Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bonobos use a kind of syntax once thought to be unique to humans

newscientist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 141 posts

Re: Bonobos use a kind of syntax once thought to be unique to humans

#131

Post by wqaatwt »

mattdeboard wrote: post #20

Reinforcing my strongly held belief that what fundamentally sets humans apart isn't spoken language, or tools, or any of that, but rather the fact we write down what we know, then make those writings available to future generations to build on. We're a species distinguished from all others by our information-archival and -dissemination practices. We're an archivist species, a librarian species. Homo archivum. In my o…

> but rather the fact we write down what we know, then make those writings available to future generations to build

As far as we can tell humans were doing that orally for thousands of years before writing became a thing.

You had major civilizations with complex bureaucracies that were not effectively almost entirely illiterate..

Re: Bonobos use a kind of syntax once thought to be unique to humans

#132

Post by MarcelOlsz »

mattdeboard wrote: post #20

Reinforcing my strongly held belief that what fundamentally sets humans apart isn't spoken language, or tools, or any of that, but rather the fact we write down what we know, then make those writings available to future generations to build on. We're a species distinguished from all others by our information-archival and -dissemination practices. We're an archivist species, a librarian species. Homo archivum. In my o…

Interesting that this is the only place on the internet where "Homo Archivum" has ever been uttered.

Re: Bonobos use a kind of syntax once thought to be unique to humans

#133

Post by cmsj »

mattdeboard wrote: post #20

Reinforcing my strongly held belief that what fundamentally sets humans apart isn't spoken language, or tools, or any of that, but rather the fact we write down what we know, then make those writings available to future generations to build on. We're a species distinguished from all others by our information-archival and -dissemination practices. We're an archivist species, a librarian species. Homo archivum. In my o…

Surely what sets us apart is complexity?

Our brains are able to understand and process very complex abstract concepts and we can communicate those to each other.

Oral tradition is almost an unavoidable byproduct of that, and while writing it down is certainly useful, it's clearly the case that humans were archiving and disseminating information orally for a long time before we invented writing.

Re: Bonobos use a kind of syntax once thought to be unique to humans

#134

Post by Dylan16807 »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #121
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is whether or not cultures that had no writing systems were limited to the same level of intelligence and/or development that other primates exhibit. Given that with exception of an interesting knot-encoded (Quipu) system for some period of the Inca empire, the entire human population of the Americas (at least 15-20% of the total human population) fits this description, the answer seems to be "no". These…

Yes, for sure humans are fundamentally more intelligent than other primates, but still it does seem that writing and written communication is a big capability unlock. It's impressive, and perhaps a bit surprising, what a culture like the Incas were able to achieve using only (we assume) oral tradition and passing down of skills, but there must be a limit to the complexity of what can be passed down this way - more al…

A big capability unlock is cool and all but the claim being disputed is that it's what fundamentally sets humans apart.

Re: Bonobos use a kind of syntax once thought to be unique to humans

#135

Post by Dylan16807 »

fsckboy wrote: post #114
contrarian1234 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that metric Native Americans are basically animals.. which is problematic. However arguably humans existed from tens of thousands of years and only really started to make huge technological leaps when writing existed. Prewriting culture is still quite fascinating and complex (ex: Homer or Olmec/Maya art) but it does seem to be stuck at a certain level. I think Egyptian civilization provides a fascinating mid point…

> By that metric Native Americans are basically animals.. which is problematic. just as it's not problematic to discover that bonobos talk to each other like Shakespeare, it would not be problematic to discover that humans are animals. keep your fingers off the scales (and, to mix a metaphor) let the scales fall from your eyes: it's science, follow the evidence to the truth. Don't be guided by what you want to hear,…

You're using a different definition of animal to be contrary. Don't do that.

And "problematic" here means it's racist in a dumb and obviously incorrect manner. We already have plenty of evidence against that idea.

Re: Bonobos use a kind of syntax once thought to be unique to humans

#136

Post by afiori »

contrarian1234 wrote: post #52
mattdeboard wrote: post #20

Reinforcing my strongly held belief that what fundamentally sets humans apart isn't spoken language, or tools, or any of that, but rather the fact we write down what we know, then make those writings available to future generations to build on. We're a species distinguished from all others by our information-archival and -dissemination practices. We're an archivist species, a librarian species. Homo archivum. In my o…

By that metric Native Americans are basically animals.. which is problematic. However arguably humans existed from tens of thousands of years and only really started to make huge technological leaps when writing existed. Prewriting culture is still quite fascinating and complex (ex: Homer or Olmec/Maya art) but it does seem to be stuck at a certain level. I think Egyptian civilization provides a fascinating mid point…

Native Americans had rich oral traditions that would have served the same purpose

Re: Bonobos use a kind of syntax once thought to be unique to humans

#137

Post by mattdeboard »

quickthrowman wrote: post #102
mattdeboard wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bees.

I never even considered insects but bees are a perfect example, I can see where you’re coming from now. A hive as a city, honey as a crop they farm by collecting pollen and refining it. There’s even specialized roles and a class hierarchy, just like humans! Ants build nests that could similarly be considered cities as well.

exactly! it's really hard to find something that's truly _uniquely_ human...

Re: Bonobos use a kind of syntax once thought to be unique to humans

#138

Post by marcellus23 »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #76
marcellus23 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How often are blonde-haired men referred to as "blondes" vs women Never, because men's hair is "blond". But seriously, the original quote does not call the person "a blonde," (which indeed might offend some) but instead uses "blonde" as an adjective to describe the dancer, which is perfectly acceptable. You can have a "blond man" or a "brown-haired man" just as easily as you can have a "blonde woman".

Well, as an example of language/syntax, any language example (including "blonde dancer") would be "acceptable", but in this context something like "fruit tree" might be more appropriate than "dumb Polack" (no offense - just a syntax example).

I honestly have no clue what kind of thought process could result in believing that "blonde dancer" is analogous to "dumb Polack." "Blonde dancer" is just not problematic, at all. It literally just means a woman who is a dancer and has blond hair. There are no slurs or insults or even negative connotations to it.

Re: Bonobos use a kind of syntax once thought to be unique to humans

#139

Post by fsckboy »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #135
fsckboy wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By that metric Native Americans are basically animals.. which is problematic. just as it's not problematic to discover that bonobos talk to each other like Shakespeare, it would not be problematic to discover that humans are animals. keep your fingers off the scales (and, to mix a metaphor) let the scales fall from your eyes: it's science, follow the evidence to the truth. Don't be guided by what you want to hear,…

You're using a different definition of animal to be contrary. Don't do that. And "problematic" here means it's racist in a dumb and obviously incorrect manner. We already have plenty of evidence against that idea.

humans are animals. this entire topic is "what separates humans from animals--oh, less than we thought".

stop wrapping humanity in the cloak of personification, it's the first [animal] refuge of rats and weasels. also, stop accusing people of racism all the time, it makes me think you are a worse person, not a better one. studying hunter gatherers gives us a lot of important data, and they can't help their race, nor can the researchers, it's an immutable characteristic.

Re: Bonobos use a kind of syntax once thought to be unique to humans

#140

Post by Dylan16807 »

fsckboy wrote: post #139
Dylan16807 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're using a different definition of animal to be contrary. Don't do that. And "problematic" here means it's racist in a dumb and obviously incorrect manner. We already have plenty of evidence against that idea.

humans are animals. this entire topic is "what separates humans from animals--oh, less than we thought". stop wrapping humanity in the cloak of personification, it's the first [animal] refuge of rats and weasels. also, stop accusing people of racism all the time, it makes me think you are a worse person, not a better one. studying hunter gatherers gives us a lot of important data, and they can't help their race, nor…

> humans are animals. this entire topic is "what separates humans from animals--oh, less than we thought".

You're using two different definitions of "animal" in the same sentence here. That's only going to cause problems.

> also, stop accusing people of racism all the time, it makes me think you are a worse person, not a better one.

No person was accused of racism. It was a theoretical argument brought up and dismissed in the same sentence, as a rhetorical device to show a problem with a different argument.

> studying hunter gatherers gives us a lot of important data, and they can't help their race, nor can the researchers, it's an immutable characteristic.

But they are not fundamentally set apart and a different species from other humans. And the idea under discussion only works if major groups without writing are fundamentally set apart and a different species.

If the data showed those differences, it would not be racist. But we know those differences don't exist. Humans are all extremely similar.

So the only way someone would think they are fundamentally different is because some neuron misfired in their brain, or they got to that conclusion based on racist teachings or racist reasoning.

And it's more than 99% likely it's the latter. That's enough confidence for me to claim it's a racist idea.

And again, this is based on the actual data, not what anyone wants to be true.

Post reply on HN