|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: When did humans become "Human"?
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
I have been interested in human evolution since I was about 12. I always wonder, when exactly did humans become "human"? If we define human as our capacity for self-reflection, when did we emerge from simply being instinctual animals into the self-aware, self-reflecting creatures we are today?
This topic came into mind recently when I listened to an interview on CBC when the author made the point that robots may develop intelligence, but do not have the capacity for self-reflection:
http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/769585731899
Also, I read somewhere that the Roman Catholic Church believes that somewhere along human evolution, God supernaturally implanted a soul into Homo Sapiens, Sapiens, thus, making him or her self-aware and able to be accountable for their actions. I can't remember the reference, but does anyone know if that is official RC teaching?
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I would have thought that primate 'proto-morality' and the management of intragroup conflicts among primates, give us some clues. I don't mean that we can therefore date the beginning of being human, but that there is evidence for an evolutionary gradience or continuity from such primate concerns to human concerns. Granted, primates are not as self-conscious as humans.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
There is, of course, an imprecise fuzzy edge where modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens) evolved from an earlier form of hominid. But, that point of evolution can be dated with some reasonable accuracy. But, I don't think that's the answer you're looking for.
When it comes to self-reflection, and being more than instinctual beings, that step seems to have been shared by several hominid species, and predates the evolution of modern humans. Several earlier hominids appear to have buried their dead. Certainly they were capable of quite sophisticated tool manufacturing.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
I recently listened to a book called 'Sapiens' by Yuval Noah Harari. It wasn't the easiest to follow in places, but the analysis of human beginnings was very interesting.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Whilst you could narrow it down to a point in geological time, at the scale of actual generations, human timescales if you will, it would be a very broad period; thousands of years perhaps.
I don't think there could be a hominid who was human whilst his parents weren't, any more than you could have a French speaker whose parents spoke Latin. In both cases there was a gradual development with a significant difference between the endpoints but no clear cut-off in the intermediates.
I don't, therefore, hold with this "imbued with a soul at a particular point" guff. Souls, to the extent they exist, evolved along with bodies. But then I largely consider the "soul" to be an emergent property of a complex brain rather than a ghostly additive.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Whilst you could narrow it down to a point in geological time, at the scale of actual generations, human timescales if you will, it would be a very broad period; thousands of years perhaps.
I don't think there could be a hominid who was human whilst his parents weren't, any more than you could have a French speaker whose parents spoke Latin. In both cases there was a gradual development with a significant difference between the endpoints but no clear cut-off in the intermediates.
I don't, therefore, hold with this "imbued with a soul at a particular point" guff. Souls, to the extent they exist, evolved along with bodies. But then I largely consider the "soul" to be an emergent property of a complex brain rather than a ghostly additive.
That's a nice last para. I think I will be borrowing that in the future. It seems to compress a lot of arguments into a small space. One of the things that interests me is that one need not dismiss the soul as an illusion, since one can accept it as the emergent property that you describe.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
In one of his novels, the science-fiction writer Robert Heinlein suggested that any species which has both language and manipulation should be regarded as (at least potentially) the equivalent of human. As many species have manipulation (hands, tentacles), the hard step may be language. As our remote ancestors developed increasingly complex languages, they became human.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
I'm more to thinking it was the time when we learnt how to manipulate each other that we became truly different from our fauna compatriots.
Haven't they found tiny stone beads in what is now S Africa? The theory being that this was the earliest know form of currency among our ancestors. So maybe humans became humans one said to another --"If you do A,B and C I'll give some of these beads". Conversely, the time when one early human smashed another on the head in order to acquire said beads illegitimately could also be regarded as a stage in our *development*.
So then you get laws, protocol, power, politics, morality etc. All of which leads to the struggles, (internal and external), that are still clearly with us today. The optimistic view is that these things will continue to become more more refined making our Humanness an ever changing concept.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I'm more to thinking it was the time when we learnt how to manipulate each other that we became truly different from our fauna compatriots.
Loads of animals manipulate each other.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Whilst you could narrow it down to a point in geological time, at the scale of actual generations, human timescales if you will, it would be a very broad period; thousands of years perhaps.
I don't think there could be a hominid who was human whilst his parents weren't, any more than you could have a French speaker whose parents spoke Latin. In both cases there was a gradual development with a significant difference between the endpoints but no clear cut-off in the intermediates.
I don't, therefore, hold with this "imbued with a soul at a particular point" guff. Souls, to the extent they exist, evolved along with bodies. But then I largely consider the "soul" to be an emergent property of a complex brain rather than a ghostly additive.
That would be my view as well. Archbishop John Hapgood took a similar view when he gave a talk on the matter, nearly quarter of a century ago. He suggested that it was possible that the more intelligent mammals - the great apes and dolphins, IIRC - also might have had souls. The Telegraph, in the days when it was a proper newspaper, rather brilliantly headlined their report: "Apes have souls says Primate".
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Loads of animals manipulate each other.
So at what point do you think we became 'human', as in distinctly different from every other known species of Earth creature that ever was.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
There isn't, I don't think, a single point or marker. Anything that I can come up with, I can think of non-human species that also do it. But a combination of all of them, maybe. Such things as care for the dead, care for enfeebled members of the community, language, tool use.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Loads of animals manipulate each other.
So at what point do you think we became 'human', as in distinctly different from every other known species of Earth creature that ever was.
I am not certain there is a specific point. Specific traits are problematic because many of those are shared by one animal or another.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Neaderthal burials, although controversial, show the 'cusp' of spirituality through ritual behaviour and regard for the dead.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
At some point consciousness exists to the point that self awareness occurs. By this standard many children aren't human until age 2 or so.
I'd say that consciousness is a significant issue for humanity, and that potential for self consciousness is also one. But lack of self consciousness as an infant, or loss of self awareness in old age doesn't remove humanity.
I also think there are rather good arguments to include chimpanzees and bonobos in our genus of homo, i.e., human; we're evolutionarily closer to both than they or we are to other primates.
Which then leads me to consider other animal families and ways humans have addressed this in different places.
May I take a page from some Cree and Dene people (indigenous; many Dene in the north are immersed in their culture and have Dene as their first language). They suggest that we draw too many lines between ourselves and the natural world, seeing ourselves as too far removed and separate from the environment as a whole and its individual components. That there's a spirit of life within living things. Before you dismiss this as some allusion to pantheism or panentheism, consider that they also dismiss our western line drawing between humans and everything else. Seeing is as a form of illness and disordered mind.
It is also illustrative that many aboriginal peoples have called their group "the people" or "the human beings" in the past and tend to call other humans of different culture and language something else, which denigrates their status on some hierarchy of beings.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
But lack of self consciousness as an infant, or loss of self awareness in old age doesn't remove humanity.
Not how it works. Such determinations are on a species level, not an individual level.
quote:
I also think there are rather good arguments to include chimpanzees and bonobos in our genus of homo, i.e., human; we're evolutionarily closer to both than they or we are to other primates.
There are also good reasons not to. For all they can do, they are not merely on a lower branch of the tree, they are on a different branch. One that doesn't seem to see fit to progress in the same way we have.
quote:
May I take a page from some Cree and Dene people (indigenous; many Dene in the north are immersed in their culture and have Dene as their first language). They suggest that we draw too many lines between ourselves and the natural world, seeing ourselves as too far removed and separate from the environment as a whole and its individual components.
I would agree that we like to think of ourselves as more removed than we are.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Re chimps and bonobos. Only on a different branch if that's the way you draw the tree. The gorillas are more distant from the 3 of "us". Clades.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Re chimps and bonobos. Only on a different branch if that's the way you draw the tree. The gorillas are more distant from the 3 of "us". Clades.
The human line and the Chimp line split ~ 6 million years ago. About ~1.5 million years before Australopithecus. They are not simply lesser humans. Though one cannot predict evolution long-term, there is no reason to think they will ever reach the cognitive levels we have. In other words, no Planet of the Apes. They are our closest relative, but this little fellow's closest relative is this, so...
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Whilst you could narrow it down to a point in geological time, at the scale of actual generations, human timescales if you will, it would be a very broad period; thousands of years perhaps.
I don't think there could be a hominid who was human whilst his parents weren't, any more than you could have a French speaker whose parents spoke Latin. In both cases there was a gradual development with a significant difference between the endpoints but no clear cut-off in the intermediates.
I don't, therefore, hold with this "imbued with a soul at a particular point" guff. Souls, to the extent they exist, evolved along with bodies. But then I largely consider the "soul" to be an emergent property of a complex brain rather than a ghostly additive.
Whatever you believe about the "soul," if you believe in both evolution and eternal life for people, but not for all other animals, then a logical conclusion is that at some point, there was at least one child imbued with eternal life born to parents who were not.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
There isn't, I don't think, a single point
or marker. Anything that I can come up with, I can think of non-human species that also do it. But a combination of all of them, maybe. Such things as care for the dead, care for enfeebled members of the community, language, tool use.
Elephants do most of those and more; Language and a sense of humor.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It is also illustrative that many aboriginal peoples have called their group "the people" or "the human beings" in the past and tend to call other humans of different culture and language something else, which denigrates their status on some hierarchy of beings.
You really should take the word "aboriginal" out of that - it is a trait pretty common across human societies.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Though one cannot predict evolution long-term, there is no reason to think they will ever reach the cognitive levels we have. In other words, no Planet of the Apes.
The Planet of the Apes fiction is interesting in that it posed the idea that if everyone of us humans magically disappeared tomorrow then, by definition of logic, another species would automatically ascend to a place of superiority, like ourselves. Some thought it would be rats and not necessarily any of our Primate lookalikes.
Even if you take the entire 4 billion history of our planet there is very little to suggest that human development isn't an oddity never seen before in the natural World, or ever likely to be seen again given our disappearance.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Whilst you could narrow it down to a point in geological time, at the scale of actual generations, human timescales if you will, it would be a very broad period; thousands of years perhaps.
I don't think there could be a hominid who was human whilst his parents weren't, any more than you could have a French speaker whose parents spoke Latin. In both cases there was a gradual development with a significant difference between the endpoints but no clear cut-off in the intermediates.
I don't, therefore, hold with this "imbued with a soul at a particular point" guff. Souls, to the extent they exist, evolved along with bodies. But then I largely consider the "soul" to be an emergent property of a complex brain rather than a ghostly additive.
Whatever you believe about the "soul," if you believe in both evolution and eternal life for people, but not for all other animals, then a logical conclusion is that at some point, there was at least one child imbued with eternal life born to parents who were not.
Sorry, what's sapience got to do with a gene for immortality? The trick will be to resurrect everything that ever felt and see what comes up.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by robyn:
quote:
Even if you take the entire 4 billion history of our planet there is very little to suggest that human development isn't an oddity never seen before in the natural World, or ever likely to be seen again given our disappearance.
I think that is a fascinating question, and one to which we are never going to get a definitive answer. My feeling is that you are probably right but given that different species can evolve similar features because of their utility - c.f Ichthyosaurs, Sharks and Dolphins - it's not impossible that, millions of years after the end of the Trump Presidency, the descendants of the great apes may find themselves arguing about anomalies in the fossil record which hint that they were not the first dwellers on the earth to become self-aware.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Though one cannot predict evolution long-term, there is no reason to think they will ever reach the cognitive levels we have. In other words, no Planet of the Apes.
The Planet of the Apes fiction is interesting in that it posed the idea that if everyone of us humans magically disappeared tomorrow then, by definition of logic, another species would automatically ascend to a place of superiority, like ourselves. Some thought it would be rats and not necessarily any of our Primate lookalikes.
Even if you take the entire 4 billion history of our planet there is very little to suggest that human development isn't an oddity never seen before in the natural World, or ever likely to be seen again given our disappearance.
Nothing anomalous about it. It's utterly deterministic. Inevitable. Just like life starting as soon as it rains.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
The time line is impressive. I wonder what's the lastest anyone has hominids becoming human?
Anyone remember this best seller with one of the most obscure titles of all times?
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
There isn't, I don't think, a single point or marker. Anything that I can come up with, I can think of non-human species that also do it. But a combination of all of them, maybe. Such things as care for the dead, care for enfeebled members of the community, language, tool use.
A while ago there was a discussion of a novel about a family that tried to raise a chimpanzee with their baby. As the chimpanzee got older it behaved in non-human ways and could not be taught to change its behavior.
In the discussion someone said that all attempts to raise a chimpanzee with a child end abruptly when the parents realize that the child is learning more from the chimpanzee than the chimpanzee is learning from the child.
This made me wonder if the difference between human beings and animals is that human beings are born with far fewer instincts and a much greater capacity to learn. Human babies are born into an enormous variety of environments--New York city, Tibet, among the Australian aborigines, Appalachia, among the Inuit, etc. Chimpanzees, however, are born into a very limited variety of environments and for them instincts are much more useful than a capacity to learn.
Moo
[ 01. October 2016, 11:55: Message edited by: Moo ]
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Yeah but Martin, surely something more than 'rain' has allowed us to communicate on these devices, split the atom, build skyscrapers and so on.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
In between there's all sorts of stuff, yeah, but I imagine everywhere in the universe you get bipedalism, binocular vision, opposable thumbs, FOX2P gene analogues and vocal tracts, all inevitable stuff where jungle meets savannah, you get sapience.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Re chimps and bonobos. Only on a different branch if that's the way you draw the tree. The gorillas are more distant from the 3 of "us".
They're on a different twig. Whether and at what level you count that as a branch is up for discussion.
It's true that if you put gorillas and chimpanzees in the same genus you should put human beings in that genus too. It doesn't follow that putting gorillas and chimpanzees, and therefore humans, in the same genus is the right thing to do.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I always wonder, when exactly did humans become "human"? If we define human as our capacity for self-reflection, when did we emerge from simply being instinctual animals into the self-aware, self-reflecting creatures we are today?
It's impossible to say when humans became capable of self-reflection.
I'm inclined to associate with language, although there it depends on what one means by 'language'. Language as used by humans has more dimensions than even quite sophisticated systems of signalling.
The main aspect that I'd point to is the ability to quote. That is, being able to mention a signal without using it or acting on it. That allows one to think about whether the signal is the right signal to use, and also to use the signal in the absence of the conditions in which you'd act on it. Obviously that's linked to self-reflection.
I think I can make a case that other uses of language that seem human-unique, such as poetry and aesthetic uses, depend upon that as well.
quote:
This topic came into mind recently when I listened to an interview on CBC when the author made the point that robots may develop intelligence, but do not have the capacity for self-reflection:
I don't see why robots couldn't develop a capacity for self-reflection if they may develop intelligence. One might think that a capacity for advanced problem-solving requires an ability to step back on reflect on what one's been doing up to that point.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I think that is a fascinating question, and one to which we are never going to get a definitive answer. My feeling is that you are probably right but given that different species can evolve similar features because of their utility - c.f Ichthyosaurs, Sharks and Dolphins - it's not impossible that, millions of years after the end of the Trump Presidency, the descendants of the great apes may find themselves arguing about anomalies in the fossil record which hint that they were not the first dwellers on the earth to become self-aware.
Not impossible, but highly improbable. It presupposes that our level of intelligence and self-awareness is necessary or even good.
Convergent evolution happens because there is an obvious niche to exploit. Our existence doesn't fit that criteria. We are a fluke, not a need.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's impossible to say when humans became capable of self-reflection.
I'm inclined to associate with language, although there it depends on what one means by 'language'. Language as used by humans has more dimensions than even quite sophisticated systems of signalling.
Though one could argue that signalling methods are limited by purpose and that creatures without a spoken language might well develop a less limited system.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
This made me wonder if the difference between human beings and animals is that human beings are born with far fewer instincts and a much greater capacity to learn. Human babies are born into an enormous variety of environments--New York city, Tibet, among the Australian aborigines, Appalachia, among the Inuit, etc. Chimpanzees, however, are born into a very limited variety of environments and for them instincts are much more useful than a capacity to learn.
The historian of Islam, Patricia Crone, pretty much takes that view in her book 'Pre-Industrial Societies". IMO, she makes a pretty good case.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I imagine everywhere in the universe you get bipedalism, binocular vision, opposable thumbs, FOX2P gene analogues and vocal tracts, all inevitable stuff where jungle meets savannah, you get sapience.
Ol' Shatner and Spock did seem to be in the habit of bumping into American speaking bipeds no matter where they went in the universe ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
As for Dafyd's point about us developing robots that could become so advanced that they are indeed almost an exact copy of us. The thing is Androids can never be us, something Gene Roddenberry also explored quite well in several of his episodes.
I often wonder how his low budget, not expected to do well, series ascended to cult status. Invariably the conclusion I reach is that nothing freaks us humans out more than the thought of being entirely alone in the universe.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Not impossible, but highly improbable. It presupposes that our level of intelligence and self-awareness is necessary or even good.
Convergent evolution happens because there is an obvious niche to exploit. Our existence doesn't fit that criteria. We are a fluke, not a need.
The point of any adaptation is that it facilitates the survival of the organism and the passing on of its genes to the next generation. Human Sapience ticks those boxes pretty well, at the moment and might tick the same boxes for another species in millions of years time. Of course, neither of us is going to be here to say "I told you so!" one way or the other.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Might, it there is no pressing need. Though that is not quite the right way to phrase it. Dolphins, sharks and mosasaurs all fit a similar niche that something would have evolved to fill. I don't think the same thing can be said of ourselves. That we did evolve demonstrates the possibility, not the probability.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
It's not completely impossible to understand the increasing complexity of humans self awareness, but you'll need some genetics. "Forkhead Box p2" and a few other genes are required to understand grammar to the point that something like "you wait here and I will scare the deer toward you so you can spear one" is possible. The evolutionary timeline is 200,000 years before present, or maybe twice that, 400K. Before them humans would have looked like humans but wouldn't have had complex language. Though I expect they would be self aware.
The Mirror Test is worth looking at. It appears that other primates, a bird, elephants and some cetaceans are self aware.
[ 01. October 2016, 18:30: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Actually, I've seen film of lionesses doing something very like quote:
"you wait here and I will scare the deer toward you so you can spear one"
only, of course, spears were not involved, and it was zebras.
And I've done "You go this way, and I'll go that way, and we'll scare that Siamese out of the garden" in silence and successfully with my sister's cat and going opposite ways round the fruit cage.
I don't think that needs language.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
As for Dafyd's point about us developing robots that could become so advanced that they are indeed almost an exact copy of us. The thing is Androids can never be us, something Gene Roddenberry also explored quite well in several of his episodes.
I remember some episodes in which Kirk manages to get super-intelligent artificial intelligences to self-destruct by feeding them logical paradoxes, but I'm not sure that tells us anything about whether self-aware androids are possible.
My point is that I don't see that being artificially constructed as opposed to biologically evolved makes any relevant difference to whether something can be self-aware / self-reflective / whatever your preferred term.
If biological life can evolve to the point where it becomes self-aware (or God implants a rational soul in it), then artifical life can be constructed to that point too.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Might, it there is no pressing need. Though that is not quite the right way to phrase it. Dolphins, sharks and mosasaurs all fit a similar niche that something would have evolved to fill. I don't think the same thing can be said of ourselves. That we did evolve demonstrates the possibility, not the probability.
But those animals could only have developed once chordates had evolved. Once chordates evolved you could have sharks, ichthyosaurs and dolphins. But no ammonite or arthropod could have taken on the job.
You can only have sapient life once animals have got to a certain level of intelligence which happened, in evolutionary terms, comparatively recently. You can't have a troodon or ornithlestes inhabiting the evolutionary niche of chimps or humans because the necessary brain capacity simply is not there.
Had things turned out differently, you might have had another species of 'Homo' taking our gig but nothing else before then. In this instance what's past is not prologue. Once a new form of life evolves it's uniqueness may denote a flash in the pan or it may denote a new direction for evolution.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Also, I read somewhere that the Roman Catholic Church believes that somewhere along human evolution, God supernaturally implanted a soul into Homo Sapiens, Sapiens, thus, making him or her self-aware and able to be accountable for their actions.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The Mirror Test is worth looking at. It appears that other primates, a bird, elephants and some cetaceans are self aware.
Self-awareness is a prerequisite for accountability, but there is more that is required, namely our ability to form judgments about our own behavior and to modify our behavior accordingly, which makes humans more than just self-aware animals.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
All of which always produces the convoluted juxtaposition of human evolution against the evolution associated with the natural world.
For example if we were arrive at another planet and influence the development of life there, would that all be part of evolution in the Cosmos. Or would it be better described as part of God's Plan even by an atheist?
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Sound and light in air convey more information than in water. Gotta be a factor. Although the ability to signal and camouflage optically is remarkably enhanced in water.
The genetics of intelligence is going to get us in to all sorts of trouble. With humans and non-humans both.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
It looks like there were several human species which had self awareness. (Hu)Mankind and its relatives. The list includes several others in addition to Neadertals (Denosovans, Florensins, Heidlbergans and a couple of others). Which had a soul?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What doesn't?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The Mirror Test is worth looking at. It appears that other primates, a bird, elephants and some cetaceans are self aware.
Quite a few times, we have seen dolphins surfing together and sometimes with humans, just for the enjoyment of it. A beautiful sight.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The Mirror Test is worth looking at. It appears that other primates, a bird, elephants and some cetaceans are self aware.
Figures the one self-aware bird is a corvid. Crows will take over our spot in the evolutionary playoff brackets should we succumb and they survive.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
This may be a bit of a tangent, but the ancient peoples of this land arrived about 60,000 years or so ago - before modern man reached Europe by some margin. As best we can make out, their culture remained little changed from then until Europeans arrived and started occupation in 1788. Rock paintings and carvings from their earliest days fit into those of much more recent times, and consistent with what we know of their teachings. Other evidence is that their way of life as hunter-gatherers did not alter either. Their tools remain those they had with them when they arrived.
How old, by comparison, is our Judaeo-Christian culture? I'd hazard a guess making a fair bit of allowance for oral transmission in the earliest days and say 5,000 years Perhaps if we make it 6,000, we go back to 4004 BC - the year to which Abp Ussher dated the Creation (from memory he dated it to 28 Sept, with preliminaries commencing at 3 pm 27 Sept). And what a change since then!
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Gee D.
quote:
How old, by comparison, is our Judaeo-Christian culture? I'd hazard a guess making a fair bit of allowance for oral transmission in the earliest days and say 5,000 years Perhaps if we make it 6,000, we go back to 4004 BC - the year to which Abp Ussher dated the Creation (from memory he dated it to 28 Sept, with preliminaries commencing at 3 pm 27 Sept). And what a change since then!
The trail of evidence runs out at the Merenptah Stele, which dates back to around 1200 BC. Anything before that is guesswork.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Gee D.
quote:
How old, by comparison, is our Judaeo-Christian culture? I'd hazard a guess making a fair bit of allowance for oral transmission in the earliest days and say 5,000 years Perhaps if we make it 6,000, we go back to 4004 BC - the year to which Abp Ussher dated the Creation (from memory he dated it to 28 Sept, with preliminaries commencing at 3 pm 27 Sept). And what a change since then!
The trail of evidence runs out at the Merenptah Stele, which dates back to around 1200 BC. Anything before that is guesswork.
I was trying to be as generous as I could. The answer can only be that by comparison with the indigenous peoples here, the tradition is very short.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
