That’s Church yo…

Homepage Forums Small Talk That’s Church yo…

This topic contains 37 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by  jakelafort 2 weeks ago.

Viewing 8 posts - 31 through 38 (of 38 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #43828

    jakelafort
    Participant

    From Pope:

    and a strong urge to communicate with each other in ways that go much deeper than ways among other animals

    Not sure about that. Not an assumption i make.

    #43835

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    Not sure about that. Not an assumption i make.

    I probably could have worded that better.

    By saying “in ways that go much deeper than ways among other animals”, I mean, for example art, music, science. These ways of communicating more deeply are not mainly due to genetic differences, but are cultural capabilities that have accrued in accelerating sophistication over generations of knowledge and practices that are documented or otherwise recorded in permanently accessible fashion… even in (say) folklore, shamanism, folk medicine, songs… just to mention some of our earliest ways we evolved to become increasingly communicative.

    But meanwhile, genetically, I think we evolved merely a few, basic differences between other animals, like vocal characteristics, abilities to express and interpret facial features (especially wrt emotions and other feelings), and a few other social abilities (via brain structure evolution) that, granted, also required tens of thousands of years to amplify via a parallel cultural evolution. Enhanced language abilities alone may be the number one such “advancements” in human abilities.

    I’ll add one more paraphrasing to this. Even if genetically we aren’t so hugely different from other primates, a few of those differences happened to enhance our abilities to transmit knowledge, skills, and perhaps other enhancements onto subsequent generations, in ways that can be recalled as needed. Technology in particular, in this latest stage of our cultural evolution has multiplied these abilities to document and communicate these “enhanced” capabilities of the human species.

    What do you think? (I’m pressed for time at the moment, so I might not be spending enough time here to ponder my wording more carefully, or consider other reasons for why you don’t share my assumption.)

    If you’re seeing changes to this post, I’m sorry for all the edits I’ve made here… I’m terrible about wording properly, clearly, and as comprehensively as I would like at first writing. Just one more note, bringing this back to Belle Rose’s topic, with my possibly-narrow point of view of it: Fiction is one of those enhanced, human capabilities, and in particular to the current topic, our capability to invent religions. Religion has, especially in the past, been a very effective way to motivate human beings to come together and interact… in ways that are “for better and for worse”. In fact “for the better” is what the focus of this topic is about, which is a focus that I think deserves more credit and investigation, whether in the context of religion or other humanistic endeavors.

    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 3 days ago by  PopeBeanie. Reason: TONS of typo fixes, and other clarifications... even some "late" additional thoughts
    #43837

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Pope, you undersell yourself as a communicator.

    I agree with most of you’ve written.

    I think dogs read us and our facial expressions as well as we do each other. Also very hip to our mood. It is my understanding that all (or nearly all) primates have emotions that are elicited by like-stimulus and are expressed facially in nearly the same way.

    I can’t deny that in some ways we exceed all other animals and as a result have produced modes of communication that are unique. On the other hand there is a great deal that is overlapping between ourselves and other primates. And how much communication between nonhuman animals is unknown by us? There is pair-bonding without divorce. Loss causes survivors to be forlorn. There is a world of scent that is only slightly sniffed by humans. It is a natural consequence of being a social mammal that communication is at the forefront of how we function. Without communication there is no social cohesion.

    #43860

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    I think dogs read us and our facial expressions as well as we do each other.

    Absolutely! And sidenote, dogs were once wolves until they started evolving with us, and then we bred them to be even more compatible with us… both of which might include newly bred abilities to read our emotions, but I can’t declare that as a fact. Just a strong hunch.

    As far as animal abilities overlapping our own, of course that’s true too, and I think that studying these overlaps are enlightening wrt both animal and human behaviors and evolution. (My favorite researcher is still Jaak Panksepp, who discovered and documented laughter in rats during play.) Specific to human evolution, it’s important to me to distinguish between genetic and cultural evolution, and I wish we had more specific terminologies to more easily differentiate each type of evolution. I sometimes think of it as “evolution squared”, i.e. some small changes in our genes, more than other genetic changes, get geometrically multiplied in power by our increasing success in cultural evolution.

    While comparing our cultural-advancement powers to other, mother-nature-legacy genetic evolution in all animals, I almost always think of our advanced evolution as unnatural, or artificial. I still need to find a better, non-value laden term than “advanced”. I just don’t know how to better think of and explain this non-genetic type of evolution. Along with this recent cultural/artificial kind of evolution of ours, as I always say, is “for better and for worse”.

    When taking a psych class a half dozen years ago, my main project presentation was on empathy and body language in dogs. E.g., just to give one of the most obvious examples, the universal body language in dogs of crouching down, front legs out, signalling a strong desire to play.

    My main purpose in the presentation was to show similarities between human and other animal emotions. In this case perhaps there’s no “I wanna play” body language analogy in humans, but body language itself is an evolved trait among different animals.

    from https://www.allthingsdogs.com/dog-body-language/

    After the presentation, one guy in class actually asked if I thought dogs have empathy. I thought I had just proven “yes, obviously”. But no, it’s still not obvious to some people. Strange, naive humans!

    Picture’s from https://www.allthingsdogs.com/dog-body-language/

    #43866

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Pope, good stuff.

    Genetic and cultural evolution. The two must be related. At some point all of those courtship rituals had a beginning. One unusual member of a species went cuckoo. And others joined in. So at some point that first macaque that washed fruit and had others observe and follow will become genetic. I guess, i don’t reallly know.

    Yeah that scientist is pretty cool. However it took him a long time to speculate that the rat’s vocalizations might be laughter. So the universality goes way beyond our primate cousins. Wouldn’t it be remarkable if alien life shares our biological expressions? What would that mean?

    #43893

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    So at some point that first macaque that washed fruit and had others observe and follow will become genetic. I guess, i don’t reallly know.

    I’d word that slightly differently, and clarify a bit. The behavior was originally enabled by a chance, genetic condition. If beneficial to the species, then enhanced survival that ensues is what makes that genetic difference more permanent. (I’m just placing the genetic change ahead of the behavior, here.)

    However it took him a long time to speculate that the rat’s vocalizations might be laughter.

    About the five years, it still strike me, too. Although, this video didn’t mention that he needed a special device just to hear the vocalizations, which he had to have custom made at the time. It’s the gray instrument that displays “48”-something on it, converting ultrasonic frequencies near 48 KHz to human-perceivable frequencies. So not having even heard those vocalizations for five years made this discovery of laughter a big leap.

    Speaking of laughter in animals, this couple of minutes, from Jane Goodall in 2010:

    (And I wonder if hyena sounds during group attacks on prey have any relation to laughter-like communications. I don’t mean that in a dark sense… it’s just another way to communicate before having actual words.)

    #43894

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    If beneficial to the species, then enhanced survival that ensues is what makes that genetic difference more permanent.

    The crucial condition for genetic change is if something is beneficial to the individual.  If the individual reproduces more than others because it possesses a specific trait, then that trait will become more common in the population.

    Some people say that when an animal makes noises, it is expressing emotion.  But one reason to express emotion is to communicate it to somebody, i.e., its fellow chimpanzees or hyenas or whatever.

    You might be interested in this: a lexicon of chimpanzee gestures, which I believe are widely shared among the great apes and understandable by humans.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28023630

    #43899

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Pope, perhaps you are not familiar but an Einsteiny macaque began washing fruit and others copied. So washing becomes cultural. A learned behavior simply adopted by doing as others are doing. I simply wonder how ritualized behavior originates and becomes coded. I probably read an explanation in what is his face-the imprint on ducks guy-Lorenz. (put a bullet in my head if it is dementia!)

    I love what is her face? Jane Goodall. Heard her speak once and was disappointed she is not an atheist but that does not diminish her beauty. When i was a kid and read one of her books about chimps it really hit home because it confirmed my suspicion that the teachers in elementary school were full of shit. I heard hours upon hours of how humans were unique. And come to read Jane’s book she was treated in a condescending manner by male scientist who accused her of being naive and anthropomorphic. It was my opinion before it was popular that if you buy evolution you MUST buy a great many similarities between other primates and homo sapiens. Frans de waal conveys that same sentiment as Jane.

Viewing 8 posts - 31 through 38 (of 38 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.