Pinnacle Point cave occupied 162,000 years ago

reply to post by Hanslune


Should be no confusion, the bible clearly states the eath has had several ages, inhabited by several different sets of people? Science and the Bible continue to grow closer in alignment.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Hanslune

 

are we talking human, or hominid?

Human. That's "human" in the scientific sense, which encompasses the Neanderthals, Hobbits, Erectus, and any other member of the genus "homo."

This is interesting. I am more interested in the psychology and intellectual features of creatures, be they human or not. Finding examples of "art" from any non human, even if a closely related cousin, is very interesting to me.

They're humans. Give 'em a haircut, jewelry, some tattoos, and clothes and they'd look a lot like the rest of us.

Seem to have narrowed the years down a little in this report.

online.wsj.com...

reply to post by JFKDOALOL


Yes they are discussing one aspect - not sure if they are discussing Blombos cave or Pinnacle hwoever as I cannot get past the pay wall. Date of 162,000 is based on occupation not the date of the heat treated tools. (AFAIK)

reply to post by Byrd


I thought H. Erectus was isolated to Asia, with H. Ergaster specific to Africa?

Regardless, the 162K year outside figure is still within H. Sapien bounds.

reply to post by Byrd


I fully believe that. There is this redhead lady on NBC that reports on Today sometimes that I swear looks like a Neandertal descendant.

But the intellect. The mindset. The worldview. How did humans first begin to use abstract thought to a degree that he could use it as a problem solving skill? When was speech first used to convey abstract information? HOw did speech affect this thought skill that we have?

And the whole concept of the bicameral mind....that is, alone, a mindblowing possibility that I would absolutely LOVE to see examples of how it would actually manifest outwardly.

We are fairly highly developed intellectually compared to other animals. I would assume that there would be an evolution of this intellect. It is something that interests me. I enjoy watching people and animals now, just to learn more about those i share this planet with. It is just something I do. It is particuarly fun to observe people on this (or any other) forum.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Howdy Big Furry

That's the key quesiton how long did it take to develop language and especially words for abstract thought? My opinion is that it tooks tens of thousands of years, but once we had that we could 'think', communicate and plan, we dream and think in words, before we had that we just worked from instinct.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan


I fully believe that. There is this redhead lady on NBC that reports on Today sometimes that I swear looks like a Neandertal descendant.

now now..

But the intellect. The mindset. The worldview. How did humans first begin to use abstract thought to a degree that he could use it as a problem solving skill? When was speech first used to convey abstract information? HOw did speech affect this thought skill that we have?

i would say around the time that we evolved a larger brain, we also developed higher abstract thinking to survive, ie: survival was more assured for those who assessed signs of predators or disease, or what was good to eat.
all life seems to have some level of this, we have a very high level that allows us to chain concepts together that other animals can't and this can lead to other things that are unrelated to survival.
chimps and dolphins have a level of abstract thinking closer to us than other animals and can learn things the same way we can after all.
well i would say that just like other animals, we developed it out of instinct, through evolutionary pathways, it was an advantage to have the mutation that allows the larynx to be manipulated in the ways we do. added to the abstract thinking our ancestors had, it would be possible to develop sounds that approximate to states or emotions.
after all we know babies need something, even though they can't say it, more than likely that is how it started, sounds that indicated states of being.

i'm not sure how far science has come with that though.

And the whole concept of the bicameral mind....that is, alone, a mindblowing possibility that I would absolutely LOVE to see examples of how it would actually manifest outwardly.

after reading about this, i don't think people can, i have to wonder how anyone could prove it or what makes people think that there was a point at which the brain just magically stopped working one way and started working another.

We are fairly highly developed intellectually compared to other animals. I would assume that there would be an evolution of this intellect. It is something that interests me. I enjoy watching people and animals now, just to learn more about those i share this planet with. It is just something I do.

It is particuarly fun to observe people on this (or any other) forum.

well yes, our neocortex is the most developed in the animal kingdom, along with other parts of the cerebrum.
our higher brain functions are the result of the evolutionary shift from body to brain, of course there is a downside to this. it made our heads bigger than the pelvis of female humans, hence why childbirth is so painful and dangerous, our heads are huge!
luckily it isn't enough to cause a problem for the human species' survival, since many women despite the size can give birth without dying, so they can raise their children.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
My dog, if i point at something, stares at the end of my finger. This is concrete thought. Something that serves most animals well.

I agree, however, an infant will respond in the same way as your dog. We are taught that pointing is a director.

Learned behaviour, and the ability to teach, is what distinguishes us, and has ensured our survival. It is what has led to our ability to adapt to different environments and survive change.

Until we started to use fire to cook our food, fire was enough to keep the vast majority of predators away. We learnt to overcome our own fear of fire (or perhaps given our primordial fascination with fire, it was those that weren't afraid that survived to pass on their genes) and everything, really, flows from there. As soon as we learnt to make fire from scratch as a simple transferable skill, we were able to be much, much more mobile, before that, fire was a rare commodity that needed to be guarded once obtained.

It is also worth noting, that in terms of size, our brains have not changed in 150,000 years, which to me precludes the rationale that we suddenly found ourselves with loads of leisure time to engage in 'thinking' and 'creating'. In many ways I think that that is just imprinting our own lifestyles on paleolithic man. Plus you will find that, given the nature of our brains, that the brain really kicks into brilliance when basic needs are not being met. That is when creativity comes to the fore. It is not the case now, but once, necessity was the mother of all invention.

Originally posted by Byrd
They're humans. Give 'em a haircut, jewelry, some tattoos, and clothes and they'd look a lot like the rest of us.

In the case of Neaderthals though, they did possibly sound a little different. I understand that some evidence now supports to belief that they may have had a hyoid bone, but the assumption still seems to be that their ability to vocalise complex sounds was somewhat lacking. The ability to enuciate fricatives and plosives may have been enough to put them on a back foot when competition between hominids became a factor don't you think? Or even made them less successful in communicating ideas and inventions across generations.

Originally posted by demongoat
well yes, our neocortex is the most developed in the animal kingdom, along with other parts of the cerebrum.
our higher brain functions are the result of the evolutionary shift from body to brain, of course there is a downside to this. it made our heads bigger than the pelvis of female humans, hence why childbirth is so painful and dangerous, our heads are huge!

It is not just our brain size that makes child birth so very dangerous for us humans, it is our bipedalism. It can, if we are to be highly speculative about it, be argued that our intelligence and large brains may have, in part, developed in order to enable us to overcome this fundamental problem in our development. We got up on two feet about 2 million years ago, the female reproductive system never really caught up with that.

Primates, have a birth canal that is pretty much a straight funnel. They wander off to find a quiet corner and usually give birth alone with no need of support of assistance. Human babies on the other hand need to execute a number of twists, turns and rotation in order to gain exit from the womb. Even the most straight forward of human deliveries requires some assistance.

Originally posted by demongoat
luckily it isn't enough to cause a problem for the human species' survival, since many women despite the size can give birth without dying, so they can raise their children.

Only with assistance. Society and community is integral to safe delivery, both in terms of materal and infant survival rates. The development of midwifery skills, not to mention hygiene factors, should be considered as technologies in our development as AMM in my opinion. Before that, most women and infants would have died during the birthing process in the true nature of survival of the fittest. And it is this perhaps that explains the increasing lack of diversity in hominids and why our ancestory can be traced to only a very small number of successful females, and more specifically to whatever group was formed around Mitochondrial Eve circa 150,000 to 200,000 years ago.

reply to post by Hanslune


Yeah, internal dialogue is a whole 'nuther fascinating subject.

what does the internal dialogue "sound" like for my dog? what would it be like to have no words to think with? If that inside voice that spoke to you was silenced.

RE: the poster who commented on the bicameral mind....it is a compelling concept. That internal dialogue, before we became accustomed to it.....was it God? Would that explain why more antique writings dealt with God and what he instructed, while more contemporary writings deal with true abstract concepts, taking God and replacing him with man. Might the march towards secularism be an artifcat of the march away from bicameralism?

RE: "now, now" response to the neandertal.....she does look like one. She is still kinda cute....but a more pronounced brow, etc.....

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


Art doesn't happen until basic needs are met. While someone trying to survive can be mighty crafty, the concept of Mazlow is that people become crafty without the need for survival being the cause.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


If you are relying on Maslow's hierarchy of needs you must understand the limitations of his study, otherwise, as I previously stated, you are merely supplanting the 'needs' of modernity, and more specifically, urbanisation, on humans for whom those elements were not factors of existence.

Additionally, art for art's sake, is a very different means of expression to 'craft' which while it may be aesthetically or sensorially, pleasurable, fulfills a primarily utilitarian purpose. Beauty, in terms of craft production, seldom occurs without specialisation of some form first occurring within social groups.

As far as we have been able to ascertain, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle afforded far more 'leisure time' than we enjoy which enabled them to develop artisanship, and eventually self-expression. Either way, Maslow's highly limited study, while applicable in a limited sense to 'modern life', makes absolutely no accommodation to those who express themselves by any other means but on the intellectual level, that is, it applies to creative thought processes, not practices.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by kdog1982

 

You basically support Mazlow.

I do, too.

Men who are running from predators, or scrounging for scraps, have no time to look to the heavens and dream.

what do you base that theory on? if they had time to make babies, they had time to dream and make art. most of the mammals we have today have changed little since 132k years ago and they have time to dream, play and so on wouldn't you agree?

reply to post by FraternitasSaturni


So, the earth being 4.5 billions years old, is it safe to assume it's been habitable for maybe 1 billion years? How many advanced civilizations could have come and gone (turned to dust) within this time frame? To think we are the pinnacle civilization that's been on the planet is short sighted IMO.

Originally posted by wrkn4livn
reply to post by FraternitasSaturni

 

So, the earth being 4.5 billions years old, is it safe to assume it's been habitable for maybe 1 billion years? How many advanced civilizations could have come and gone (turned to dust) within this time frame? To think we are the pinnacle civilization that's been on the planet is short sighted IMO.

Its been habitable for a bit longer than that, the problem is a lack of evidence for such non-human civilizations, as for human civilizations again, lack of evidence until the ones we know about - and they have left zillions of artifacts of their existence which will exist until the crust is subducted