- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Sep. 10 2011,00:44) Stu, Great links!
I think that my response may have been more strong than I intended it to be. You don't have to have all the answers. I certainly don't claim to have them.
I did want to clarify one thing though.
I have said all along that I am aware of animals using tools. The critical distinction for me is going from making a simple tool – what I would call a first generation tool – and expanding on that tool to make something more complex. Both links refer to behaviors that appear to me like first generation tools. They may get passed down within specific groups, but they don't appear to ever be used as the foundation for new, more advanced tools. That's where I think that humans are unique.
I don't think the orangutan tool kit qualifies as just a first-generation tool. That is obviously the result of a developmental process with cultural involvement.We don't know that the dolphins have not changed the species of sponge used to improve the tool, and we don't know about their language development in their cultural context: language is as much technology as anything. The same could be said for orangutans too, I think. Orangutan language is fairly sophisticated, although mainly non-verbal. As with dolphins the technological development is dependent on anatomy. Dolphins don't have hands and orangutans don't have the right vocal apparatus (I understand) to manipulate tools or words in the way humans do, but to think of them as not developing in the same way as humans would be a very speciesist position to take. We can't really know yet what technology dolphins and orangutans have; it cannot be just assumed that because they don't have houses or Wi-Fi that they have not gone through the same kind of advancement as us.
The tools we see used are perfectly good for the job. Is there an advantage to dolphins in developing a chemical industry, or finding a way to tap rubber trees that are not accessible to them anatomically and making natural rubber substitutes for the sponges? No, I don't think they can be criticised by comparison for not doing that. It is smarter that they would not try such a trick. It is better for their ecology that the don't do that. In human terms, they are essentially nomadic and when humans were nomadic there were no chemical industries to speak of either. Dolphins have not had an equivalent of our agricultural revolution, and why would they need it, or its consequent developments like the industrial revolution?
Is it a matter of survival or good ecological practice that humans have iPods? No, they are really quite wasteful, and probably like peacocks' tails in that they are a product of sexual selection, or more likely a byproduct of selection for musical sense, which I would guess is probably sexually selected.
The same kind of things that have happened to humans have happened to other relatively intelligent species, it is just that we are in no position to come to conclusions about those developments yet. At every turn researchers are astonished at just how human-like are aspects of dolphin and orangutan behaviour, and yet what basis would we even have to judge their cultural development on human terms? Why should we not judge human cultural achievements in terms of dolphin culture? We might be found wanting in many other areas that are not related to artifacts like the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.
Stuart
I really didn't expect this discussion to go this far, but as long as you are not annoyed by it…
Stu wrote:
Quote I don't think the orangutan tool kit qualifies as just a first-generation tool. That is obviously the result of a developmental process with cultural involvement. This may be a semantic issue. By “first generation”, I simply mean that there is only one developmental layer to the tool. For example, “using sticks to poke into tree holes to obtain insects” does not require a precursor tool to be established before you can create it.
However, I would agree with you that language development certainly is not a “first generation” phenomenon. I guess that I need to investigate that aspect of various animal cultures to get a better handle on how sophisticated they are.
Quote Dolphins don't have hands and orangutans don't have the right vocal apparatus (I understand) to manipulate tools or words in the way humans do, but to think of them as not developing in the same way as humans would be a very speciesist position to take. I am an admitted “speciesist”. That is one of the underlying points of my original post on this subject.
Quote Is there an advantage to dolphins in developing a chemical industry, or finding a way to tap rubber trees that are not accessible to them anatomically and making natural rubber substitutes for the sponges? No, I don't think they can be criticised by comparison for not doing that. I certainly am not criticizing dolphins for failing to have an industrial revolution. (As to whether or not they should have gone through a bronze age by now … .
) But is it really likely that there are no tools more sophisticated than the use of the sponge that might help them survive better? I find the prospect implausible.Quote Is it a matter of survival or good ecological practice that humans have iPods? No, they are really quite wasteful, and probably like peacocks' tails in that they are a product of sexual selection, or more likely a byproduct of selection for musical sense, which I would guess is probably sexually selected. I wouldn't be so quick to judge iPods as “wasteful”. While for many people they may in fact serve no greater purpose than mindless distraction, they undoubtedly can serve a critical need in terms of individual productivity. Someone in the music industry may use it as part of his daily activities, (e.g. to review music, to study music, etc.). Or, it may be used for educational purposes, (e.g. recorded lectures, political discussions, etc.). The “wastefulness” of any given item is really a very individual question.
But more generically, human cultural development has certainly not been an exercise in creating new peacock feathers. As stated in the Holy Wikipedia:
Quote The genetics of humans and rate of aging were no different in preindustrial societies than today, but people frequently died young because of untreatable diseases, accidents, and malnutrition. Many women did not survive childbirth, and when a person did reach old age they were likely to succumb quickly to health problems. Most of our tool making has been used to make our lives better. The fact that you and I can have this discussion – literally from opposite sides of the earth – is a testament to the fact that we both have enough leisure time to engage in such discussions, rather than working in fields all day long or foraging for food during every waking hour, and that technology has made it easier to “see” beyond your local community. What we do with that extra time can certainly be “wasteful” if we choose, but it can also be time spent doing things to benefit those around us and the planet in general – things like science, art, and educating our young.
Quote The same kind of things that have happened to humans have happened to other relatively intelligent species, it is just that we are in no position to come to conclusions about those developments yet. I guess that I am simply just jumping to the conclusion that we won't find that much no matter how long we look, but I could certainly be wrong about that. It wouldn't be the first time.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Sep. 07 2011,01:48) That human beings are a unique species on this planet is not a radical observation, but trying to put that observation in context is extremely difficult. If you have a prefabricated worldview, (e.g. Christian, Muslim, etc.), the story is already written for you, but if you are skeptic – if you have the audacity to ask questions and not simply make tradition or peer pressure your guide – then you have a genuine mystery on your hands. Here is my take. Human beings are the only species on the planet to making lasting advances from one generation to the next. The way that we interact with each other and the environment around us is different today than it was even a decade ago. It was different a decade ago than it was a century ago, and it was different a century ago than it was a millennium ago. Human society itself seems to have a life of its own that grows and changes with time, getting more advanced and more mature as we go.
For example, we can mark the different periods of time by studying the specific culture of that time, (e.g. the “roman thinking” that you referred to is but one example). By contrast, we don't speak of different periods of cow culture, or dolphin culture. As a species, their behaviors may change over time as the environment around them changes, but there doesn't appear to be any “society wide” changes in animals. It is as if there is no social memory. They may fashion tools or find a unique way of obtaining food, but the following generation does not build on those finds to create something even greater. They simply retain the behaviors, or they don't.
To me, this is what sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. We create. We advance. We remember.
Likely due to my background being raised as a Christian, I see spiritual implications in this. I see a consciousness that goes beyond the individual that connects our species as a whole. You might think of this transcendent consciousness as God. However, (as I am sure Stu will point out), it can just as easily be called something else, and be entirely explainable as a physical phenomenon. Personally, I believe that there is more to life than just the physical, but that's my opinion and certainly not an indisputable fact.
Welcome to the wonderful world of mystery. It's a frightening and beautiful place.
Though I often see things differently to the way you do WIT, I cannot help but admire the way you communicate your ideas.WIT
Quote I really didn't expect this discussion to go this far, but as long as you are not annoyed by it…
I’ve attempted discussions with Ed, so you’ll be fine with me for hours yet.Quote This may be a semantic issue. By “first generation”, I simply mean that there is only one developmental layer to the tool. For example, “using sticks to poke into tree holes to obtain insects” does not require a precursor tool to be established before you can create it.
That is not what I claimed. I wrote that the orangutan tool KIT is obviously cultural in its development.Quote However, I would agree with you that language development certainly is not a “first generation” phenomenon. I guess that I need to investigate that aspect of various animal cultures to get a better handle on how sophisticated they are.
I think the next question is how you treat language as a cultural artifact. I only clicked to language as technology just recently.Quote I certainly am not criticizing dolphins for failing to have an industrial revolution. (As to whether or not they should have gone through a bronze age by now … . ) But is it really likely that there are no tools more sophisticated than the use of the sponge that might help them survive better? I find the prospect implausible.
I guess to make the point convincing then it is up to you to invent ways that dolphins might develop things that dolphins would appreciate culturally in the same way humans do apparently.Maybe this demands a fight against the speciesist position, to have a go at putting yourself in the shoes (snout sponges?) of dolphins. I have to say that this is something I find christians unable (or unwilling) to do even in regards to other members of their own species, but perhaps with you there is considerably much more hope!
Quote I wouldn't be so quick to judge iPods as “wasteful”. While for many people they may in fact serve no greater purpose than mindless distraction, they undoubtedly can serve a critical need in terms of individual productivity. Someone in the music industry may use it as part of his daily activities, (e.g. to review music, to study music, etc.). Or, it may be used for educational purposes, (e.g. recorded lectures, political discussions, etc.). The “wastefulness” of any given item is really a very individual question.
Indeed, and I would not be without my mp3 player, but music has existed without them for tens of thousands of years. They are not a necessity for survival or reproduction, their status in human terms is as a byproduct of other genetic factors that do have direct survival and reproductive value.Quote Most of our tool making has been used to make our lives better. The fact that you and I can have this discussion – literally from opposite sides of the earth – is a testament to the fact that we both have enough leisure time to engage in such discussions, rather than working in fields all day long or foraging for food during every waking hour, and that technology has made it easier to “see” beyond your local community. What we do with that extra time can certainly be “wasteful” if we choose, but it can also be time spent doing things to benefit those around us and the planet in general – things like science, art, and educating our young. I think dolphin snout sponge technology has probably made life significantly better for those dolphins that use it. Fewer dolphins will succumb to infections where microbes have entered a cut in the snout.
I guess that I am simply just jumping to the conclusion that we won't find that much no matter how long we look, but I could certainly be wrong about that. It wouldn't be the first time.
So you already attempt to put yourself metaphorically in the dolphin’s snout sponge. How many more of our fellow humans (fellow christians??) could we encourage to try the same?More to the point I would like to see those cutting down Indonesian forests for oil palm plantations to see things from the orangutan’s cultural point of view (not to mention all the other species they are brutalising). Maybe if they could see it in terms of the orangutans coming into town and setting fire to their mosques they might see.
Stuart
Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 11 2011,09:34)
Though I often see things differently to the way you do WIT, I cannot help but admire the way you communicate your ideas.
Thanks! I am obviously swimming in the deep end of the pool here – I could easily go under at any minute – so I am glad that someone actually appreciates the effort.By the way, I always loved debating you, because I knew that you would give me a real challenge. Great debate memories!
Stu,
I am running out of ammo here, but I did want to clarify two things.
First, you screwed up the quotes in your last post. You were the one who wrote:
Quote I think dolphin snout sponge technology has probably made life significantly better for those dolphins that use it. Fewer dolphins will succumb to infections where microbes have entered a cut in the snout. But, because that last quote got screwed up, it made it look like I said it. Ironically, you then complemented me for saying it!
In any case, I agree with the statement. I just want to make sure that you get credit for saying it.
Second, I don't think that I am disputing your evidence so much as I am drawing different conclusions.
For example, you say:
Quote More to the point I would like to see those cutting down Indonesian forests for oil palm plantations to see things from the orangutan’s cultural point of view (not to mention all the other species they are brutalising). Maybe if they could see it in terms of the orangutans coming into town and setting fire to their mosques they might see. Again, I am an admitted “speciesist”. Going back to my original post, my general point is that the loss of some portion of human culture is significant because of how deep, integrated, and consequential it is. By contrast, while it is still a tragedy, I don't see the loss of orangutan culture on the same level. I would like to see human culture coexist with animal culture as much as possible, but if it comes down to an either/or situation, I don't hesitate to value human culture above all others.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Sep. 13 2011,01:17) Stu, I am running out of ammo here, but I did want to clarify two things.
First, you screwed up the quotes in your last post. You were the one who wrote:
Quote I think dolphin snout sponge technology has probably made life significantly better for those dolphins that use it. Fewer dolphins will succumb to infections where microbes have entered a cut in the snout. But, because that last quote got screwed up, it made it look like I said it. Ironically, you then complemented me for saying it!
In any case, I agree with the statement. I just want to make sure that you get credit for saying it.
Second, I don't think that I am disputing your evidence so much as I am drawing different conclusions.
For example, you say:
Quote More to the point I would like to see those cutting down Indonesian forests for oil palm plantations to see things from the orangutan’s cultural point of view (not to mention all the other species they are brutalising). Maybe if they could see it in terms of the orangutans coming into town and setting fire to their mosques they might see. Again, I am an admitted “speciesist”. Going back to my original post, my general point is that the loss of some portion of human culture is significant because of how deep, integrated, and consequential it is. By contrast, while it is still a tragedy, I don't see the loss of orangutan culture on the same level. I would like to see human culture coexist with animal culture as much as possible, but if it comes down to an either/or situation, I don't hesitate to value human culture above all others.
I would quite happily put other cultures underneath the one I enjoy; I feel that it is a matter of informed consent and careful judgment that Saudi Arabian Wahhabist culture and the sub-culture of fundamentalist christianity are lesser things that liberal Western culture with its respect for human rights.I do not know nearly enough about orangutan culture to make that same kind of judgment in that case. My suspicion is that I would find much to admire. I already do, actually.
I am inclined to agree, at least to some extent, with those who campaign for human rights to be applied to the other great apes. That means I would have to consider you a kind of racist. I hasten to add that the same term could be applied to me in regards to my apparent cultural imperialist attitude stated above. I think evidence would make the difference though; the evidence is that Saudis deprive many of their own people of rights we enjoy, for apparently arbitrary reasons. Fundies abuse their children by limiting their access to their friends and the media. Do we know enough about orangutans to make the same call?
Stuart
Quote I think the next question is how you treat language as a cultural artifact. I only clicked to language as technology just recently. Monogenesis? Evolution?!
Jumping ahead in time to the 19th century, we come to a time when social sciences went askew. Overzealous and Eurocentric (I'm using euphemisms here), scholars held that writing was invented only once in Mesopotamia, and all subsequent writing systems were offshoot of this original. They claim that Chinese and Indus writing were evolved from Middle Eastern prototypes, and they completely treated Maya not as a writing system but as a purely calendrical and mnemonic system.
Worse is the fact that they started to abuse Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. They separate writing systems into functional types, which is still valid and scientific. However, they assigned “evolved-ness” to each group, with alphabet being the most evolved, and inherently the best system. Logographic systems like Chinese are considered primitive, archaic, and much inferior, and syllabic systems fall somewhere in between. Their rationale is that alphabets have a small number of signs (easy on your memory) and allow the writer to specify every phonetic value in the language down to the most minute detail.
The biggest problem with the monogenesis of writing system and its subsequence diffusion is obviously that of culturally tinted views. It easily placed Europe as the pinnacle of civilization, relegated the rest of the world to the “primitive” and “unevolved” nature of all other continents of the world, and helped to justify Europe's imperialistic age.
This theory started to break down when the evidence for the indigenous origin of Chinese became very strong with the discovery of the oracle bones and the lack of any earlier text in the vast space between the Iranian plateau and the Yellow River. Another blow was the decipherment of Maya hieroglyphs which revealed a writing system just as sophisticated as anyone found in the Old World. The stage is set for a modern view of how writing came about.
Quote (princess @ Sep. 13 2011,20:20) Quote I think the next question is how you treat language as a cultural artifact. I only clicked to language as technology just recently. Monogenesis? Evolution?!
Jumping ahead in time to the 19th century, we come to a time when social sciences went askew. Overzealous and Eurocentric (I'm using euphemisms here), scholars held that writing was invented only once in Mesopotamia, and all subsequent writing systems were offshoot of this original. They claim that Chinese and Indus writing were evolved from Middle Eastern prototypes, and they completely treated Maya not as a writing system but as a purely calendrical and mnemonic system.
Worse is the fact that they started to abuse Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. They separate writing systems into functional types, which is still valid and scientific. However, they assigned “evolved-ness” to each group, with alphabet being the most evolved, and inherently the best system. Logographic systems like Chinese are considered primitive, archaic, and much inferior, and syllabic systems fall somewhere in between. Their rationale is that alphabets have a small number of signs (easy on your memory) and allow the writer to specify every phonetic value in the language down to the most minute detail.
The biggest problem with the monogenesis of writing system and its subsequence diffusion is obviously that of culturally tinted views. It easily placed Europe as the pinnacle of civilization, relegated the rest of the world to the “primitive” and “unevolved” nature of all other continents of the world, and helped to justify Europe's imperialistic age.
This theory started to break down when the evidence for the indigenous origin of Chinese became very strong with the discovery of the oracle bones and the lack of any earlier text in the vast space between the Iranian plateau and the Yellow River. Another blow was the decipherment of Maya hieroglyphs which revealed a writing system just as sophisticated as anyone found in the Old World. The stage is set for a modern view of how writing came about.
Indeed, and of course it is not just written language that is technology.Pertinent points princess.
Stuart
Prince,
I know this may sound a bit strange, I have a question. Is it true that the human brain has grown three time its size since man had been discovered. For this to be the case, would that not deter the evolution theory, due to evolutionist state that it takes millions of years for such to happen. Just curious to hear your say on the matter.
Quote (princess @ Sep. 16 2011,12:52) Prince, I know this may sound a bit strange, I have a question. Is it true that the human brain has grown three time its size since man had been discovered. For this to be the case, would that not deter the evolution theory, due to evolutionist state that it takes millions of years for such to happen. Just curious to hear your say on the matter.
It did take millions of years for the expansion of the human brain, although there was at least one shorter burst of expansion lasting only tens of thousands of years.http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/capsules/histoire_bleu04.html
Don't see how that disproves any aspect of evolution by natural selection.
What is an “evolutionist”? Can I call you an “atomist” because you accept the reality of the the existence of atoms (if you do)?
That term “atomist” existed in the 19th Century because it was not a settled thing that atoms existed, but it would be laughable to hear it used in the 21st Century.
Why would you use the term “evolutionist” when evolution by natural selection is a completely settled thing now? How very Victorian of you!
Stuart
Prince,
Thank you for taking the time and giving reference. So no established conclusion is known why the brian tripled in size, there are a few theories I see for why this happened, what is your take on the matter and is there any other species that is known to do the same.
Quote (princess @ Sep. 17 2011,07:35) Prince, Thank you for taking the time and giving reference. So no established conclusion is known why the brian tripled in size, there are a few theories I see for why this happened, what is your take on the matter and is there any other species that is known to do the same.
No, it is known why: humans walked upright and began to use their hands, for example, which favoured those with bigger brains with their better processing power. This homunculus shows how the body would look if the sizes of each part corresponded to the amount of cortex dedicated to it:
It is the relative importance of the different factors that led to that change which could be debated. The one I find particularly interesting is the role of fats available from having fish in the diet.
By the way, over the past 28,000 years the human brain has been shrinking.
Stuart
Interesting data Prince, even the pic is understandable tis not a pretty sight. I have always found hands to be interesting, they can give insight to a person before one even begins to know them.
I do believe you missed my question of 'has any other species gone through this change'? For instance the Pongidaes of modern times.
This is off topic however, I have been meaning to ask, 'rise of the planet of the apes' is coming out in theaters in my area, have you heard or seen of this yet. I do not know if the sceintific mind as yourself, enjoys such things.
Quote (princess @ Sep. 18 2011,00:51) Interesting data Prince, even the pic is understandable tis not a pretty sight. I have always found hands to be interesting, they can give insight to a person before one even begins to know them. I do believe you missed my question of 'has any other species gone through this change'? For instance the Pongidaes of modern times.
This is off topic however, I have been meaning to ask, 'rise of the planet of the apes' is coming out in theaters in my area, have you heard or seen of this yet. I do not know if the sceintific mind as yourself, enjoys such things.
I remember the original Planet of the Apes on TV. I don't have a particular interest in either.I don't know about any species that has gone though a rapid increase in brain capacity, although I'm sure there are many examples of other changes as rapid as that.
Was it the brain aspect or the rapidity aspect that interested you?
Stuart
A bit of both Prince, a bigger brain does not produce a higher intellect, studies have shown with ones born without a brain still have functional IQs. I can see somewhat of diet being involved, however with such rapid growth it seems that it does not fit into evolution, considering the time constraints. Not to mention the skeletal system making the adjustment right along with it. I know of some culture that modify the cranium, however I have not seen a study where this increases or decreases intelligence, as far as I know they do this because of their god.
Not to leave out that the womans change for the birth canal would need to make an adjustment for such. So even though it did happen, how does the body know to make the adjustments with it.
The studies on animals, in a controlled setting show some proof of domestication, however, would tribal living bring such a dramatic effect, when it is well documented that humanity has been tribal from the beginning. The ideology theory does have some use.
However, then we cannot dismiss the appendix, wisdom teeth to use as an opposite.
A bigger brain does not guarantee a higher intellect but a smaller brain limits the owner to a smaller intellect. I think you have quite a bit to learn about evolution by natural selection regarding how these changes occur.
The body “knows” nothing. Women are just born with a pelvis that is either big enough to pass a child's head, or not. Those that do not have a large enough birth canal do not have children. The genes for a “big enough birth canal” are the only ones passed on.
Domestication is artificial selection, which is very efficient if all breeders have the same goals in mind. Natural selection does not have any mind with which to think of goals. Domestication and breeding are mainly products of the agricultural revolution; dogs date from perhaps slightly earlier than that at 15,000 years ago.
You never hear explanations for the appendix from anti-evolutionists. The religious ones must be content with the apparent fact that their creator planted a time-bomb inside all our abdomens.
Almost sounds like islam!
Stuart
The appendix is having somewhat of a comeback, with holding the good bacterias needed, nothing solid yet. However, does change Darwins view on the matter.
Your body may not know things, mine however does. Please remember some of us have come out of the primate stage and have accepted being a human to its full extent. I like being human, the only thing that I would change if I could, I would like a set of wings. What about you Prince, what would you change?
Quote (princess @ Sep. 25 2011,08:48) The appendix is having somewhat of a comeback, with holding the good bacterias needed, nothing solid yet. However, does change Darwins view on the matter. Your body may not know things, mine however does. Please remember some of us have come out of the primate stage and have accepted being a human to its full extent. I like being human, the only thing that I would change if I could, I would like a set of wings. What about you Prince, what would you change?
I'm not saying I would change anything necessarily, but there is much that the engineers should change, if the biochemists were up to it.Although not affecting me yet, it would be worthwhile rethinking the male urethra passing straight through the prostate gland that is so liable to enlargement. You mention the appendix, and of course it is the cause of death of people who contract peritonitis from it, although those who have it removed suffer no measurable ill effects for the rest of life. It is suspected to have a role in the immune system in the very young. But why does it not then shrivel and disappear in childhood, leaving no long-lasting threat to the adult, instead remaining as a time bomb?
I guess it is because there is no sexual selection component to it and it has not had a major enough effect on survival and reproduction overall. I don't know what a creationist would say. They mostly say we don't yet know all of what it does (and so therefore according to them you can't call it vestigial, but that is wrong because the function of the caecum in ancestor species was to hold bacteria specifically for digesting cellulose, which is a different function from immune activity). I imagine some creationists might claim it is an organ that can be easily made to cause its owner some pain before an untimely death, as an easy means of smiting. Idiots. Anyway.
There are many more examples of course. The human back, the vagus nerve, the pelvis as you mentioned, and the larynx which has the windpipe set low so we can speak, but gives us a greater risk of choking. If there is a creator it is a sloppy engineer that settles for poor compromises.
Why would you want wings if you like being human? Wouldn't that be a wish to be a bird? Or a bat?
Stuart
Prince,
What is creative is that we can foresee what problems we can have in life and do the best we can to deter this, this is one thing that I think educators are missing with teaching children, this however has in no way deterred me in teaching mine.
Perhaps the body still senses that the appendix is needed in some way, perhaps it holds onto the famine gene, just in case we do need to digest cellulose, if Darwin is correct about the matter, however nothing is solid.You are such a negative on matters, necessity breeds invention. I am most assured if a primate sees another primate choking, they do not preform the Heimlich maneuver.
Why the wings, I am terrible with traffic, would eliminate adding pollutants to the air, and would make a great accessory to any outfit. The reason for not choosing birds or bats is most likely do to their personal habits, even though winged creatures are a favorite of mine, they do not have the best manners in some areas, and guano is not my top ten perfumes.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
