= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DeVliegendeHollander comments on Open Thread, Jun. 15 - Jun. 21, 2015 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (302)
I don't find it very probable either, it is just a hope, that if people of similar brain sizes were not overwhelmed by a hugely complex social environment they could figure out a few things we so far didn't.
I mean... do we have any explanation how could people 2500 years ago figure out things we often find insightful even today, such as Buddhism? I would say, it was simply because had a simpler environment and thus could dig deeper in a few things. Could reflect more. Perhaps.
Not sure what exactly needs explanation here.
How could people 2500 years ago have insights about life? I guess the same way they do today.
Why do we find those insights interesting? Probably selection bias: those insights that were too culture-dependent were already forgotten, only the more universal ones remained.
Yeah, some people had life simple enough, so they could spend their time meditating about stuff. For example those born in royal families.