3 ms·

The way I think about it is that there is a tipping point in intelligence where a species can build on its own discoveries at a much accelerated rate, similar t

The way I think about it is that there is a tipping point in intelligence where a species can build on its own discoveries at a much accelerated rate, similar to the concept of a singularity in AI. As 10,000 years is not that long from an evolutionary perspective, we are about the dumbest that a species could possibly be in order to reach that singularity point, otherwise we would have done it earlier. Of course, this ignores factors such as non intelligence based adaptations (such as thumbs), antibiotic factors (climate). It also ignores the facts that intelligence is composed of many components, and our singularity might have happened after an improvement is some metric that does not contribute much to overall intelligence. For example, the ability to speak does not make an individual animal more intelligent, but it does facilitate the accumulation of intelligence through generations.

leot 13y ago
Why do we need a tipping point? Proposal: 1) Human progress arises from the development and improved use of tools/technology (and I'm including concepts like "if", as well as skills, as kinds of technology) 2) Our tool use abilities interact multiplicatively/geometrically. E.g., [what I can do with a hammer and a shovel] is not the sum of the [things I can do with hammers] and [the things I can do with shovels] 3) Our tool-use-abilities started meagre 4) Tool use is not uniquely human, but humans are better at it 5) Accidents of history and human development have allowed for the accumulation of tools (agriculture, e.g.) ... this "explanation" (or what have you) yields exponential growth curves that, I propose, would look very similar to those of humans. If there was a "tipping point" perhaps it was (5) -- the introduction of some substrate upon which cultural knowledge could grow.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  I think language works as a tipping point in that sequence. For technology to interact as you say, it has to spread easily.
  - leot 13y ago
    Why do we take as the default hypothesis that language is, as you seem to be implying, a monolithic "thing"? A more plausible hypothesis seems to me to be that language itself is constituted by a suite of cultural tools/skills. A language with a very limited vocabulary (especially one restricted to largely unhelpful words, e.g. "Justin Bieber", or "toe wart") is much weaker than one that has benefited from decades of cultural and generational digestion and iteration (i.e., a language that includes concepts like "however", or "on the condition that", or "art", or "gravity").
DougWebb 13y ago
What makes you think we've advanced in a straight line? We're surrounded by the ruins of lost civilizations, who often built things we would find very challenging to reproduce even with our modern machinery, if we could reproduce it at all. It seems much more likely that human civilization has advanced and been knocked back multiple times in multiple places, and we're currently at a high point. We're probably the first ones to figure out how to use coal and oil to generate power and do far more work than can be achieved with animal and slave labor. I suspect that's the key to how high our high point is. But I also suspect that there are other sciences where we're not as advanced as our predecessors, and maybe even some we haven't discovered yet.

leot 13y ago

Why do we need a tipping point? Proposal: 1) Human progress arises from the development and improved use of tools/technology (and I'm including concepts like "if", as well as skills, as kinds of technology) 2) Our tool use abilities interact multiplicatively/geometrically. E.g., [what I can do with a hammer and a shovel] is not the sum of the [things I can do with hammers] and [the things I can do with shovels] 3) Our tool-use-abilities started meagre 4) Tool use is not uniquely human, but humans are better at it 5) Accidents of history and human development have allowed for the accumulation of tools (agriculture, e.g.) ... this "explanation" (or what have you) yields exponential growth curves that, I propose, would look very similar to those of humans. If there was a "tipping point" perhaps it was (5) -- the introduction of some substrate upon which cultural knowledge could grow.

maxerickson 13y ago
I think language works as a tipping point in that sequence. For technology to interact as you say, it has to spread easily.
- leot 13y ago
  Why do we take as the default hypothesis that language is, as you seem to be implying, a monolithic "thing"? A more plausible hypothesis seems to me to be that language itself is constituted by a suite of cultural tools/skills. A language with a very limited vocabulary (especially one restricted to largely unhelpful words, e.g. "Justin Bieber", or "toe wart") is much weaker than one that has benefited from decades of cultural and generational digestion and iteration (i.e., a language that includes concepts like "however", or "on the condition that", or "art", or "gravity").

DougWebb 13y ago

What makes you think we've advanced in a straight line? We're surrounded by the ruins of lost civilizations, who often built things we would find very challenging to reproduce even with our modern machinery, if we could reproduce it at all. It seems much more likely that human civilization has advanced and been knocked back multiple times in multiple places, and we're currently at a high point. We're probably the first ones to figure out how to use coal and oil to generate power and do far more work than can be achieved with animal and slave labor. I suspect that's the key to how high our high point is. But I also suspect that there are other sciences where we're not as advanced as our predecessors, and maybe even some we haven't discovered yet.