The Philosophy of Early Human Evolution

Jessica Gonzalez said:I think the perspective might be slightly off here. Your experiment seems to suggest that an ancient human could adapt to our modern world, whereas mine tries to flip that idea on its head. You want to see if a person from the past can function in our current society, while I want to place a modern person back into the setting where humans were actually biologically designed to live. Both ideas are interesting, though both are obviously impossible to test. But, I suppose humans were fundamentally built to be hunter-gatherers, and that’s our true default setting—even if it's a bit shocking to those of us who probably wouldn't last long in the woods without some tech to help us out.

This kind of reminds me of our discussion regarding OpenAI, which I believe we both touched upon. General OpenAI aims to decode the human brain to master things like chess or art, but at its core, that brain evolved to help humans survive as hunter-gatherers and pass on their genes. That's its primary purpose; being able to strategize over a chessboard is really just a byproduct of that evolution.

Modern, civilized people aren't really like those prehistoric hunter-gatherers. There are certain populations that might share more similarities with them, but they generally struggle to integrate into a contemporary lifestyle. Evolution didn't just hit a pause button when agriculture and civilization took over; modern humans have actually adapted to this "civilized" way of life. And just to be clear—I'm not making a value judgment here.

Amy Bennett said:Modern, civilized people aren't really like those prehistoric hunter-gatherers. There are certain populations that might share more similarities with them, but they generally struggle to integrate into a contemporary lifestyle. Evolution didn't just hit a pause button when agriculture and civilization took over; modern humans have actually adapted to this "civilized" way of life. And just to be clear—I'm not making a value judgment here.

I guess we're adapted about as much as dogs, where maybe 83% of them are still essentially wild dogs roaming in packs, or like Mustangs that manage to hold their own after being released into the wild for a few generations.

It seems pretty clear that there are digestive or parasitic changes that have followed us through history, but nothing is permanent, I think. Humans weren't forced into this lifestyle quite like dogs were; if circumstances changed, humanity might go back to being hunter-gatherers. You and I probably wouldn't, but who knows what the distant future holds? I feel like 15,000 years of evolution since the agricultural revolution hasn't actually changed Homo sapiens that much compared to the millions of years before that.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy A50 using Reddit

Joseph Murphy10 said:I'm afraid I can't. It’s just one of those intuitive things—kind of like how you operate. See, I’m using plain old physics to describe how enslaving someone ruins the experience for the master (since their freedom gets hijacked by the obligation to care for the slave—that's a purely material thing), yet you keep trying to force some spiritual angle on me even though I haven't mentioned anything "spiritual" once. Twice, actually. You're just following your gut and projecting stuff onto me that I never even wrote. So, my gut tells me I can't explain it to you, so why bother?

It always irritates me slightly when someone starts to debate—that is, presenting an argument using specific language and concepts—only to suddenly take a pseudo-religious leap into "intuition" and "ineffable truths" because they don't know how to develop their point further.😵
If you can't fully articulate something, then don't start in the first place; that seems like the only logical and honest approach to me.
I am not imposing anything on you; I am simply asking how, within a materialist paradigm, you believe the freedom mentioned by John is possible—specifically, a type of freedom that can only exist if everyone is treated equally.

I am relying on pure physics here: enslaving someone disrupts the freedom of the enslaver, because their own freedom is reduced by the material obligation of caring for the enslaved.
Anyway, I’m not imputing anything to you; I’m just asking.

There you go; you actually managed to use words to explain how those who infringe upon another's freedom simultaneously undermine their own. The difference is that those who practice enslavement don't perceive it the way you do. They don't feel the weight of power over others as a burden. Anyone who actually viewed power as a burden would abandon it immediately (and there have been such people).
The reality is that in the materialist paradigm we live in—where we view ourselves as separate entities driven by the goal of physical survival—it is impossible for one group or individual to respect the freedom of another toward whom they feel no obligation or responsibility.

Jessica Gonzalez said:Well, who's saying they couldn't? It wasn't because they lacked the intellectual or physical capacity; it was simply because the technology didn't exist yet. 😁 If you took a baby born today and dropped them on a deserted island where they were raised by some imaginary "Peterson," how would that child ever learn to use technology from, say, modern USA? Would that question even make sense?

I suppose there is a valid point in asking how humans, living as hunter-gatherers for hundreds of thousands of years, developed the intellect necessary to build today's high-tech societies. That’s a fair question, and it's essentially what I was getting at in my first post. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of years across various Homo species, and maybe 100-150 thousand years for Homo sapiens, during which countless generations lived all over the world. Since they survived and spread globally, it's safe to assume they understood their environment incredibly well. However, I think we tend to use a modern bias when we define "understanding the world," assuming that only our current knowledge counts as advanced. We have engineering, medicine, and various sciences that allow us to build machines, communication networks, and transport systems. But a society from, say, 75,000 years ago probably possessed an equally vast knowledge of nature and survival. The challenges facing an average person back then might have been just as intellectually demanding as ours, especially since the average person today doesn't actually understand most of the tech they use. Most people can drive a car, but they don't really know what's happening under the hood. They know a plane flies and the pilot has a bunch of buttons, but they don't grasp the intricate details that make a commercial jet work. If you break down the daily routine of a typical modern person, the tasks aren't necessarily incredibly complex. They might not be much more difficult than the life of someone 75,000 years ago who had to physically survive through hunting and battling the elements every single day. I guess I'm trying to say that surviving back then was a much harder task than it is now, when we have an entire society and a massive technological safety net to catch us. Back then, natural selection was relentless; those who were more skillful, healthier, and better at providing food and protecting their group were the ones who made it. Intelligence played a huge role in that.

The bottom line is that life was much harder for the average person in the past than it is for us today.
No, we all know that. That fact is the primary argument used by those who believe evolution is essentially a journey of progress toward making life easier.
The only point of contention here is: Was the person from the past, who had to struggle so much more than we do, actually happier and more satisfied than a person living today?

Jessica Gonzalez said:I guess we're adapted about as much as dogs, where maybe 83% of them are still essentially wild dogs roaming in packs, or like Mustangs that manage to hold their own after being released into the wild for a few generations.

It seems pretty clear that there are digestive or parasitic changes that have followed us through history, but nothing is permanent, I think. Humans weren't forced into this lifestyle quite like dogs were; if circumstances changed, humanity might go back to being hunter-gatherers. You and I probably wouldn't, but who knows what the distant future holds? I feel like 15,000 years of evolution since the agricultural revolution hasn't actually changed Homo sapiens that much compared to the millions of years before that.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy A50 using Reddit

I'd argue humans *have* been forced into domestication by natural selection, which naturally includes the processes of civilization. If things flipped and we were forced back into a hunter-gatherer existence, 99.9% of the global population would likely perish; only those most specifically adapted to those conditions would survive. The average modern American is far too domesticated and soft—not just for the Middle Ages, but certainly for a return to the Stone Age.

Quincy:

I honestly don't know why people make such a huge deal out of this, but it seems like everyone wants to have an opinion on it. It’s one of those things that feels like we're all just circling the drain of a debate that doesn't actually change anything in our day-to-day lives. It's like arguing over whether a lukewarm cup of coffee from Starbucks is better than a burnt one from a local diner; at some point, you realize the nuance doesn't matter because you're still just drinking caffeine to survive the Monday morning grind. kaže: So, are we really suggesting that the Absolute Spirit just wanders around aimlessly while it tries to figure itself out? What happened to the whole idea of historical necessity? Are you trying to tell me there’s some kind of chaotic, unpredictable element baked right into the process?

ruggedraven36 said:Look, Hegel defines history as this steady march toward a greater consciousness of freedom. In his view, freedom is the only real necessity in history.

History is essentially the process of freedom manifesting itself within the world, which really just means it’s the ongoing dialogue between the human spirit and the forces of nature. You could look at it this way: the human spirit acts as the engine driving the entire historical machine. History is basically just the slow, methodical realignment of external circumstances and internal realities, all steered by human desires, grand designs, and raw impulses. From a purely metaphysical standpoint, it’s actually following an idea of the "Good." The catch, of course, is that our individual perceptions of what is "good" can be wildly mistaken when viewed through a broader, more truthful lens. Because an individual life doesn't carry much weight in the grand scheme of things, history is instead shaped by massive driving forces—swarms of people moved by shared ideas or social constructs like nationalism. This is why history often looks like a relentless parade of tragedies where it’s incredibly difficult to spot the underlying logic of the "cunning of reason." It’s in this sense that Hegel describes history as being carried out upon the Schlachtbank.

Amanda Jackson5 said:Quincy:

I honestly don't know why people make such a huge deal out of this, but it seems like everyone wants to have an opinion on it. It’s one of those things that feels like we're all just circling the drain of a debate that doesn't actually change anything in our day-to-day lives. It's like arguing over whether a lukewarm cup of coffee from Starbucks is better than a burnt one from a local diner; at some point, you realize the nuance doesn't matter because you're still just drinking caffeine to survive the Monday morning grind. kaže: So, are we really suggesting that the Absolute Spirit just wanders around aimlessly while it tries to figure itself out? What happened to the whole idea of historical necessity? Are you trying to tell me there’s some kind of chaotic, unpredictable element baked right into the process?

History is essentially the process of freedom manifesting itself within the world, which really just means it’s the ongoing dialogue between the human spirit and the forces of nature. You could look at it this way: the human spirit acts as the engine driving the entire historical machine. History is basically just the slow, methodical realignment of external circumstances and internal realities, all steered by human desires, grand designs, and raw impulses. From a purely metaphysical standpoint, it’s actually following an idea of the "Good." The catch, of course, is that our individual perceptions of what is "good" can be wildly mistaken when viewed through a broader, more truthful lens. Because an individual life doesn't carry much weight in the grand scheme of things, history is instead shaped by massive driving forces—swarms of people moved by shared ideas or social constructs like nationalism. This is why history often looks like a relentless parade of tragedies where it’s incredibly difficult to spot the underlying logic of the "cunning of reason." It’s in this sense that Hegel describes history as being carried out upon the Schlachtbank.

Sure, but that doesn't mean any specific event was "inevitable." Not even broad phenomena like war. You can't claim that wars were a historical necessity. Maybe certain flawed ideas about the greater good—and the tragic fallout from those ideas—were inevitable, but I'm not buying this idea that history couldn't have played out with far less brutality. I just don't accept that kind of "necessity."

ruggedraven36 said:Sure, but that doesn't mean any specific event was "inevitable." Not even broad phenomena like war. You can't claim that wars were a historical necessity. Maybe certain flawed ideas about the greater good—and the tragic fallout from those ideas—were inevitable, but I'm not buying this idea that history couldn't have played out with far less brutality. I just don't accept that kind of "necessity."

Exactly.

Thomas Thomas63 said:In terms of the core blueprint, sure. But I think it's more complicated than that.

There’s this relatively new, fast-growing field in science called epigenetics. It basically looks at how behavior and environment can trigger changes that affect how genes actually function. We aren't talking about changing the DNA sequence itself here; epigenetic changes are reversible and don't alter the underlying DNA code, but they can totally change how the body reads that sequence.
Because of that, transgenerational epigenetic inheritance can influence an offspring's traits without ever touching the actual DNA structure.

These variations can be endogenous (like cell-to-cell during early development) or exogenous (how cells react to environmental factors).
So, I guess there's a chance that multi-generational epigenetics could be another layer of evolution and adaptation. Some people even go as far as calling epigenetics a form of heredity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans...ic_inheritance

The real question is where we draw the line between what is truly inherited and what is simply a product of upbringing. In my view, whether something is passed down through genes or via epigenetics is actually secondary. Since we were discussing philosophy, I leaned toward saying it’s passed through genes because that’s a concept we all intuitively grasp. Determining exactly what is hereditary versus what is shaped by nurture is an incredibly complex issue, and as far as I am aware, there is no single, definitive scientific consensus on it.

Sam Martinez9 said:The real question is where we draw the line between what is truly inherited and what is simply a product of upbringing. In my view, whether something is passed down through genes or via epigenetics is actually secondary. Since we were discussing philosophy, I leaned toward saying it’s passed through genes because that’s a concept we all intuitively grasp. Determining exactly what is hereditary versus what is shaped by nurture is an incredibly complex issue, and as far as I am aware, there is no single, definitive scientific consensus on it.

I don't get it. I can wrap my head around physical traits being coded in DNA—that makes sense. But feelings? Thoughts? Desires? I fail to see how you pass a damn emotion down through a genetic sequence.

I honestly think any attempt to draw a hard line between what someone is born with and what they pick up through their upbringing—essentially trying to isolate "nature" from "nurture"—is just a Sisyphus task.

ruggedraven36 said:I don't get it. I can wrap my head around physical traits being coded in DNA—that makes sense. But feelings? Thoughts? Desires? I fail to see how you pass a damn emotion down through a genetic sequence.

Have you ever watched birds building their nests? Or even just stood next to an anthill?

Amy Bennett said:Have you ever watched birds building their nests? Or even just stood next to an anthill?

I've seen birds build nests—sure—but I can't say I remember ever standing by an anthill.

ruggedraven36 said:Sure, but that doesn't mean any specific event was "inevitable." Not even broad phenomena like war. You can't claim that wars were a historical necessity. Maybe certain flawed ideas about the greater good—and the tragic fallout from those ideas—were inevitable, but I'm not buying this idea that history couldn't have played out with far less brutality. I just don't accept that kind of "necessity."

Of course it can. War is the engine of history. That’s exactly why people talked about the "end of history" after the collapse of the Soviet Union—because there was this belief that liberalism would achieve global hegemony through the USA and its empire.

ruggedraven36 said:I've seen birds build nests—sure—but I can't say I remember ever standing by an anthill.

The thing is, a nest or an anthill aren't physical traits—they're inherited.

Amy Bennett said:Of course it can. War is the engine of history. That’s exactly why people talked about the "end of history" after the collapse of the Soviet Union—because there was this belief that liberalism would achieve global hegemony through the USA and its empire.

Not quite. War might kickstart certain events—sure—but it isn’t the engine driving history, much less an essential one.

Amy Bennett said:The thing is, a nest or an anthill aren't physical traits—they're inherited.

Look, I didn't say it wasn't hereditary—I just don't get the mechanics behind how that even works.

ruggedraven36 said:Not quite. War might kickstart certain events—sure—but it isn’t the engine driving history, much less an essential one.

Maybe we shouldn't reduce all of history down to war as just physical combat, but perhaps we could look at it as conflict in its purest sense. History essentially requires that kind of asymmetrical dynamic to move forward.

ruggedraven36 said:Look, I didn't say it wasn't hereditary—I just don't get the mechanics behind how that even works.

Well, through genetics.

One could easily misinterpret Hegel’s concept of necessity as something predetermined or inevitable—as if it were the "only way things could be," or perhaps even the "best possible" outcome.
But that isn't how Hegel works. For him, necessity simply refers to what has already actualized. It isn't a moral or teleological claim that things "ought" to be a certain way.

("Actual necessity is, in fact, also contingent .... that which is real is necessary in its form, yet it remains limited in its content, and within that limitation, it possesses its own contingency. ...
Real possibility is established as the counterpoint to reality and possibility; therefore, real necessity inherently contains contingency. ...
In this sense, there exists a unity between necessity and contingency; this unity is what we must call absolute reality" Hegel, Vol. 2, 161)

Amy Bennett said:Maybe we shouldn't reduce all of history down to war as just physical combat, but perhaps we could look at it as conflict in its purest sense. History essentially requires that kind of asymmetrical dynamic to move forward.

Well, through genetics.

Conflict isn't war—it's the other way around. War is just conflict that finally lost its cool.

Amy Bennett said:Maybe we shouldn't reduce all of history down to war as just physical combat, but perhaps we could look at it as conflict in its purest sense. History essentially requires that kind of asymmetrical dynamic to move forward.

Well, through genetics.

Look, I’m telling you—I don't get how you can claim something non-physical is passed down through genetics. And then you just shrug and say, "well, it's genetic"??? That's not an explanation—it's just a circular argument.