Physiologically > we've changed very little since then, but the knowledge base > we've built on over time was what eventually caused the > acceleration. No single person in modern times is > intellectually capable of buiding the concepts we now use > from scratch. We stand on the shoulders of giants. > > > [Frank Admission: That list started with a discussion on this list > > where I > > suggested that OOP is already debunked hooey and that FP is > > the way forward for programming. To which Steven asked that > > since FP is at least 50 years old and has not got > > very far, what makes one think its going anywhere... > > To which I wondered... Is 50 years a long time? By what standard? > > Hence that list ] > > 50 years isn't that long, though you must consider the > accelerated times we're living in. LISP is likely doomed > though. It's chief claim to fame was AI, and it's unlikely to > reclaim its former glory, not with languages like Python > leading the charge. My only contact with LISP was from a > computer science professor in 1975, who literally raved about > how superior LISP was. I dunno. I was doing AI in PL1 then > and had several debates with this fellow. I don't remember > much of the substance of those debates, but I know he never > persuaded me that LISP was superior to PL1. > > Deborah >
-- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
