When Humans Eat Their Brains

Void · 2025-01-22 09:40:02

I will see if I can get away with this.

I have had some notions of this previously but stumbled upon a nice video about High Verbal IQ people.

Query: "academic agent"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQUkOOWWa5o
Quote:

The Top 5 Dishonest Rhetorical Tactics of High Verbal IQs
Academic Agent
109K subscribers

I recall seeing an Astronaut talk about an ocean creature that when in its young stage, swims about with a brain, but when reaching adulthood anchors itself to a rock and then eats it's brain, as it has no need for it's expensive habits.

So, while we can hope that all of our efforts we may find our way out of darkness, once we may become more efficient, will we eat our brains?

I sometimes run a idea though my head, Homo Erectus vs Neanderthal. Small brain hive mind vs. big brain small groups. We know that some primitives (From our point of view) kill and eat monkeys. So we might presume that in prehistory, one group might at times eat the other group. Or at least deprive them of pattern continuation.

It is my opinion that excessive communication skills may lead to mind hiving, and then to the small brains problem.
Generally, communication is dominantly verbal. So, if it is at an excess, it may displace other types of intelligence.

There can be exceptions. A highly verbal skilled individual may be able to subordinate someone with excellent skills of other kinds, and then if mating you might get good verbal minds mixed with other skills. And this may be happening now. But a high verbal with the sleight of hand (Mouth), like a magic trick may displace people with other skills from success. This might damage the gene pool.

When Al Gore invented the internet, things changed. Keep in mind that I am using my eyes and hands to communicate. Even so, the internet is a short cut cheat even like verbal skills are. But I will always choose to cheat the lions, as they should not have eaten their brains so much. The internet also provides pictures and diagrams, which is much more to a Neanderthals liking.

The Homo Erectus are being knocked off of their props by this I calculate.

In case you may think that I have some vast artistic conceit like Hitler did, I don't. It seems likely that he and his kind supposed that if they created struggle then they would catalyze the emergence of higher types. I think that they were in error. They were breeding for roaches, in my opinion. Darwinism and survival of the fittest and those sorts of things that the verbal's had promoted.

I think I can see inside of their heads. They were primarily a Roman descended heritage, who deceived the Northern Europeans (Who were under persecution), to go out and kill. They flattered them, and deceived them, I feel. While on the surface the persecution of Jews was a diversion to help these people with their frustrations, I think that in a NAZI mind, killing half of the Jews would be to improve the Jews. Only the smart and resourceful of the Jews would survive. And the blame could be attached to the Northern Europeans, who did in many cases get their hands dirty.

But enough of that. The superiority complex of some Europeans, lead them to consider both Homo Erectus and Neanderthals as inferiors. They presumed that they were the test standard of highest value.

As they regarded themselves with a narcissistic glorification, of course they wanted to see Neanderthal as an earlier and inferior version of humans. The thick brows and cheekbones, and sloping forehead, were for inferiority, of course. But the Neanderthal had bigger brains than the so called "Modern Humans". It seems to have turned out that the bone around the eye sockets was to protect the large eyes, needed to live in dim light situations. So it was not inferior, just different. In my opinion such people were probably more visual than so called "Modern Humans". I believe that the eye size being 1.0 for a Neanderthal, ours would be .7 in the modern day. This probably indicates that they would have more brain development for visual and perhaps less for other functions. So, I suspect that Neanderthals would have found the internet to be a useful tool.

Pause for coffee.......

Alitta probably needs more bone around her eye sockets, as she has Mars eyes, presuming dimmer lighting: https://www.uhdpaper.com/2019/03/alita- … 8k-10.html
But maybe here cyborg body can keep the homo erectus from bashing her head in to eat her brains.

An Eye Mind has been dismissed by the heroes of the reality provided to us, as wasted brain in the some of the North Europeans, but I think it is also used as the "Mind's Eye", when not being used for vision in dim light.

I think that that is a bit racist, if you ask me, to dismiss a skill as not useful.

My intention here is to try to shed some light on things so that we can better see what may be true.

Now the verbal skin color game. Why do creatures in caves tend to lose pigment? Because they can. But it may also be true that being forced to generate a pigment may be a cost. I expect that humans that have ancestors that did not have a pigment requirement have become less pigmented. Living in a building and wearing clothing may tend to do that. But you probably also have to have the genes for pale color available to select as well.

The Inuit are a curios case though as they have not turned that pale even though living in the Arctic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit
Image Quote: I guess I would call their skin tone medium. But I wonder about their eyes. They do not tend to be blue, so do that have the Neanderthal adaptation of big eyes yet? Some theories say that they got lots of vitamin "D" from sea food so the pressure for pale skin was not present. I would say maybe. But also, if they had not pale skinned people to mate with, and did not mutate a pale skin, they might not convert even under pressure.

Parts of their bodies may also be strongly affected by the sun, as reflections from snow and ice make sunshine more intense. But how long has their blood line been in the Arctic? Perhaps they only recently adapted to the Arctic with their technology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit They have a very impressive technology.

I wonder if the North being periodically horrible kills off a people and then other people come from the south when things improve. For instance the Dorset people preceded the Inuit, I believe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorset_culture
Quote:

The Dorset was a Paleo-Eskimo culture, lasting from 500 BCE to between 1000 CE and 1500 CE, that followed the Pre-Dorset and preceded the Thule people (proto-Inuit) in the North American Arctic. The culture and people are named after Cape Dorset (now Kinngait) in Nunavut, Canada, where the first evidence of its existence was found. The culture has been defined as having four phases due to the distinct differences in the technologies relating to hunting and tool making. Artifacts include distinctive triangular end-blades, oil lamps (qulliq) made of soapstone, and burins.

So, a mini-ice age might weaken a people in the Arctic, and maybe a plague might evolve somewhere, maybe in the more populated south. Then when things get better the Arctic people having been wiped out, someone from the south fills the vacancy. The reason that the Nordics don't have that experience is that where they currently live has not been quite that harsh, and so they may have various immune options in their populations.

They may have never had that much population. I believe that I read that all the Inuit could be seated in one stadium, or something like that.

Anyway, that helps to some extent. I am wondering about the words our Verbals use to manipulate society on the basis of skin tone. It didn't used to be black/white. (Sometimes the have to use "People of color").

It is about trying to be in charge of a wealth redistribution on the basis of described groups.

In my opinion the colonial era of Europeans, was simply a vacuum in parts of the world. The Europeans had gotten to some sort of viable methods of living. So, they spread. Then other groups adopted some of those viable methods, and there has been a push back. But I think the pushback is coming to an end.

My purpose in all of this is to see what is true if possible and not be deceived by the Verbals, who may be wolves in sheep's clothing.

A rational expansion into space, does not favor the NAZI idea of eliminating genes in order to make the human race stronger. As space may have more space to live, then we can entertain a larger gene pool to keep. The NAZI philosophy in the end did not favor the so called "White" Germans, even Hitler turned on them. So stories that seek to redistribute wealth to take tribute, in a tribal sense do not please me. It is just more of the same, different skin tones and other features.

Let's consider the phrase "Tall, Dark, and Handsom". I guess if you are a female and want to mate with a male, tall and dark indicates someone who can bash in other people's brains so that you can eat them also. Handsom? Well, the implication is that Tall and Dark are Handsome. But looks are actually based on the average.

At least for women it tends to be a bad thing if you don't have average looks, for a group. You will perhaps become regarded as strange and perhaps not even attractive.

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/pu … idual.html So, that seems to be a maybe, some of the time?

So, maybe we should take some time to figure out what "The Best And Brightest", (Verbal minds) are trying to do to us.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-01-22 11:55:56)

Calliban · 2025-01-22 14:50:20

The Inuit are relative newcomers to the high Arctic. They did not arrive until about 1500AD. This may explain their lack of physical adaptation. The Eskimo were a different race of people. They disappeared around the time the Inuit arrived. The Inuit either outcompeted them for food or wiped them out. The Inuit are no more native to the Arctic than Europeans are.

Last edited by Calliban (2025-01-22 14:51:33)

Void · 2025-01-22 20:56:33

That is an interesting story. I feel it indicates a lesson for our ambitions with space. Thinking just a little more out of the box might have paid off for the Norse in Greenland.

They were of course an isolated community and perhaps a bit too outlaw. They overused their resources, and probably supposed that the climate would turn around, but it was the little ice age. Some theories existed that English Pirates finished them off, or that the Moors went slaving. They may have fought a but with the Innuit.

But the main accepted story at this time is farming was marginal when they arrived and they depleted the soil and trees, and when the climate deteriorated that was against them. They finally had a bad winter and starved, it is thought.

But I think if they had had some foresight about the trees, and had a certain weed that has invaded Iceland, perhaps they might have pulled though.

https://hakaimagazine.com/features/why- … ng-purple/
Image Quote:

The purple flowed plant fixes Nitrogen, and is changing Icelands deserts. It is possible if the Greenlanders had had it the soil would have been better and they might have been able to keep their livestock in better shape.

One article I read said they should have changed from cows to Sheep and Goats. But of course they were isolated, especially after the sea lanes became choked with ice, so they did not do those adaptations.

The Innuit had been moving south, with the seals as the climate deteriorated. It could have been possible that the Norse could have adopted Innuit survival methods, but it is thought that the church did not want that association to happen as the Innuit were Paigan. That is just a theory.

But if the Norse had done a bit more with fish and seals, and preserved and planted forests, and had had that plant to redeem the damaged soil, maybe history would have had them survive.

Not to put them down, but they needed more brains, than most Europeans had at that time.

Hopefully we will not miss some critical chances.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-01-22 21:10:54)

Void · 2025-01-28 22:38:37

Well, I have received a correction to my long ago learned ideas about Greenland: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/r … &FORM=VIRE
Quote:

What Happened to Norse Greenland?
YouTube
Fortress of Lugh
95K views
2 weeks ago

Looks like they got killed off by the Inuit, after a decline in their prosperity.

But the Nordic resettled the place, and the existing Greenlanders are to a minor part then genetically Nordic in that sense.

So, I better understand Danish sentiments. But I am neutral on current politics about the island.

I am myself half Swedish, which has almost as much Norwegian in that, so it is slightly possible that some ancestor of mine visited Greenland or was even born there as a few people did travel back and fourth for a time.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-01-28 22:43:49)

Calliban · 2025-01-29 04:43:56

This video is interesting and deals with some of the issues you are discussing.
https://youtu.be/TEPxeS-vXas

Void · 2025-01-29 09:42:25

Interesting materials Calliban.

I think just now we need to keep the attitude of study, and yet to avoid malpractice. About like doctoring, a lot of healing comes naturally. But like navigating a boat on a sea with different currents, if we could understand better, we might choose to navigate better to some extent, to at least not pave the roads to hell for ourselves.

There are a number of problems, and I see though the glass dimly/darkly, to Plagiarize an old author. Because of this lack of ability at good diagnosis, we should avoid hasty conclusions and only apply remedy if a greater certainty is achieved, or if emergency requires that we try something.

The idea of the "Blank Slate" has been quite a problem. That there are no local specialties inheritable. The archaic love to use it, masquerading as the moderns. I attribute that to old cultures, molesting new cultures. So, you can understand that I regard the USA as among the molested.

While the Blank Slaters want to claim that they can teach anyone to become anything, they also have joy in promoting tribalistic conflict. They retain the rights to say who is the best and brightest and also offer themselves as the saviors of the downtrodden, while they promoted the conflict in the first place.

The NAZI did, and do that, even so indicating that they can identify who is superior and who is inferior. Of course their thumb is on the scale, so that they can be "Them that am bestest".

It is interesting that the vote for Trump was to some extent less tribal. That is males of various ethnic groups more than expected gave Trump support. I think that is because these males have begun to realize that that thumb on the scale was putting them onto the "Eternal Boys Are Bad!" list. I am guessing they have gotten tired of it.

It is mathmatically sensible to some degree for females to encourage some conflict in tribes, as it will sort out the losers so they don't have to mate with them and they also can pick a thuggy boy and help him eat his victims. But this promotes less then Stone Age breeding. All you produce are verbally skilled brutes. You kill and eat the technicians.

In the post colonial era their has been a lot of vengeance seeking, and victim promotion, exploited by none other than the "Verbal and Violent" Blank Slaters!

And the historically upset from "Alien" oil money has also helped to molest the western societies.

But I believe that there is a swing and a sway to all of this, and that is for us to swing now and for them to see how good they are at dodging.

When you see a group of troublemakers, don't just focus on the male thuggies in the group. Also look at the girls.

Ending Pending

Last edited by Void (2025-01-29 10:40:54)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2025-01-22 09:40:02

When Humans Eat Their Brains

#2 2025-01-22 14:50:20

Re: When Humans Eat Their Brains

#3 2025-01-22 20:56:33

Re: When Humans Eat Their Brains

#4 2025-01-28 22:38:37

Re: When Humans Eat Their Brains

#5 2025-01-29 04:43:56

Re: When Humans Eat Their Brains

#6 2025-01-29 09:42:25

Re: When Humans Eat Their Brains

Board footer