10 ms·

Despite the correction, I still expect to see (perhaps only slight or niche) skills with their corresponding mental attributes which great apes and extinct homi

by lmpdev 2y ago

Despite the correction, I still expect to see (perhaps only slight or niche) skills with their corresponding mental attributes which great apes and extinct hominids possess(ed) which outweigh our own An example which springs to mind is the utterly absurd physical traits and likely corresponding hand-eye coordination Homo naledi possessed in order to perform their burial rituals It took world-class climbers risking their lives to even reach the burial chamber, let alone do it repeatedly without modern climbing gear or even light Despite their size and build being advantageous, I do not see how their mental attributes wouldn’t be more conducive to related skills than even trained (but tool-less) Homo sapiens Source: https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2023/june/claims-homo-naledi-buried-their-dead-alter-our-understanding-human-evolution.html https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2023/june/claims-homo-na...

QuesnayJr 2y ago
Even the evidence about homo naledi possibly needs correction. Here's a recent preprint that argues that the evidence that homo naledi buried their dead is not there: https://paleoanthropology.org/ojs/index.php/paleo/libraryFiles/downloadPublic/25 https://paleoanthropology.org/ojs/index.php/paleo/libraryFil...
- HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
  One thing that seems certain though is that Homo Naledi was there way deep in the cave, which is saying a lot in of itself.
  - lmpdev 2y ago
    The fact they could get to that chamber is enough to make my original point though It is unlikely homo sapiens have equal or better neurological attributes for certain domains. In this example Homo naledi likely possessed superior balance and motorskills for the average naledian to be able to make it that deep
griffzhowl 2y ago
See also this paper by one of the foremost researchers in the field and colleagues for how Berger and his team haven't been rigorous with their methodology with Homo naledi "No scientific evidence that Homo naledi buried their dead and produced rock art" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248423001434 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00472...
jerf 2y ago
One possible resolution: homo sapiens really is physically weak. We route a lot of energy into our brains. Our strongest body builders, probably augmented with chemicals, still don't reach what a normal gorilla does. A homo non-sapiens who isn't routing quite as much energy to their brain and is another 50% stronger than homo sapiens climbers may not find the climb so challenging. (I would expect climbing strength to non-linearly improve climbing skill; once you rise to "I can just barely lift myself" you'll get rapid climbing improvements as you incrementally improve past that, a sudden takeoff in the strength versus climbing skill chart.) Humans have a lot of advantages; obviously our high-quality brains, fantastic eye sight, wonderful hands, etc. but I would argue that the fact we are physically weak, in the literal "strength" sense of that, even when we do exercise and strengthen to our very limits, is perhaps our biggest disadvantage compared to the rest of the animal kingdom. (So, it isn't just a science fiction trope that there's a lot of things stronger than us. However, if the Klingons and the Vulcans and pretty much every other alien species in Star Trek can outwrestle a human, one does sometimes wonder how they can do that but also still have human, or slightly better than human, intelligence. Perhaps arguably the Vulcans should be a little weaker yet.)
- luma 2y ago
  Define "physically weak". Chimpanzees are certainly better climbers, but we can run for hours on end, far longer and further than any other land animal. Not all physical strength is just lifting heavy things.
  - jerf 2y ago
    Physically weak, as in, what people expect when people say physically weak. We do not have good strength. We do, or at least can, as you say, have best-in-class endurance, but that's endurance, not strength.
    - autokad 2y ago
      I get your point, but I also still think you are wrong. there is no one measure for 'strength'. humans can throw a punch much harder than a chimp even though a chimp's arm is stronger. humans can kick harder, etc, even though a chimp would usually tear a person up in a 'fight'. humans can throw a ball faster and harder than any other primate, likewise we can swing a stick harder and with more precision. some people will play down human skills saying, 'thats because they are trained and specialized, the average human cant do that'. THATS LITERALLY OUR SPECIAL ABILITY. Humans are adaptable both physically and mentally to do virtually any task. adaptability means we aren't inherently good at any one of those tasks without training and practice. Its a feature, not a bug.
unaindz 2y ago
Chimps destroy us at the number memory test. Maybe it's just with that specific test but it suggests they have a larger working memory and probably faster visual/pattern processing than us.
- lupire 2y ago
  Is their evidence for that claim?

by lmpdev 2y ago

QuesnayJr 2y ago

Even the evidence about homo naledi possibly needs correction. Here's a recent preprint that argues that the evidence that homo naledi buried their dead is not there: https://paleoanthropology.org/ojs/index.php/paleo/libraryFiles/downloadPublic/25 https://paleoanthropology.org/ojs/index.php/paleo/libraryFil...

HarHarVeryFunny 2y ago
One thing that seems certain though is that Homo Naledi was there way deep in the cave, which is saying a lot in of itself.
- lmpdev 2y ago
  The fact they could get to that chamber is enough to make my original point though It is unlikely homo sapiens have equal or better neurological attributes for certain domains. In this example Homo naledi likely possessed superior balance and motorskills for the average naledian to be able to make it that deep

griffzhowl 2y ago

See also this paper by one of the foremost researchers in the field and colleagues for how Berger and his team haven't been rigorous with their methodology with Homo naledi "No scientific evidence that Homo naledi buried their dead and produced rock art" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248423001434 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00472...

jerf 2y ago

One possible resolution: homo sapiens really is physically weak. We route a lot of energy into our brains. Our strongest body builders, probably augmented with chemicals, still don't reach what a normal gorilla does. A homo non-sapiens who isn't routing quite as much energy to their brain and is another 50% stronger than homo sapiens climbers may not find the climb so challenging. (I would expect climbing strength to non-linearly improve climbing skill; once you rise to "I can just barely lift myself" you'll get rapid climbing improvements as you incrementally improve past that, a sudden takeoff in the strength versus climbing skill chart.) Humans have a lot of advantages; obviously our high-quality brains, fantastic eye sight, wonderful hands, etc. but I would argue that the fact we are physically weak, in the literal "strength" sense of that, even when we do exercise and strengthen to our very limits, is perhaps our biggest disadvantage compared to the rest of the animal kingdom. (So, it isn't just a science fiction trope that there's a lot of things stronger than us. However, if the Klingons and the Vulcans and pretty much every other alien species in Star Trek can outwrestle a human, one does sometimes wonder how they can do that but also still have human, or slightly better than human, intelligence. Perhaps arguably the Vulcans should be a little weaker yet.)

luma 2y ago
Define "physically weak". Chimpanzees are certainly better climbers, but we can run for hours on end, far longer and further than any other land animal. Not all physical strength is just lifting heavy things.
- jerf 2y ago
  Physically weak, as in, what people expect when people say physically weak. We do not have good strength. We do, or at least can, as you say, have best-in-class endurance, but that's endurance, not strength.
  - autokad 2y ago
    I get your point, but I also still think you are wrong. there is no one measure for 'strength'. humans can throw a punch much harder than a chimp even though a chimp's arm is stronger. humans can kick harder, etc, even though a chimp would usually tear a person up in a 'fight'. humans can throw a ball faster and harder than any other primate, likewise we can swing a stick harder and with more precision. some people will play down human skills saying, 'thats because they are trained and specialized, the average human cant do that'. THATS LITERALLY OUR SPECIAL ABILITY. Humans are adaptable both physically and mentally to do virtually any task. adaptability means we aren't inherently good at any one of those tasks without training and practice. Its a feature, not a bug.

unaindz 2y ago

Chimps destroy us at the number memory test. Maybe it's just with that specific test but it suggests they have a larger working memory and probably faster visual/pattern processing than us.

lupire 2y ago
Is their evidence for that claim?