I suggest Jared Diamonds “The Third Chimpanzee”.
To the extent we are unique, it’s because we outcompeted/exterminated our nearest rivals. We are the only hominids left.
As for “intricate”; AI & robotics researchers have been struggling for decades to create even poor imitations of simple animals. And the more we look at biology, the more complicated it gets. It’s quite clear that evolution is VERY good at creating complexity. Hundred of millions of years of billions of trial-and-error experiments is quite enough to explain our “intricacy”.
And we are also seriously flawed in any number of ways; inefficiently designed with a variety of defects and limitations that any intelligence capable of creating us in the first place could easily have fixed. As a derivation of evolution we are impressive; as the creation of an intelligent mind we are sloppy. If we HAD been created, I’d expect we’d be quite a bit better made.
Highly discouraged - Bryson in general has his moments as a writer but this book is notorious for having a lot of its explanations not pass muster or be declared hopelessly inaccurate by scientists. Whenever it is brought up on the Dope, the real science types chime in to trash it…sorry.
Jared Diamond is a great scientist and writer - Guns, Germs and Steel is great. I haven’t read The Third Chimpanzee but heard good things.
**Stauderhouse **- you getting insights from posts so far??
Jesus made people human. Before that, before the ark, they were pretty apelike
Yes, actually. Your earlier post especially made a lot of sense. Rather than developing extraordinary physical abilities (such as the speed and agility of a cheetah or the echolocation abilities of bats), humans developed an extraordinary set of mental abilities since that was what best suited them to their environment, yes? It makes much more sense when I think about it that way.
[nitpick]They keep changing the definition of “hominid”, so that’s not correct according to the current definition. But yes, we are the only remaining members of genus Homo.[/nitpick]
I’ve noticed that the more I learn about biology, the more I realize that evolution works more quickly than I had previously assumed. Our ancestors branched off from other hominins millions of years ago, and they were already pretty complex back then. A lot has happened since.
I haven’t read “The Third Chimpanzee” yet, but I’ve read some of Jared Diamond’s other work, and I agree that he’s very good. I’ve found “Guns, Germs, and Steel” and “Collapse” (well, the first half so far)to be both illuminating and very readable.
After a certain point we were developing our mental abilities because we had the luxury of doing so. The ability to create or appreciate a painting may carry some small reproductive benefit, but it seems to have come about mostly as a side benefit of other useful traits (color vision, opposable thumbs, the ability to recognize patterns) and because our early ancestors eventually got good enough at basic survival that they had spare time to devote to other things.
Very true. It would be hard to write or appreciate a symphony if your main purpose in life is to try and stay alive.
“Pretty apelike” creatures who built buildings, tools, weapons, empires, and wrote philosophy ? :rolleyes:
Jesus didn’t contribute anything to humanity but beginning Christianity, which was hardly some great step forward ( more of a a step back, and one we haven’t recovered from IMHO ). It certainly didn’t change people from subhumans to humans. And the Ark was both fictional, and supposed to have been well before Jesus and had nothing to do with him anyway.
I would guess that the real turning point in Human history was the first halfway complex language, once you can pass along knowledge you greatly accelerate the rate that new knowledge is acquired and passed along.
look at if this way, General Relativity is some really complex stuff, at the time there were very very few people who could even begin to grasp the concepts…now they teach it in high school.
Cool - and yes.
I kinda agree with this - but feel it is more of a chicken-vs.-egg dilemma. We know that other species have problem-solving skills, emotional responses, etc. - it is just that humans have these attributes to a much greater degree since our brains have developed gigantically as we have achieved food-chain superiority, just like Dinosaurs and other species got Big at the Top. But that level of gigantism - not just physically big brains, but the human ability to formulate and grasp gigantically complex concepts that make us, per the OP, “human” - well sure, it is a byproduct of superior mental capabilities - but I would argue that the ability to do things like create art, appreciate art, etc. - these function as focussing tools - they provide uses that enable a human or organize and make sense of a subtle, nuanced set of mental components.
I would argue that success in this ability is part of what kept our brains growing - as we achieved greater brain size, these more human, abstract applications of our brainpower have provided the foundation to support the increased growth. Please note that I am NOT a scientist about this stuff - it just seems to make practical sense and is in line with much of the reading I have done in this area.
**Stauderhorse **- there is an interesting book I am reading right now called The Moral Animal, by Robert Wright. It argues for the field of Evolutionary Psychology - applying the Darwinian theory behind different psychological behaviors perceived in humans. Reading it makes some seemingly-complex human situations much more common-sensical when you view it from the basis of doing what propogates the gene pool. I find myself both more impressed with our species and more aware of how little separates us from other species and how our behaviors have their roots in our biochemical and species-driven processes…
The trouble is that a lot of the qualities that we call “human” are really qualities that we share with other primates, mammals, and animals.
We can recognize a fellow creature in a dog, or a child, or a developmentally disabled adult. They might not be able to understand quadratic equations, or maybe even speak, but we can understand them. So language and math and art are not what gives us our humanity. Our “humanity” is really animality. A person with the mind of an animal is still very human.
Now imagine the opposite. An entity that can understand quadratic equations but not human emotions. Such an entity would be monstrous. It wouldn’t be human at all.
All our “higher” qualities that humans have in a degree that no other animals have are not what makes us human. Without our animal qualities we are not human.
The other thing is, our brains and senses usually don’t work the way we think they do. It’s very easy to expose the limits of human cognition and perception, when we encounter conditions that were rare in our evolutionary history. Our senses aren’t a transparent window on reality, they are a “good enough” compromise. Our brains don’t understand things independently, they are machines for solving particular types of problems.
So it shouldn’t be suprising that human brains can’t really understand quantum mechanics, because our brains didn’t evolve to understand quantum mechanics. They evolved to help us find food, take care of our offspring, and negotiate social dynamics on the african savanna.
Note to self: get a guitar.
Note to The Tao’s Revenge: In 35 years, all it’s gotten me is a handful of guys saying “Dude! Nice axe!”
I disagree, kind-of. Improved sexual attraction may have been a nice side effect that aided the development of music and art among humans, but I don’t think that’s the whole story.
Art and especially music are part of brain development as a whole. The brain developed for several reasons, including the ability to survive harsh environments and, more importantly, the ability to thrive within a group. In fact, if I remember correctly, the development of social intelligence was a large factor in increasing the size of the human brain. Music is found in every human culture in the world, among both males and females, and it is believed to be even more rudimentary than language. It is not a coincidence that music is an essential part of many social gatherings. To survive harsh environments, predators, sickness, etc., and to thrive in social groups, pattern recognition and processing is essential, and music and art are manifestations of that development.
“Survival of the fittest” doesn’t just mean being sexually attractive and therefore reproducing. Sure, it all boils down to reproduction, but there is so much more to it than that. The ability to thrive in a group is at least as important as the act of reproduction itself, because without the group you are less likely to reproduce (less contact with potential mates) and more likely to die in harsh environments.
Sorry, I’m rambling and don’t have time to make this more coherent, so I hope it makes sense.
I guess my response to him is whether he understands how intricate a common muscle cell is. Every day, we’re finding out more about the incredibly complex chemical pathways, ways that genes control the cell and are controlled by conditions inside of and outside of the cell, and the ways that large complex chemicals carry out tasks.
Or does he appreciate how intricate a mouse’s (or any other mammal’s) immune system is? Or the way bats and porpoises can navigate using sound? I mean, think about how an ameoba can, just using chemical reactions inside a single cell, extend itself to surround its prey.
IMHO, human brains are indeed amazingly intricate, but so are many many other examples in other organisms. If evolution can create an ant colony that can sustain complex social structures, why can’t it create a human brain?
True, and I didn’t mean to suggest otherwise.
Well, maybe according to **pbbth’s **original post on the topic, you aren’t enough of a douchebag. ;)
Apparently, that was not a limiting factor for me. :dubious::smack: