= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Pentashagon comments on Neuroscience basics for LessWrongians - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (102)
It looks like there is a new/emerging field called primate archaeology aimed at studying more than just the hominins. If other primates show more advanced prehistoric tool use than they have now it would be evidence for your hypothesis.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090715131437.htm
Cool. Looks like there's no evidence yet one way or another.
Isn't there a place lesswrongers post predictions like this to check their calibration? I'd be willing to go on record with, say, 75% confidence that the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimps had more advanced tool use than modern chimps.
Yes, PredictionBook.com, but your prediction would be difficult since it has no clear due date, and no clear judging - it'd be hard to date most recent common ancestor, date tools, or prove that the former was using the latter.
Shouldn't we consider the fact that no such evidence has yet emerged as strong evidence against this hypothesis? Advanced prehistoric tool use would be a huge discovery - and, one would expect, confer an evolutionary advantage resulting in widespread evidence across space and time. We observe neither of these things