IHO NY 2023-Ian Tattersall
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 окт 2024
- The ASU Institute of Human Origins presents Ian Tattersall, Curator Emeritus of Human Origins, American Museum of Natural History, speaking about "The Origins of Modern Human Cognition."
Modern human beings process information symbolically, rearranging mental symbols according to rules to envision multiple potential realities. They also express the ideas thus formed using structured articulate language. No other living creature does either of these things, reflecting a qualitative cognitive gulf between modern Homo sapiens and every other species in the Great Tree of Life on the planet. Yet it is evident that we are descended from an ancestor that was both nonsymbolic and nonlinguistic. How did the astonishing transformation to modern cognition occur? Was it simply a passive result of the increase in brain size that typified multiple lineages of the genus Homo over the Pleistocene? Dr. Tattersall presents what the scrutiny of the fossil and archaeological records reveals to answer these fascinating questions in our evolutionary history.
The ASU Institute of Human Origins is one of the preeminent research organizations in the world for the study of human origins across the broadest range of transdisciplinary research to create novel approaches to the solution of pressing and newly emerging scientific questions relevant to our society-from the emergence of modern humans in Africa, and human behavioral and genetic adaptations to a changing planet, to what understanding the behavioral ecology of nonhuman primates informs us about how we developed culture and cooperation.
A magnificent discussion delivered beautifully. We have come a long way. As DJ says may our descendants also have the ability to look back the same way we have been able to. Love, peace and understanding to the world forever.
Possibly the critical change in Homo Sapiens was the ability to verbally share ideas rather than having to visually try to demonstrate the idea!! The incredible sudden ability to store and spread ideas became like a match to paper!!!!!
Except chimpanzees have exactly the same verbal capacities as us. Whatever makes us unique is not our capacities to communicate. Humans use lanaguage first to come up the thought themselves (not all thoughts) externalization of these thought may be done verbally, orthographically or by sign.
@amourdesoipittie2621 the use of sound to impart long encoded meanings was the key! The difference between what a parrot can do and you!
@@robertlevy2420 I beg to differ, the key lies in the encoding part. What is used for the encoding sound, letters or signs seems irrelevant.
@@amourdesoipittie2621everything has a starting point. I'm arguing that the verbal language game came first and other complex communication followed.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Thank you Professor. You
have given me a new and improved name for our species. Homo Sapiens
seems a bit egotistical.
Using your term CLEVER
HANDS translated into
Latin seems much more
satisfying:
Homo Manus callidae.
❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
The term Homo sapiens was actually a propaganda tool used by the leftist homosexuals to claim we’re all gay.
One always learns something new on almost all science podcasts. This is an amazing gift. Thanks!
I am Portuguese teacher of physics and chemistry very interested on this theme. I loved every single word I heard
just my 2cents but I think human cognition started because humans started eating a highly varied, novel, diet and that took lots of eye, finger, brain coordination for food preparation. very quickly when your doing complex tasks like that the sequence of operations your doing, technique come into play that require further skill sharpening. the ultimate is when your solving time oriented problems like saving surplus for later as part of the process. My guess is storing surplus food of novel food (not just squirrels using instinct to store nuts) was as big of change in human evolution as farming was later.
Wrong. We developed language so vegans could tell us to stop eating meat.
You can’t argue with the science!
Dang, you guilted me into putting down my bison steak.
felicidades al mr. Ian Tattersall por su trabajo, exposición y trayectoria profesional.
Some years ago RadioLab did a great episode (somewhere on y/t) on the topic of how integral language is to thought.
The presenter sounded pretty convincing. I appreciated him remarking on how illogical our emotions (and thoughts) can be.
That feathers poignantly with the existential challenges we so brilliantly evoke and (hopefully) overcome,
that the second speaker called us to keep a forethought.
Skip the resume reading 4:20
He should have defined symbolic cognition and illustrated what counts as evidence for it.
I’m not a scientist, just old. I remember a video where a woman said her (chimps?) were yelling a certain way because they were excited about getting grapes with lunch and heard other, distant chimps who already were fed yelling that way and she posited that they were communicating. And then there’s the apes who are trained to point to words to “say” things. I don’t think this argues against your explanation, just begs some refinement. I think it supports the concept that the hardware for cognition was present but not used. In the book “how emotions are made” by Lisa Feldman Barrett we learn that emotions depend on words. I think this is more support for your theory. Of course, as a scientist you should be spending your time trying to disprove the theory (and hopefully failing), not looking for support.
Thanks for what you wrote. Is it so that "emotions depend on words" ? I may be naive, but I tend to ascribe "emotions" to cats and dogs and a number of our other neighbors. I have heard Sam Harris (perhaps among others) point out that emotional states like anger do not sustain themselves beyond a few seconds UNLESS we crank up our 8-track tape narratives continually fueling the anger mantra. Perhaps words are required to sustain emotions, which may be why dogs are said to be such great practicioners of forgiveness and contentment. Haaaa ! . B---)
That’s a good point. I think I must have misunderstood the book. I’ll have to check.
Mr. Ian Tattersall, in reference to the statement “ take red ball outside”, what would be the variation that humans would make on that that other primates could not? Just looking for a specific to illustrate the concept. Thank you.
I had not heard of the theory on why homo sapiens have a smaller brain mass is perhaps due to frugal metabolic consumption, compared to something like neaderthalensis. Fascinating
Hard to buy the concept that anatomically modern humans only figured out how to speak in the last 125K years. I suspect the watershed event was more subtle than that. The fact that language processing is embedded in the neural structure implies that this process didn't just spring out of our species' head like Athena out of Zeus'. I always view non-adaptive and non-gradualist explanations with suspicion. All that hardware got pushed right up to the threshold for whatever transformative mutation / cultural innovation that changed the course of human interaction/behavior thereafter.
I'd have to agree. Besides the evidence that points our modern brain has a much longer history than 125000 years. And even earlier, it's not out of the realm of possibility that Homo Erectus did language, too. It tracked big game. Which requires gist and inductive narrative thinking.
Also agreed. The fossil record is so entirely incomplete, and there could be other evidence of symbolic creation. Not to mention creativity that in clothing and other perishable creations, long before the cave paintings etc we've discovered so far.
@@DMK195601 In that connection, and this is based upon limited knowledge on my part, but it struck me that the staggeringly accomplished cave paintings at lascaux and other sites aren't littered with half-assed far inferior paintings - which immediately implied there was the development of technique, likely over centuries preceding, which must have been rendered on wood, skin, exterior rock, etc. - none of which apparently survived, but we know must have been instrumental to the attainment we see in what has remained. The result is, again, the apparent 'sudden' flowering of 'modern' human behavior, along with a cultural control over what was considered worthy of being rendered upon these 'sacred' sites - i.e. there is a hidden cultural history antecedent we can't or have yet to see.
@@junanougues Tend to agree. It just makes more sense that as behavior elaborated, language must have long since played a part, any alternative means vastly less efficient, the language apparatus long since in evidence - if Neanders couldn't even speak, how likely is it that the extent of interbreeding that we know to have occurred, for example, would have been mediated. They had big brains too. Maybe we are predisposed to 'big bang' theories. :)
@@RileyRampant What we are predisposed to is racism, this time on a hominid category. While hunting cultures and language are not even exclusive to hominids, killer whales have them too, along with social learning. What this theory proposes is that language cognition on a level with Cro Magnon separates humans in a fundamental way from the history of biology. It's unique and it practically flowers out of nowhere. Unconvincing, an extraordinary conceptual framework with insufficient evidence.
Great talk. I would suggest, however, that IHO consider picture-in-picture use, as usually used in Zoom talks.
Mr. Ian Tattersall, in reference to the statement “ take red ball outside”, what would be the variation that humans would make on that that other primates could not?
9:37 communication leading to social constructs that helped in things like hunting in a pack and other pack activities. Social constructs leading to abstraction and other more complex thoughts. Religions forming as a type of coping structure and part of the hierarchical structures formed. From tribes and clans to big cities with a range of cultural mix. Humans influenced by their surroundings and even names.
Thank you for sharing the video.
I am looking forward to this
But if we can't clearly define the origin of consciousness I am dying to see the explanation for the exercise of that consciousness
Brilliant synthesis of the data. I would like to believe that symbolic thought and even proto-language appeared prior to Homo Sapiens, but there doesn't appear to be any data (yet) to support that belief apart from deductive reasoning. Absolute agree on rapid evolutionary change but it would most likely be due to environmental pressures, including increased social interaction. Linking thought to language, as one creates symbolic representations of the other, is definitely on the right track.
I say this with the greatest respect for Dr Tattersall, whose work is foundational to our understanding of human origins.This whole argument rests on the fact that the farther back in time you go, the less material you find. I've always been suspicious of the argument that language must be the key to modern amazingness. It's not a scientific argument because disconfirming evidence can never be found - only a lack of evidence with greater age of artifacts, which is easily explainable by the nature of preservation. It has more than a whiff of special creation: the idea that at a magical moment, an ineffable (and invisible) hand sparked only our ancestors with a great leap up the ladder of progress. It has no correlates biologically. It does create a narrative that places us at the center of the hero journey, complete with the boost from destiny. The kicker? All this cognitive amazingness is destroying the entire planet.
Donald Johanson' s tech comment is profoundly evoked/captured by that bone toss/space ship cut in 2001 A Space Odyssey!!
Good lecture.
Clever, aren't we? But not enough apparently to credit or identify the geezer who spoke for the last ten minutes. I hazard a guess his surname begins with 'L'.
Talk starts at 4:22
The Blombos piece, which is very similar to an Indonesian H. Erectus shell, could in fact not be symbolic. It is remarkably like the types of patterns Autistic children draw after sifting sand particles through their fingers or watching the patterns made by waves on water. Thus, it may not be symbolic, but rather simply a representation of a pattern in nature by a bottom-up pattern thinker.
Has anyone considered the homo genus is a composite of all previous hominids not an exclusive separate species ✌️❤️🇬🇧
How so?
It is interesting to note that he mentions about sudden improvement of human cognition including language. I was disappointed that he did not mention about the dexterity of our hand- and it is the 3 components - cognition, speech and hand function has made the humans the superior race. Studies have indicated that human cognition itself has had extra 1041 genes. So, this is the extent of sudden improvement he mentions - on a genetic basis. Average human gene has 27,000 nucleotides and a typical mutation is a change of 1 nucleotide. Hence, mathematically it is impossible that with in a 'short' period of time this sudden change on an evolution basis.Most of cognitive features are NOT life limiting- love, concern empathy, ability to study, plan, appreciation of art and beauty, multitasking, morality, judgement etc etc are NOT life limiting and hence unlikely to be subjected to 'natural selection'. For such changes, there has to be massive changes and new neural pathways across the brain- motor/ sensory/ visual cortex/ Broca's and Wernike's areas/ thalamus, parietal lobe/ frontal cortex etc. Hence , if random how can you explain such gigantic changes only in humans? Why not distributed among all primates??? Random or by design? To be the answer is by DESIGN only to make humans the superior species on earth!!!!
Miles?
Jebel Irfoud, 300000 years ago has been reported as the earliest evidence of H. sapiens.
Very archaic though, hardly distinguished from Apidima remains from Greece. Oldest homo sapiens considered as modern would be Omo (discovered up to the date of course).
No. the language thing is wrong, and you are not accounting for Dan Everett and language arising in H. Erectus.
How did they process the audio? Impressive.
That intro was ridiculously long
Distinctively different? How? Most people today are as incapable of constructing a hand ax as a motherboard. Symbolic bollocks, I fear.
This is disputed by Brnuquel cave in France (Neanderthal architecture) as well as your own example of homo heidlbergensis building a wood struture. They woudve had language. You make a compelling case about an increase in gramatical usefulness but i think youre over looking a big one. The shell beads arent just symbolic thought, theyre money. Its a new tool to assess value. Now sapiens could assess and agree on the value of items, trade, accumulate, display wealth and establish long distance trading networks. As well as obvious social impications of wealth accumulation.
Personal opinion indeed. Humans were hunting Mammoths in California 80k years ago so his take is completely based on his misconception of the archaeological record.
Absence of consistent display of symbolic behaviour by neanderthals? There are quite a few pre-sapien rock art sites in Europe
Yes, the evidence is both inconsistent and sparse. Its foolish to attribute alleged art works to H neanderthalensis via approximate dating; it's not at all resolved in regards to first or earliest presence of H sapiens in
Eurasia or Asia.
The African hominiod was more reproductive and destroyed the Homo Heidelbergicus as well as Denisova, who were the first intelligent humans. We still use their brains in the northern and far eastern population showing up in IQ 100-110+ , Africa is still producing lots of "homo sapiens" with IQ 60 average..but more reproductive, just like before..We need to save our intelligent population, limit migration or it is a dead end road for humanity..
They are thinking that neanderthals could very well have spoken too.
In the beginning was the Word, and it sought the highest thought.
To answer the question of the likelihood of intelligent life arising elsewhere in the universe, we need to look at our own improbable evolution.
If the asteroid that hit the earth 65 million years ago missed us, dinosaurs would still rule - not us evolved primates. At that time, primates were little mouse sized creatures having no clout at all.
Thirty million years ago a Teutonic plate shift in Africa caused land to rise resulting in an environmental change from jungle to savanna. The area was populated with primates who were forced out of the now sparsely existing trees on to the ground where they were at a disadvantage compared to faster and larger predators. Those who adapted by mutating brain instead of brawn survived. Continued adaption led to today's humanity.
If those primates were living elsewhere, there would have been no evolutionary pressure on them and they would be today as they were millions of years ago. Indeed they are as they were in other parts of the world where that draconian environmental change did not occur.
Geologists may also be able to point to events in earth's development that were just as unlikely.
So for ET to have evolved, there must have been a series of similar events forcing the development of intelligence. How likely is that?
So unlikely but still possible considering the number of planets in the universe. Perhaps intelligent life did evolve on one of them. But, if it did, that planet would most likely be billions of light years away from earth considering the probability of an earth-like evolution.
Even a space ship traveling at the maximum speed, the speed of light, would take billions of years to reach us and the passengers would have to have known where we were! Or more accurately, that we would exist billions of years after the space ship left its native planet. ET would have to been able to predict the far distant future.
I don’t think
Waffle.
Stoned Ape Theory mate. Poor lecture.
Human cognition? It would be a great idea. Today we have a woman on the Supreme Court who doesn't know what a woman is.
When did free will kick in? Just answer that.
There is no free will... just google that.
Am sorry Jesus and Allah but the game is over😂
For the sake of argument, let's just say that their stories are mythological. They are 100% stories created to tell and convey wisdom about the business of living. Some of the mythology is helpful and some of it is crazy. That's where we come in and decide which part is crazy and try to avoid it.
A watch indicates the existence of a watchmaker.