The human animal?

[MBuzzy]

Every animal teaches. Wolves teach there puppys how to stalk, how to hunt, and how to kill. Bears teach there cubs much the same, deer do much the same, and so on. The only differnce is that we teach more info, that is arguably less useful.

True, all animals teach, primarily by mimicry. It isn't the fact that they teach that sets us apart, it is the complexity and the ability to retain and pass along that knowledge.

Each generation of lower animals must relearn all behaviors, whereas each generation of humans must learn basic behaviors, but then builds on the more complex things that humans in the past learned, recorded, and passed down.

 

[Makalakumu]

Eh? There are primitive peoples out there who have lived in similar environments and get by.

This, IMHO opinion, vastly undercuts how various "primitive" tribes actually live. As a person who has lived on an native american reservation for a time, I can tell you that even the basest parts of their lives were different from the average ape. People who have studied the native tribes of New Guinia and other places report the same thing. The social and tribal structure is far beyond anything chimps are doing and the technology, even in stone age cultures, is markedly different from most other simian tool usage. Thus, I'll say again, if a human were to live like a chimp, they'd find themselves in big trouble oftly quick. Why? Because we are chimps. We didn't evolve to fill that niche.

All of this doesn't mean that we can kill all of the chimps and live in the forest though...

 

[Blindside]

Not sure who said it, granted i just stole it, with out knowing it.
I think we are. the only time animals kill themselves is as a product of some thing like herd mentality or the like. humans kill themselves, each other (for no reason), destroy there own bodys (through drugs, steroids, tobbaco, and excesses of alcohol), destroy there enviroment for no reaosn, and are in general a little more messed up..

Actually there have been apparent indications of suicide in a number of animals, most of these involve captive reared animals, because thats the only time we get the opportunity to observe it. Alot of this has been remedied by what some zoo keepers call "enrichment" basically letting an animal live in surroundings something like what it was bred for. There are some weird cases of octopusses climbing out of bare aquariums and dying, but if you add some floaty things in the water that they can shelter under, and they don't do that anymore.

Bored captive birds often self-mutilate.

Lots of examples of animals who are apparently depressed who essentially stop eating or drinking, often seen after a loss of a strong bond a mate or in some cases an owner.

I've watched several pets now accellerate their deaths by not eating when they were getting "close," usually about two days before they start looking for that little cubby hole.

See heres the thing, as we have gotten stronger, and stronger, and stronger, Nature has started to wipe us out. We develop something, and God (or Giai, or whoever) starts to smash the coast with a hurricane, or comes up with some new desease to wipe us out. You mentioned our idiotic breeding patterns, well, now we have AIDS... Almost looks like God doesn't like us

No, nature has always wiped us out, we just have CNN to document it a bit better now. And if God/Gaia really wanted to control us, it wouldn't be AIDS, it'd be something like an airborne ebola or highly pathogenic influenza. We had the smallpox for most of our species history, but we finally beat it in the seventies, well, until those weaponized versions get released anyhow.

Lamont

 

[heretic888]

But, what if homo sapien started using language, let's say, 50,000 years ago. Our species didn't really come to any prominence until about 10,000 years ago. How do we reconcile the timeline?

You take an introductory course in developmental psychology.

"Language" is really just an expression of symbolic or representational thinking, what is commonly referred to as pre-operational cognition. Some other species possess this capacity to a limited degree --- such as chimps and porpoises --- but even a three year old's capacity for symbolic thought is more complex than theirs. It was this pre-operational cognition that probably really set our species apart from the others some 50,000 years ago.

It doesn't stop there, though.

After pre-operational thinking, human children develop into what is called concrete-operational cognition. This is the capacity to think in terms of concrete rules and roles that purportedly apply across all situations and phenomena (i.e. object permanency). No other animal on earth possesses this ability, not even to a limited degree. And, this role-rule thinking is really the beginnings of classical "civilization" as we know it ---- the idea of firmly defined social "roles" or "classes", a rigid and absolutist delineation between "right" (good) and "wrong" (evil), the idea of a formalized set of rules or laws that should be conformed to, and so on.

Still doesn't stop there, though.

Formal-operational thinking succeeds concrete-operational cognition, and this is the beginning of what moderns might consider "adult" thinking. This is the notion of formal rationality, to think in third-person perspectives, hypothetico-deductive reasoning, and so on. Its difficult to say when exactly humanity collectively developed this capacity, but it is definitely the basis for much of modern democratic institutions.

Of course, I'd argue humanity is still beginning to collectively develop into various post-formal stages of thinking (generally characterized by contextualism, network-logic, and various sorts of relativism), but that's more futurist speculation than anything else at this point (although it does take place somewhat frequently on an individual level).

But, then again, I prefer a Piagetian scheme.

 

[michaeledward]

You take an introductory course in developmental psychology.

heretic888, I can't even pretend to tell you that I am familiar with and understand all the ideas and concepts you present in this post. I am just a guitar player by trade, and a computer geek by hobby.

But, what you are describing, as near as I can figure, is the result of a rapid and severe evolutionary jump in the size of the human brain. I have been led to understand that a hundred thousand years ago ... give or take a hundred thousand years (or two) ... humans had some sort of random mutation/natural selection for a larger forebrain; somewhere along the line, our species' collective brains, got bigger.

Now, this, as I understand it, is the initial cause of homo sapiens rise to prominence. Without this evolutionary change, we would still be, more or less, a hairless ape.

But, if this did explain our dominance, why were we not dominant for so many tens of thousands of years after the mutation first became ubiquitous (is that the right word?).

upnorthkyosa, says it is language, which developmentally is explained, I think as you outline it. But, isn't there a gap there too? A time between the rise of language, and the rise of homo sapiens dominance?

I do believe our species dominance on the globe today (dominance, or is it infestation?) is contributed to by both our biological development of the brain, which drove the creation of spoken language, and then, a relatively short time ago, the written language. But, I still think it is agriculture that is the primary driver.

Agriculture created settled communities, and specialized roles in our community. It allowed for leisure time which could be used for other pursuits; such as building more clever tools. And, as food supplies could be increased and stored, populations were able to grow.


Of course, my preferred theory is really just the game 'Age of Empires'.

 

[Steel Tiger]

Now, this, as I understand it, is the initial cause of homo sapiens rise to prominence. Without this evolutionary change, we would still be, more or less, a hairless ape.

But, if this did explain our dominance, why were we not dominant for so many tens of thousands of years after the mutation first became ubiquitous (is that the right word?).

Geneticists working in human evolution discovered last year, that there appear to have been two significant phases of mutation associated with the development of the human brain. The first was about 50 - 60 thousand years ago and the second 10 - 12 thousand years ago. They appear to correspond to important cultural developments for the human species and it is generally believed that some cognitive variation occurred that allowed for these developments.

 

[heretic888]

heretic888, I can't even pretend to tell you that I am familiar with and understand all the ideas and concepts you present in this post. I am just a guitar player by trade, and a computer geek by hobby.

But, what you are describing, as near as I can figure, is the result of a rapid and severe evolutionary jump in the size of the human brain. I have been led to understand that a hundred thousand years ago ... give or take a hundred thousand years (or two) ... humans had some sort of random mutation/natural selection for a larger forebrain; somewhere along the line, our species' collective brains, got bigger.

Now, this, as I understand it, is the initial cause of homo sapiens rise to prominence. Without this evolutionary change, we would still be, more or less, a hairless ape.

But, if this did explain our dominance, why were we not dominant for so many tens of thousands of years after the mutation first became ubiquitous (is that the right word?).

upnorthkyosa, says it is language, which developmentally is explained, I think as you outline it. But, isn't there a gap there too? A time between the rise of language, and the rise of homo sapiens dominance?

I do believe our species dominance on the globe today (dominance, or is it infestation?) is contributed to by both our biological development of the brain, which drove the creation of spoken language, and then, a relatively short time ago, the written language. But, I still think it is agriculture that is the primary driver.

Agriculture created settled communities, and specialized roles in our community. It allowed for leisure time which could be used for other pursuits; such as building more clever tools. And, as food supplies could be increased and stored, populations were able to grow.


Of course, my preferred theory is really just the game 'Age of Empires'.

michaeledward,

In all honesty, I was oversimplifying the subject. I was just trying to establish an analogue between individual human ontogeny and collective human phylogeny. And, while I reject the recapitulationist notion that ontogeny rigidly replicates phylogeny, I am much more open to the idea that ontogeny forms the basis for later phylogeny (in fact, this is basic principle behind the so-called "Baldwin Effect", or organic selection).

While this is all largely a reconstructionist speculation we are dealing with here, I personally believe that evolution proceeds through a combination of natural selection, niche selection (including social selection in the case of intelligent populations), and organic selection. So, I wouldn't dump this all on complex brain maturation, but see it as a reciprocal autopoeitic development caused by the interaction of the complex neocortex and the social innovations of agriculture and sedentary lifestyle.

To your point, though, I don't feel that a new neurological structure is necessary to explain these developmental stages. It is not as if an adolescent has a forebrain while an elementary student does not. A more probable scenario, in my opinion, and one that would be more difficult to detect through analysis of ancestral fossil remains is that the cognitive "jumps" we note in both historical and individual development are possibly the product of thicker cortical bundling of already present structures and the strengthening of post-synaptic connections.

Neither of these --- cortical bundling or synaptic plasticity --- would necessarily mean one's brain is getting "bigger".

Again, just some thoughts.

 

[CuongNhuka]

True, all animals teach, primarily by mimicry. It isn't the fact that they teach that sets us apart, it is the complexity and the ability to retain and pass along that knowledge.

Each generation of lower animals must relearn all behaviors, whereas each generation of humans must learn basic behaviors, but then builds on the more complex things that humans in the past learned, recorded, and passed down.

Can you do me a favor. I need you to explain that to my Algebra teacher. And my Geometry teacher. And my other Algebra teahcers. And my basic math teachers... and my Physics teacher, and my Chemistry teacher.... there method of teaching was to give a bunch of expamples. When I say 'I don't learn this way, it confuses me, is there any other way you could teach it to me' I basicly get the cold shoulder.
Are there other ways that humans (atleast) teach, yes. But mimicry seems to be the one favored in some subjects.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Bored captive birds often self-mutilate.

Can you blame them? I more meant in the wild. I don't think too many animals in the wild kill themselves. We have become so based on "Western Civilization" that we are almost made for it, our wild. If we were in a foreign surronding long enough, I image something similar would happen.

 

[tsdclaflin]

We are mammals, we can obviously trace our evolution from traditional animals (no one would argue that an ape is an animal), we have basic survival and breeding instincts...

For fun, I would like to take issue with "obviously". I'm not upset or anything, but I don't believe that there is anything obvious about a theory that teaches that humans came from nothing as a result of a series of happenstances.

In a later post you ask if it is different from a creationist viewpoint. It is and it isn't. Biologically, humans are animals. We are not plants, minerals or elements. But we are obviously different than animals. Someone already noted that we prey on each other. Another post mentions 'moral' capacity.

Not everyone that believes in intelligent design also believes in a personal god, but I do. I believe that God created humans in His own image. Humans have characteristics that no other "animal" has. Complex decision-making ability, morality (distinguish between right and wrong), advanced communication, self-awareness, emotions, etc.

Keep smiling....

 

[MBuzzy]

Can you do me a favor. I need you to explain that to my Algebra teacher. And my Geometry teacher. And my other Algebra teahcers. And my basic math teachers... and my Physics teacher, and my Chemistry teacher.... there method of teaching was to give a bunch of expamples. When I say 'I don't learn this way, it confuses me, is there any other way you could teach it to me' I basicly get the cold shoulder.
Are there other ways that humans (atleast) teach, yes. But mimicry seems to be the one favored in some subjects.

I don't feel the need to explain it to anyone. Particularly those teachers...You are completely correct, mimicry is a way of teaching and learning. And I'm sure that each of one of those teachers learned that in their psychology and methodology of teaching courses. Also, if you reread my statement, I said that ALL animals teach by mimicry - humans included. I'm not debating that humans teach by mimicry. I'm debating the level of complex communication and passing down of information that we are capable of.

But I don't believe that they are teaching by mimicry, nor did they learn by mimicry. It is true that humans learn basic behaviors through mimicry, just like every other animal. But, they also learned through reading material which was written down and passed along. In fact, when they taught you, I would be willing to bet ANYTHING that they used a book. That they SPOKE, using complex language patterns. That they wrote things on the board. That they assigned homework. All of those things are examples of teaching more complex things through writing and recording. In fact, all of those are DIFFERENT ways of teaching. I would thoerize that it would be impossible to teach even basic algebra using mimicry alone - i.e. no writing (because you must first be able to read and understand to comprehend the writing), no speaking (you must know how to speak), etc. At FIRST, you began learning speaking and writing through mimicry - baby hears sounds, repeats, but then, eventually, the baby's brain begins to see patterns, puts those patterns together, reorganizes them, learns meanings of words through context, even creates new combinations of words to express their point. You first learn writing by copying strokes of a pencil, but soon you see how these symbols equal sounds, letters, words, then form complex patterns known as sentences. If you learned these things through mimicry ONLY, you could only say or write things that someone else had first said to you in that exact combination. What I'm saying is that there is MORE THERE in a human's brain. We can form more complex relationships, take that extra step. Given A and B, we can REASON C without it being given to us. The cat must be given A, B, and C to learn the relationship.

No other animals can record information to pass it down or for mass distribution. No other animals have the same levels of complex speech. They may use vocals to communicate, even complex ideas, but to our knowledge, none have a level of communicate anywhere near to the level of our language's complexity.

When you learned Algebra, Physics, Geomety, Chemistry, Calculus, Multivariable Calculus, Differential Equations, and any other math course, did you have to start from scratch? No, definately not. If left to your own devices, you could probably begin to reason out some basic mathematical concepts, possibly even get into advanged algebra or geometry....but you didn't need to, because others have done it for you. Then they wrote it down and passed it along. Then others built upon it. Then others built upon that, and built upon that, down through the centuries, by using complex speech, writing, books, computers, concrete examples, etc. THIS is what sets us apart. A cat CANNOT open a book and have access to the sum of the learning of all of its ancestors. It can learn what its mother learned (in most cases, animals are separated from their parents at an early age, therefore only learn the most basic of survival behaviors - the rest is left to instinct and learning for themselves), and maybe reason out some new behaviors. A cat will see me open a drawer 30 times and eventually begin to figure out that she is capable of doing this. The cat does not listen to me saying "Ok, here's how you open a drawer" and is then able to do it.

In fact, if you have ever asked a teacher to explain something another way and you got the cold shoulder, I would submit that you had a bad teacher. In my high school, Undergrad, and Master's studies, I frequently went to teachers with questions on clarification or asking to be shown another way and I have yet to run into an instructor who does not understand the material enough to explain in a different way.

 

[MBuzzy]

For fun, I would like to take issue with "obviously". I'm not upset or anything, but I don't believe that there is anything obvious about a theory that teaches that humans came from nothing as a result of a series of happenstances.

In a later post you ask if it is different from a creationist viewpoint. It is and it isn't. Biologically, humans are animals. We are not plants, minerals or elements. But we are obviously different than animals. Someone already noted that we prey on each other. Another post mentions 'moral' capacity.

Not everyone that believes in intelligent design also believes in a personal god, but I do. I believe that God created humans in His own image. Humans have characteristics that no other "animal" has. Complex decision-making ability, morality (distinguish between right and wrong), advanced communication, self-awareness, emotions, etc.

Keep smiling....

GREAT POINT! Thank you for pointing that out, you're right, I mis-spoke. To SOME, this is an obvious relationship. Not to everyone. I recognize that the majority of the WORLD does not believe in evolution. To some who believe in evolution, it isn't even obvious. I apologize to those who may have taken offense! None was intended!

That is very interesting, I'm very glad someone responded. So you do believe that humans are animals, but with that extra "spark" or extra something that sets them apart.

I agree with you completely - humans are biologically animals, but we do possess a skill set that is not common to other animals, self-awareness, a "moral compass", complex decision making ability, complex communication, etc....as we've be stating. I find it very interesting that creationists share the same point of view on the human condition (in terms of our classification!).

 

[heretic888]

For fun, I would like to take issue with "obviously". I'm not upset or anything, but I don't believe that there is anything obvious about a theory that teaches that humans came from nothing as a result of a series of happenstances.

Then you should take sign up for some introductory biology courses at your local community college. This is not in any way, shape, or form what evolutionary theory posits.

As a matter of fact, the sheer fact of evolution (i.e. , common descent) is glaringly obvious to anyone familiar with the evidence. The theoretical explanation for this fact is still under debate (such as, for example, gradualism versus punctualism as a theoretical paradigm).

Not everyone that believes in intelligent design also believes in a personal god....

I seriously doubt the truth of this statement. Every proponent of intelligent design I have ever seen has also been a theist.

Humans have characteristics that no other "animal" has. Complex decision-making ability, morality (distinguish between right and wrong), advanced communication, self-awareness, emotions, etc.

Not quite.

The differences you listed are differences of degree, not of kind. And this is perfectly in keeping with the phylogenetic trend of cephalization we observe among virtually all paleomammalian species throughout the last two million years or so. Homo sapiens was just another step toward the collective cephalization that most mammal populations were moving toward.

Almost all mammals have decision-making capacity, "morality" (this is more evident among social animals like chimps and dolphins), communication (again, chimps can learn a limited amount of sign language), and some modicum of self-awareness (yet again, chimps can recognize that they seem themselves and not another chimp in a mirror). The only differences are in degree of complexity, not in presence versus absence.

Although, I have to admit these insistent demands for anthropocentrism do make me "keep smiling".

 

[MBuzzy]

Heretic makes a great point much more eloquently than I was able to. The things that we are discussing here are basically just terms of degrees. Our complexity of thought and behaviors is replicated from the lower animal world, but to a much higher level.

I simply believe that it is our ability to write things down and communicate them (using complex language patterns) that has ALLOWED our technology and knowledge to progress to the level that it has, i.e. we build on the work of others, rather than relearning everything for ourselves.

 

[tellner]

Even among the biologists here I'm noticing serious mammalocentrism and primate-centrism.

Consider birds.

We place great stock in our ability to communicate, especially through sound. Parrots can produce a huge number of vocalizations and communicate a lot of very subtle things with them. We pooh-pooh it with words like "parroting", but the late lamented Alex and his small flock demonstrated that they could wrap their little feathered heads around a lot of human speech and use it with every appearance of intention and understanding.

Recent work on crows shows that their brains are highly developed, extremely wrinkled and a number of other significant things. The New Scientist's website released videos of the first evidence that they make tools in the wild and teach other crows to do so. And that's without the stubby bony tentacles that we carry around on our forelegs.

Speaking of tentacles, octopuses in captivity have shown amazing inventiveness, creative disguise, complex behavior and problem solving and so on to the point where British government guidelines dictate that they be given the same benefits of anesthesia during experimentation that are extended to mammals. In many ways their central nervous systems are better organized than ours. They are at best very distant relatives. We don't know how much squids communicate, but we do know that there seems to be a lot of it. If our brains were properly put together we'd be able to understand patterned color flashes.

Everyone talks about chimps because they're so much like us. Now, I know that anecdotes are not the same as evidence, but people who have worked extensively with wolves and primates report that wolves are extremely smart in their way. It isn't remarked on as much because what a wolf does is a little less familiar than what a chimp does. But I've met at least one person who did wolf rehabilitation and primate curator work in his day. In his informal opinion the wolves were at least as smart as the chimps. But it was directed towards different ends.

The history of biology is full of assumptions that something is unique in on branch of the tree. Someone looks a little further, and suddenly it's much more common than we thought.

I think it stems from self-centeredness. We are convinced that we are the pinnacle, nature's crowning glory. So anything that is more like us must be "higher" (another tellingly primate-centric term). Anything else is dangling from a lower link on the Great Chain of Being. Pure egotism.

 

[MBuzzy]

Just curiosity here....How much does an Octopus' or squid's intellect relate to its extremely complex body? It must take a very well organized nervous system and brain to be able to control that many tentacles properly. That MUST lead to more mental function...

Would humans be more intelligent if we had 6 more limbs to worry about?

 

[Makalakumu]

Good post Tellner. That's why I made the point at the outset to state that every animal is exactly as evolved as any other animal. Evolution doesn't progress. It just reacts.

 

[Blindside]

Just curiosity here....How much does an Octopus' or squid's intellect relate to its extremely complex body? It must take a very well organized nervous system and brain to be able to control that many tentacles properly. That MUST lead to more mental function...

Would humans be more intelligent if we had 6 more limbs to worry about?

Well insects/arachnids manage 6/8 limbs, I'm not sure that it follows that it should lead to higher mental function. Millepeds would be geniuses....

Lamont

 

[Makalakumu]

Millepeds would be geniuses.

Maybe they are geniuses. Perhaps a millipede being able to control hundreds of legs in concerted action is a sheer act of brilliance. And then there are all of the other things the millipedes do.

Perhaps the only thing that "limits" millipedes is the size of their niche and their social awareness. Perhaps, as the niche expands and the social group increases in complexity, you'll find that even millipedes could evolve in more "familiar" ways.

Language is to humans as cnidocyte is to cnidaria.

 

[kaizasosei]

I don't feel that a new neurological structure is necessary to explain these developmental stages. It is not as if an adolescent has a forebrain while an elementary student does not. A more probable scenario, in my opinion, and one that would be more difficult to detect through analysis of ancestral fossil remains is that the cognitive "jumps" we note in both historical and individual development are possibly the product of thicker cortical bundling of already present structures and the strengthening of post-synaptic connections.

Chimps will do that. Mice, rats, and cats etc too if the population gets high enough relative to the environment's ability to satisfy survival needs.

what good is human intelligence if they don't have the sense or teamwork to use it. not much i think and time will prove that.
can you build a computer from scratch...when did mankind begin forming language skills-

one idea is that mankind being one of the strongest groups slowly began to rise to power, often eliminating any sort of compitition. as we rose to power, we started feeling more and more in control of our destinies and were able to refine the skills of communication and abstraction that would prove very 'powerful' useful is more subjective maybe same?..
our present evolved state is the result of many different kinds of natural experiences.

although the difference in animal and human intellectual capabilities is very great on one hand, on the other hand, when we start to apply spiritual knowledge we can see that animals are just as much cosmic creations as are we(tho we do seem often to be very chaotic)

so some more questions...do you know the exact hour of your death? are you in complete controll of your destiny? are you completely aware of every single thing in the universe? have the ideas of good or evil helped you to understand yourself? or have these ideas terrorized you into forsaking any hope to rise to still to greater heights?
when we realize that every animal has it's niche as it was called, then it is obvious that different animals have different skills. the owl can pinpoint the exact location of a mouse that is under the snow. this is because of very clever design. was the snake wise to develop poison glands? forget about natural selection and mutation- i am talking about creation.
intelligent design to say the least.


i heard once, that everything in this world is symbolic and real at the same time. therefore, i imagine that anything is possible and that humans are not as unique as they think they are only a little more fortunate.