←back to thread

Humans began to rapidly accumulate technological knowledge 600k years ago

(news.asu.edu)
273 points geox | 9 comments | 17 Jun 24 21:28 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
gcanyon ◴[18 Jun 24 00:41 UTC] No.40712874[source]▶
You have to think that there were breakthroughs in communication technology — not just language in general but possibly also one individual who happened to be good at explaining things, either before or after language, who both taught more people, but also taught them how to teach — that led to step changes in technology.
replies(8): >>40713012 #>>40713840 #>>40713885 #>>40714141 #>>40714994 #>>40716449 #>>40717648 #>>40718490 #
dboreham ◴[18 Jun 24 01:03 UTC] No.40713012[source]▶
Theory: there are no humans without language. Consider: what language do you think in?
replies(7): >>40713064 #>>40713200 #>>40713207 #>>40713659 #>>40713766 #>>40713849 #>>40714603 #
mkl ◴[18 Jun 24 01:09 UTC] No.40713064[source]▶
Quite a lot of humans don't think in language, or do only some of the time, see e.g. https://www.iflscience.com/people-with-no-internal-monologue..., https://www.livescience.com/does-everyone-have-inner-monolog..., https://www.bustle.com/wellness/does-everyone-have-an-intern....
replies(4): >>40713166 #>>40713436 #>>40713482 #>>40714498 #
aurareturn ◴[18 Jun 24 02:12 UTC] No.40713436[source]▶
There are also humans who can’t conjure up an image in their head. Mozilla cofounder wrote a fairly famous piece about his own experience.

https://www.theverge.com/2016/4/25/11501230/blake-ross-cant-...

If there are people who can’t picture and people who don’t have an inner dialogue, I think it lends more credence to the idea that we don’t have free will and are just a bunch of chemicals controlling our behavior. It also makes you think about consciousness and whether it’s even real.

replies(7): >>40713514 #>>40713518 #>>40713749 #>>40714618 #>>40714810 #>>40715359 #>>40715412 #
dTal ◴[18 Jun 24 08:31 UTC] No.40715359{3}[source]▶
What even is "free will"? It's an idea that falls apart on close inspection.

You think "I will wash the dishes". You wash the dishes. Ta-daa, free will!

A paralyzed person thinks "I will raise my hand". Nothing happens. No free will!

An ADHD person says to themself "I will wash the dishes". They don't get washed. A different part is broken than to the paralyzed person, but the result is the same.

A lazy person says to their roommate "I refuse to wash the dishes". Free will? They "could", if they were not lazy. Just as the ADHD person "could" if they did not have executive dysfunction. Just as the paralyzed person "could" if their spinal cord were intact.

"Free will", as a philosophical construct, is nothing more than an attempt by the ego to regain a sense of control in the face of the irrefutable realization that the universe is governed by rigid laws, and we are made of universe. (And no, quantum randomness doesn't help you - a random choice is hardly more of an extension of will than a deterministic one).

replies(2): >>40715570 #>>40716370 #
1. vasco ◴[18 Jun 24 09:13 UTC] No.40715570{4}[source]▶
I agree with the only caveat that the universe should have a maximum amount of precision it uses to calculate every next frame, and at the margin of error of these calculations, non-determinism may arise.
replies(1): >>40715785 #
2. dTal ◴[18 Jun 24 09:51 UTC] No.40715785[source]▶
Even if those assumptions were true (and why should they be? the universe is not a computer, does not have "frames") what would that have to do with "free will"?
replies(1): >>40715996 #
3. vasco ◴[18 Jun 24 10:22 UTC] No.40715996[source]▶
Why should yours? It seemed like you liked musing about this topic so I added a bit.

You (and I) have no idea if the universe is or not a computer. If you don't see the connection of free will to error margin of a deterministic system then I'm not sure how else to put it. Just imagine a deterministic program getting a bit flipped by a cosmic ray and turning non deterministic and apply that to the universe's system of laws.

replies(2): >>40716027 #>>40720907 #
4. thfuran ◴[18 Jun 24 10:28 UTC] No.40716027{3}[source]▶
I'm also not seeing the connection to free will. Did the program choose to be broken by a cosmic ray? Did the cosmic ray choose to break the program? Stochasticty doesn't imply volition.
replies(1): >>40716085 #
5. vasco ◴[18 Jun 24 10:36 UTC] No.40716085{4}[source]▶
It's the only way I've come up with that allows for free will, maybe other people have other ways. If the universe is not like a computer then I have even less ability to explain where free will would be possible.

Cosmic rays are just an example to explain that there's external causes of non-determinism to a deterministic system. Another example I gave above was the limit of precision of the system itself, allowing for "free will" (meaning something which isn't perfectly explainable by just the laws+starting conditions).

To me it's obvious the universe is deterministic, but the fun part is imagining ways in which it might not be. Comparing the universe to a computer is a fun way to think about it.

replies(2): >>40717099 #>>40717364 #
6. dTal ◴[18 Jun 24 12:37 UTC] No.40717099{5}[source]▶

  10 print "If the universe is non-deterministic, that provides an explanation for free will!"
  20 print "How? Coin flips don't have free will..."
  30 goto 10
7. vasco ◴[18 Jun 24 13:04 UTC] No.40717364{5}[source]▶
We're too deep so I can't reply anymore, but I didn't say this was an explanation for it, more like a possible requirement for it. There may be other ways in which free will would be possible. Remember, I said already multiple times I start from the premise there is none, but it's fun to take the other side and try to come up with possibilities. I think you're too boring if you just take a position and never try to defeat it in your mind!
8. mrguyorama ◴[18 Jun 24 18:54 UTC] No.40720907{3}[source]▶
>You (and I) have no idea if the universe is or not a computer.

You actually cannot just say "Man, the universe is so complicated, so it is possible it could be anything!"

That's a non-sequitur and not sound reasoning or logic.

replies(1): >>40726320 #
9. vasco ◴[19 Jun 24 08:59 UTC] No.40726320{4}[source]▶
I didn't say it could be anything - I said it could be a computer! I don't think the universe can be a towel for example.