Thread: When did humans become "Human"? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030529
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
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?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
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.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
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.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
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.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
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.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
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.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
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.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
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.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
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".
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
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.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
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.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
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.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
Neaderthal burials, although controversial, show the 'cusp' of spirituality through ritual behaviour and regard for the dead.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
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.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
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...
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
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.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
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.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
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.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
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.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
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?
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
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 ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Yeah but Martin, surely something more than 'rain' has allowed us to communicate on these devices, split the atom, build skyscrapers and so on.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
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.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
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.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
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.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
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.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
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.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
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.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
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.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
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.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
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... ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
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.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
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.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
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.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
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.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
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?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
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.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
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?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
What doesn't?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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!
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
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.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
At some point in human evolution, and with our present knowledge we couldn't say when, humans developed enough imagination to stand outside themselves. A predatory species with a conscience formed from being able to feel the pain of the prey. Then every action becomes a moral choice. That's when we became human, because other predatory species have no such constraints on their natural behaviour. I believe that this is the meaning of the Fall. It isn't a fall from a previous perfection, but a failure to live up to the perfection we instinctively know. Thus we have moral codes and laws which attempt to bind the chaos of our instincts into the order of our reason. That's humanity and the battle rages on!
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
At some point in human evolution, and with our present knowledge we couldn't say when, humans developed enough imagination to stand outside themselves. A predatory species with a conscience formed from being able to feel the pain of the prey. Then every action becomes a moral choice. That's when we became human, because other predatory species have no such constraints on their natural behaviour. I believe that this is the meaning of the Fall. It isn't a fall from a previous perfection, but a failure to live up to the perfection we instinctively know. Thus we have moral codes and laws which attempt to bind the chaos of our instincts into the order of our reason. That's humanity and the battle rages on!
I agree 100%
We don't know when it happened, but it's clear that it did.
Did God give us this new form of instinct?
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Did God give us this new form of instinct?
Well this is the divide between people of faith and none. As believers, we would think so, but atheists could argue that it just happened along with the evolution of eyes or wings.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Things don't just happen; they are selected by the environment. Or if you like, information from the environment enters into a particular organism.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Maybe this is what happen to us, our brains grew, took in information from our environment and it made is afraid.
Afraid and aware of our own mortality to such a great extent that we became compelled to try and control everything.
The higher animals are, by contrast inquisitive, intelligent and even feeling. But no species, despite all the ability of evolution, has ever 'become' more, or developed beyond themselves in the way humans have. This makes humanity either a freak or a miracle, and I suppose that all depends on which side of the coin we study.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
quote:
I believe that this is the meaning of the Fall. It isn't a fall from a previous perfection, but a failure to live up to the perfection we instinctively know.
It has struck me before that the myth of the Garden of Eden sits ok with an evolutionary way of thinking about our origins. The eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil represents for me the moment this thread is all about, on our way from blue-green algae to modern humanity.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
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?
This can never happen. Ever. The distances are materially insurmountable. Even for communication. Nobody has discovered our biogenic oxygen in the past billion years and signalled us in the past thousand or so. It's obviously economically impossible, despite the galaxy teeming with sapience.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
At some point in human evolution, and with our present knowledge we couldn't say when, humans developed enough imagination to stand outside themselves. A predatory species with a conscience formed from being able to feel the pain of the prey. Then every action becomes a moral choice. That's when we became human, because other predatory species have no such constraints on their natural behaviour. I believe that this is the meaning of the Fall. It isn't a fall from a previous perfection, but a failure to live up to the perfection we instinctively know. Thus we have moral codes and laws which attempt to bind the chaos of our instincts into the order of our reason. That's humanity and the battle rages on!
I like it ... but. I like it because emotional intelligence, compassion, makes us better predators: what would I do if I were my prey, my competitor? But ... we don't know about any real perfection instinctively: there is no such thing. Certainly not 200,000 years ago. We feel conflicted. That's the human condition. No fall. No failure.
BUT ... I'm a sinner for sure. I fail morally, no problem. I am failing to reach let alone grasp. In caring for my 86 year old mother. In being a male with a pulse encountering quite savage pulses of lust and THEN realising I'm not reacting to my thinking quickly enough. I'm appalled at myself. Both the acute, which one can 'repent' of and the chronic which ... one can't. THAT'S human ...
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
At some point in human evolution, and with our present knowledge we couldn't say when, humans developed enough imagination to stand outside themselves. A predatory species with a conscience formed from being able to feel the pain of the prey. Then every action becomes a moral choice. That's when we became human, because other predatory species have no such constraints on their natural behaviour. I believe that this is the meaning of the Fall. It isn't a fall from a previous perfection, but a failure to live up to the perfection we instinctively know. Thus we have moral codes and laws which attempt to bind the chaos of our instincts into the order of our reason. That's humanity and the battle rages on!
This strikes me as a fantasy created by people who aren't part of the natural environment. Predation/hunting isn't the dominant form of food gathering for hunter-gatherer societies. It is in the few hunter-gather societies left in the world, e.g., northern Canada, but mostly it was gather-hunter societies. It is far less risky to gather than hunt. Fishing is better than hunting re risk. Even with hunting, the usual response to a successful hunt is to give thanks and make an offering to the "brother/sister animal" which gave its life for us. Not a feeling the pain of prey. Rather an understanding of the place of themselves and the animals killed and eaten in the chain of beingness.
The real move out of Eden is into farms and herder/ranches, where only certain species of animals and plants are valued. Now we're in a situation where humans are at the top of the hierarchy with the natural world subordinate, and disaster with crops or animal disease can spell disaster.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
British TV has an interesting programme next week, on BBC2. It's called 'lost tribes of humanity' and seems to look at different human species. 12 October, 9pm.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
The eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil represents for me the moment this thread is all about, on our way from blue-green algae to modern humanity.
Quite, and certainly the Spiritual equivalent of the moment at which our angst seemed to kick in.
Watched a prog recently about a human built structure buried by sand that pre-dated the pyramids by quite a long way. I think it was considered to be the earliest known temple, all tied up with early obsession over death, ancestors, immortality etc.
Interesting also because it appeared to pre date agriculture. Agriculture being the thing previously assumed to have driven humans to build permanent structures.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
That's fifteen thousand years ago at least, where is it?
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Interesting about the change from gathering/hunting to farming - because I have seen it argued that the farming developed from the women's gathering of crop species bringing the seeds to the current home base, so that there grew up little patches of grain where it fell, or, presumably, other plants from the midden. Which would make women responsible for the move to farming, and thus from the freer life of hunting to the slog of farming. And thus Eve.
Not that the gathering part of the the previous life wasn't a slog. (No, not the fishing, but the chipping limpets off the rocks, and the digging up pignuts, and other allied activities.)
(I gather that the men in societies still living on this scheme come back from the hunt and relax while the women prepare the meals, and don't do much else between hunts.)
[ 06. October 2016, 15:03: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
There isn't just one society. The two main indigenous groups where I live are Cree and Dené. The languages are as different from each other as English and Chinese. The cultures are widely different as well.
The other point is that hunting and gathering isn't that time consuming in many situations. The density of animals and fish where in the marginal climate where I live is enough, even with the best habitat converted to farms, forestry, mines, that it might take half a day on a bad day to get enough food together. I can imagine in nice environments the effort isn't very great, until the farmers had exterminated animals and plants they didn't value, and set about exterminating each other. It's an interesting thing to come upon a fish camp in late summer, where they are smoking hundred of fish. Or in the fall, about now, when they go off for a week as a community to shoot a couple of dozen elk for the winter. Yes, they are using modern equipment but even so.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
You are only talking about the animal protein, and the large animal protein at that, and not the grains, roots, berries, shellfish and so on, which are time consuming, as is the processing of the arisings, such as grinding, pounding, producing pemmican and suchlike for storing, making plant foods such as manioc edible, turning animal skins into clothing, turning anything into clothing. I saw a photo in Norway of the cod being dried on the cliffs above a fishing village. A field full of the stuff, which had to be taken in every night and then put out again in the morning. By the wife.
I think one study found that in an African h/g group, 20 percent of the food came from the hunt, and 80 from the gathering, and the men had the spare time, while the women didn't.
[ 06. October 2016, 17:12: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Having found the reference with the 20/80 split, I also find that the women in this group (the San) could sometimes collect enough for a week in a couple of days. OTOH, they weren't doing a lot of the other activities I mentioned.
I also found that among the Inuit, it was the men who got eat more vegetable matter, since they ate the stomachs of prey, deliberately to get the stuff.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
And the women of the nearby G'Wi (sp?) had to spend time prepping food after the gathering - boiling up and hammering the stones of fruit to extract the kernels, for example.
Mind you, there's an awful lot of waffle on the subject, and repetition, and copying. And rubbish Powerpoint presentations IN CAPITAL LETTERS.
I've given up.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
http://www.megalithomania.co.uk/michaelarticle.html
Managed a link here which might be a zany one.
The place I was thinking of is Gobekli Tepe in Turkey, which is in fact 11,000 years old.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Good man. Wow. Knocks the Rollrights in to a cocked hat and they awe me every time.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
The working of gold from our very earliest beginnings looked interesting. It could be that humans became humans when they developed a taste for bling.
No change there then.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
The working of gold from our very earliest beginnings looked interesting. It could be that humans became humans when they developed a taste for bling.
No change there then.
I like that. It's a hip-hop version of history.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Interesting. Especially the selection of dolerite.
Not sure about all the astronomy, though. That the alignments refer to a particular date in the past.
He uses the difference in the north/south alignment as being related to the precession of the equinoxes. The problem with that is that north has always been north. The axis has always been the same. What changes with precession is where the axis points in the sky. Magnetic north moves about, but I can't think of a way in which it could be tracked back as far as he does. The magnetic field is based on a fluid system.
It's very impressive that there were early structures which were related to the calendar. It is a pity to load far more on that than it can reasonably bear.
It would be much more interesting to find out what the environment was like at the suggested times of occupation, what the flora was like during the glaciation of the north, for instance.
I'd like to see more about Rameses IIs visit to the south and so on - but the dates of that would not be so far in the high past as some of that article suggests.
People in the UK make claims about certain structures being on the same meridian when they are provably not. There are also claims about Stonehenge being aligned with the diagonal of the Great Pyramid. I think it would be quite difficult to have structures on the same meridian all the way up Africa. Survey techniques must have been superb.
The nice thing about gold is that you can do so much with it easily. You don't need to anneal it or melt it or anything like that if you find it native. You can bash it into shape, pull it into shape, hammer it thin, twist it, and it never argues with you as other metals do. Let alone it staying shiny whatever.
Why was it abandoned?
Has anyone done analysis of Egyptian artefacts to find the source of their gold? Should be possible.
[ 07. October 2016, 17:03: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
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.
The notion of humans or a human being "imbued with a soul at a particular point" strikes me as an attempt to reconcile evolution with the idea of a (pre-)historical "Adam." I don't put much stock in the latter and don't see it as essential to the truth of Christianity, personally.
Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
It has struck me before that the myth of the Garden of Eden sits ok with an evolutionary way of thinking about our origins. The eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil represents for me the moment this thread is all about, on our way from blue-green algae to modern humanity.
I have thought for a long time that the Church misinterprets the story of Adam and Eve. Mankind didn't "fall" when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. It was only after they had eaten the fruit that they became self-aware and therefore fully human. Before that they were only proto-humans.
As has been pointed out on this thread, human beings are a mixture of good and evil - evil being what is called sin in theological language. Humanity needs to be redeemed from sin, but sinfulness is inherent in being human - there was never a time when there were human beings who were without sin until Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. Before then "Adam" and "Eve" were not homo sapiens.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Mind officially blown.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
"Adam" and "Eve" were not homo sapiens.
Wow!
Yes - good point!
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
http://www.megalithomania.co.uk/michaelarticle.html
Managed a link here which might be a zany one.
The place I was thinking of is Gobekli Tepe in Turkey, which is in fact 11,000 years old.
The link is total bollocks.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Non-bollocks Gobekli Tepe link.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I never subscribe. Wiki is minimally OK.
It's easy to imagine pre-agrarian Neolithics with time and resources on their hands doing this. 20 ton stones are impressive. But it's amazing what a gang of guys can do with ground stone axes, earth ramps, logs and rope.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The link is total bollocks.
Did say I wasn't great with links.
However let's remember when archaeologists delve further back than the hieroglyphics, and recorded activity of Ancient Egyptian civilisation, then we are getting into the realms of speculation. So not surprisingly nut theories will tumble out of the closet.
I think there could be something here that sheds new light on the development of advanced societies like the Egyptians who, it has generally been believed, sprung up in splendid isolation and happened on incredible advances purely off it's own wits.
If transpires our ancestors were indeed playing around with gold thousands of years earlier, then it is this thinking that suddenly becomes the bollocks.
As a footnote, my parents generation thought the idea of the Dinosaurs being killed off by a 4km wide meteorite was also a nut theory.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
There is NO scientific basis whatsoever for the CLAIMS, made by a self-publicising provincial pharmacist, in the link. That Neolithics noticed gold in their campfires isn't significant. When we discover that upper and middle and even lower Paleolithics did won't be either. Of course ancient Egypt didn't arise from grunting naked berry pickers.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I never subscribe. Wiki is minimally OK.
Lol. My first reaction was ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
but then I twigged. I run a script blocker on my browser, so I was able to read the article I linked without seeing the subscription threat.
Apologies to those who clicked.
rolyn,
Gobekli Tepe is an impressive site and is pushing back certain timelines, but the site you linked is a load of high grade fertiliser.
[ 09. October 2016, 00:07: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re Eden, hunter-gatherers, fellow creatures, etc.:
The novel "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn, has an interesting take on it.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
rolyn,
Gobekli Tepe is an impressive site and is pushing back certain timelines, but the site you linked is a load of high grade fertiliser.
OK forgetting for a moment that my link was likely a 'Chariots of the Gods' type load of sh1t.
Are any of us prepared to accept theories that human technology, in terms of architecture and the smelting of precious metals goes back much much further than was previously thought? I.e. Ancient Egypt.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
rolyn,
Gobekli Tepe is an impressive site and is pushing back certain timelines, but the site you linked is a load of high grade fertiliser.
OK forgetting for a moment that my link was likely a 'Chariots of the Gods' type load of sh1t.
Are any of us prepared to accept theories that human technology, in terms of architecture and the smelting of precious metals goes back much much further than was previously thought? I.e. Ancient Egypt.
Egypt didn't invent everything. Smelting. Stone architecture.
Archaeologists are discovering new things all the time which push boundaries further back. And some of them do, and likely will continue, to alter older ideas.
But wild supposition without evidence is just that.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
rolyn--
I don't know what happened, but I'm willing to consider it. Partly because I like to play with ideas. Also because we keep finding that our assumptions and even our learned evaluations are wrong.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Combining this thread and the US presidency one, I am not entirely convinced that the entire human race has made it into being human.
Inventing trousers doesn't make you human if you think what they enclose is the most important part of the anatomy.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
rolyn,
Gobekli Tepe is an impressive site and is pushing back certain timelines, but the site you linked is a load of high grade fertiliser.
OK forgetting for a moment that my link was likely a 'Chariots of the Gods' type load of sh1t.
Are any of us prepared to accept theories that human technology, in terms of architecture and the smelting of precious metals goes back much much further than was previously thought? I.e. Ancient Egypt.
What theories? Lead was useless, tin nearly so, copper much more useful. No evidence. None at all. That its use precedes 8000 years ago. So no bronze. For hundreds of thousands of years we did nowt.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
The TV programme coming up on BBC2, is going to say that there were several human species. I think a new one has just been added, homo naledi.
Apart from that, the Neanderthals, the Denisovans, and not forgetting the hobbits.
I also recall the Heidelbergensis, Rudolgensis, Habilis, and Erectus.
Well, it reminds me of that joke, God was inordinately fond of beetles.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I don't know what happened, but I'm willing to consider it. Partly because I like to play with ideas. Also because we keep finding that our assumptions and even our learned evaluations are wrong.
I count myself as similar and enjoy, (if that is the right word), having our pre-conceptions challenged.
Here in this Country it was long assumed ancient Britons were just hairy dimwits hauling large lumps of rough stone about while Egyptian Civilisation was knocking spots off us.
Whilst the level of sophistication may have been different it is now thought our level intellect may not have been likewise lacking.
Further to theories re. very early human activity, I am thinking that if things were going on before the Ice Age, then who is to say evidence proving humans were doing rather more than diddly squit wasn't erased.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
What pre-conceptions do you think you have that are relevant?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Err, I personally don't have any.
Just talking generally. Like everyone had the commonly held preconception that the Earth was flat and the Sun moved until irrefutable evidence said different. And like I said above, until quite recently it was thought ancient Britons were near savages tamed by the Romans. New evidence has cast much doubt on that simplistic analysis.
No harm in thinking outside the box with regards to the origin of our intellect. It seems to me we have, for many Centuries, been subjected to a somewhat patronising view of our ancestors and their capabilities.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
We all got 'em rolyn. And I'm not aware of that view this century and much of the last.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
rolyn,
Gobekli Tepe is an impressive site and is pushing back certain timelines, but the site you linked is a load of high grade fertiliser.
OK forgetting for a moment that my link was likely a 'Chariots of the Gods' type load of sh1t.
Are any of us prepared to accept theories that human technology, in terms of architecture and the smelting of precious metals goes back much much further than was previously thought? I.e. Ancient Egypt.
What theories? Lead was useless, tin nearly so, copper much more useful. No evidence. None at all. That its use precedes 8000 years ago. So no bronze. For hundreds of thousands of years we did nowt.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
rolyn,
Gobekli Tepe is an impressive site and is pushing back certain timelines, but the site you linked is a load of high grade fertiliser.
OK forgetting for a moment that my link was likely a 'Chariots of the Gods' type load of sh1t.
Are any of us prepared to accept theories that human technology, in terms of architecture and the smelting of precious metals goes back much much further than was previously thought? I.e. Ancient Egypt.
What theories? Lead was useless, tin nearly so, copper much more useful. No evidence. None at all. That its use precedes 8000 years ago. So no bronze. For hundreds of thousands of years we did nowt.
? he asked disingenuously.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
? he asked disingenuously.
That wouldn't be you trying to spill over conflicts from elsewhere into Purgatory, would it? I sincerely hope not, because you are in grave danger of attracting adminly attention once again.
/hosting
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
No Sir. I was trying to semaphore the common man response to an empty quote of myself, i.e. an unspoken 'Why have you done this?' and then the spoken 'he asked disingenuously' of myself meaning that I know full well why I was quoted without comment, with a tacit 'We did nothing for two hundred thousand years because we weren't there, because we've only been here 6020.'.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
Then pray be that explicit next time. Semaphore is about as useful in communicating on here as your raised eyebrows when you read a post.
/hosting
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Watched the lost tribes of humanity programme last night, quite interesting and plausible. An 80 thousand year old human tooth preserved as if it fell out yesterday, incredible.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0