-- Posted by ElephantStone at 2:10 pm on Oct. 19, 2008 My course for a degree in Archaeology is largely centred around prehistoric humans at the moment. For an essay I got a very interesting book, The Mind in the Cave, Lewis-Williams, D., 2002. It is a study of Upper-Palaeolithic cave art c.30,000BP But instead of studying the art as such, he studies how this art tells us fundamentally what it is to be human. What drove humans to paint? There is little argument against the fact that cave art was symbolic. Painting and symbolism is characteristic to humans.   This separates us from the animals, even when we were living like animals, hunting and gathering. He very aptly states: These questions arent just about ancient history. they take us to the heart of what it is to be human today. It is not simply that we are more intelligent...On the contrary, the essence of being human is an uncomfortable duality of rational technology and irrational belief....The duality of human behaviour did not disappear...people were rational enough to travel to the moon and back and yet still irrational enough to believe in supernatural entities and forces that transcend, and in effect make nonsense of, all the laws of physics on which their moon journey depended.Does the human brain construct spaceships and the human mind fashion unseen forces and spirits? What is the difference between the mind and the brain? So what he is saying is, the human brain changes from generation to generation, but the mind stays the same. We have the same mind that those people who ventured into caves do 30,000 years ago to paint figures on the walls. It is understanding the mind that tells us who we are. Just an interesting point I thought Id put out there for discussion. Edit: extension to quote -- Posted by whoami111 at 2:51 pm on Oct. 27, 2008 Yeah we still think the same way even though our technology has advanced so far and we get more intelligent. We still imagine, some of us still strive for dominance, and we are still selfish beings. But I don't think that separates us from animals because then again doesn't most animals think like that minus the imagination part? -- Posted by Vordhosbn at 5:46 am on Oct. 28, 2008 wow that's a very interesting way of looking at it. i'd never considered it like that. i'd say that the most obvious thing that separates us from other animals is our social construct. our customs, traditions, ethics, etc that have evolved are far beyond anything we see elsewhere. but i guess when you look at it with the views presented in your quote, we aren't much more than an elaborate pack of wolves, with imagination and irrationality. this irrationality you mentioned is what has lead to much of our ethics, traditions, spirituality, and so on. we also have an appreciation for the passage of time. we have a desire to remember and understand the past, and to imagine the future. we are overtly aware of our own mortality, which i guess could be what has led to this irrationality, religion, etc. -- Posted by ElephantStone at 6:15 am on Oct. 28, 2008 Im just saying that We were nothing like we are now. We were living like animals, on our instincts. We were hunter gatherers. We lived in groups of 8-15 people. Life expectancy was little more than 30 years. We had no major religions, we were raw with nature then. The thing is, why was it seen as so important to paint? Im just saying that in all effect we were animals then, and yet this clearly shows we werent. There was something else. And this is us. The appreciation of the past only properly developed in our society in the 19th century, and is pretty much a western culture thing. -- Posted by morik at 6:31 am on Oct. 28, 2008 Culture. That is what separates us from other species. As soon as we learned to smudge a face on a cave wall and develop different grunt noises for "food" or "tiger!" we were well on the way. For a brilliant theory on how we started and paint and suddenly exolve so quickly read pretty much any books co-authored by Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen. "Figments of reality: the evolution of the curious mind" is certainly my favourite. Also "Science of the Discworld 2: the globe" is brilliant. (don't worry if you don't like discworld - you can simply skip the chapters written by terry pratchett) I did a paper on the development of the human mind, art, language and culture and those two books were a fantastic source for me to agree/disagree with. -- Posted by ElephantStone at 7:00 am on Oct. 28, 2008 Yes, Morik, I think you hit the nail on the head there. Culture. -- Posted by Vordhosbn at 7:06 am on Oct. 28, 2008 culture's a very broad term... we know we have 'culture', but what is it, really? art? music?  - why do we make art and music? why do see beauty in something practically useless? tradition? ritual? wow. 1 in the morning here and my brain is mush   -- Posted by Blackadder at 4:22 pm on Oct. 28, 2008 Quote: from Vordhosbn at 2:06 pm on Oct. 28, 2008 culture's a very broad term...   we know we have 'culture', but what is it, really? art? music? - why do we make art and music? why do see beauty in something practically useless?   tradition?   ritual?   wow. 1 in the morning here and my brain is mush There are, I'll have you know, several theories of art that would strongly take issue with your suggestion that 'art is not useful'. furthermore, culture is not limited to its art(s) (music tends to fall under the art catagory).....you totally forgot to mention that some other, rather important criteria: Customs/traditions/ 'ways of doing things' History Moral values Beliefs (e.g religion, 'free speech', justice) politics its agents and systems (e.g Police, law courts, government) the role of its members (e.g is it a "collectivist", culture of one where every member does best for and by themselves (individualist)) With this all said, I'm not sure culture is unique to humans, several species of ape (and probably a number of other animals), seem to have a culture in some sense. -- Posted by TRIPonME at 3:58 pm on Nov. 26, 2008 Quote: from Blackadder at 4:22 pm on Oct. 28, 2008 Quote: from Vordhosbn at 2:06 pm on Oct. 28, 2008 culture's a very broad term...  we know we have 'culture', but what is it, really?    art? music?  - why do we make art and music? why do see beauty in something practically useless?  tradition?  ritual?  wow. 1 in the morning here and my brain is mush     There are, I'll have you know, several theories of art that would strongly take issue with your suggestion that 'art is not useful'. furthermore, culture is not limited to its art(s) (music tends to fall under the art catagory).....you totally forgot to mention that some other, rather important criteria: Customs/traditions/ 'ways of doing things' History Moral values   Beliefs (e.g religion, 'free speech', justice) politics its agents and systems (e.g Police, law courts, government) the role of its members (e.g is it a "collectivist", culture of one where every member does best for and by themselves (individualist))   With this all said, I'm not sure culture is unique to humans, several species of ape (and probably a number of other animals), seem to have a culture in some sense.   It seems to be that the "cultural" activities listed are those that are not required for survival but rather machinations that contribute to our lives as a social species.  The same probably applies to other animals--like monkeys--with high level of intelligence (esp. social intelligence). But then what criteria are we to suggest to discriminate human culture from those of other animals?  Are they fundamentally the same...arising from the part of the brain we share with animals...and different just in the complexity of our traditions? Or are humans really special? =)