Proofs of parallel evolution between cognition, tool development, and social complexity

Researchers have examined the visual response of 113 individuals when observing prehistoric ceramics belonging to different styles and societies. The ceramics analysed cover 4,000 years (from 4,000 B.C. to the change of era) of Galician prehistory (north-west Iberia), and are representative of ceramic styles including bell-beaker pottery, found throughout Europe. The results indicate that the visual behaviour follows the same evolutionary trends as those that drive the evolution of the complex societies that built these archaeological materialities.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-03-proofs-parallel-evolution-cognition-tool.html#jCp

Tau.Neutrino said:

Proofs of parallel evolution between cognition, tool development, and social complexity

Researchers have examined the visual response of 113 individuals when observing prehistoric ceramics belonging to different styles and societies. The ceramics analysed cover 4,000 years (from 4,000 B.C. to the change of era) of Galician prehistory (north-west Iberia), and are representative of ceramic styles including bell-beaker pottery, found throughout Europe. The results indicate that the visual behaviour follows the same evolutionary trends as those that drive the evolution of the complex societies that built these archaeological materialities.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-03-proofs-parallel-evolution-cognition-tool.html#jCp

Sounds like complete bullshit.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Proofs of parallel evolution between cognition, tool development, and social complexity

Researchers have examined the visual response of 113 individuals when observing prehistoric ceramics belonging to different styles and societies. The ceramics analysed cover 4,000 years (from 4,000 B.C. to the change of era) of Galician prehistory (north-west Iberia), and are representative of ceramic styles including bell-beaker pottery, found throughout Europe. The results indicate that the visual behaviour follows the same evolutionary trends as those that drive the evolution of the complex societies that built these archaeological materialities.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-03-proofs-parallel-evolution-cognition-tool.html#jCp

Sounds like complete bullshit.

Hehe

I can’t make any sense of that at all.

buffy said:

I can’t make any sense of that at all.

Well, if that paper can be published in Scientific Reports, then buffy’s (and my) paper on myopia certainly can.

mollwollfumble said:

buffy said:

I can’t make any sense of that at all.

Well, if that paper can be published in Scientific Reports, then buffy’s (and my) paper on myopia certainly can.

If that paper can be published there, I don’t think we want ours anywhere near it! Did you see my note in Chat the other day? MedRxiv is still not live. They were aiming for October last year, I think. Still waiting.

I had a quick read, can’t say I got the gist of it, or was left feeling like I missed the gist of it.

I am left with that idea, that some things out there, design arrangements, form, and too mechanisms, that there aren’t too many ways to do things, or for things to happen, so whatever tends to take some form, or way of doing things that recurs through time.

so, through time humans (even forward through many generations, even with absences between) might appear to do things similar, or the same, arrive at the same things. They are sort of practical, they work, so are likely to be rediscovered.

but i’d have to read the article properly.

and do the way minds work result in recurring external structures (and ways) that reflect internal workings, yeah’s no question. Everything humans do converges something of the structure and workings of minds into whatever, even when that whatever becomes separated by time and space.

take a simple hammer, that has design representative of something about human minds. A tool with form, courtesy some task human have performed going way back. Probably originating with a hand on an arm, a fist, replaced with a rock, then a rock on a stick, an extension of the same idea. Using kinetic energy like that, there aren’t too many practical variations. Gets your fingers away from whatever being hit.

I didn’t write the article, but it could do with a re write.

To me as a potter, form equals functional such as a bowl or sculptural (abstract, non functional) or both such a teapot or lamp.

The gist of the article perhaps – Form = functional = evolution though innovation = complexity. ?

Early ceramics were about storage of food and water, drinking vessels plates for eating from, today’s ceramics can be found in space tech, air planes, cars, industry, almost everywhere.

Tau.Neutrino said:

I didn’t write the article, but it could do with a re write.

To me as a potter, form equals functional such as a bowl or sculptural (abstract, non functional) or both such a teapot or lamp.

The gist of the article perhaps – Form = functional = evolution though innovation = complexity. ?

Early ceramics were about storage of food and water, drinking vessels plates for eating from, today’s ceramics can be found in space tech, air planes, cars, industry, almost everywhere.

I agree
whereas the simple vessel functioned to scoop & hold liquid
later iterations were easier to hold to prevent breakage when wet
while further refinement became easier to dip, hold and carry from the well.

Does that reflect intellectual brain activity/plasticity/refinement/esthetics & cultural refinement?
Most certainly, since “culture” is a reflection of shared experience/knowledge within a given group.

IMHO, That more than one group developed along similar lines was as inevitable as walking upright.

>Most certainly, since “culture” is a reflection of shared experience/knowledge within a given group.
IMHO, That more than one group developed along similar lines was as inevitable as walking upright.

an upright notion of culture about that

the biology is receptive to good ideas

transition said:

>Most certainly, since “culture” is a reflection of shared experience/knowledge within a given group.
IMHO, That more than one group developed along similar lines was as inevitable as walking upright.

an upright notion of culture about that

the biology is receptive to good ideas

There is a limited number of shapes that will make a pot, so with many pot making civilizations, some are likely to arrive at a similar features and solutions. Pot decoration on the other hand is less likely to be similar unless very basic.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

>Most certainly, since “culture” is a reflection of shared experience/knowledge within a given group.
IMHO, That more than one group developed along similar lines was as inevitable as walking upright.

an upright notion of culture about that

the biology is receptive to good ideas

There are a limited number of shapes that will make a pot, so with many pot making civilizations, some are likely to arrive at similar features and solutions. Pot decoration on the other hand is less likely to be similar unless very basic.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

>Most certainly, since “culture” is a reflection of shared experience/knowledge within a given group.
IMHO, That more than one group developed along similar lines was as inevitable as walking upright.

an upright notion of culture about that

the biology is receptive to good ideas

There is a limited number of shapes that will make a pot, so with many pot making civilizations, some are likely to arrive at a similar features and solutions. Pot decoration on the other hand is less likely to be similar unless very basic.

decoration is the same though, in essence, it being decorative. So, that’s not a bad starting point.

pots are sort of a gravity-assisted fluid containment devicec, there’s a theme in that.

the first pot, was probably a clay hole, a puddle. Allow me some humor, a pot hole.

imagine, a biology receptive to good ideas, ways that work, receptive to shared ideas, culture even.

revolutionary idea isn’t it.

further, imagine a biology receptive to unshared environments.

few challenging propositions in all that, contradictions if you don’t dig deep enough.

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

>Most certainly, since “culture” is a reflection of shared experience/knowledge within a given group.
IMHO, That more than one group developed along similar lines was as inevitable as walking upright.

an upright notion of culture about that

the biology is receptive to good ideas

There is a limited number of shapes that will make a pot, so with many pot making civilizations, some are likely to arrive at a similar features and solutions. Pot decoration on the other hand is less likely to be similar unless very basic.

decoration is the same though, in essence, it being decorative. So, that’s not a bad starting point.

pots are sort of a gravity-assisted fluid containment devicec, there’s a theme in that.

the first pot, was probably a clay hole, a puddle. Allow me some humor, a pot hole.

Naturally forming ‘gnamma’ holes on rocky outcrops.

transition said:

imagine, a biology receptive to good ideas, ways that work, receptive to shared ideas, culture even.

revolutionary idea isn’t it.

further, imagine a biology receptive to unshared environments.

few challenging propositions in all that, contradictions if you don’t dig deep enough.

Agree.

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

>Most certainly, since “culture” is a reflection of shared experience/knowledge within a given group.
IMHO, That more than one group developed along similar lines was as inevitable as walking upright.

an upright notion of culture about that

the biology is receptive to good ideas

There is a limited number of shapes that will make a pot, so with many pot making civilizations, some are likely to arrive at a similar features and solutions. Pot decoration on the other hand is less likely to be similar unless very basic.

decoration is the same though, in essence, it being decorative. So, that’s not a bad starting point.

pots are sort of a gravity-assisted fluid containment devicec, there’s a theme in that.

the first pot, was probably a clay hole, a puddle. Allow me some humor, a pot hole.

No Mr transition, ve do not make jokes in this forum.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

There is a limited number of shapes that will make a pot, so with many pot making civilizations, some are likely to arrive at a similar features and solutions. Pot decoration on the other hand is less likely to be similar unless very basic.

decoration is the same though, in essence, it being decorative. So, that’s not a bad starting point.

pots are sort of a gravity-assisted fluid containment devicec, there’s a theme in that.

the first pot, was probably a clay hole, a puddle. Allow me some humor, a pot hole.

No Mr transition, ve do not make jokes in this forum.

That’s because nobody gets them.

Tau.Neutrino said:

I didn’t write the article, but it could do with a re write.

To me as a potter, form equals functional such as a bowl or sculptural (abstract, non functional) or both such a teapot or lamp.

The gist of the article perhaps – Form = functional = evolution though innovation = complexity. ?

Early ceramics were about storage of food and water, drinking vessels plates for eating from, today’s ceramics can be found in space tech, air planes, cars, industry, almost everywhere.

Certainly form follows function,
but as a potter, you understand certain refinements
like the thicker, more robust lip/rim which makes it less likely to break
and graceful shape which allows to user to grasp and pour was refined though reflection over time .

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

>Most certainly, since “culture” is a reflection of shared experience/knowledge within a given group.
IMHO, That more than one group developed along similar lines was as inevitable as walking upright.

an upright notion of culture about that

the biology is receptive to good ideas

There is a limited number of shapes that will make a pot, so with many pot making civilizations, some are likely to arrive at a similar features and solutions. Pot decoration on the other hand is less likely to be similar unless very basic.

*decoration is the same though, in essence, it being decorative. So, that’s not a bad starting point. *

pots are sort of a gravity-assisted fluid containment devicec, there’s a theme in that.

the first pot, was probably a clay hole, a puddle. Allow me some humor, a pot hole. <<<

One of my professors conjectured that Decoration was yet another function
being it eventually lead to writing (perhaps Iconic and later Cuneiform)
allowing people to label ownership the contents of the storage jars.

>>>I GOT IT ;-)