Life and Thought

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by questor

Buffy, the very fact that human beings have had such a short history with such great physical and mental improvement shows that we are dealing with a very special animal.

And its very natural for us to like to think we're special, but its not proof that we are. Physically, we really aren't much different from our simian forebearers, with the key development being able to walk upright which allowed us to move out of the trees and provided a distinct advantage in hunting meat at a time when natural vegetation was becoming scarce due to climate changes. Once there necessitated learning how to develop tools and shelter. This began to result in the necessity of division of labor which favored the development of communications and social skills. One right after the other, the sequence of events was unusual, but perfect for exploitation of a large brain. I personally don't see anything "special" about this development at all, and each step in sophistication has been built out of necessity. Its efficiency is well proved by how rapidly homo sapiens wiped out Neanderthal and other early branches once it left Africa.

Originally Posted by questor

as far as social structure, almost all animals, insects and birds exhibit social structure, but only the last arrival..human beings have brought it to the highest level.

I agree on the widespread existence of social structure, and it comes both from "mostly nature" sources (bees and ants) as well as "mostly nurture" (dophins, elephants, etc.). I see *very little* that distinguishes men on social development other than the complexity of the structures that is mostly driven through the more sophisticated usage of communcations and tools. Again, is this the ultimate? With the fact that we have so many people at each other's throats and so many instances where man has come close to self anihilation (November 1963 was 60 minutes away from Armageddon), this is the *best*? I beg to differ. I think there's a whole lot more development that could occur, and if we don't do it, the insects might in a few million years.

Originally Posted by questor

i realize that all evolution does not begat higher intelligence, however, if higher intelligence enhances the animal wouldn't evolution tend in that direction?

Nope, and that's why I point out dinosaurs. They were far more permanent and effective than we have been to date, and they'd be here still if it weren't for that meteorite 60 million years ago. In fact since they evolved into birds, you can argue that they are *still* one of the most efficent and effective life forms. Another example is sharks, who have *not had to evolve in 400 million years*!!! That's evolutionary perfection!

Originally Posted by questor

and haven't the animals had much longer to develop intelligence?

No they haven't, larger brains have evolved only in mammals and only in the last few tens of millions of years, and the only difference in the ape/human line is the opposable thumb! If elephants or dolphins had the hands and legs we do, they, with their brain cases that are as big or larger than ours, could easily develop the same level of intelligence. That opposable thumb is invaluable even if yours spends most of its time hitting the space key.

Originally Posted by questor

why do you think that only human beings got the lucky breaks in evolution?

I argue that its not "lucky": its just what happened. If you can get a way from trying to associate some "specialness" to the way that we just happen to be, then a lot of the development of our species and our intelligence no longer seems so "miraculous."

Cheers,
Buffy

[damocles]

Buffy:

You bring up something very interesting when you suggest that tool using humans(at least 800,000 years of chipped and flaked stone hand axes and 500,000 years of manipulating fire) became the dominant hominid animal easily when they about fifty thousand years ago demonstrated transferable replicable symbol ability(painting) and did so easily.

I suggest a couple of thought experiments

1. Remove Homo Sapiens(Cro Magnon version) from the scene. Could Neanderthal man develope the social communication skills to build a complex(what I call the hominid insect hive model) social technology beyond the family clan level?

2. Remove all hominids from Earth BCE 3,000,000 years. Could a tool user arise from the remaining animals present that is not a primate? If so, which one, and would you speculate as to its ease of eventual development given that it faces the same challenges we faced?

[Buffy]

I love thought experiments!

Originally Posted by damocles

1. Remove Homo Sapiens(Cro Magnon version) from the scene. Could Neanderthal man develope the social communication skills to build a complex(what I call the hominid insect hive model) social technology beyond the family clan level?

Sure why not? Neanderthal looks more and more sophisticated the more we learn about them. They were physically much more robust, and their brain cases were about the same size as H.Sapiens. They had *very* sophisticated social structures, tools and so forth, but H.Sapiens were not only smarter but seemed to have some technological advances. I think its virtually certain that they would have evolved down the same path, but may have taken a little longer to get there.

Originally Posted by damocles

2. Remove all hominids from Earth BCE 3,000,000 years. Could a tool user arise from the remaining animals present that is not a primate? If so, which one, and would you speculate as to its ease of eventual development given that it faces the same challenges we faced?

Sure. I'm pretty strong on the relationship between opposable thumbs and developments of tools. You've left open some of the branches we're related to, but we might have ended up as intelligent lemurs or beavers or platypus'. Beavers are interesting: have you ever seen a beaver dam? They are really complicated structures that show an obvious understanding of hydrodynamics and landscape architecture....get them to develop their proto-thumb a little more and who knows what they could do.

I'm also convinced that insects will ultimately take our place, but I think their "intelligence" will be "Borg-like". Multiple limbs could adapt over time to be able to manipulate tools and of course group action comes into play: have you ever seen ants form bridges with their bodies? Its facinating!. It would be interesting to watch....

Cheers,
Buffy

[damocles]

My money is on insects. I think that the unbounded communication and biological adaptive tool animal approach that you suggested to me awhile ago in another thread is eminently sensible as an approach to replace us when we go extinct. Intelligence doesn't necessarily mean individual animal size size does it?

Among mammals; if we were to exclude all monkeys and apes, I would start searching among the rodents for our replacement.

However my own personal favorites are these guys;

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Procyon_lotor.html

Or these;

http://www.bear.org/

If I had to choose between these two origin points, I would pick the raccoon, as I think that furball is closer in model to what our own startpoint(scavenger omnivore) was than a bear is.

[UncleAl]

do you see the word Diety in my discussion? i'm not discussing a Diety, i'm discussing the possibility of itelligent design, and creation.

Liar. You are dripping god, standing in a pool of it immersed up to your nose, exuding flaming excrescencess of god like Tommy Aquinas doing his masters' bidding by voluminously writing about the obvious and true (and necessary). Go pray on a ligthtbulb. We'll wait.

what is the life force?

It is an advertising ploy for a discredited product. Try going without a shower for a month and see how much unlike other animals you are.

[questor]

Uncle Al, if i didn't like you, i would challenge your acidic temperament. i don't think you have any more answers than any of us, and your efforts at demeaning others are not conducive to good conversation.

[questor]

Damocles, good thought. let's say you did remove the human animal from the earth, what is left ? what would the earth look like now and 10,000 years from now? would it be jungle, desert, wasteland, wonderland? the human has the mental capacity to be a husband to the land if he so chooses. currently no other animal has this capacity. would they develop it? nothing so far indicates they would. perhaps they would just exist on the
land that the non-creator gave them. without sentient thought, without technology and with the wildness they were born with.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by questor

what would the earth look like now and 10,000 years from now? would it be jungle, desert, wasteland, wonderland?

No one knows, and its probably good to avoid starting global warming arguments in this thread! In any case the real answer is "different," and different means that different traits will be favored for evolutionary development...

Originally Posted by questor

the human has the mental capacity to be a husband to the land if he so chooses. currently no other animal has this capacity. would they develop it?

Depends on what you mean by develop. Take the beavers I mention above, are they "husbanding" the land? I'd argue that the beavers do a lot more than the Northwest, Northeast and Plains Indians ever did! There's something to think about!

Originally Posted by questor

nothing so far indicates they would.

What do you base this opinion on? Like I say, a lot depends on your definition of development, but there's no reason to think that some animals would not, like the beavers!

Originally Posted by questor

without sentient thought, without technology and with the wildness they were born with.

First of all, what's wrong with that? For one thing that would mean they wouldn't develop weapons of mass stupidity. Secondly, why do you keep insisting that only humans have "sentient thought?" I argue strongly that many of the more advanced mammal species do in fact exhibit sentient behaviors, including complex communications, what they have not developed extensively (and there are lots of counter examples like those beavers) is usage of tools and construction of complex technology. I think they're probably quite happy not doing so. They may, but I don't hold the fact that they haven't against them!

Cheers,
Buffy

[questor]

B uffy, i know you are beloved by all on this site, but i must ask you a question : do you know a lot about beavers? my knowledge of beavers comes from first hand experience
with them on the rivers and streams of the Rocky Mountains, where they are considered pests and eliminated on a regular basis. the reason for this is they deforest areas which
the property owner has spent time and money planting, and they divert rivers and streams
from their proper beds, which cause flooding and stagnant pools where mosquitos breed. of course, if we got rid of the people, the beavers could do whatever they wish.

[questor]

Buffy, since you seem to believe that animals exhibit sentient behavior, could you give me about 3 or 4 examples of animal behavior which exhibits true thought, like seeing a problem, considering the problem and solving the problem. please do not use examples which are preprogrammed into the animals instincts, like searching for food, migrating, raising offspring and the like. i'm not talking about reacting to a stimulus, i'm talking about true abstract thought.