The more I learn about Neanderthals, the more I suspect they were very, very similar to us in many ways. In the same way that looking out into the universe makes me feel very small, the notion of history spanning back incomprehensibly with all of these lives of other people, even outside of my own species, is so humbling.
One thing I'm curious about is how the pottery connects to the bones. Is this evidence that they made pottery, or did the pottery get deposited later? I thought ceramics weren't around until ~20k years ago, but I'm not super current on this stuff. If it dates back 50k years and neanderthals made it, isn't that a huge deal?
> In the same way that looking out into the universe makes me feel very small
it's my personal project to get people to stop thinking and feeling this: we are not insignificant specks, we are close to all there is.
Till we humans discover any alien intelligence out there (and we've tried), we (and our creations if you want to include AIs) are the most complex and interesting things that we know of. When you look out at the universe you should see a whole lot of nothing: what is the sun but a giant agglomeration of a few processes (a few different fusions, radiation and absorption) and what are the other stars but more of the same, with a deep gravity well here and there.
Rather, it's us who is something, it's us who even created the concept of something, and the concept of significance. We assign those values. Without us, the universe might just be dead.
> In the same way that looking out into the universe makes me feel very large indeed, the notion of history spanning back such a short time to encompass all of us and our thinking, the only thinking we know of, gives us a great connection to these lives of other people, even outside of our own species, and should fill us with pride, the only pride there is in the universe afaik.
Sagan, Harari, Hossenfelder, and Feynmann to name a few, are always selling us ideas like "math and science make nature more beautiful". No, humans make nature, and math and science, beautiful. Everywhere in the universe they say, "you want to make an apple pie from scratch? First you must ask a human."
I agree partially, but I think it’s possible to hold opposing ideas here. Both perspectives are incredible and valid in their own ways. I’m very small, yet I’m the epitome of intelligent life as we know it. Perhaps it’s important to explore both ends of that spectrum.
I think we evolved an inherent sense of value or awe toward size because bigger things are harder to get to the other side of, are more likely to bop us on the head with impunity, but can also feed more people at the same time. Otherwise, what meaning is there in size? Microelectronics work better precisely because they are small.
> Perhaps it’s important to explore both ends of that spectrum.
my point is that the end of the spectrum that you are standing up to defend, I claim is currently, universally, getting all the attention, so deemphasizing it would right now be an unalloyed good.
> the end of the spectrum that you are standing up to defend, I claim is currently, universally, getting all the attention, so deemphasizing it would right now be an unalloyed good
While I fully support the idea that we should expand our thinking in areas we’ve neglected, how is intentionally deemphasizing a recognition of our relative smallness “unalloyed good”?
For many, this recognition is a primary source of awe and wonder, and has no tension whatsoever with a recognition of the importance and usefulness of smallness. If anything, this recognition of smallness is exactly the thing that highlights how rare and interesting we seem to be. Our “insignificance” is also the source of our significance.
We also seem prone to binary thinking and false dichotomies. Very few things are purely good or purely bad. Recognizing our smallness doesn’t have to be synonymous with concluding that we are unimportant.
There are many other species here on earth that have intelligence (problem solving skills, tool use) and culture (locally shared behaviors, dialects).
Some may be more intelligent than us but less able to put it to the domination of their environment. Orcas and sperm whales for example have brain sizes that outrank us by several kilograms, and brain-to-body-size ratios that are comparable to ours. Neanderthals themselves had larger brains than us too. Crows have smaller brains but have problem solving skills on par with 7-year-old humans.
We are far from being the only complex thing on this planet.
I agree completely. I initially wrote that with a frame of “epitome of intelligence as we define/know it”, but felt that nuance wouldn’t sit well with most people or even register. Humans are extremely anthropocentric in their understanding of intelligence. A lot of my comments on HN actually pertain to this; I think animals are far more capable, competent, and intelligent than we give credit.
I see a sort of irony in that we’re often not intelligent enough to recognize intelligence in others, even within our own species.
But thanks for adding that. It’s a really important thing to consider. It actually feeds into the “smallness”, as well.
Every single stellar system that we've explored has been found to have intelligent life.
Now with a sample size of one you could argue that I'm being optimistically misleading - and you would be correct. But likewise I respect but respectfully disagree with the notion that we are likely the only intelligent life in the universe. We might never communicate with an extra-solar being, simply due to the sheer size of the universe. But it is extraordinarily pompous to think that we are unique, special, or even alone.
you're focusing on the wrong aspect. We remain the most complex things we know of, the only things we know of complex enough to engage in all that goes into this discussion, including the discussion. If we found other intelligent life, it would only diminish us if that life were formed like the most erotic of sci-fi fantasies, those species that have evolved past corporeal form, an erotic fantasy I should mention, that we came up with
>what is the sun but a giant agglomeration of a few processes (a few different fusions, radiation and absorption)
Also incomprehensibly messy and vast mass of thermonuclearmagnetohydrodynamic interactions that may very well give rise to some sort of persistent, replicating structure and we'd have no way of knowing.
> ... we (and our creations if you want to include AIs) are the most complex and interesting things that we know of.
One viewpoint, I suppose. I think the cosmos and all of the things that compose it (including us) is the most complex and interesting thing that we (partially) know. And there is much yet to learn.
IMHO it depends of the scope you are looking at. if you change the focus in space (cells, atoms etc, or planets, galaxies) or time (plants, planets), ones significance can easily be questioned. not seeing it that way would be egocentric
this is paradox .. senior faculty at the Institute of Integral Studies in San Francisco had recurrent versions of this discussion annually
In Hindu traditions, this is expressed (I claim) in "atman - Brahman"
Like Brahman, Atman is also eternal, infinite, invisible, formless, and beyond the mind and senses. In beings, Atman remains enveloped by Nature and remains bound to the mind and body and the cycle of births and deaths.
I find it insanely crazy that a mere 50k years ago we shared the planet with another human species. Then only a little further back there were potentially multiple.
But they are. What I've always known (but I can't remember where I got it from) is that they never vanished/extinguished. They just merged with Home Sapiens.
I've read a few place that the population of Neanderthals peaked around 10,000 and the lack of genetic diversity was what contributed to their downfall and replacement by Homo Sapiens. However, I found this interesting article that tries to rationalize the sheer volume of bones and tools from Neanderthals against their seemingly negligible populations. The scientist believes populations peaked at over 100,000 across Europe. Amazing what genetic analysis can attempt to prove nowadays.
According to the book Breath by James Nestor, humans did not always have wisdom teeth problems: today, modern humans have small jaws because, during our youth, we spend less time chewing our food, so the muscles and bones in our skulls are stunted. Old skulls, like those found in crypts of old European cities, had larger jaws. (I'm going off of memory - my apologies if this explanation is too reductionist.)
The mechanics of oral health are really interesting in regards to foods and chewing them. It seems like processed foods are likely a massive contributor to declining oral health. The more you need to chew your food, the better, from what I can tell.
Our foods used to be way harder to consume. Not only would that lead to people having healthier teeth and gums (just like your pet dog!), but it likely helped people maintain healthier body weights as well.
I think the point is that it is very painful and the treatment provides relief, so not much of a scam.
Everyone responding is coming from a place where they were impacted by wisdom teeth, are you instead talking about extracting wisdom teeth as a precautionary practice, before they become a problem? Because otherwise it reads that you are trying to tell people that they are mistaken about a problem they have experienced.
Probably an emotional topic too, given how painful wisdom teeth can be.
Maybe you've just had crap dentists. 30 years ago in my late teens I had exactly one wisdom tooth removed and I still have the others today. It was removed because it was coming in perpendicular to the other teeth, starting to push on neighboring teeth, and that was extremely visible on an x-ray. The others were coming in fine and the dentist left them alone.
I had impacted wisdom teeth and bad mouth pain from 14-18. It was so bad I couldn’t chew on the side it hurt on, when both sides started to hurt I went to the dentist. It was so bad I could only chew with my front teeth at times. He realized they were impacted and removed them.
My friend never had an issue and still has his wisdom teeth, his siblings were not so lucky.
So, presumably Aznar donated them to a museum out of a desire for them to be studied and shared with the world. It took 34 years for anyone to look into it. Should he have not donated them to this museum?
One thing I'm curious about is how the pottery connects to the bones. Is this evidence that they made pottery, or did the pottery get deposited later? I thought ceramics weren't around until ~20k years ago, but I'm not super current on this stuff. If it dates back 50k years and neanderthals made it, isn't that a huge deal?