Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9045 total)
91 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (6 members, 85 visitors)
Newest Member: Dade
Post Volume: Total: 887,365 Year: 5,011/14,102 Month: 609/707 Week: 7/157 Day: 7/22 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What bothers me about the evolution of Man
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(2)
Message 4 of 142 (642859)
12-02-2011 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by frako
12-02-2011 7:48 AM


You get big brains from societal living: the more individuals in the group the bigger the brain required to maintain all the complex hierarchial interactions.

As the brain becomes more complex it becomes more able to model the future and infer causal relationships.

Once an organism can do this it stops simply reacting to stimulous and starts planing for the future.

My guess is that we develped theory of mind as part of more accurately modelling other individulas possible behaviour.

Anyway, once we model the world in our heads and can infer causality that opens up tool use (and we had hands for climbing) so that gave us a good platform to link future modelling of causality into tool use.

When our primative ancestors saw a phenomena their brains were already primed to ask 'how did that happen and how can use that to my advantage?'.

Of course the causality recognition function of our brain is not perfect and we get plenty of false positives (this can be readily seen in superstion and religion [zing!]).

Hows that?


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by frako, posted 12-02-2011 7:48 AM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by frako, posted 12-02-2011 10:48 AM Larni has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 43 of 142 (643135)
12-05-2011 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Percy
12-02-2011 3:58 PM


Re: Size Matters
I haven't had time to vet my theory in the scientific arena, but I'm sure it's correct.

Makes sense to me.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 12-02-2011 3:58 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 44 of 142 (643136)
12-05-2011 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Tangle
12-04-2011 2:29 PM


Quite a puzzle (or maybe a possible reason why our kind of conscious intelligence is as rare as rocking horse droppings.)

The simple answer is that, yes, it is a disadvantage to have immature big headed kids.

But, but and but, the disadvanted is massively out weighed by the advantage to the child (of having a big brain and neotogeny) if it survives childbirth.

Many children would have died but, if you throw enough shit at a wall, some of it will stick.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Tangle, posted 12-04-2011 2:29 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 67 of 142 (643297)
12-06-2011 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Tangle
12-05-2011 2:24 PM


That's a very narrow definition of intelligence you have, mate.

When it comes to brain power we win but only at what we are good at. Being able to infer causality is not a skill only we have.

And about language being clicks and pings. If they hold meaningful information where is the beef?

Some African language have 'stops'. They sound like clicks to me.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Tangle, posted 12-05-2011 2:24 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Tangle, posted 12-06-2011 4:38 AM Larni has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 69 of 142 (643299)
12-06-2011 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by frako
12-05-2011 5:31 PM


If you are talking about Neanderthals and simmilar none of their brain sizes comes close to us on a scale where a squid is 1 and we are 10 they would be a 6,5 at best. Cant be to sure without an iq test from them

You might be surprised to discover Neanderthals had larger brains than us.

What may have contributed to their decline more than a lack of smarts, was their arm joints not being well suited to throwing. Thus they could not make use of ranged weapons as well as we could.

ABE: ninja'd by jar

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by frako, posted 12-05-2011 5:31 PM frako has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Dr Jack, posted 12-06-2011 8:19 AM Larni has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 70 of 142 (643300)
12-06-2011 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Tangle
12-06-2011 4:38 AM


Are you talking about processing power or skills on an IQ test?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Tangle, posted 12-06-2011 4:38 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Tangle, posted 12-06-2011 11:41 AM Larni has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 73 of 142 (643321)
12-06-2011 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Dr Jack
12-06-2011 8:19 AM


To be pedantic *snip*

No worries, happy to learn something new .

If I was to hazard a guess, I would suggest that the advantage we had over them was entirely down to physical form rather than mental capabilities.

I agree to a large extent: our more rotatable shoulders would let us 'project force' over a much larger area so our 'kill range radius' would be larger.

I also expect our need to deal with the cold more (due to being less robust and cold adapted) would almost certainly been a profound selective pressure.

I do remember reading something abiut humans making more use of jewery and icons than Neanderthals, though.

I suspect that is significant for social interactions and that seems a significant driver of brain size and morphology..


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Dr Jack, posted 12-06-2011 8:19 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 126 of 142 (649771)
01-25-2012 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by zi ko
01-25-2012 12:35 PM


Re: Brain is a functual extension of DNA
Is this yet another idea of yours that you will freely admit you have no evidence for?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by zi ko, posted 01-25-2012 12:35 PM zi ko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by zi ko, posted 01-27-2012 1:26 AM Larni has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 130 of 142 (650009)
01-27-2012 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by zi ko
01-27-2012 1:26 AM


Re: Brain is a functual extension of DNA
Yes it is so bad.

Cultural and social heredity? Only possible via learning.

We all knew that.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by zi ko, posted 01-27-2012 1:26 AM zi ko has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Panda, posted 01-27-2012 4:39 AM Larni has not yet responded
 Message 133 by zi ko, posted 01-27-2012 10:50 AM Larni has not yet responded
 Message 136 by zi ko, posted 01-28-2012 2:16 AM Larni has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 138 of 142 (650140)
01-28-2012 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by zi ko
01-28-2012 2:16 AM


Re: Brain is a functual extension of DNA
New ideas are not bad.

Shit ideas are just that: shit ideas.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by zi ko, posted 01-28-2012 2:16 AM zi ko has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021