Prehistory Prefigured Internet Use

Yes, taken in that manner, it is obvious. :D

That is basically how I took it,  in a sort of lowest-common-denominator idiom.

I can't guess as to how the idea was originally intended, or how far it can be stretched. I do have a guess, though, that Neanderthal weren't too terribly different than early modern humans in the innate capability department.  That is all it is though; a guess.

I occasionally wonder what it would be like if there were more than one human species (or sub-species) coexisting in this era.  Other hominids of the past shared overlapping territories in time and space. It is, perhaps, too bad that we do not live with a whole different species as well.

Then we could just ask 'em. :) 

Hey AbandonAllHoax! The guy with such a username shouldn't appologize for misspelling:))))) Considering your understanding of the text: that there was probably a biological predisposition in older human species to be able to do the things that we do in order to use computers and navigate the internet -well , I agree with you, but don't you think that it is obvious.Since the first people started to use tools to reorganize the space around them it meant they would develop that kind of tools.That's it.I guess, to make a scientific conclusion about that is just like to say:" Hey, older human species were orthograde, so it is a biological predisposition for people to skate and ski.I just don't see some unexpected things in that theory.Of course, they could use tools, and the Internet is just a tool as well as cars, fridges and clothes.Tools that help people to change themselves and enviroment.

I'm sure some more educated gueses could be made by those who have studied the cranial cavities of other human species with respect to total brain size and the size of the various divisions of the brain responsible for "higher" cognition that are obvious from the cavity structure. Of course, not all brain divisions are represented by a reflection in the structure of the brain box, but most of our higher functioning is accomplished in the "outer" structures of the brain. Be that as it may, you are correct that any guesses are limited by the obvious brain structure and what we know of the technology, culture, and behavior of Neanderthal, the evidence of which is entirely limited to artifacts found. Innovation occurred very rarely, but the capacity was there, and one hardly need to be innovative to use the 'net.

My only point, and the point from the article, as I understood it, was that there was probably a biological predisposition in older human species to be able to do the things that we do in order to use computers and navigate the internet, or at the least led to the modern ability to do so. It may be that the wiring for, say, language skills was much less advanced than in modern humans, or that the brain in its entirety was not as highly integrated as what we have today. (I'm thinking Broca's area and the corpus collosum here.)

Consider, though, that people with various brain disorders, regardless of the cause of the disorder or what point in life the disorder occurred, can use the internet if physically able. Critical thinking skills are not required, just a minimal ability to grasp a limited amount of symbols and click on the pretty pictures. I submit also that those people with such serious dysfuction as precludes them from using the internet at all would have a much lower likelihood of survival than Neanderthals in any environment without serious assistance.

Just one non-expert's semi-educated guess and opinion.

Again, you are probably right that a Neanderthal would be right up there with the rest of the clueless l'user PEBKAC crowd who are frequently malware infected, have the inablity to find the "any" key, can't tell the difference between the computer, local OS, software, and the internet, and get upset whenthe handy computer "cup holder" breaks. Modern humans have no neurological excuse, though.

Nice chatting with you. Please forgive me for misspelling your name in my previous post.

Cheers! 

Abandonallhoax:)

 a kidnapped-through-time Neanderthal newborn could be raised to behave as a modern human, even if there were some hardwired quirks to his behavior

That's the best argument.I didn't think about it.You are right.Our brains and body are ready  to adopt any social behaviour that we are taught.On the other hand, we still do not know what is primarily: genetics factors or social factors.I consider that both are important,But since, the humans were formed as humans many years ago, the Neanderthal could become a user- probably lamer:))), but user:)

People, of varying species, have been using tools for at least two and a half million years. That is half of the predisposition to be using the internet right there.

Some sort of symbolic thinking capabilities would be necessary:

Dr Marian Vanhaeren, of the AHRC Centre for the Evolution of Cultural Diversity, UCL Institute of Archaeology, and lead author of the study, says:

"Symbolically mediated behaviour has emerged as one of the few unchallenged and universally accepted markers of modernity. A key characteristic of all symbols is that their meaning is assigned by arbitrary, socially constructed conventions and it permits the storage and display of information.

The main challenge for paleoanthropology is establishing when in human evolution this ability developed. Archaeological evidence suggests that Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH) from Africa were also behaviourally modern before 40,000 but until now evidence has remained scant." Earliest Known 'Bling' Revealed

For symbolic thinking, we want some ability to manipulate objects (cognition- and dexterity-wise), remember, recognize and interperet, and communicate. We couldn't do these things as well as we do if we weren't wired for it in the first place, however, the plasticity of our brains also allows us to be neurologically programmed to operate with the technology and culture we're born into.

Minds of Their Own

Animal Minds Intro to above article.

How Modern Were European Neanderthals?

Now, I'm betting that a kidnapped-through-time Neanderthal newborn could be raised to behave as a modern human, even if there were some hardwired quirks to his behavior. He'd probably fit in even better on the Intarweb, given that no one would have to see his slightly odd appearance. He may or may not be limited in certain types of intelligence physiologically, but I'll wager he could manage well enough at the very least.

Conversely, consider the legendary babe raised by wolves. The real ones have had no ability to fit into human society at all, and died young, never learning to speak or really understand anything. Most of what we have today comes from culture and the technology of information storage and retrieval (the written word). It is a lot easier to be "smart" the more history you have to build on. It is all learned from scratch with every birth (which is really cool!).

Anatomically modern humans were around about 160,000 y.a. Neanderthals were around as recently as 28,000 y.a. (See Scientists Document Most Recent Date For Neandertals. See also Related Story links for other interesting stuff.)

Anyway, that was fun. :D

And hello to you all. Excellent stuff.

 

I totally agree with you, but still...I want to share some experience  to explain my opinion. I remember, I visited Newgrange in Ireland. It is a tomb, that is the same age that Egyptian Pyramids are- around 5000 years.The  ceiling of that cave-dolmen was made from the huge stones in a spiral shape and  one time a year , on the 22 of March, the spring solstice, the first ray of light falls on the center  of the stone altar just in the middle of the sanctuary. The stones  from which the dolmen was build are huge and very heavy, but people brought them from 25  miles away.They didn't have cars, they didn't have  many tools.Somewhy, they did it.I remember, i was watching this construction and i had a feeling, that those people could be called people relatively. They probably had the same anatomy  and  the same  body structure, 2 arms. 1 head etc, but  they were soooooo different from us, that we could never interpret what they did, what they were. They might even  perceive the world in a different way , their basic sensations could be different.So IMHO,  IMHO :)))))) we really  can only guess.

Hi Mashka,

Thanks for this.  You express a vague unease with the validity of archeological testimony.

The argument I put forward does not depend on knowing exactly how ancient people used their tools, or whether or not our 'present' circumstances are actually preventing us from having an accurate view into the past. It seems obvious that the ancient tools I talk about facilitated the development of human skills relevant to today. The skills I talk about are sufficiently broad, they do not need to be realized in any particular tool, nor do I claim that they are.

All the best. - Kim

Hello Doctor Solez! Thank you for interesting post, but you know. I am always trying to be very careful with interpretation of the things that were in past from the modern point of view. Wу can't really know, how people  used these or that devices, we can only guess considering our mentality, but the people of the past had completely different minds.Try to imagine, how the whole way of thinking  of the future people will be changed. 50 000 years  are  a lot.What whould people think about modern laptops in 52008?If there are people.They  will be completelly different.So, I am  pretty sceptical about that kind of theories.

Hi modza, hounhosp and Paul,

Thanks for all the comments!  I have been on a 16 hour flight from LA to Bangkok. I am seldom out of touch for that long, so it is quite an interesting experience!

I am sure there has been cognitive development in the past 500,000 years, even in the past 5,000.  The cave man would not be as interesting to talk to on the phone as your friends are now, but still the potential was there!

There are not cyberkidneys but there are bio-artificial ones, part dialyzer, part tissue culture growth of kidney cells.

This piece is happy, optimistic.  It is interesting to speculate whether we need or want optimism in blogs in a month that has seen so much of the opposite.  We tend to associate good news messages with religion or statements by politicians.  Outside of religion and politics, do we want good news?

Twenty-one years ago when I came to Canada to as Chair of Pathology at the University of Alberta I had opportunity to have lunch at the Convention Centre with the editors of our city's two main newspapers, The Edmonton Journal and the Edmonton Sun. I mentioned that the negative headlines in the paper each morning were making it hard to for me to recruit new faculty.

They looked at me bemused and said: "Doctor, I am sure you are very good at what you do.  We are also very good at what we do.  And I assure you the headlines we put in our papers are exactly what the citizen's of Edmonton want.  We could not sell papers otherwise!"

So although they never may have thought consciously about it, most newspaper readers want to see the big bad things happening out there reflected in large font headlines.

So is it the same with blogs?  Take the example of the recent CNN story on printing light .  Like mine, this story is a happy, upbeat, optimistic one.  So would you like to hear more about it?  Or is it just an annoying distraction that will not solve your problems of the moment?

The 2000 book "It's Getting Better All the Time: 100 Greatest Trends of the Last 100 Years" by Stephen Moore and Julian L. Simon points out that we're eating far better food and spending far less money for it than a century ago.  More of our neighbors are becoming millionaires.  Human beings just keep getting stronger and stronger-as witnessed by the constant shattering of athletic records. On and on, the book details the positive trends of the past that will lead to a glorious future.

The facts in the book are true and remarkable, but it has not been a best seller.  Perhaps it is just a bit more optimism than people want or need.

Interestingly there is some evidence that heavy Internet use creates unrealistic optimism.  Who knew!

All the best. - Kim

Although I enjoyed your post, and believe that emotions have probably not evolved much in the span of our species, I somehow don't believe there's been no cognitive evolution in that time. It seems to me that the development of written language so late in the timeline suggests a significant cognitive change -- otherwise why not earlier?

P.S. I had to do a doubletake on "cybernephrology." At first glance it seemed to suggest that cyberkidneys have now appeared (and I missed it!), and that's what you study...but alas, it's only that you use the web to communicate with other (biological) nephrologists. Still, it has me thinking: it sure would be nice if we could digest all the cybernetic intakes, and excrete what's harmful or wasted!