Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   We Evolved Pretty Quickly
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 31 of 46 (47965)
07-30-2003 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by zephyr
07-29-2003 1:02 PM


Re: we are very Rare Creatures
My feeling, from things I have read and behaviours I have
seen (in documentaries -- unfortunately I don't get out
the serengetti nearly as much as I'd like ) I would
consider some degree of consciouness necesarry for social
animals -- not necessarily hive/insect type societies -- but
who knows?
In another response I asked about how one can measure consciousness,
any ideas?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by zephyr, posted 07-29-2003 1:02 PM zephyr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Wounded King, posted 07-30-2003 4:55 AM Peter has replied
 Message 33 by Parasomnium, posted 07-30-2003 5:02 AM Peter has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 32 of 46 (47977)
07-30-2003 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Peter
07-30-2003 4:06 AM


Psychologists and behavioural researchers have certain criteria related to what we consider consciousness. One of the is the development of a 'theory of mind' and there are some experimental methods which are supposed to allow the identification of individuals with a 'theory of mind'. I don't know what the various experimental procedures involved however, or how generally applicable they are, mostly this work is done with primates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Peter, posted 07-30-2003 4:06 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Peter, posted 07-30-2003 5:57 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 33 of 46 (47979)
07-30-2003 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Peter
07-30-2003 4:06 AM


Re: we are very Rare Creatures
Peter,
It's my mistake that I used the term 'our type of consciousness'. I really should have said 'our degree of consciousness'. You see, I agree with you on the idea that consciousness is probably a matter of degree. (Probably anything evolved is a matter of degree.)
'How consciousness is measured' needs a bit more elaboration, I think. What exactly about consciousness is it that we would like to measure? The degree of self-consciousness? The extend to which an animal is able to project himself into a future scenario? Or into someone else's shoes?
Questions, questions...
You mentioned "social animals -- not necessarily hive/insect type societies --"
What about the 'consciousness' of an insect society as a whole? You probably know that termites build nests with airconditioning. The individual termites are too simple to contain the concept, but all of them together they must be a pretty smart colony, to accomplish this astonishing feat. You may have heard of Douglas Hofstadter's fantasy about a conversation with an ant hill. Well, I'm thinking that it isn't such a wild eyed idea at all.
Cheers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Peter, posted 07-30-2003 4:06 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Peter, posted 07-30-2003 5:56 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 34 of 46 (47982)
07-30-2003 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Parasomnium
07-30-2003 5:02 AM


Re: we are very Rare Creatures
quote:
'How consciousness is measured' needs a bit more elaboration, I think. What exactly about consciousness is it that we would like to measure? The degree of self-consciousness?
The extend to which an animal is able to project himself into a future scenario?
Or into someone else's shoes?
That's why I asked.
Are those things above indicators of consciousness?
What IS consciuosness?
quote:
You mentioned "social animals -- not necessarily hive/insect type societies --"
What about the 'consciousness' of an insect society as a whole?
I have no problem with that as a concept -- I was simply alluding to
the proposition that complex behaviour can emerge from the
interaction of multiple agents following simple rules.
This is less likely to be a factor of, say, lionesses/wolves
hunting in groups.
It largely depends on what consciousness is considered to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Parasomnium, posted 07-30-2003 5:02 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 35 of 46 (47983)
07-30-2003 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Wounded King
07-30-2003 4:55 AM


Thanks, I'll search around.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Wounded King, posted 07-30-2003 4:55 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 36 of 46 (48061)
07-30-2003 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Quetzal
07-30-2003 3:22 AM


Re: Short Aside
I understand your intent was to correct crashfrog, but I question the figures. Could you provide a reference?
My reference was an NG article. I found a very similar article here. My statement was off by a little.
It's only certain that we were in South America 12,000 years ago. That article and this one from Home: NOAA Ocean Exploration both seem to lean towards believing we were in South America 30,000 years ago. 60,000 years is mentioned as believed by unnamed somebodies.
I think I was only off with "it's certain we had them there 20,000 years ago."
If someone else wants to discuss it in a new thread, that's great, as I'm interested, but I have now exhausted the extent of my knowledge on the subject. :-)
I don't want to retract my point, though, because I understand 200,000 years is the typically understood time that Homo Sapiens have been in existence and 120,000 or so is a minimum (one of our scientists may want to correct me on that point, but I'm pretty sure I'm not off by too much). It's just a technical point, but it seems worth remembering to me that our "civilized" days are only about 5% of our species' history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Quetzal, posted 07-30-2003 3:22 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Quetzal, posted 07-31-2003 4:51 AM truthlover has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 37 of 46 (48136)
07-31-2003 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by truthlover
07-30-2003 3:26 PM


Re: Short Aside
Ah, thanks TL. I thought that's what you might be talking about. I won't sidetrack this thread with a detailed discussion - although if anyone is interested we can move it to a new topic. Suffice that the earliest confirmed dates of human presence in the Americas is less than 15,000 years ago (with some pre-Clovis sites still under investigation). The oldest (disputed) site in South America is Monte Verde, Chile, at 12,500 years ago. The "50,000" year old site at Pedra Furada in Brazil has been heavily disputed ever since Meneses Lage first dated her "firepit" at 30,000 years. Most recently, plasma extraction dating of the calcite veneer over one of the "36,000-43,000 year old" cave paintings shows a quite recent - and consistent - date of around 1200-3700 years. The "unamed scientists" your reference reported are proponents of the "ancient" Pedra Furada dates. There's a small group of them, led by Meneses Lage and Bahn who are trying to portray the controversy as a "North America vs the rest of the world" scientific neoimperialism. Funny that they ignore the French scientists like Renault-Miskovsky of the Laboratoire de Prhistoire du Muse National d'Histoire Naturelle who report a quite uncontroversial date of 7000-8500 years (she dated fossilized human excrement from the site - whatever works. )).
As to the rest, I wouldn't expect you to retract. Your "200,000" year old "modern human" is pretty close to the 170-250 ky figures I've seen. Your correction of crash was on-target. Also, I agree with your assessment on "civilization" representing only a tiny fraction of our history - assuming you mean civlization to indicate "social organization larger than family group or clan".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by truthlover, posted 07-30-2003 3:26 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by truthlover, posted 07-31-2003 5:43 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 38 of 46 (48238)
07-31-2003 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Quetzal
07-31-2003 4:51 AM


Re: Short Aside
Thanks for the info. I really don't think we're that off topic, anyway, because when we were building villages has to do with our evolution and the speed of it.
I looked up civilization on dictionary.com before I used it, lol. I don't remember the exact definition, but it was close enough to "living in cities," that is what I used.
One of these days I'm going to sit down and read a good book on pre-village life among humans--i.e., before we were building permanent or semi-permanent dwellings, maybe the 200kya-100kya range, and see what anthropologists think we were like.
Or I guess I could wait for BBC to put out "Walking with Prehistoric Men," LOL. Oh, I guess I better not laugh. Maybe they already put that out, and I didn't notice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Quetzal, posted 07-31-2003 4:51 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by John, posted 07-31-2003 8:44 PM truthlover has not replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 39 of 46 (48244)
07-31-2003 6:37 PM


consciousness ok I think Humans are the only ones that Know that they are them.(if that makes sense)
1.Humans know that they are Human
2.Humans are aware they are all different.
3.Humans care about being different and showing others they are better many say that around the time Jewelry and other things where made Humans became Human. I saw an interesting thing on this where they showed ancient tools and Jewelry. they showed a tool with a fossil of a shell on it the Person that made it cared that shell was there! to me that is level of consciousness in it own right
4. Humans care to Know. the world is more to them then just a place that you struggle to survive(even when they had to)

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 46 (48261)
07-31-2003 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by truthlover
07-31-2003 5:43 PM


Re: Short Aside
quote:
One of these days I'm going to sit down and read a good book on pre-village life among humans--i.e., before we were building permanent or semi-permanent dwellings, maybe the 200kya-100kya range, and see what anthropologists think we were like.
That is going to be tough. Before we were making semi-permanent dwellings we weren't leaving a lot behind that can be used to infer social structure and lifestyle. Your best bet, in my opinion, would be to study non-human primate social structure.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by truthlover, posted 07-31-2003 5:43 PM truthlover has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by DC85, posted 07-31-2003 11:08 PM John has replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 41 of 46 (48266)
07-31-2003 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by John
07-31-2003 8:44 PM


Re: Short Aside
we where thought to be like African tribes non-permanent hunters and Gathers. I recommend an interesting show on the science channel I think it was called Ice world it explained prehistoric Humans very well. and not boring to watch real actors in it. it was about the Ice Age in Europe this also explains the argument creationist use about population since People where very rare at that time. its about 3 People that Travel all across Europe(on foot ) to find People the will except them. its VERY good

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by John, posted 07-31-2003 8:44 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by John, posted 08-06-2003 10:18 AM DC85 has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 46 (48916)
08-06-2003 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by DC85
07-31-2003 11:08 PM


Re: Short Aside
quote:
we where thought to be like African tribes non-permanent hunters and Gathers.
Obviously we were hunter/gatherers. What else was there? Farming would show up on the map. Hell, all animals pretty much hunt or gather. So you've said, effectively, nothing.
It is wrong to lump all of Africa into "African tribes." The social and economic variations between those hundreds of tribes is enormous.
quote:
I recommend an interesting show on the science channel I think it was called Ice world it explained prehistoric Humans very well.
Did it? And what makes you think they didn't completely boff it up?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by DC85, posted 07-31-2003 11:08 PM DC85 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by truthlover, posted 08-10-2003 9:32 AM John has not replied
 Message 44 by Wounded King, posted 08-11-2003 6:19 AM John has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 43 of 46 (49716)
08-10-2003 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by John
08-06-2003 10:18 AM


Re: Short Aside
Obviously we were hunter/gatherers. What else was there? Farming would show up on the map. Hell, all animals pretty much hunt or gather. So you've said, effectively, nothing.
Definitely true that hunter/gatherer was an easy assumption.
You were irritated with DC85's reply?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by John, posted 08-06-2003 10:18 AM John has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 44 of 46 (49891)
08-11-2003 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by John
08-06-2003 10:18 AM


Surely animals that hunt and animals that gather are behaviouraly distinct both from each other and from animals that both hunt and gather?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by John, posted 08-06-2003 10:18 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Quetzal, posted 08-11-2003 7:11 AM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 46 by John, posted 08-11-2003 11:39 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 45 of 46 (49893)
08-11-2003 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Wounded King
08-11-2003 6:19 AM


Yep. They're called omnivores, or more disparagingly "opportunistic feeders" or even "nutritional generalists" (don't ya love jargon?). However, be cautious in making sharp distinctions: other than obligate carnivore/herbivores, most of the generalists are spread out along a continuum from supplementing mostly-fruit-and-vegetation with insects or small animals to supplementing mostly-meat with occasional fruits and vegies. Generic behaviors will be contingent upon where the particular species falls within the range.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Wounded King, posted 08-11-2003 6:19 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024