AshwinV comments on The Octopus, the Dolphin and Us: a Great Filter tale - Less Wrong

48 Post author: Stuart_Armstrong 03 September 2014 09:37PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (233)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: AshwinV 10 September 2014 03:56:13AM 2 points [-]

Could you perhaps elaborate on the apes part? Or rather how the difference between the "instinct to trade" and "language" ended up being distinguished as such? I somehow think of the two as being extremely inter-related, language (in its rudimentary form, not the advanced language of humans that humans such as Orson Scott Card use) would probably be used in all ways to obtain a sort of 'comparative advantage', as opposed to a species that doesn't use language. It is in essence a tool used to obtain/give aid, and I cant think of another purpose why it would evolve suo moto.

Therefore, I may want to take issue with Ridley's claim that apes were "taught Language"(it sounds to me like they were thought words and corresponding actions or the rough equivalent of that). Nevertheless, it is an interesting theory and I would like to know more.

Comment author: mwengler 12 September 2014 06:13:14PM 1 point [-]

Some references in a review of Ridley's Rational Optimist describing claims about Apes not being able to barter and exchange the way humans do.

Not quite on the apes but this [wsj article by Matt Ridley[(http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703691804575254533386933138) talks about how exchange was the unique innovation of humans that caused our achievements and that evidence is that Neanderthals didn't have exchange the we did.