5 ms·

Homo erectus made world's oldest doodle 500,000 years ago

48 points by tokenadult 12y ago

mc_hammer 12y ago
what if we werent evolving... what if we are from space, and we are devolving slowly into apes, that we didnt share the common ancestor, we are just closer to it, and less devolved, and right now there are only 20000 gorillas left, who are really, more devolved humans... actually why isnt this possible? ive been thinking about this for 2-3 days and i am not sure what the flaw is. unrelated but also... supposedly there are 8' tall supergiant human skeletons at the smithsonian... hundreds of them.
- wereHamster 12y ago
  Have you seen Battlestar Galactica?
  - mc_hammer 12y ago
    just season 1...
- noselasd 12y ago
  A lot of things are possible, but not necessarily probable. We have a lot of evidence that we do share common ancestors with apes, and no evidence about coming from space. > supposedly there are 8' tall supergiant human skeletons at the smithsonian People also supposedly sees Elvis, faces on Mars and claim stone statues are crying blood tears. Don't pay attention to claims without evidence and scientific verification.
- avz 12y ago
  > actually why isnt this possible? Nobody says it isn't possible. Possibility isn't the point. What you're saying contradicts evidence and thus is not true. In general, absence of internal logical inconsistencies is insufficient for a scientific claim to be sound. It must also be consistent with available evidence.
  - drcomputer 12y ago
    I think it's a descriptive language issue, combined with the projection of judgement onto things that are like Jungian archetypes, but individually composed. I experience these things on accident because I suppress judgment of others, and then it comes out accidentally. It seems to be when someone wants to live totally scientifically and can't believe the language of other people, because they weren't there to make the recording or observation directly, therefore they can't asses the potential biases of every scientific conclusion fully. The logical form still fits because the theory is composed within the perspective of exactly one person. The theory of logic and the logic of theory are interesting. Science often paints one picture of the world, with the a priori assumption that that picture is correct and can be used to describe new evidence. The present evidence is established formally using the language of the past. Not everyone speaks this language. Many people venture down rabbit holes that are infinitely complex, in order to find 'the base' in which everything can be rested upon, in which their subjective view of the world intersects with the objective view of the world. And if they even can find that, then what base does the base rest upon? Many times while you are searching for it, trying to explain it, you change it. There are so many ways to interpret information mentally, coherently; that I don't feel like science has considered this as a influential component (or a component to at least consider seriously) when measuring error margins, biases, correctness, significance. People need to be educated in how maths and logics connect us mentally in a way that is unified and solid, but in another view, the world of information defines mathematics and logic, rather than math and logic supporting the base of objective measurement. But then again, I'm talking about individual people, rather than the idea of the scientific institution as a monolithic establishment. It's a choice selection of information combined with formalization. You can't know all information at once. Every theory is composed of a selected subset of information, assuming [the set] of information exists from which the subset is derived, and a subset of [the set] represents [the set] correctly.
- ChrisGranger 12y ago
  And what if there are unicorns? There's no evidence to suggest what you're saying, and mountains of evidence against it. It might be fun to daydream about "What if?" questions, but the flaw is that the hypothesis is discounted by what we already know to be true. We've mapped the genomes of many primates and have a pretty good handle on how the branches of our "family tree" play out. As far as the hundreds of 8'-tall giant human skeletons at the Smithsonian, I'm going to need a source.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- dnlbyl 12y ago
  Devolve is not the opposite of evolve. To devolve is to transfer ruling power to a lower level, e.g. from a central government to regional governments. A species evolves to adapt to its environment. The opposite (if there can be such a thing) would be to not evolve.
  - mc_hammer 12y ago
    cool i didnt know that. thanks for that.
- ObviousScience 12y ago
  Your theory doesn't explain why we and fish share developmental similarities such as pharyngeal pouches, why there is such protein similarity between us and other mammals, why our bone structure is incredibly similar with other mammals, why the markers in our genomes from endogenous retroviruses spread across species, etc.
  - mc_hammer 12y ago
    interesting, good point. i suppose that means a flaw was i was only thinking about humans and not about all the life here
artichokeheart 12y ago
My inner 5 year old can't help but snigger at this headline.
- S_A_P 12y ago
  Dont feel badly for the downvotes. I seriously cant help myself either. And those who down vote something that is so blatantly funny to my inner 12 year old as "Homo Erectus" need to stop taking themselves so seriously. I really gotta wonder why the people who came up with these names didnt put a little thought into what they were saying. Homo Erectus?!?!? That is hilarious...
  - S_A_P 12y ago
    and further proof that you are never allowed to think things on HN are funny...
    - coldpie 12y ago
      It's a bit like making a Uranus joke on an article about the planet. Yeah, okay, teehee, but we've heard it all before and moved on. You're not adding anything to the discussion, and the joke wore out long, long ago.
avz 12y ago
There is one observation I find missing in the discussion of prehistoric abstract art. It is that with primitive tools and techniques the abstract kind of art is easier. It is the non-abstract kind that is difficult. Regardless of the causes for their preference towards the abstract kind of art, I find it amazing that Homo erectus 500,000 years ago had some art at all.
- ap22213 12y ago
  There's a gradient between the abstract and the non-abstract. And, the artist decides the position on the gradient based on their communication intent, the subject (the perceived audience), and the object (the perceived thing), even if they're just 'doodling'. Art is a cost / benefit play, just like most activities. Sometimes, it just makes sense to keep things simple - especially if there's not much to communicate.
  - drcomputer 12y ago
    How do you define the gradient between simple and complex?
    - ap22213 12y ago
      Art is a communication mechanism. So, I guess in my mind, your question would be similar to asking what's the gradient between a simple and complex binary packet.
      - drcomputer 12y ago
        Do you mean an abstract binary packet, which can represent an infinite number of symbolic expressions, or do you mean a specific binary packet, which can be transformed into a photograph of art? I understand we can simplify this argument down to 'everything is everything', 'i don't know' or 'maybe'. But that's an over-generalization of something very complicated, and then I miss the point of implementing things, doing things - with something real behind it. I just don't know whether computer code and mathematics can truly be like art, and art can truly be like mathematics and code. Communication can be simple. It can also be everything besides simple. You can look at a symbol and know what it is. But do you really know what it is? Are you just using a bunch of other symbols to explain what you think you know it is? And then how do you explain those symbols? In my mind, it's crazy. Not in a bad way. Just in an incessantly annoying way. There's a lot of philosophy and ideas and emotions and theories surrounding art, in what it represents, how it affects culture and society, how it represents culture and society and the individual. It's all reactions. Sometimes I think the same way about code, except in a psychoanalysis way, in that it explains how I think way, and why my perceptions of people socially are challenging, in two perfectly explainable simultaneous ways that keep changing depending on how much math and logic I know (or have the capacity to use all at once).

48 points by tokenadult 12y ago

what if we werent evolving... what if we are from space, and we are devolving slowly into apes, that we didnt share the common ancestor, we are just closer to it, and less devolved, and right now there are only 20000 gorillas left, who are really, more devolved humans... actually why isnt this possible? ive been thinking about this for 2-3 days and i am not sure what the flaw is. unrelated but also... supposedly there are 8' tall supergiant human skeletons at the smithsonian... hundreds of them.

wereHamster 12y ago
Have you seen Battlestar Galactica?
- mc_hammer 12y ago
  just season 1...
noselasd 12y ago
A lot of things are possible, but not necessarily probable. We have a lot of evidence that we do share common ancestors with apes, and no evidence about coming from space. > supposedly there are 8' tall supergiant human skeletons at the smithsonian People also supposedly sees Elvis, faces on Mars and claim stone statues are crying blood tears. Don't pay attention to claims without evidence and scientific verification.
avz 12y ago
> actually why isnt this possible? Nobody says it isn't possible. Possibility isn't the point. What you're saying contradicts evidence and thus is not true. In general, absence of internal logical inconsistencies is insufficient for a scientific claim to be sound. It must also be consistent with available evidence.
- drcomputer 12y ago
  I think it's a descriptive language issue, combined with the projection of judgement onto things that are like Jungian archetypes, but individually composed. I experience these things on accident because I suppress judgment of others, and then it comes out accidentally. It seems to be when someone wants to live totally scientifically and can't believe the language of other people, because they weren't there to make the recording or observation directly, therefore they can't asses the potential biases of every scientific conclusion fully. The logical form still fits because the theory is composed within the perspective of exactly one person. The theory of logic and the logic of theory are interesting. Science often paints one picture of the world, with the a priori assumption that that picture is correct and can be used to describe new evidence. The present evidence is established formally using the language of the past. Not everyone speaks this language. Many people venture down rabbit holes that are infinitely complex, in order to find 'the base' in which everything can be rested upon, in which their subjective view of the world intersects with the objective view of the world. And if they even can find that, then what base does the base rest upon? Many times while you are searching for it, trying to explain it, you change it. There are so many ways to interpret information mentally, coherently; that I don't feel like science has considered this as a influential component (or a component to at least consider seriously) when measuring error margins, biases, correctness, significance. People need to be educated in how maths and logics connect us mentally in a way that is unified and solid, but in another view, the world of information defines mathematics and logic, rather than math and logic supporting the base of objective measurement. But then again, I'm talking about individual people, rather than the idea of the scientific institution as a monolithic establishment. It's a choice selection of information combined with formalization. You can't know all information at once. Every theory is composed of a selected subset of information, assuming [the set] of information exists from which the subset is derived, and a subset of [the set] represents [the set] correctly.
ChrisGranger 12y ago
And what if there are unicorns? There's no evidence to suggest what you're saying, and mountains of evidence against it. It might be fun to daydream about "What if?" questions, but the flaw is that the hypothesis is discounted by what we already know to be true. We've mapped the genomes of many primates and have a pretty good handle on how the branches of our "family tree" play out. As far as the hundreds of 8'-tall giant human skeletons at the Smithsonian, I'm going to need a source.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
dnlbyl 12y ago
Devolve is not the opposite of evolve. To devolve is to transfer ruling power to a lower level, e.g. from a central government to regional governments. A species evolves to adapt to its environment. The opposite (if there can be such a thing) would be to not evolve.
- mc_hammer 12y ago
  cool i didnt know that. thanks for that.
ObviousScience 12y ago
Your theory doesn't explain why we and fish share developmental similarities such as pharyngeal pouches, why there is such protein similarity between us and other mammals, why our bone structure is incredibly similar with other mammals, why the markers in our genomes from endogenous retroviruses spread across species, etc.
- mc_hammer 12y ago
  interesting, good point. i suppose that means a flaw was i was only thinking about humans and not about all the life here

artichokeheart 12y ago

My inner 5 year old can't help but snigger at this headline.

S_A_P 12y ago
Dont feel badly for the downvotes. I seriously cant help myself either. And those who down vote something that is so blatantly funny to my inner 12 year old as "Homo Erectus" need to stop taking themselves so seriously. I really gotta wonder why the people who came up with these names didnt put a little thought into what they were saying. Homo Erectus?!?!? That is hilarious...
- S_A_P 12y ago
  and further proof that you are never allowed to think things on HN are funny...
  - coldpie 12y ago
    It's a bit like making a Uranus joke on an article about the planet. Yeah, okay, teehee, but we've heard it all before and moved on. You're not adding anything to the discussion, and the joke wore out long, long ago.

avz 12y ago

There is one observation I find missing in the discussion of prehistoric abstract art. It is that with primitive tools and techniques the abstract kind of art is easier. It is the non-abstract kind that is difficult. Regardless of the causes for their preference towards the abstract kind of art, I find it amazing that Homo erectus 500,000 years ago had some art at all.

ap22213 12y ago
There's a gradient between the abstract and the non-abstract. And, the artist decides the position on the gradient based on their communication intent, the subject (the perceived audience), and the object (the perceived thing), even if they're just 'doodling'. Art is a cost / benefit play, just like most activities. Sometimes, it just makes sense to keep things simple - especially if there's not much to communicate.
- drcomputer 12y ago
  How do you define the gradient between simple and complex?
  - ap22213 12y ago
    Art is a communication mechanism. So, I guess in my mind, your question would be similar to asking what's the gradient between a simple and complex binary packet.
    - drcomputer 12y ago
      Do you mean an abstract binary packet, which can represent an infinite number of symbolic expressions, or do you mean a specific binary packet, which can be transformed into a photograph of art? I understand we can simplify this argument down to 'everything is everything', 'i don't know' or 'maybe'. But that's an over-generalization of something very complicated, and then I miss the point of implementing things, doing things - with something real behind it. I just don't know whether computer code and mathematics can truly be like art, and art can truly be like mathematics and code. Communication can be simple. It can also be everything besides simple. You can look at a symbol and know what it is. But do you really know what it is? Are you just using a bunch of other symbols to explain what you think you know it is? And then how do you explain those symbols? In my mind, it's crazy. Not in a bad way. Just in an incessantly annoying way. There's a lot of philosophy and ideas and emotions and theories surrounding art, in what it represents, how it affects culture and society, how it represents culture and society and the individual. It's all reactions. Sometimes I think the same way about code, except in a psychoanalysis way, in that it explains how I think way, and why my perceptions of people socially are challenging, in two perfectly explainable simultaneous ways that keep changing depending on how much math and logic I know (or have the capacity to use all at once).