[HN Gopher] Humans began to rapidly accumulate technological kno...
___________________________________________________________________
Humans began to rapidly accumulate technological knowledge 600k
years ago
Author : geox
Score : 247 points
Date : 2024-06-17 21:28 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (news.asu.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (news.asu.edu)
| jojobas wrote:
| The would strongly point to speech developing around that time,
| but there's no mention of language or speech in the article -
| odd.
| throwanem wrote:
| What durable artifacts of either are presented in the article?
| It's paywalled, I haven't read the whole thing.
| ahazred8ta wrote:
| The common ancestor of neanderthals and homo sapiens had a
| larger than normal hole in the skull (the hypoglossal canal)
| which contains the nerve bundle going to the tongue. They're
| pretty sure that was the result of language use before 1M BC.
| There may have been several stages of later improvement after
| the initial development.
| jojobas wrote:
| Yet some other evidence places it much later at around 130ky.
| Go figure.
| fritzo wrote:
| It's unclear tech transfer is speech driven. People can read
| machines and reason about purpose without natural language.
| We've all learned tricks from undocumented code. I've learned
| mechanical tricks poking around scrap yards.
| ysofunny wrote:
| maybe unclear to you. may I recommend Orality and Literacy by
| Walter J. Ong. which talks about how text and writing
| transformed human culture
|
| the point (which I learned from the book) is how writting
| transformed human culture but did not define it, humans have
| a pre-literal (i.e. written) culture whose origin is
| literally really lost to history
|
| I'm saying that tech transfer can absolutely be speech
| driven, but I admit that text driven technological transfer
| is in some ways an improved version of oral-only cultural
| transmision (i.e. knowledge preservation)
| jjk166 wrote:
| No one is denying that tech transfer can be speech driven,
| but that doesn't mean that this particular increase in tech
| transfer was because of speech.
| monero-xmr wrote:
| I personally believe forms of writing and record keeping are far,
| far older than we think, having been discovered and forgotten
| repeatedly. Very hard for something hundreds of thousands of
| years old to be preserved. Once you can pass on information
| orally and written through the generations, knowledge will always
| improve.
| orwin wrote:
| Record keeping doesn't need writing. Like Incas with their
| knotted ropes (probably not how how you call it in English).
|
| Also, while some central Asians could read and write (they had
| courrier relay to deliver letters), their
| administrative/taxing/military system, the decimal system,
| worked without any writing for two thousand years, only by
| making a mark on a wooden branch for each person in an Arban, a
| mark on another for each Arban, again for each Ja'un, again for
| each minggan. That's how they counted and this was taught
| without text for at least 1500 years (Mongols wrote something
| about it in the 13th century, but this system is at least from
| 300BCE and the Xiongnus)
| yborg wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quipu
| dredmorbius wrote:
| What's amusing of course is that the word _text_ shares a
| root with _textiles_ and hence the notion of weaving thread
| or cloth.
|
| I'd strongly suggest not getting bogged down in the details
| of what various forms of notional recording are --- ink on
| paper, etching on stone, holes punched in paper, magnetic
| field alignments in rust (spinning, sequential, or
| otherwise), bitfields in memory arrays, holographic images
| ...
|
| _Records_ are created by varying _matter_ in _space_ to
| transmit messages over _time_.
|
| _Signals_ are created by varying _energy_ in _time_ to
| transmit messages over _space_.
|
| Signals transmit encoded symbolic messages from a transmitter
| across_ space_ through a channel by variations in energy over
| time to a receiver potentially creating a new record.
|
| Records transmit encoded symbolic messages from a writer
| through a substrate across time by variations in matter over
| space to a reader potentially creating a new signal.
| orwin wrote:
| You managed to explain my own thoughts to me, thank you.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Thanks.
|
| The symmetric equivalence between records and signals is
| one that I seem to have come up with myself (I'm unaware
| of it being noted elsewhere, though bits of it have been
| observed, e.g., speech is conversation in _space_ ,
| writing is conversation in _time_ ). How significant it
| is I really don't know, though something tells me it
| _should_ be important.
| schneems wrote:
| > Once you can pass on information orally and written through
| the generations, knowledge will always improve.
|
| I suggest reading up about how we found the cure for scurvy and
| then lost it. The problem wasn't that someone forgot to record
| "the cure for scurvy is vitamin C" the problem is that people
| were wrong with what they "knew" cured the disease.
|
| Basically: the act of preserving and carrying on the wrong bits
| of knowledge lead to a regression with deadly consequences.
|
| The social side of things can't be ignored either. Rulers,
| religions, and pop culture can and does choose to selectively
| remember history. In recent years people even take delight in
| being uninformed about various topics.
|
| So it seems like there's a sort of knowledge decay working
| against general progress. The question is: will progress always
| (on average) increase faster than that decay or will we reach
| some kind of equilibrium or perhaps even regress (idiocracy,
| for example)?
| lelanthran wrote:
| > Once you can pass on information orally and written through
| the generations, knowledge will always improve.
|
| Nope. You can pass on myths the same way. All that happens is
| that you get more refined myths, that always have "evidence"
| for them at any point in time because they are refined by each
| generation to fit any new observations.
|
| It's worse with oral knowledge[1]: oral "knowledge" that is
| passed down is frequently more damaging than not passing
| anything down at all, because in the lack of any knowledge on
| the subject, people will try to gain some knowledge (whether
| experimentally or not), but with "knowledge" passed down, there
| will exist pockets of people who will actively resist any
| attempt to discard that "knowledge".[2]
|
| [1] Ever play a game of telephone? Each generation changes the
| message enough so that even a short period of 30 generations is
| enough to completely obliterate _any_ of the original message.
|
| [2] See every religion ever.
| ordu wrote:
| _> Each generation changes the message enough so that even a
| short period of 30 generations is enough to completely
| obliterate any of the original message._
|
| Wouldn't multiple transmission between generations and the
| comparison of diverging stories of the older generation in a
| newer generation work like an error correction?
| lelanthran wrote:
| > Wouldn't multiple transmission between generations and
| the comparison of diverging stories of the older generation
| in a newer generation work like an error correction?
|
| I doubt it - which one is the "correct" message is going to
| be up to chance, not up to a network effect.
|
| Even if you take the optimistic approach and only retain
| that knowledge that is common to all branches, there is a
| vanishingly small chance that the _correct_ knowledge would
| be retained, because the errors in transmission are not
| going to be completely random - the sort of error one oral
| storyteller introduces is going to be similar to the errors
| introduced by other storytellers.[1]
|
| It's why the history of tribes who did not write things
| down is treated as myths: the myth-makers are likely to
| weave whatever current affairs into existing mythology to
| "explain" new observations, in the process discarding what
| was there in the first place.
|
| When the record is written down, at least we can read what
| was thought at the time of writing.
|
| [1] Completely made-up example: Original story -> Crocodile
| dragged off tribes best warrior. Probable error after
| gen-10 -> Crocodile is double the original size. Probable
| error after gen-20 -> Longer than a man. Probable error
| after gen-30 -> Taller than a man. Probable error after
| gen-40 -> Walks around, bipedal.
| gcanyon wrote:
| You have to think that there were breakthroughs in communication
| technology -- not just language in general but possibly also one
| individual who happened to be good at explaining things, either
| before or after language, who both taught more people, but also
| taught them how to teach -- that led to step changes in
| technology.
| dboreham wrote:
| Theory: there are no humans without language. Consider: what
| language do you think in?
| mkl wrote:
| Quite a lot of humans don't think in language, or do only
| some of the time, see e.g. https://www.iflscience.com/people-
| with-no-internal-monologue...,
| https://www.livescience.com/does-everyone-have-inner-
| monolog..., https://www.bustle.com/wellness/does-everyone-
| have-an-intern....
| palad1n wrote:
| Indeed, there are two types of people in that regard, whose
| mind is blown (usually) that there is another type. One
| thinks in words, one has no words but a smooth stream of
| thought going.
| marssaxman wrote:
| That's wild - I am clearly the first sort, because I
| cannot imagine what "a smooth stream of thought" would
| even _be_ if it were not expressed in words.
| mainecoder wrote:
| It is like your motor control thoughts, you don't think
| let me pickup this spoon you just pick it up, when given
| an equation you do not think go through the steps if x -
| 9 = 22, you just say x is 31 yet you have skipped in your
| mind there exists a base mental representation of these
| things some call it a small world model of a large world
| model encoded in an abstract knowledge representation
| sort of like a compilers abstract syntax tree and this
| representation is sort of universal in that you can take
| it from someone and give it to another person and they
| will automatically know provided that they have the
| requisite properties of the world model in which it
| exists for instance a thought about the symmetric group
| s3 could be transferred provided that the requisite
| structure for groups( just the definition, and concept of
| rotation exists which already exists by default in
| mammals).
| bla3 wrote:
| For what it's worth, I used to be certain that I thought
| in words too. Then I moved to a different country and
| used a second language often enough that I sometimes
| think in it. I then realized that there are periods where
| I think in neither my native language nor in my second
| language, even when I'm thinking. YMMV of course.
| Zambyte wrote:
| Do you find your domain of thought shifts when you do not
| think with language? For example, do you feel you are
| able to do complex reasoning without language?
| draculero wrote:
| I usually dream in English - but I don't speak English.
| But I understand everything thanks to my dream's
| subtitles.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| This describes my experience nicely too, although I
| didn't quite realize it until reading this. I was
| thinking I just thought in words and had a tendency to
| mix up the bits of various languages I know some words
| from, but occasionally I have some thought, then for one
| reason or another become conscious of the thought and get
| confused which language I was thinking in. Sometimes this
| even manifests as trying to mix languages (eg at one
| point I used to struggle to not sprinkle in french and
| farsi words into normal english, despite speaking english
| at a native level and only knowing the basics of the
| other two).
|
| I've always thought of my mental model as an endless
| conversation with myself, but I think the more fitting
| description would be a "smooth" series of thoughts which
| only materialize into language when I explicitly focus on
| those thoughts as their own thing.
|
| I do also think visually for things that have a visual
| component though.
| jaggederest wrote:
| I don't think in words unless I am speaking, writing, or
| modeling a conversational interaction. The vast majority
| of my thoughts are in the form of sense impressions,
| motor sequences, visualization, or wordless intuition.
|
| I'm sure you think that way too, you probably just layer
| a narrative over it. The sibling comment about picking up
| a spoon is an example I sometimes use - see yourself walk
| to the kitchen, move your hand to open the drawer, pick
| up a spoon, pour the tea, scoop the sugar. I can describe
| them but it's not natively linguistic to me.
|
| I'm hell at rearranging furniture or putting together an
| engine, not so good at positive self talk.
| BlarfMcFlarf wrote:
| It's a process of serialization. I frequently have
| thoughts or ideas that take me a while to express in
| words. Being stuck to words seems so limiting, slow, and
| linear that I have a hard time believing it; surely there
| are more fundamental mental processes generating the
| words and the monologue is just a serialization of
| thought? Right?
| marssaxman wrote:
| That's an interesting perspective, and I think you are on
| to something.
|
| I have some experience with a meditative/dissociative
| state in which that monologue - which I think of as the
| "narrator process" - can be observed as just one of many
| mental subsystems, neither containing the whole of my
| consciousness nor acting as the agent of my will. The
| narrator merely _describes_ the feelings which arise in
| other mental components and arranges them, along with the
| actions I take, into some plausible linear causal
| sequence.
|
| Minds differ in many ways, and perhaps one way your mind
| and mine differ is that words flow quickly for me and do
| not feel slow or limiting; so I suppose I am easily
| fooled into perceiving that narrative as the medium of
| thought in itself. It had not occurred to me to describe
| the activities of the other mental subsystems as
| _thoughts_ , but why shouldn't they be? And now I have a
| better guess at what it might be like to experience the
| world in a different way. Thank you!
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Indeed, there are two types of people in that regard
|
| > One thinks in words
|
| No. There are people who believe they think in words,
| because they haven't bothered to examine the question,
| but there are no people who think in words.
|
| Think about the number of people you've ever seen do a
| double take at the idea that "I don't know how to put
| this into words".
| Loughla wrote:
| I absolutely think in words. There are no pictures or
| whatever other mental model. There is literally a
| narrative of words and blackness inside head.
| Aerroon wrote:
| Do you prefer lions or tigers? BBQ sauce or ketchup?
| Green or blue?
|
| I bet you can answer all of these at a moment's notice,
| but where does your answer come from? Have you ever sat
| down and tried to reason out which one you like more? Or
| do you just 'know' the answer and then 'come up' with the
| justification afterwards?
|
| People _can_ think in words, but it 's certainly not
| their only way of thinking. I think the thinking in words
| is kind of like "thinking on paper" where you're trying
| to explicitly reason through something. The thinking
| process itself seems to be something on a deeper level.
| bbwbsb wrote:
| The crux is the word 'I'. When I say 'I' think, do I mean
| the conscious part of me which has direct experience of
| that thinking? If so, then I am denying all the of the
| thinking that 'I' don't do, but my brain/body does.
|
| From that perspective, the experience of thinking in
| words or pictures is distinct from actually thinking in
| words or pictures. Saying one thinks in one of these ways
| seems to be saying what they identify thinking with.
|
| For example, I don't usually think of fantasy as
| thinking. If I day dream, I wouldn't say I am thinking,
| but that is fairly visual. To what degree am I saying
| something about myself vs my identity if I say I do or
| don't think in words given that context?
|
| Relatedly, I've noticed that when it comes to remembering
| something, it is not 'I' that remember. Rather 'I' set up
| mental cues and direct focus, which then hopefully causes
| the memory to be placed within my awareness. This happens
| below the level of direct experience. But I might say I
| failed to remember, taking responsibility for something
| that 'I' - the part separated from the automatic
| functions of the body - did not do.
|
| So I'm suggesting statements about words vs pictures are
| about ego, metaphor and meaning-building, and not about
| actual mechanisms or communicating actual differences in
| the experience of thinking.
|
| It can be difficult to talk about these things because
| such conversations implicitly occur between our
| identities, not between who we actually are - something
| beyond our grasp - and the noise this introduces is
| something I don't know how to surmount, or if it can be
| surmounted.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| No, you don't think in words. The words in your head are
| a side effect of the thoughts. They aren't the thoughts.
| Rattled wrote:
| Why is it so hard to accept that different people can
| have a different internal experience of our shared
| reality? Perhaps different people have conscious
| awareness of different aspects of their own cognition
| pipelines though the pipeline is similar for most people,
| or perhaps there is a more fundamental diversity in how
| different people think. I find it interesting though how
| strong an aversion some have to being told what's going
| on in their own heads.
| aurareturn wrote:
| There are also humans who can't conjure up an image in
| their head. Mozilla cofounder wrote a fairly famous piece
| about his own experience.
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2016/4/25/11501230/blake-ross-
| cant-...
|
| If there are people who can't picture and people who don't
| have an inner dialogue, I think it lends more credence to
| the idea that we don't have free will and are just a bunch
| of chemicals controlling our behavior. It also makes you
| think about consciousness and whether it's even real.
| thfuran wrote:
| >If there are people who can't picture and people who
| don't have an inner dialogue, I think it lends more
| credence to the idea that we don't have free will
|
| That seems like a bizarre leap. What's the connection?
| aurareturn wrote:
| Because it implies that we only behave based on how we
| feel, not how we think. The thinking part is an illusion.
| Therefore, our "consciousness" has no effect on how we
| behave.
|
| I'm not willing to die on this hill by the way so if
| someone else comes along and argues otherwise, I'm open
| to other ideas.
| MeImCounting wrote:
| Thinking isnt even a path to "free will". Thinking is
| pretty clearly determined by exterior stimulus just like
| feeling is.
| mistermann wrote:
| Where does "clearly" originate, and what does it refer
| to?
|
| Is "just" a synonym for "exactly" in this context?
| MeImCounting wrote:
| "Clearly" refers to the obviousness or self-evidence of
| the statement. In this context, "just" means "similarly"
| or "in the same way," or ig "exactly" if you like.
|
| "Clearly" because exterior stimuli clearly influence both
| thinking and feeling, a concept supported by common
| experience and scientific understanding of human
| cognition and emotions.
| poochkoishi728 wrote:
| Influence != Determine
| MeImCounting wrote:
| Yes it is indeed possible that in that small and
| shrinking gap of behavior that isnt explained by some
| complex set of circumstances and stimuli there lies some
| magic immaterial soul that grants the ineffable quality
| of free will. Bbbut since we have yet to find any
| evidence for such a thing I wouldnt keep my hopes up.
| Also theres much more interesting questions to be asking.
| mistermann wrote:
| Might "explanations" have a (perhaps private, or semi-
| private) epistemic value attribute? That could certainly
| change the game up.
| MeImCounting wrote:
| Well most of the explanations I personally am interested
| in have a public and therefore high epistemic value.
| Since they are published and repeatable. Certain
| behavioral tests or self-report surveys on the other hand
| have lower value because of the private nature of what
| were intending to test. They still have some value
| though.
|
| Private experiences may be very important for individuals
| and like I said elsewhere, free-will is certainly a
| useful idea in religious contexts. I do not believe this
| has any bearing on practical matters such as our ability
| to predict or understand the actions taken by any given
| system such as humans or computers.
| mistermann wrote:
| How are all of these measured?
| MeImCounting wrote:
| Theres actually a ton of different ways. The most obvious
| is probably MRIs of which many have been conducted with
| the subject having a huge variety of different stimulus.
| Then theres the good old fashioned behavioral studies
| ranging from the classic "does the subject jerk their
| hand back in the presence of heat?" to the more recent
| hungry judge phenomenon.
|
| I wouldnt think the fairly self evident assertion that
| exterior stimulus changes both the internal state of a
| person as well as their behavior would be controversial.
|
| At this point in history "free will" is really just the
| god of the gaps and those gaps shrink every year. Its
| probably a useful religious concept but as far as reality
| goes its the least interesting question one could ask
| about the whole human experience.
| mistermann wrote:
| Did you remember to check/contemplate whether your
| "measurements" are correct?
|
| This seems like a rather recursively self-referential
| problem.
| MeImCounting wrote:
| Im not really sure what you mean here, could you
| elaborate?
| mistermann wrote:
| Well, above you seem to be describing "how things are".
| What if what you're describing is not the things
| themselves, but rather only a model of the things?
|
| Like, where are the details of how you are "measuring"
| these things? And what measurement instrument returns
| values like "is clearly" and "is really just"? I can
| think of only one.
| MeImCounting wrote:
| Still not entirely sure what exactly youre getting at
| here.
|
| Yes what I am describing is my opinion which I have
| formed from looking at evidence. My opinion isnt really a
| measurement in the sense that one can measure activity in
| parts of a brain with an MRI. It is really just the state
| of the system.
|
| I'm not really interested in abstract epistemological
| definitions of free will because they arent useful in the
| way that neurology psychology and biology are generally.
| I am interested in predicting or explaining behavior or
| observations mostly. You might be interested in that kind
| of exploration which is great! If you think it does have
| bearing on such things I am totally interested in hearing
| how.
| goatlover wrote:
| How would thinking be determined by exterior stimulus,
| when we all vary to some extent to the same stimulus?
| Behaviorism was found wanting because it didn't account
| properly for goes on between the ears. And the rest of
| the body, which makes us individuals. The idea of free
| will comes from the fact that people do make different
| choices. We make different choices than our past selves
| did. From a compatibilist perspective, one could say free
| will comes from being part of determining what goes on.
| Things don't just happen to us. We participate in what
| does happen. We're not simply puppets on the string of
| the external world. We're just as much a part of causing
| things as everything else is.
| MeImCounting wrote:
| > How would thinking be determined by exterior stimulus,
| when we all vary to some extent to the same stimulus?
|
| Because, and this may shock you: we are not all the same
| person
|
| You make an excellent point that people respond
| differently to a given stimulus. This is explained by
| those people having had different genetics, environments,
| upbringings and even breakfasts leading up to the point
| of the test. It has been demonstrated that your metabolic
| state will vastly change your response to stimuli
| throughout a day.
|
| I ate something different for breakfast today than
| yesterday because one sounded tastier than the other. I
| made this decision not because I have an eternal soul
| making randomized decisions like a roulette machine but
| because yesterday I craved salty food and today yogurt
| sounded better. I am different person today than I was
| yesterday. My gut, brain and everything else has been
| changed by all the stimulus I experienced yesterday and
| is now influencing my responses today.
| mistermann wrote:
| > The thinking part is an illusion.
|
| Except for this part of thinking, paradoxically.
|
| https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-reference/
| Earw0rm wrote:
| Just because you're reliant on words to think doesn't
| mean others are.
|
| Language certainly helps shape thoughts, even to the
| extent that, certainly for older kids and adults,
| different languages influence and constrain thought in
| different ways.
|
| But consider dreams. These are adjacent to thoughts, and
| don't require language. Some dreamers are even able to
| express will not only on their actions, but over the
| dream itself. And if proof were needed of a conscious
| agent, it's there even in an apparently unconscious
| being.
| rightbyte wrote:
| Turn it around. How would "consciousness" manifest if we
| behave based on how we think, not how we feel? You meed
| to prove the opposite too.
|
| There is not a prerequisite of it being either or but I
| guess it is both.
| thfuran wrote:
| It only implies that some people think (or perceive
| thinking) differently.
| card_zero wrote:
| There's alien hand syndrome in split-brain people, where
| the verbal hemisphere will invent its own confidently
| incorrect explanation of "why I just did that" when the
| non-verbal hemisphere does something with the hand it
| controls. And there's Marvin Minsky's society of mind.
| But none of this undermines free will, it just means the
| will is a function of lots of components, only some of
| which are involved in contemplative thought (and not
| necessarily verbally).
| 7thaccount wrote:
| I find it hard to believe that they can't at all imagine
| what a tree looks like or imagine a face of a friend. I
| can understand some difficulty in a perfect image, but
| nothing?
| jprete wrote:
| There's a spectrum, but some people see nothing at all.
| It's known as aphantasia.
| trescenzi wrote:
| The fun thing is that for those of us who cannot it's as
| hard to believe others can conjure images. Yes the idea
| of mental imagery is deeply ingrained in our language but
| I'd always assumed it was allusion till I learned of
| aphantasia when I was 30.
|
| One of the more cliche, and not super useful tests, is
| "imagine a ball on a table, someone pushes the ball and
| it begins to roll. What color is the ball?" For me that
| was a revelatory statement because I'd never consider
| that others might give the ball a color, or size, or
| texture as the imagine it. I assume not everyone with the
| ability to visualize does but it seems like many do
| according to the literature. To me it's just a statement,
| a ball is rolling pushed by a nondescript person.
| p51-remorse wrote:
| So for me I definitely visualized a ball on a table, but
| the color wasn't resolved, if that makes sense. After
| hearing the question asked it kind of snaps out of
| superposition into a red color (but there was definitely
| a color-choosing step that happened after hearing the
| question).
|
| Same thing happens if you ask "what surface is the table
| on" or "what country is this image in". It's layers I can
| add to the mental state, but if they're not important
| they're just not there.
|
| I'd say the closest thing to what I was "seeing" before
| the color question is something like a wireframe, or
| maybe the gray color of a Blender model without
| colors/textures applied. Grey in the sense that you don't
| really notice it's grey, you just understand the grey
| color means color is absent.
| tessellated wrote:
| You accurately described my experience.
| dTal wrote:
| You described my experience well as well, except my
| abstract colorless ball was barely even visual. I was
| quite happy to entertain the idea of a ball on a table
| with very few concepts activated - roundness for the
| ball, flatness for the table, gravity holding the ball on
| the table. Rather like a physics problem.
|
| When forced to dereference a color, it felt like an
| entire system was booted up. Not only did the ball have
| color, it also had specular reflections. There was
| lighting. The table gained an abstract sense of having
| texture.
|
| What I find particularly fascinating is that my mind also
| assigned "red". I wonder if that is a coincidence, or a
| deep reflection of something about how brains work.
| Supporting evidence: in languages with only three words
| for color, the three colors are "light", "dark", and
| "red":
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_term#Stage_II_(red)
| r2_pilot wrote:
| I'll also chime in and say I was able to visualize the
| generic ball-ness and as soon as the question of color
| arose, I also immediately picked red despite not being my
| favorite color or anything. I blame childhood depictions
| of balls lol
| ambrose2 wrote:
| My ball was kind of an indeterminate grey, too, but it
| was on a granite countertop of a kitchen island in an
| open concept kitchen/living room. Like one from a Bounty
| commercial or something.
| trescenzi wrote:
| That's a really cool description. Makes me think about
| people complaining of having unwelcome images brought to
| mind. Which I can relate to through songs. If someone
| says Baby Shark it's going to start playing whether I
| want it to or not.
|
| For me when someone asks "What color is it?" I think to
| myself "I don't know you're the one telling the story you
| tell me."
| sethammons wrote:
| I imagined a small, red, dense foam ball actively being
| placed by a feminine hand with matching red nails and a
| fancy bracelet onto a white marble slab with olive green
| marbling. The slab is a couple inches thick and overhangs
| the cabinets below it. The point of view, like watching
| from my own eyes, is looking down at the counter with the
| ball being placed by the ephemeral hand as if they stood
| opposite me.
|
| What color was the ball? I didn't have to think; I knew
| it was red. However, I can't tell you much about the
| cabinets or the arm or body attached to the hand. Totally
| unrendered and void.
| p51-remorse wrote:
| I'm curious, what kind of work do you do? Do your dreams
| have that kind of detail?
| sethammons wrote:
| Software engineer, but I've also been a graphic designer,
| a photo editor, a fire and casualty insurance agent, a
| financial services advisor, a construction worker (very
| basic carpentry, electrical, plumbing, roofing, etc), and
| high school math teacher, all before being a software
| developer turned manager turned developer again. And,
| yeah, dreams have that much detail, but also the extra
| depth that comes in dreams like knowing intent, emotions,
| relative history, etc
| p1necone wrote:
| I feel like I kinda have this, and I'd describe it like
| this:
|
| With actual vision, there's a pipeline of steps: light
| hits actual cone/rod cells -> optic nerve fires -> brain
| stage 1 -> brain stage 2 -> brain stage 3... where each
| of those stages also have various side effects associated
| with the experience of "seeing"
|
| I can't synthesize "brain stage 1" at all I don't think,
| I _need_ my optic nerve to send some signals to "see".
| But I think I might be synthesizing "brain stage 2" when
| I imagine seeing e.g. a red apple in a pretty similar way
| to actually seeing it - I can feel "red apple vibes" but
| there is no image of a red apple my field of view. My
| brain state certainly contains some data about the color
| of the imaginary apple and the shape of it, but it's not
| nearly the same as actually seeing it.
|
| This is all astonishingly hard to explain in a way that
| communicates accurately between two people though.
| tonynator wrote:
| Absolutely same. I wonder how much of it is most people
| being like this and many of those saying "well yes of
| course I see the apple" without really thinking about it.
| If someone actually _sees_ the apple, v.s. imagining what
| it would be like if they were seeing it, they 're
| hallucinating. Not that it wouldn't be cool to be able to
| do that on command, I just wonder how many people really
| can.
| mkl wrote:
| I really see it. It's not hallucinating as the imagined
| image is not in the real world. It's like a different
| input to the visual processing part of my brain (but both
| inputs work at once, a bit like looking at a different
| thing with each eye). I have visual memories (snapshots I
| can call up) of things I never saw with my eyes (e.g.
| scenes from novels) that are as strong as any that came
| from my eyes.
| BlarfMcFlarf wrote:
| I basically only can see in dreams and visions, but
| rarely remember full images. Basically, everything in my
| mind is in a compressed symbolic state.
|
| The most notable difference is if you ask me to imagine
| something, there isn't any detail in the "image" that I
| haven't intentionally placed there. "Imagine the face of
| a stranger you haven't met before; what color are their
| eyes?" Idk, I can add eye color to the image, but I
| certainly can't just observe it, because both before and
| after it's just the concept, not like a picture I can
| just look at.
| Earw0rm wrote:
| Same, at least 90% or so.
|
| I'm terrible at recognising faces - changing a "symbolic"
| feature like facial hair or glasses will completely throw
| me - but great at reading maps.
| sethammons wrote:
| For me, it is a picture to look at. Like a bust, I had a
| head and shoulders to look at. The stranger's eyes were
| deep brown; practically black. They were half asian half
| white, had black hair, palish white skin, dark eyes, a
| flat near-smirk. He was wearing a blue collared button up
| shirt with a mild jeans like texture. The sleeves were
| rolled up. The buttons were white.
| AlexCoventry wrote:
| I started training to develop the ability around age 10
| or so. As far as I can tell, it wasn't an innate capacity
| in my case.
| pulvinar wrote:
| It's part of the reason why discussions about
| consciousness often result in people talking past each
| other, when they start with the assumption that other
| humans think just like them.
| vidarh wrote:
| I see nothing at all.
|
| I spent 45 years or so thinking people were talking
| metaphorically when talking about picturing things,
| because surely they couldn't actually see things while
| awake?
|
| I see things when I _dream_ , so I know what it is like,
| and some years ago I had a single experience during
| meditation I've never managed to replicate, but otherwise
| nothing while awake.
| 7thaccount wrote:
| So if I told you to close your eyes and think about your
| best friend's face....you cannot see ANYTHING?
| vidarh wrote:
| No. Nothing.
|
| EDIT: This is a great article about Ed Catmull and
| aphantasia: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47830256
| throwaway920102 wrote:
| Mental imagery and mental language could both be a layer
| above a lower more basic form of abstract thought. You
| might not need either to think, plan, and reflect
| effectively.
| rightbyte wrote:
| I don't see the connection.
|
| When I am doing math or painting I am not spelling out
| what to do in my head. You can probably do just fine
| without an inner monologue.
| pcrh wrote:
| With regards to consciousness _per se_ being real, that
| question was resolved with _Cogito, ergo sum_.
| dTal wrote:
| What even is "free will"? It's an idea that falls apart
| on close inspection.
|
| You think "I will wash the dishes". You wash the dishes.
| Ta-daa, free will!
|
| A paralyzed person thinks "I will raise my hand". Nothing
| happens. No free will!
|
| An ADHD person says to themself "I will wash the dishes".
| They don't get washed. A different part is broken than to
| the paralyzed person, but the result is the same.
|
| A lazy person says to their roommate "I refuse to wash
| the dishes". Free will? They "could", if they were not
| lazy. Just as the ADHD person "could" if they did not
| have executive dysfunction. Just as the paralyzed person
| "could" if their spinal cord were intact.
|
| "Free will", as a philosophical construct, is nothing
| more than an attempt by the ego to regain a sense of
| control in the face of the irrefutable realization that
| the universe is governed by rigid laws, and we are made
| of universe. (And no, quantum randomness doesn't help you
| - a random choice is hardly more of an extension of will
| than a deterministic one).
| vasco wrote:
| I agree with the only caveat that the universe should
| have a maximum amount of precision it uses to calculate
| every next frame, and at the margin of error of these
| calculations, non-determinism may arise.
| dTal wrote:
| Even if those assumptions were true (and why should they
| be? the universe is not a computer, does not have
| "frames") what would that have to do with "free will"?
| vasco wrote:
| Why should yours? It seemed like you liked musing about
| this topic so I added a bit.
|
| You (and I) have no idea if the universe is or not a
| computer. If you don't see the connection of free will to
| error margin of a deterministic system then I'm not sure
| how else to put it. Just imagine a deterministic program
| getting a bit flipped by a cosmic ray and turning non
| deterministic and apply that to the universe's system of
| laws.
| thfuran wrote:
| I'm also not seeing the connection to free will. Did the
| program choose to be broken by a cosmic ray? Did the
| cosmic ray choose to break the program? Stochasticty
| doesn't imply volition.
| vasco wrote:
| It's the only way I've come up with that allows for free
| will, maybe other people have other ways. If the universe
| is not like a computer then I have even less ability to
| explain where free will would be possible.
|
| Cosmic rays are just an example to explain that there's
| external causes of non-determinism to a deterministic
| system. Another example I gave above was the limit of
| precision of the system itself, allowing for "free will"
| (meaning something which isn't perfectly explainable by
| just the laws+starting conditions).
|
| To me it's obvious the universe is deterministic, but the
| fun part is imagining ways in which it might not be.
| Comparing the universe to a computer is a fun way to
| think about it.
| dTal wrote:
| 10 print "If the universe is non-deterministic, that
| provides an explanation for free will!" 20 print
| "How? Coin flips don't have free will..." 30 goto
| 10
| vasco wrote:
| We're too deep so I can't reply anymore, but I didn't say
| this was an explanation for it, more like a possible
| requirement for it. There may be other ways in which free
| will would be possible. Remember, I said already multiple
| times I start from the premise there is none, but it's
| fun to take the other side and try to come up with
| possibilities. I think you're too boring if you just take
| a position and never try to defeat it in your mind!
| mrguyorama wrote:
| >You (and I) have no idea if the universe is or not a
| computer.
|
| You actually cannot just say "Man, the universe is so
| complicated, so it is possible it could be anything!"
|
| That's a non-sequitur and not sound reasoning or logic.
| bad_user wrote:
| The samples you gave make no sense.
|
| Firstly, a person suffering from ADHD can do the dishes,
| despite the odds being against them. And a paralyzed
| person can raise their hand, given advances in
| technology.
|
| And these are bad examples, as being incapacitated isn't
| an argument against free-will. The paralyzed still wants
| to raise their hand, even if they are unable at the
| moment. And the far more difficult question is if that
| want was entirely predetermined by the universe or not.
|
| Quantum randomness and the huge number of variables at
| play point to the fact that believing that we don't have
| free-will is a _non-falsifiable notion_.
|
| Consider this thought experiment: God comes to you and
| says ... "Here are 2 universes you can observe, one in
| which people have free-will, and another, that looks
| similar, but its people are just sophisticated
| automatons. Make an experiment to say which is which."
|
| Your irrefutable argument quickly falls apart because
| there's no way you can show any relevant evidence for it.
| And it's worse than talking about the absence of God,
| because we experience free-will everyday. It's like
| talking of consciousness -- we can't define it yet, but
| we know it's real, as we're thinking and talking about
| it. And a theory being _non-falsifiable_ does not make it
| false. God could exist and you could have a soul.
|
| You may or may not believe in free-will. But not
| believing in free-will is dangerous because it makes one
| believe that everything is predestined, so there's no
| point to doing anything, no point in struggling to
| achieve anything, no point in trying to escape your
| condition. If no free-will is possible, does life have
| any value at all? And that's the actual philosophical
| bullshit.
| orwin wrote:
| If consciousness, or rather, "philosophy of mind"
| interest you, and you like thinking about it, your
| position about "consciousness isn't real" (i simplify
| here) is a more and more talked about position, and the
| tenants are called "illusionists". Basically, they think
| we have an illusion of consciousness/subjective
| experience. Once again, poorly simplified, i'm not
| smart/dedicated enough to totally understand the idea and
| it is hard to explain something you don't totally get.
| olalonde wrote:
| I'm highly suspicious that the whole "inner vs no-inner
| monologue" thing doesn't actually exist and has more to do
| with these things being extremely hard to explain using
| language, and people describing their subjective experience
| in subtly different ways.
| epgui wrote:
| I 100% do not think in words or sentences or language. It
| feels more like node-traversing a graph of concepts, but
| it's all completely abstract. While I am able to
| consciously play back my thoughts linguistically or
| visually with some effort (and at the cost of
| efficiency), by default there are neither words nor
| images.
|
| French is my first language, I'm fluent in English, and I
| know a bit about many languages... But I've never had an
| inner voice or thought in language, even when I was very
| young.
| MattPalmer1086 wrote:
| Right, very like me. Language is the front end; I use it
| to express thoughts when needed (to record, communicate
| and check reasoning) The back end is working in some kind
| of abstract space.
|
| I suspect people who say they think in language are not
| really thinking "in" language. I think we all have this
| abstract conceptual space in us. I'm not even sure what
| it means to think in language; where do the ideas and
| concepts come from that are being expressed? I guess some
| people have to internally "hear" a thought expressed
| before it is real to them.
| Quinner wrote:
| Internal monologue (or dialogue, as it can play out as
| imagined conversations) is an apt name for it. Imagine
| reading a play. Everything is expressed as language, and
| ideas and concepts are expressed through that language.
| olalonde wrote:
| What I am saying is that probably everyone thinks the way
| you do, it's just that not everyone would describe it in
| that way. For example, I'm sure you came up with this
| comment in your head at some point before typing it and
| many people would describe this as an inner monologue,
| whereas you apparently do not.
| card_zero wrote:
| Yep, make a statement like this and somebody will always
| pop up and say "but _me,_ but _I,_ because I characterize
| _my_ inner experience as such-and-such and I like to
| think of myself as special ... that makes the distinction
| real. "
| epgui wrote:
| Oh, perhaps. And I didn't mean to suggest that I was
| special in any way, but... When I discuss this with
| people in real life, it is very rare that I find someone
| who relates to this way of describing how I think. Most
| people are just stuck in literal wide-eyed disbelief and
| either tell me they think in literal words, fragments or
| sentences, experiencing a real "inner voice", or they
| tell me that they visualize things somehow.
|
| Sometimes people seem to not be sure how to describe the
| experience of thinking... Which I suppose explains a lot!
| /laughs
| card_zero wrote:
| Good, I have the same suspicions about "no mental imagery
| vs. vivid mental imagery". Perhaps people who claim
| either thing are just being, uh, imaginative.
| raincom wrote:
| "inner monologue" exists whenever people have hopes,
| dreams, plans, etc--thats what humans being intentional
| agents mean. Sure, there is a spectrum: those whose
| monologue is so active during the wakeful time to those
| whose daily brief monologue is about what to say in
| tomorrow's scrum standup.
| kbrkbr wrote:
| Research indicates that reality is more complex and messy
| than that.
|
| https://www.livescience.com/does-everyone-have-inner-
| monolog...
|
| It seems more likely that a theory that bases being an
| intentional agent on the notion of an inner monologue is
| not the best model for what's happening.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| This is sort of the chicken and egg question though. You're
| basically asking if pre-human primates had language, which
| plausibly they did, and so consequently did the first humans
| who were their descendants. But somebody was the first
| whether they were homo sapiens or not.
| BenFranklin100 wrote:
| We think in something Steven Pinker termed "mentalese". It is
| distinct from human language. There are many examples of
| people who are cognitively normal, but either lack or have
| severely impaired language for various reasons.
|
| The distinction between reason and language is not widely
| appreciated, and is a main if not the primary reason people
| overestimate the abilities of LLMs.
| markerz wrote:
| This really reminds me of the recent "Hellen Keller on life
| before self-consciousness" and the discussion about people
| who were born deaf and how their thinking changed after
| learning sign language.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40466814
| davidmnoll wrote:
| Stating the mentalese hypothesis as fact is a bit tenuous
| BenFranklin100 wrote:
| Sure, like most areas involving intelligence, much work
| is yet to be done. However, mentalese or the Language of
| Thought Hypothesis, occupies a much stronger position
| than the hypothesis that human language itself is our
| fundamental engine of reason, which is almost assuredly
| not true. This last fact has serious implications for the
| valuations of the majority of AI companies.
| namirez wrote:
| I suspect most of our thinking is not in language until we
| try to articulate it to others.
| lmm wrote:
| We don't think in language. If you take the time to become
| fluent in two or more radically different languages then this
| becomes obvious.
| davidmnoll wrote:
| As i replied to the parent comment: this was at least 200k
| years before speech if you go by the hyoid bone evidence
| detourdog wrote:
| Last week there was an essay posted by Helen Keller
| describing her own development of consciousness. Great essay
| and she describes it's development.
| davidmnoll wrote:
| This was at least 200k years before the advent of speech if you
| go by the hyoid bone evidence.
| stubish wrote:
| I would consider this evidence that language predates human
| vocalizations. We already know deaf children will invent
| signs and gestures to communicate, and language not dependent
| on a hyoid bone. Do we have any way of dating the relevant
| neural structures through genetics?
| throwaway87651 wrote:
| FOXP2 was thought to be the genetic basis for language, but
| this has been overturned[1]. As far as I know there isn't a
| good candidate for a gene selected for language.
|
| [1] https://www.the-scientist.com/language-gene-
| dethroned-64608
| davidmnoll wrote:
| I think we'd have trouble because we'd have to tie the gene
| to a specific linguistic cognitive function. My hypothesis
| is that humans configured themselves into self-replicating
| group structures I'd call institutions, and language
| evolved as a way to facilitate that. These institutions
| exhibit all the thermodynamic properties of life, and they
| have goal directed behavior independent of individual
| humans.
| kgeist wrote:
| What if the first language was a sort of sign language, and
| vocalizations were only auxiliary, optional? With time,
| humans who vocalized had a better chance to be understood,
| and their vocal tract evolved. Humans instinctively gesture
| to this day when speaking.
| davidmnoll wrote:
| This has been hypothesized, but the fact that there aren't
| many or any purely sign languages still around and other
| primates don't show signs of using signs makes that seem
| like a reach, IMO
| kgeist wrote:
| >other primates don't show signs of using signs
|
| other primates don't show signs of using vocal language
| either, yet humans have it
|
| >there aren't many or any purely sign languages still
| around
|
| we're the only species of modern humans who survived,
| maybe Neanderthals/Denisovans etc. used sign language,
| who knows
|
| maybe the fact that we started using vocal language made
| us much more superior evolutionarily speaking, making
| other similar species without developed vocal tracts
| extinct (by our warfare/assimilation)
|
| deaf/mute people around the world have always
| historically come up with ways to talk using signs
| (different unrelated systems), i.e. we still have the
| means to do it, but it's unnecessary when you can produce
| sounds (freeing your hands to do work)
| davidmnoll wrote:
| This matches up well with my hypothesis that language developed
| as a mediator of institutional behavior and not the other way
| around. https://spacechimplife.com/institutional-code-and-
| human-beha...
| calepayson wrote:
| It all starts with imitation of some sufficient fidelity and
| generality that seeds a runaway evolutionary process. Language
| evolved to improve the fidelity of imitation much like how
| genes evolved pathways to minimize random mutations during
| copying.
|
| Once imitation gets good enough (general and accurate) were
| capable of spreading behaviors (phenotypes) without having to
| wait for folks to be born and grow up.
| Earw0rm wrote:
| That's culture, and it's known to exist among animals in a
| limited way.
|
| We don't really know what the upper bound for non humans is,
| because we don't know exactly what's being communicated by,
| for example, whale song.
| Vespasian wrote:
| I wonder whether we (as human) are merely the first species
| that managed to overcome initial barriers to developing
| culture and tech and thereby preventing any other species
| to do the same (for now).
|
| It feels like bipedalism, opposable thumbs and strong
| social behaviour and other factores were the perfect storm
| at the perfect time.
| Earw0rm wrote:
| Other species have culture (behavioural traits/patterns
| and social organisation/cues that are communicated, not
| innately inherited via genes and development), and other
| species have tech (making intentional modifications to
| their environment, creating structures that better
| support their existence).
|
| What seems to be rare is the ability to use culture a
| medium to store and transmit tech.
| lordnacho wrote:
| It's that Noah Yuval Harari book, isn't it?
|
| What's separates humans is we can construct common
| fictions that we actually believe in, eg "my job is to
| maximize shareholder value" where both the corporation
| and the responsibilities towards it are made up but
| generally believed.
|
| There's of course a rather large elephant in this room,
| too, that decides a lot of things about our lives.
| calepayson wrote:
| Harari's book is awesome but I think he gets stuck too
| far up the hierarchy.
|
| Trying to describe culture with stories feels like trying
| to describe biology with proteins. It gets us most of the
| way there but also adds a whole ton of complexity because
| it misses the fundamental nature of the system.
|
| Humans are great at general and accurate imitation. This
| probably seeded a runaway evolutionary process, the
| result of which was tools, fire, and language.
| exe34 wrote:
| the same thing probably happened early on, chemical
| evolution may have thrown up multiple replicators, but
| our ancestors had some small edge which allowed them to
| literally eat the competition.
| guide42 wrote:
| This is what the book Ishmael by Daniel Quinn proposes.
| Interesting read.
| maxwell wrote:
| Chickens are bipedal. There are tree frogs with opposable
| thumbs. Elephants and cetaceans have strong social
| behavior. Other hominids have all these.
|
| What other animals make fire? Cooked food was the game
| changer.
|
| https://www.livescience.com/5946-chimps-master-step-
| controll...
| calepayson wrote:
| Fire is rad but I don't see how it explains modern
| civilization.
|
| If most animals are operating on a calorie deficit and
| fixing this can lead to larger brains then why haven't
| domesticated animals evolved towards our level of
| intelligence?
| mrguyorama wrote:
| I don't think fire and therefore cooked food was THE
| change, though I think it definitely helped, but
|
| >If most animals are operating on a calorie deficit and
| fixing this can lead to larger brains then why haven't
| domesticated animals evolved towards our level of
| intelligence?
|
| Because farm animals do not evolve, they are bred. We
| have directed their evolutionary paths for centuries,
| away from what it would do on it's own, towards creatures
| that produce more milk, more meat, or fattier meat.
| maxwell wrote:
| Modern civilization is multi-special.
|
| From a calories-per-unit-of-labor standpoint, dogs and
| cats have now clearly eclipsed humanity, using their
| emotional intelligence to create a post-scarcity Marxian
| utopia where they can mostly do whatever they want all
| day while humans toil for them.
| xeromal wrote:
| Probably because our interference with their breeding
| selects for non-smart qualities.
| calepayson wrote:
| There's a professor at St. Andrew's, Kevin Lalland I
| think, who has done a lot of work on imitation. His
| theory is that that imitation is generally useful but
| without high enough copying fidelity culture won't
| develop.
|
| For example monkeys have been known to exhibit fashion
| trends (hanging a bit of grass out of their ear). But
| these trends fizzle out over time. Before more behaviors
| can be layered on top.
|
| I think you're right about those factors creating a good
| environment for this to happen and I bet they're
| sufficient but not necessary. Too bad we don't have
| another example :)
| xeromal wrote:
| I think if any animal has a shot at sentience, it'll be
| dogs. We've been improving their diets and breeding for
| intelligence.
| Chris2048 wrote:
| Or cultural breakthroughs - either societies that started to
| value learning, or the advancement of such cultures?
| trescenzi wrote:
| It's not necessarily scientifically accurate at all but this is
| the premise of Spaceship Earth, the ride in the big geodesic
| sphere, at EPCOT in Disney World. It's an interesting take on
| history being accelerated by advances in communication
| technology, and not just language.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| It doesn't even have to be verbal, but through showing; many
| animals teach each other using that, and that goes back much
| further than 300K years ago. But there must've been a change in
| early humans that made it more effective, make it go beyond
| basic skills.
|
| The other thing to consider is that they reached a point where
| they could gather food / survive more easily. If less time
| needs to be spent getting food - because they've reached a
| level of intelligence where they can, for example, store food
| for longer, or prepare / cook it for more efficient calorie
| gathering, or grow food, or share food / acquire more than an
| individual needs, etc - then there's more time left for
| cultural exchange, experimentation and play. That is, spend
| more time experimenting with a stone tool to make it better
| beyond the base necessity.
|
| disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm talking about. I don't
| actually believe early humans spent that much time surviving,
| looking at apes they seem to spend a lot of time just sitting
| around.
| perlgeek wrote:
| I've read a lot of hypotheses about what could have happened.
|
| Some say it was language.
|
| Others say it was the development of consciousness, which came
| with an improved theory of mind.
|
| Others say it was thinking in what-if/hypothetical scenarios.
|
| Maybe they all developed in lockstep, somehow.
| fuzzfactor wrote:
| >Humans began to rapidly accumulate technological knowledge 600k
| years ago
|
| I knew I was late to the party.
| kazinator wrote:
| Humans began to rapidly accumulate technological knowledge around
| the Renaissance, with the invention of the printing press.
|
| The farther back we go, the more we have to use tongue-in-cheek
| definitions of "rapidly".
| harrylove wrote:
| Imagine what they'll say 600,000 years from now.
|
| "Humans began to acquire knowledge around the time of Dacro and
| the Second Wormhole Leap. The farther back we go..."
| newzisforsukas wrote:
| Agents probably won't refer to all members of Homo as humans,
| I would imagine.
| gavindean90 wrote:
| But like China had the printing press and gun powder and plenty
| of other things that went on to be repurposed in the
| Renaissance. I feel like the narrative of the modern
| technological exponential growth curve kicking off with the
| Renaissance is rather Eurocentric and misses that the left end
| of that graph is likely so shallow as to be hard to
| differentiate the "before" and the "after".
| Roadeo wrote:
| Slightly unrelated, but James Burke explains this really well
| in Connections[1] S01E03.
|
| Basically he says one of the reasons China didn't experience
| the rapid growth Europe went through during the Renaissance
| was because Chinese society during those times had a strict
| hierarchy. You weren't allowed to rise through the ranks with
| your inventions or technologies, no matter how revolutionary
| they were. "No incentive, no change."
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(British_TV_ser
| ies...
| edflsafoiewq wrote:
| Was the Renaissance driven by concerns of social mobility?
| Galileo's telescope was not calculated to improve his rank
| in society.
| Chris2048 wrote:
| I suppose there are more ways to be paid: fame / rank,
| money, or even piety.
| graemep wrote:
| It certainly was, and initially did improve his
| reputation.
|
| If you look at what happened he could have benefited
| hugely if he was not obnoxious and had not gone out of
| his was to annoy people. He mocked the powerful, and he
| insisted that the Copernican cosmology (the sun is the
| centre of the universe) was not just a theory, but had
| been proven true.
| shiroiushi wrote:
| The word "rapid", just like "fast", is a relative term. Turtles
| move rapidly, compared to snails.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| The knowledge was there, but it was in part thanks to the
| printing press (and political / sociological reform, e.g.
| schools and improving quality of life) that it became more
| accessible to more people.
| johnnylambada wrote:
| It's fascinating to think about the number of PUs (procedural
| units) it takes to make a modern tool. Something as simple as a
| modern hammer must number in the thousands and a mobile phone in
| the millions or billions.
| levocardia wrote:
| That idea is pretty similar to "assembly theory" no? In the
| sense of how much information or evolution was necessary to
| generate some artifact, be it a benzene molecule, a stone tool,
| or an iphone
| visarga wrote:
| It took humans 300k years, all of us, our collective output
| to reach this point. Yet people insist on comparing a human
| who is part of society with a LLM alone, who doesn't even
| have search, and very limited contexts, just closed book mode
| remembering.
| lifeofguenter wrote:
| Who is comparing LLM with Humans?
|
| As far as I can tell nobody is.
|
| LLM is a great tool that helps our brains same way a hammer
| helps our hands.
| namaria wrote:
| You seem to be hallucinating a strawman
| jstanley wrote:
| Wrong thread, perhaps?
| adolph wrote:
| The same came to my mind. I think there may be some elements
| of assembly which have to do with biological process that
| don't apply to "accumulation of technological knowledge," but
| I need to reread it.
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06600-9
|
| _Here, we introduce AT, which addresses these challenges by
| describing how novelty generation and selection can operate
| in forward-evolving processes. The framework of AT allows us
| to predict features of new discoveries during selection, and
| to quantify how much selection was necessary to produce
| observed objects, without having to prespecify individuals or
| units of selection._
| w-ll wrote:
| Billions of transistors in a smart phone, and those took
| many^many machines to build
| fsckboy wrote:
| the genius of photolithography (and its descendents) is that
| each chip is printed all at once, all the transistors at once
| over several steps for the several layers. This is what makes
| chips inexpensive.
| vasco wrote:
| The genius of photolithography is many things, I wouldn't
| say the wafer process is any more special than the
| statistical models that can predict where a nozzle needs to
| point to lay substract with more precision than the nozzle
| itself can provide or a number of other important
| inventions there.
| fsckboy wrote:
| using the same process that was used to make a single
| transistor (and package and attach connecting leads to
| it)...
|
| ...to make an entire circuit (and package and attach
| connecting leads to it)...
|
| is the invention of the integrated circuit
|
| and photolithography made that possible. It subsequently
| had a large number of important follow on innovations,
| but which were conceptually proper subsets of it.
|
| had some other process made integrated circuits possible,
| that other process would have subsequently had many
| important innovations.
|
| what flowed from photolithographic chip making is still
| flowing today.
| NL807 wrote:
| The factories that build them is like something out of a sci-
| fi film. Quite mind blowing.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| There was a great article posted the other day that
| explained in detail but also followable terms all the
| processes that go into making a chip. I didn't realise that
| a single wafer can spend months in the production line.
| alun wrote:
| You might find the essay "I, Pencil" by Leonard Read
| interesting. It's told from the point of view of a pencil who
| talks about the complexity of his own creation and all of the
| components involved in the process
| nexuist wrote:
| That essay also loosely inspired the opening scene of Lord of
| War, which showcases the journey of a bullet from an
| underground mine to an Eastern European factory all the way
| into the head of an African child soldier.
| fakedang wrote:
| Loved that scene. Reminds me of all the "autobiography"
| stories we had to write for various items such as cars,
| horses, computers and pens, back in school.
| brazzy wrote:
| There's also Thomas Thwaites' "building a toaster... from
| scratch" project that goes into the details of how even an
| extremely simple appliance involves materials and processes
| that are effectively impossible for a single person to
| replicate (spoiler: he has to give up and "cheat" on some
| things).
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Likewise, someone (I forgot who) who made a sandwich from
| scratch - growing wheat, pigs, cows, produce, the works.
| maxwell wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URvWSsAgtJE
| Anotheroneagain wrote:
| It's just ideological drivel. People never had any difficulty
| to cooperate on such level.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Except for over 300.000 years ago.
| feedforward wrote:
| One part of the drivel - he says don't let the government
| inhibit the invisible hand of the market that Adam Smith
| discusses in The Wealth of Nations. But in The Wealth of
| Nations, the invisible hand is the hand of the government
| inhibiting free trade between nations.
| Anotheroneagain wrote:
| It gets inhibited by the banking system anyway, you would
| at least have to adopt the Chicago plan (full reserve
| banking) to avoid it. As it is now, it's about who gets
| given the money, rather than anything similar to free
| market.
| alickz wrote:
| Paraphrased here in 2 minutes by Milton Friedman:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67tHtpac5ws
| etskinner wrote:
| Is "procedural units" a commonly used term? I couldn't find any
| info in a quick search. I'd love to hear more about the concept
| tzm wrote:
| Just imagine where we'll be 600k from now.
| euroderf wrote:
| Unrecognizable as a species.
| hollerith wrote:
| Long gone, having been killed by AI research probably.
| Chris2048 wrote:
| In the fuel tanks of future Cephalopoda.
| sethammons wrote:
| I was surprised to learn that octopus fossils exist that
| predate dinosaurs. I dropped all hope for their eventual
| world domination. If they haven't done it by now...
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| The past 100 years of development are unfathomable already -
| even though some sci-fi from 100 years ago was accurate, so
| there was some imagination of what things could be like
| already. I like to believe I can vaguely predict what the next
| 100 years will bring, but that's based in a cynicism that the
| big scientific discoveries have been done already.
|
| But 1000 or more years, unfathomable. It's the one reason where
| I wish time travel or suspended animation was real, just so I
| can see what the future might bring. Assuming it meanders on as
| it has for the past few thousand years, and there's no Great
| Filter event.
| newzisforsukas wrote:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20210826223800/http://www.bbc.co...
| cpncrunch wrote:
| News article says humans, but earliest human (homo sapiens) was
| around 300kya. The actual paper uses the word hominids rather
| than humans.
| sydbarrett74 wrote:
| Can we all agree that 'human' should be defined as all members
| of the genus _Homo_?
| Pengtuzi wrote:
| No
| alberto_ol wrote:
| Archaic human?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_humans
| eru wrote:
| I would be fairly happy with that definition, but I wouldn't
| rely on it out-of-context.
|
| (I would definitely call Neanderthals "human" in almost any
| context.)
| ljf wrote:
| According to 23andme I am 2 to 4% neanderthal, and I
| _think_ of myself as human...
| bloak wrote:
| A single-word common name usually refers to a genus: "oak" is
| anything in _Quercus_ , "wagtail" is anything in _Motacilla_
| and so on. That 's not conclusive because there are plenty of
| exceptions, and "human" could easily qualify as a special
| case, but I don't see why "human" shouldn't be any member of
| _Homo_.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| The word human is commonly used for both modern humans and
| members of the entire genus Homo. Hominids is a more general
| superset that isn't strictly correct here. The term hominin is
| more appropriate in this context and what they actually use in
| the abstract.
|
| In my opinion though, "human" is the better word here for
| conveying the right mix of informality without implying the
| specific semantics of "Hominini sans Pan".
| MattPalmer1086 wrote:
| Is it?
|
| This is literally the first time Ive seen the word human
| applied to other hominids. I see many discussions about
| neanderthals and denisovians and so on. I have never seen
| them referred to as human.
| jb1991 wrote:
| I think it's not uncommon to refer to Neanderthals as early
| humans, I'm sure I've read that in many places.
|
| Natural history museum, for example, refers to them as
| early humans: https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/who-were-the-
| neanderthals.htm...
| graemep wrote:
| It is also reasonable to argue that they and we are
| subspecies of the same species not rather than separate
| species.
| acchow wrote:
| Of course we are not separate species since successful
| interbreeding did happen (when the populations
| interacted).
| jb1991 wrote:
| Donkeys and horses are not the same species, but they
| interbreed. Their offspring are called mules. Although
| mules rarely have offspring, so perhaps not a great
| example.
| Turskarama wrote:
| There is supposedly neanderthal DNA in some modern
| humans, implying that offspring were viable. Breeding
| resulting in viable offspring is one of the only
| consistent definitions of what a species even is.
| Amezarak wrote:
| We could make that the definition, but we'd doing a lot
| of redefinition: coyotes and wolves would become the same
| species, as would lions and jaguars. Fertility issues
| tend to increase with genetic distance but aren't
| guaranteed; for example, mules are _usually_ but not
| _always_ sterile.
| acchow wrote:
| What about the 2nd generation of mule, then 3rd? If the
| probability of viability keeps dropping generation after
| generation, eventually it will delete itself?
| Amezarak wrote:
| That's not the definition of species. Many species can
| interbreed, sometimes even species that are pretty
| distantly related.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| If you look closely at it, the concept of "species" is
| impossible to define exactly.
|
| That's fine in general. Many words are like that. But it
| makes it flawed as a scientific concept.
| Thuggery wrote:
| I have never heard anyone refer to Neanderthal as a human
| unless they are talking in a "those are cavemen, early
| humans" way that's wrong. Where is this coming from? Is
| it a non-English world thing?
|
| Generally Neanderthals are pointed out as an exception to
| cross species fertility since... humans have some
| Neanderthal DNA.
| jb1991 wrote:
| Wherever it's coming from, it's not based on any
| particular language. Museums in English-speaking
| countries use the term.
| Amezarak wrote:
| > Generally Neanderthals are pointed out as an exception
| to cross species fertility since...
|
| There's no such rule and Neanderthals are not notable as
| an exception. Fertility is just a very rough proxy for
| genetic distance, which is correlated to our arbitrary
| "species" buckets but by no means a real line or hard
| rule. Many, many reasonably closely related species can
| interbreed, like jaguars and lions. Most of _homo_ that
| had the opportunity could probably interbreed.
| lkrubner wrote:
| I'm not sure where you are reading but both layman and
| scientists commonly use the word "human" to refer to the
| genus "homo". To look at just one example, Ian Tattersall
| called one of his books "Extinct Humans" and it is a look
| at the history of the genus homo:
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Extinct-Humans-Ian-
| Tattersall/dp/0813...
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| I can't speak to what you have or haven't seen before, but
| yes it's quite common as informal language among
| anthropologists with particular kinds of views. Sometimes
| people will use "modern humans" or "archaic humans" or some
| other variation to differentiate, but not always and it's
| usually pretty clear from context regardless.
|
| This is just one of many examples of definitions being
| extremely unstandardized in human evolution. You get used
| to it after awhile.
| seszett wrote:
| > _I have never seen them referred to as human._
|
| I have never seen anything else. But then in French, they
| are called _Neandertal men_ and _Denisova men_. So pretty
| clearly humans.
| Y_Y wrote:
| I think it's typical in non-technical English to use
| "humans" to refer to homo sapiens only, unless you
| qualify it, like "archaic/early humans". Without
| additional context I wouldn't assume somebody talking
| about humans meant to include e.g. Neanderthals.
| skywhopper wrote:
| Qualifications like, "600k years ago"? That's pretty
| clearly talking about the humans of 600k years ago.
| "Early humans" are still humans.
| Y_Y wrote:
| > "Early humans" are still humans.
|
| I respectfully disagree, as started in my earlier post.
| It would be nice if human language worked like that, but
| it does not always. A "stone frigate" isn't a boat, an
| "iron lung" isn't a respiratory organ.
| goatlover wrote:
| Those things aren't closely related biologically, so not
| a good analogy. "Human" isn't a precise biological
| category, it's just based on how the word is used, unlike
| homo sapiens. And some people, including scientists, use
| it to mean closely related species of hominids. Or
| hominids generally.
| Y_Y wrote:
| I agree? I didn't know close biological relation was a
| prerequisite for a good analogy, but I'll gladly oblige:
| vampire squid, velvet ant, slipper lobster, naked ape.
| Stratoscope wrote:
| Wait a minute. I am part Neanderthal.
|
| Does this mean I am only part human?
| card_zero wrote:
| You're also part bacterium and part treeshrew, so I
| couldn't really say for sure.
| darby_nine wrote:
| I'll admit this is the first I've encountered the concept
| that "neanderthals and denisovians and so on" are _not_
| human. Maybe not _biologically modern_ humans, but I 'd
| certainly consider them fundamentally human.
| MattPalmer1086 wrote:
| We're all part of the genus "homo", but to me, "human"
| refers to "homo sapiens". I was sufficiently surprised to
| hear that humans were around 600k years ago that I came
| here to comment.
|
| The Wikipedia article [1] on humans makes the same point.
| It does acknowledge that some use the term human to refer
| to all members of the genus homo, but this is not the
| common usage.
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
| Wissenschafter wrote:
| Bizarre, this is the first I've encountered the concept
| of someone thinking Neanderthals and Denisovans were
| "Human".
| orhmeh09 wrote:
| Allow me to further blow your mind:
|
| https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/who-were-the-
| neanderthals.htm...
|
| https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/are-neanderthals-
| human...
| skywhopper wrote:
| Uh, I guess you aren't reading the same things I am.
| Neanderthals were definitely "human".
| tshaddox wrote:
| Usage is definitely mixed, but I'm surprised you haven't
| encountered this. From Wikipedia:
|
| > Although some scientists equate the term "humans" with
| all members of the genus Homo, in common usage it generally
| refers to Homo sapiens, the only extant member. All other
| members of the genus Homo, which are now extinct, are known
| as archaic humans, and the term "modern human" is used to
| distinguish Homo sapiens from archaic humans.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Being 2.3% neanderthal, I'm... not sure what to think about
| it.
|
| I think it's a case of the classic issue of trying to make
| sharp boundaries in a continuum. There just are no fully
| satisfying answers.
| Aardwolf wrote:
| If 500,000 years ago a hominid sits by the fire they lit
| and is working on sharpening a stone tool, would you say:
|
| "someone / a person is sharpening a tool" or "it / a
| hominid is sharpening a tool"?
| Dgrin wrote:
| I personally would call them a human, but this seems like
| a false equivalence unless you believe that personhood is
| something exclusive to humans. "Someone / a hominid" is
| perfectly valid and could at the same time be "someone /
| a person".
| butlike wrote:
| Human === Homo sapien _sapien_. Homo Sapiens are a different
| thing
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| H. s. sapiens is not universally accepted either. As a
| practical matter, it'd raise a lot more eyebrows in an
| actual conversation with anthropologists than the informal
| usage of humans = genus Homo I mention above.
| oopsallmagic wrote:
| And to think it culminates in tech companies emitting more CO2
| than Belgium to make celebrity deepfakes and tell us to put glue
| on pizza. Wow.
| Anotheroneagain wrote:
| More recent history seems to paint another picture - knowledge is
| quickly gained as cognitive ability increases, and is even more
| rapidly lost once it diminishes.
|
| Think of not only the replication crisis in science, but also the
| despair to retain "tacit knowledge" the failure of which often
| results in outright abandonment and outsourcing to somewhere
| else.
|
| The technology to land on the Moon seems to be effectively lost.
| The supersonic airliner is for some reason not available either.
|
| Same happened in Rome, and Rome itself together with Greece
| rediscovered civilization from a much darker age before them.
|
| In light of that, the idea that any real knowledge could be
| retained for that long is preposterous.
| integricho wrote:
| >>> The technology to land on the Moon seems to be effectively
| lost.
|
| The technology might be, but not the knowledge. The tech just
| became obsolete and probably not up to safety standards anyway.
| I doubt we'd have much trouble recreating a better equivalent
| if the incentives existed.
| Anotheroneagain wrote:
| We couldn't. It was just a well known example. Writing
| doesn't help much - the words lose their meaning without
| people capable of acquiring the knowledge before hand.
| Whatever you preserve is worthless without the mountain of
| implicit knowledge that can only be acquired, and not taught.
| Knowledge is being lost even as elderly workers try to pass
| their knowledge to new hires with zero success.
| MediumOwl wrote:
| > The supersonic airliner is for some reason not available
| either.
|
| This whole comment shows a solid amount of ignorance of
| history, but this particular quote is completely preposterous.
| "for some reason" is money, plain and simple. Just go read the
| Wikipedia article on Concorde. And there are plenty of
| supersonic military airplanes, the technology is definitely
| there.
|
| > Same happened in Rome, and Rome itself together with Greece
| rediscovered civilization from a much darker age before them.
|
| Did you ever hear about Ancient Egypt?
| Anotheroneagain wrote:
| There were many like Egypt, Egypt was exceptional that it
| some sort of survived (but actually not really), while the
| rest got wiped completely. Then a dark age followed.
| wiz21c wrote:
| Why don't they just look for _the_ monolith ? :-)
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| What if they did find it and that's why we don't send crewed
| missions to the moon anymore?
|
| Think about it. The first manmade object on the moon was in
| 1959. The first pineapple on pizza was in 1962. Coincidence, or
| lunar monolith? You decide!
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Another ASU researcher, Sander van der Leeuw, whose nearly
| decade-old presentation at the "More is Different" conference on
| complexity theory in Singapore looks how stone tool archaeology
| tracks with intellectual capacity (and most specifically the size
| of short-term memory (7 +/- 2 items for modern humans, according
| to most accounts).
|
| Video, 1h6m running time: <https://yewtu.be/watch?v=pOyQqPi28ug>
|
| (I'm aware Google / YouTube are making alternative interface
| usage more challenging. MPV handles this stream well, as should
| tools such as VLC which incorporate it and/or ytdl.)
|
| Video is admittedly long but has high information density.
| TMWNN wrote:
| Yet more evidence that unknown civilizations rose and fell
| multiple times before recorded history began ~4000 BC.
|
| ( _The Why Files_ fans can insert here "The Younger Dryas!")
| pimpampum wrote:
| My guess is language emergence allows to teach and "accumulate"
| knowledge in cultures.
| pizzafeelsright wrote:
| Language transmission for sure. The Tower of Babel slowed
| technology considerably and by design.
| greekanalyst wrote:
| " _The result is, our cultures -- from technological problems and
| solutions to how we organize our institutions -- are too complex
| for individuals to invent on their own._ "
|
| Yes, solo geniuses might often make unbelievable inventions on
| their own.
|
| But science, progress and innovation are all social concepts at
| the end of the day.
|
| I find this pretty amazing.
| fergonco wrote:
| You will find "the secret of our success" an interesting read.
|
| One thing I remember is: There are some cultures out there
| hunting seals with some tools that are made using parts... of
| seals. Some European explorers almost perished where locals
| were just living their routine (supported by their cultural
| baggage).
| JohnMakin wrote:
| Ancient human anthropology is a fascinating subject because we
| are still discovering so much yet know so little.
|
| Stone tools remained essentially unchanged for a long, long time.
| 600kya would have been within the range where there were still
| multiple homo species occupying very similar regions. An
| important thing to remember is that the homo family tree is more
| like a bush than a tree, with lines getting very blurry and a lot
| of interbreeding. It makes me wonder how much technology like
| this actually came from our precise lineage or was
| shared/stolen/learned amongst human species.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-06-18 23:02 UTC)