I think, the full Chomsky quote should read: “Our modern language capacity emerged instantaneously in a single hominin individual who is an ancestor of all humans, and that was me.”
The alternative to Great Man History is a sort of cultural evolution. But if evolution is mostly driven by outlier events, then we'd just wind up at a sort of Great Event theory of history either way. The difference being just quibbling about how many of those events took the form of men, vs asteroids or unlikely coincidences.
I think this mindset is such a plague on modern science (and elsewhere). We use the data available to estimate probabilities, and then, once we determine something is unlikely, or less likely than other outcomes - we act as if unlikely = impossible. I mean, sure, if you're going to investigate a potential answer, you're going to investigate the ones you think are more likely first. (not to mention - can we really be sure our calculated probabilities aren't tainted by a few poor inputs or not-quite-justified assumptions in the first place?)
Most mainstream scientists would be pretty averse to this sort of thing, but to identify Great Organisms of evolutionary history, we might need to look at myths. In 'On Heroes...' Carlyle essentially argues that Odin (or the figure who inspired his stories) was the Great Man who brought us language; perhaps Prometheus, bringer of fire, is another.
Interesting point about Chomsky, by the way. I didn't know that about him.
interesting, I most definitely am not most mainstream scientists so sign me up. I thought about putting something in there about the highest outlier individuals that we are sure existed - I'm thinking pythagoras, jesus, and buddha.
The Great X hypothesis is difficult to reconcile with gene fixation. The case pointed out to me was Genghis Kahn, the greatest child-haver in history. Even with his massive success, up to 8% of all men in a given country, his genes are still not fixated. Some hypothetical 10σ impregnator would have to outdo Genghis in ability to travel, ability to have his children survive to reproductive age, devote more time to spreading the genes, etc etc. It's something difficult to imagine even with modern technology.
all true but this is why I talk about the cognitive/cultural level in the article - an elk that find a new food source or develops a ecological niche and then passes that on can have an outlier effect on the evolution of his species without having to pass on any genes. Although the innovation is cultural, it can still change species genetic trajectory through gene-culture co-evolution.
I think, the full Chomsky quote should read: “Our modern language capacity emerged instantaneously in a single hominin individual who is an ancestor of all humans, and that was me.”
The alternative to Great Man History is a sort of cultural evolution. But if evolution is mostly driven by outlier events, then we'd just wind up at a sort of Great Event theory of history either way. The difference being just quibbling about how many of those events took the form of men, vs asteroids or unlikely coincidences.
"TL;DR: unlikely things are unlikely"
I think this mindset is such a plague on modern science (and elsewhere). We use the data available to estimate probabilities, and then, once we determine something is unlikely, or less likely than other outcomes - we act as if unlikely = impossible. I mean, sure, if you're going to investigate a potential answer, you're going to investigate the ones you think are more likely first. (not to mention - can we really be sure our calculated probabilities aren't tainted by a few poor inputs or not-quite-justified assumptions in the first place?)
Definitely - the broader point I'm gesturing towards here is that science can't really deal with the truly singular.
Most mainstream scientists would be pretty averse to this sort of thing, but to identify Great Organisms of evolutionary history, we might need to look at myths. In 'On Heroes...' Carlyle essentially argues that Odin (or the figure who inspired his stories) was the Great Man who brought us language; perhaps Prometheus, bringer of fire, is another.
Interesting point about Chomsky, by the way. I didn't know that about him.
interesting, I most definitely am not most mainstream scientists so sign me up. I thought about putting something in there about the highest outlier individuals that we are sure existed - I'm thinking pythagoras, jesus, and buddha.
The Great X hypothesis is difficult to reconcile with gene fixation. The case pointed out to me was Genghis Kahn, the greatest child-haver in history. Even with his massive success, up to 8% of all men in a given country, his genes are still not fixated. Some hypothetical 10σ impregnator would have to outdo Genghis in ability to travel, ability to have his children survive to reproductive age, devote more time to spreading the genes, etc etc. It's something difficult to imagine even with modern technology.
all true but this is why I talk about the cognitive/cultural level in the article - an elk that find a new food source or develops a ecological niche and then passes that on can have an outlier effect on the evolution of his species without having to pass on any genes. Although the innovation is cultural, it can still change species genetic trajectory through gene-culture co-evolution.
"how may entropy be reversed?"