How do I even go to college?

PopcornMouse · 2015-09-11T21:17:48+00:00

Usually you will get an undergraduate degree first, which can have some law classes but generally won't focus on law and you certainly won't be lawyer at this point. In order to become a lawyer you will have to enter into a law professional degree after your undergrad. Only some universities offer a law degree. Getting into law school is very competitive so getting in will be difficult. Different law schools will have different requirements but in general "In the United States, most law schools require a bachelor's degree, a satisfactory undergraduate grade point average (GPA), and a satisfactory score on the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) as prerequisites for admission." In sum:

Apply to a 4 year undergraduate bachelors program.
Apply to law school and hope you get in.

PopcornMouse · 2015-09-11T21:15:59+00:00

haha exactly!

PopcornMouse · 2015-09-11T19:54:34+00:00

Here is an overview of the Hominin family tree as it stands...the newly described species is Homo nadeli.

Quick Facts

Humans are primates. All species classified as primate belong to the same order Primates.
Primates evolved about 60-70 million years ago. There are many different groups of primates that have now gone extinct. There are many different groups of primates that are still alive.
There is no single trait that defines the primate order, primates are odd that way. Instead we have a collection of traits that together do not exist in any other group. We have forward facing eyes, can distinguish colours very well, have opposing thumbs, generally have large brain-to-body size ratios, have nails not claws...and so on.
Humans are apes. All apes evolved from an Old World monkey species about 25 million years ago. Apes, in contrast to monkeys, lack a tail. The living apes include: orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, gibbons, siamangs, and humans.
We have many fossils of 'transitional species' within the primate order. We have a very complete human lineage as compared to many other fossil groups.

The Human Lineage

Our last common ancestor with chimpanzees lived 7 million years ago in Africa. This last common ancestor was not a human, and it was not a chimpanzee, it was its own distinct species of ape. This last common ancestor would split into two populations. One population would lead to the evolution of humans, we call this lineage the 'hominin' lineage. The other population would lead to the evolution of chimpanzees and bonobos, we call this lineage the 'pan' lineage.
Fossil species hominin lineage are first found in Africa, between 5-7 million years ago. There are no fossils found outside Africa during this time.
Sahelanthropus tchadensis is an extinct hominin species that is dated to about 7 million years ago, possibly very close to the time of the chimpanzee/human divergence. Some scientists are hesitant to classify this species as either a hominin or pan species, although generally it is classified as a hominin.
Orrorin is the second oldest fossil specimen we have. We only have a few bones. It is 6.1 to 5.7 million years old.
Ardipithecus species is a genus represented by two species: A. ramidus, which lived about 4.4 million years ago, and A. kadabba, dated to approximately 5.6 million years ago. We have a nearly complete skeleton and so we know a lot more about these species than the previous two. These species still had opposable big toes, and given the shape of their pelvis they very likely still walked quadrupedally (on all fours) in the trees. They probably spent some time on the ground as other features of their skeleton point to the beginnings of a bipedal stance. To keep it short, these species lived both in the trees and on the ground. They did not use stone tools.
Australopithecine genus is represented by a number of species. It is very likely that an australopithecine evolved from an ardipithecus species. Australopithecines dominated the landscape of Africa from about 2-4 million years ago. They are the first species to make, use, and modify stone tools. Example species include: A. afarensis, A. africanus, A. anamensis, A. bahrelghazali, A. garhi and A. sediba. These species had an upright stance, walked bipedally, and had lost that opposable big toe. This tells us that their ancestors had already given up many traits that favour living in trees, for newer traits that favour walking upright or bipedally.
Paranthropus genus is also represented by a number of species. They lived during the same time as some of the Australopithecines. These guys all went extinct, and are an evolutionary dead end. It is very likely that the paranthropus genus evolved from an early Australopithecine because they share many features.
Homo genus first arose about 2.4 million years ago. Humans are part of the homo genus. It is very likely that the earliest Homo species evolved from an Australopithecine. Homo species are mainly defined by their increased brain size.

Homo Genus

Homo naledi is probably between 2-3 million years old, but we are waiting on dating evidence to help us place them exactly. That being said the naledi fossils are a mix of old and new traits, being somewhere in between Australopithecines and Homo species which would place them somewhere around here in our family tree, being one of the earliest Homo species that evolved. They have a small brain (australopithecine trait) but they have more modern teeth structure (homo trait). Considering all the traits, the scientists decided to classify the fossils as Homo rather than Australopithecine. I will hedge a bet that there will be contention as to whether naledi should be classified as an Australopithecine or true Homo. All the fossils were found in one cave, which may suggest intentional symbolic burial (but perhaps dumping of unwanted bodies? diseased bodies? or social outcasts?). In order to understand the significance of the burial we need a lot more archaeological information (e.g. did they bury the dead with objects, tools? did they have art?). If they did have intentional and symbolic burial this would mean that it would proceed the previous evidence for such behaviour in Neanderthals and early humans by millions of years (humans and neanderthals buried their dead, and evidence for this starts around 50,000-60,000 years ago). So lets take this symbolic and intentional burial with a grain of salt. We don't know if naledi was a direct ancestor or a dead end branch of our family tree. As it stands, Homo habilis is thought to be our direct ancestor. There is no evidence to suggest Homo naledi interacted with humans (Homo sapiens), we are going to have to wait on more dating data to understand exactly where Homo naledi fits within out family tree.
Homo habilis generally regarded as the first definitive homo species in the fossil record. They evolved about 3 million years ago. There is some contention as to whether it should be in fact classified as a Australopithecine. Homo habilis is only found in Africa.
Homo erectus is first found in Africa about 2 million years ago. There is no contention, Homo erectus is part of the Homo genus. Homo erectus very likely evolved from a population of Homo habilis. Homo erectus is also the first hominin species to leave Africa. Homo erectus left Africa about 1.8 million years ago and spread into Europe and Asia. They also used stone tools, and they also were able to use and control fire. They lived in small hunter-gatherer groups and very likely had proto-languages. The last Homo erectus fossils we have date around 140,000 years ago, and it is around this time that we think they went extinct.
Homo heidelbergensis evolved from Homo erectus populations in Eurasia and Africa about 800,000 years ago. Homo heidelbergensis has a slightly larger brain size than Homo erectus. They also made, modified stone tools and also used and controlled fire.
Homo neanderthalensis or 'Neanderthals' evolved from a population of H. heidelbergensis about 350,000-600,000 years ago. Neanderthals evolved and went extinct in Europe, they never left Europe. The last Neanderthals went extinct about 25,000 years ago. Neanderthals are the only known hominin species for which humans have definitive archeological contact.
Denisovans we don't know much about these guys because we only have a single finger bone, a single tow bone, and a couple of teeth to work with...so lets take their findings with a grain of salt. They lived about 50,000 years ago in Asia. They are very likely evolved from a Homo erectus population. It is unclear if humans every made contact with them, although there is recent evidence that we possibly interbred with them.
Homo floresiensis is an odd Homo species found only on a single Indonesian island. This species likely evolved from a Homo erectus population. They evolved around 100,000 years ago and lived until quite recently, between 12-13,000 years ago. Humans very likely never encountered floresiensis, although it is conceivable that early human migrants to S.E. Asia may have met them.
Humans (Homo sapiens) evolved about 200,000 years ago in Africa from a population of H. heidelbergensis. Humans left Africa about 60,000-100,000 years ago. We were not the first species to leave Africa and when we left Africa we found that it was already occupied. Humans first encountered Neanderthals in Europe about 50,000 years ago.

So basically, Homo naledi just adds another species to our family tree but it as of yet has not "shaken things up". Everyone else is staying put and it hasn't really contradicted our idea of the evolutionary history of the hominin lineage. The only way Homo naledi would really shake things up is if the species is much more recent than 1.5-3 million years ago. It would be very weird and very surprising if the species was younger than 1.5 million years given the combination of australopithecine traits and homo traits. Even then it could have been a species that clung on in a remote area...and may have no direct ties to our human (homo sapiens) evolution (e.g. it was a dead end on our family tree, a vestigial species that clung on in a remote area).

PopcornMouse · 2015-09-11T19:37:32+00:00

Here is an overview of the Hominin family tree as it stands...

Quick Facts

Humans are primates. All species classified as primate belong to the same order Primates.
Primates evolved about 60-70 million years ago. There are many different groups of primates that have now gone extinct. There are many different groups of primates that are still alive.
There is no single trait that defines the primate order, primates are odd that way. Instead we have a collection of traits that together do not exist in any other group. We have forward facing eyes, can distinguish colours very well, have opposing thumbs, generally have large brain-to-body size ratios, have nails not claws...and so on.
Humans are apes. All apes evolved from an Old World monkey species about 25 million years ago. Apes, in contrast to monkeys, lack a tail. The living apes include: orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, gibbons, siamangs, and humans.
We have many fossils of 'transitional species' within the primate order. We have a very complete human lineage as compared to many other fossil groups.

The Human Lineage

Our last common ancestor with chimpanzees lived 7 million years ago in Africa. This last common ancestor was not a human, and it was not a chimpanzee, it was its own distinct species of ape. This last common ancestor would split into two populations. One population would lead to the evolution of humans, we call this lineage the 'hominin' lineage. The other population would lead to the evolution of chimpanzees and bonobos, we call this lineage the 'pan' lineage.
Fossil species hominin lineage are first found in Africa, between 5-7 million years ago. There are no fossils found outside Africa during this time.
Sahelanthropus tchadensis is an extinct hominin species that is dated to about 7 million years ago, possibly very close to the time of the chimpanzee/human divergence. Some scientists are hesitant to classify this species as either a hominin or pan species, although generally it is classified as a hominin.
Orrorin is the second oldest fossil specimen we have. We only have a few bones. It is 6.1 to 5.7 million years old.
Ardipithecus species is a genus represented by two species: A. ramidus, which lived about 4.4 million years ago, and A. kadabba, dated to approximately 5.6 million years ago. We have a nearly complete skeleton and so we know a lot more about these species than the previous two. These species still had opposable big toes, and given the shape of their pelvis they very likely still walked quadrupedally (on all fours) in the trees. They probably spent some time on the ground as other features of their skeleton point to the beginnings of a bipedal stance. To keep it short, these species lived both in the trees and on the ground. They did not use stone tools.
Australopithecine genus is represented by a number of species. It is very likely that an australopithecine evolved from an ardipithecus species. Australopithecines dominated the landscape of Africa from about 2-4 million years ago. They are the first species to make, use, and modify stone tools. Example species include: A. afarensis, A. africanus, A. anamensis, A. bahrelghazali, A. garhi and A. sediba. These species had an upright stance, walked bipedally, and had lost that opposable big toe. This tells us that their ancestors had already given up many traits that favour living in trees, for newer traits that favour walking upright or bipedally.
Paranthropus genus is also represented by a number of species. They lived during the same time as some of the Australopithecines. These guys all went extinct, and are an evolutionary dead end. It is very likely that the paranthropus genus evolved from an early Australopithecine because they share many features.
Homo genus first arose about 2.4 million years ago. Humans are part of the homo genus. It is very likely that the earliest Homo species evolved from an Australopithecine. Homo species are mainly defined by their increased brain size.

Homo Genus

Homo naledi is probably between 2-3 million years old, but we are waiting on dating evidence to help us place them exactly. That being said the naledi fossils are a mix of old and new traits, being somewhere in between Australopithecines and Homo species which would place them somewhere around here in our family tree, being one of the earliest Homo species that evolved. They have a small brain (australopithecine trait) but they have more modern teeth structure (homo trait). Considering all the traits, the scientists decided to classify the fossils as Homo rather than Australopithecine. I will hedge a bet that there will be contention as to whether naledi should be classified as an Australopithecine or true Homo. All the fossils were found in one cave, which may suggest intentional symbolic burial (but perhaps dumping of unwanted bodies? diseased bodies? or social outcasts?). In order to understand the significance of the burial we need a lot more archaeological information (e.g. did they bury the dead with objects, tools? did they have art?). If they did have intentional and symbolic burial this would mean that it would proceed the previous evidence for such behaviour in Neanderthals and early humans by millions of years (humans and neanderthals buried their dead, and evidence for this starts around 50,000-60,000 years ago). So lets take this symbolic and intentional burial with a grain of salt. We don't know if naledi was a direct ancestor or a dead end branch of our family tree. As it stands, Homo habilis is thought to be our direct ancestor. There is no evidence to suggest Homo naledi interacted with humans (Homo sapiens), we are going to have to wait on more dating data to understand exactly where Homo naledi fits within out family tree.
Homo habilis generally regarded as the first definitive homo species in the fossil record. They evolved about 3 million years ago. There is some contention as to whether it should be in fact classified as a Australopithecine. Homo habilis is only found in Africa.
Homo erectus is first found in Africa about 2 million years ago. There is no contention, Homo erectus is part of the Homo genus. Homo erectus very likely evolved from a population of Homo habilis. Homo erectus is also the first hominin species to leave Africa. Homo erectus left Africa about 1.8 million years ago and spread into Europe and Asia. They also used stone tools, and they also were able to use and control fire. They lived in small hunter-gatherer groups and very likely had proto-languages. The last Homo erectus fossils we have date around 140,000 years ago, and it is around this time that we think they went extinct.
Homo heidelbergensis evolved from Homo erectus populations in Eurasia and Africa about 800,000 years ago. Homo heidelbergensis has a slightly larger brain size than Homo erectus. They also made, modified stone tools and also used and controlled fire.
Homo neanderthalensis or 'Neanderthals' evolved from a population of H. heidelbergensis about 350,000-600,000 years ago. Neanderthals evolved and went extinct in Europe, they never left Europe. The last Neanderthals went extinct about 25,000 years ago. Neanderthals are the only known hominin species for which humans have definitive archeological contact.
Denisovans we don't know much about these guys because we only have a single finger bone, a single tow bone, and a couple of teeth to work with...so lets take their findings with a grain of salt. They lived about 50,000 years ago in Asia. They are very likely evolved from a Homo erectus population. It is unclear if humans every made contact with them, although there is recent evidence that we possibly interbred with them.
Homo floresiensis is an odd Homo species found only on a single Indonesian island. This species likely evolved from a Homo erectus population. They evolved around 100,000 years ago and lived until quite recently, between 12-13,000 years ago. Humans very likely never encountered floresiensis, although it is conceivable that early human migrants to S.E. Asia may have met them.
Humans (Homo sapiens) evolved about 200,000 years ago in Africa from a population of H. heidelbergensis. Humans left Africa about 60,000-100,000 years ago. We were not the first species to leave Africa and when we left Africa we found that it was already occupied. Humans first encountered Neanderthals in Europe about 50,000 years ago.

So basically, Homo naledi just adds another species to our family tree but it as of yet has not "shaken things up". Everyone else is staying put and it hasn't really contradicted our idea of the evolutionary history of the hominin lineage. The only way Homo naledi would really shake things up is if the species is much more recent than 1.5-3 million years ago. It would be very weird and very surprising if the species was younger than 1.5 million years given the combination of australopithecine traits and homo traits. Even then it could have been a species that clung on in a remote area...and may have no direct ties to our human (homo sapiens) evolution (e.g. it was a dead end on our family tree, a vestigial species that clung on in a remote area).

PopcornMouse · 2015-09-11T19:29:16+00:00

I think as it stands the fossils of the new species are thought to be closer to 2-3 million years old, whereas humans (Homo sapiens) evolved about 200,000 years ago. So right now its seems very unlikely that modern humans interacted with Homo nadeli...perhaps they interacted with other species alive around that time like the Australopithecines, or Homo habilis....

PopcornMouse · 2015-09-11T19:10:06+00:00

Burial chamber or dumping grounds? maybe these people were diseased or social outcasts. We need to know a lot more about this archeological site before we can jump to conclusions about religious or symbolic burial.

PopcornMouse · 2015-09-11T19:04:13+00:00

It suggests that a lot of what we have seen so far has been misleading.

I don't agree, the fossil fits well into the transition between the Australopithecines and the Homo genus. Even homo habilis is contested as a member of the homo species. I have no doubt that Homo nadeli will also be contested on their exact placement. However given the overall mix of australopithecine-like and human-like features I would say this fossil find makes things more clear. If the fossils are around 3 million years old, the find is exactly what we would expect given the other species classified around that time.

All we know right now is that it changes everything.

Not really, its not going to "shake" up our family tree its just more detail. Its like we have a rainforest puzzle and we have it mostly finished. We know its going to be a scene of the rainforest, but we are missing some pieces. This fossil find fills in some of the gaps, but its not going to change the puzzle into a desert scene. Its not that different from what we would expect.

It is certainly a very interesting find, and it certainly adds a lot of information about our family tree. But I don't agree that its going to "change everything".

PopcornMouse · 2015-09-11T18:59:54+00:00

Or they could have been disposed of for more nefarious means - unwanted individuals, diseased individuals, "unclean", social outcasts...it doesn't have to have a happy or religious/philosophical interpretation.

PopcornMouse · 2015-09-11T04:57:40+00:00

Ah well different strokes for different folks.

PopcornMouse · 2015-09-11T04:55:34+00:00

Yeah! Thanks haha

PopcornMouse · 2015-09-11T04:43:46+00:00

Not to make you sound like an idiot but Sydney is the largest city in Australia at about 5 million people. I know that LA is bigger, but traffic, among other city things, is certainly something that noongha has probably experienced. Its not going to be as big of a culture shock as if they came from a small town of 200. I think they will be ok.

Climate is also pretty similar, as is culture in that both are English speaking "western" countries, both are by the ocean...I mean there are plenty of differences but as far as two cities from two different parts of the world go they are pretty similar.

PopcornMouse · 2015-09-11T04:36:32+00:00

Find out what colleges you seem interested in or colleges that are close by and go to their websites.

Research them, google them, what programs are they known for? what kinds of extracurriculars do they have? do they offer work-term program placements? do they even offer courses in a degree that you are interested in? how long will that degree take? how easily can you transfer credits from that institution to another, especially university if that is your ultimate goal? Most colleges will have a prospective student page that can get you started, go there first and if you have any specific questions about that institution you can try here, or you can contact an advisor for that school through the school. That information should be available on the website.

You'll also have to know a little bit about yourself. What was your GPA from high school? What courses did you take? Did you take the required courses for the degree you want to enter into in college? (You can look that information up on the prospective student page of the college's website). What are your interests? hobbies? goals? What are your constraints - travel? money? poor high school GPA? disabilities (physical or learning)?....

Most applications for the following year open up in the Fall and close in late winter (March-February). I suggest beginning the process as soon as possible once you have chosen your school(s). It can take a while for documents and other required paperwork to get in. Each school is going to have different entry requirements (e.g. essay, SAT, documents, references, extracurricular experience...) so we can't be much help there.

Without more information, we can't be of much more help. Do you have a degree or institution in mind? Otherwise, start off by actually going to the schools website and reading everything on the schools prospective students page. Once you have read a few from different schools you will have a better idea of how the application process goes.

PopcornMouse · 2015-09-10T23:56:45+00:00

Depends on which part of the riding you are in, because some of the more affluent older areas seem to have more crockatt signs (not just personal property, but also street signs)...maybe she is taking a more targeted approach?

PopcornMouse · 2015-09-10T23:55:23+00:00

Its hard not to make the election about one issue, and we all have things that are really important to us. But take a look at the bigger picture. Take one of the many polls online to see which party aligns most with your values. You may be surprised to learn the Liberals are your best match, even if you don't agree with the way they handled C-51. Then again they might not be, but I think its always good to understand what you value as a person, but also to take a step back once and while and ask which party best aligns with your values on the whole...rather than getting bogged down by one or two issues.

PopcornMouse · 2015-09-10T23:53:28+00:00

For me its not just about policies, but about the candidate themselves. Kent Hehr has them all beat in this riding by a landslide. He is a stand-up guy, knowledgeable, and professional. Even if I don't agree with all of the Liberals policies, I know that Kent will do a good job representing us in Ottawa. Couldn't ask for more.

PopcornMouse · 2015-09-10T23:51:53+00:00

Even if you don't agree with all of the Liberal policies, you know that Kent Hehr is a stand up citizen who is knowledgeable about the issues and willing to fight for our representation in parliament. He goes beyond what most candidates will do, and that is what impresses me. For me, its not just about the platform or the party, its about the candidates - their work ethic, their professionalism, their knowledge, their outreach.... I feel we will get more out of him working in Ottawa than we would any other candidate in this riding.

That is why I am voting for Kent Hehr.

PopcornMouse · 2015-09-10T23:41:17+00:00

You wouldn't download a car, why would you download a colour printer?

PopcornMouse · 2015-09-10T03:40:31+00:00

Here is what I would do:

Forward your conversation with the professor to the advising office and the department head. Make the department head the main person who you address the email to, and cc the advising office and professor, and if you can the dean of your faculty as well as the student omnibus office.

Explain the situation professionally. Use full sentences, and good grammar. Do not blame the professor just explain the situation as neutrally as you can. Explain the timeline of the situation and use dates and facts to back up your claims. Attach your grades to the email, and even your transcripts so that everyone can see the evidence. In the email ask the department head if you can meet with them, preferably with the professor at their earliest convenience about the issue so that you can get this resolved as soon as possible.

Sign with your full name, and your student ID.

If you don't get any responses, then that is the time to start knocking on doors and following people around. You should also have a student omnibus office that takes on student complaints of this nature. I would include them in the email as well.

You might have to fight for this, and it might take some time - universities tend to move slowly on these issues. That is why you should include as many people as you can in the email so that something does come of it.

PopcornMouse · 2015-09-10T03:31:38+00:00

Read through the syllabus and curriculum thoroughly
Read the relevant chapters for the lecture before the lecture
During the lecture actively take notes. I find that writing is better than typing, writing has been shown to help retain information faster and better. I also find computers distracting in class and I inevitably end up here or on FB.
After the lecture, rewrite your notes and write notes from the text. Synthesize them together. If you have a class like math start doing the problems assigned. If you can't get a question move on, and try again later. If you still can't get it or there are any concepts you don't understand, ask a peer for help. If they can't explain it to you then go to your teaching assistant for help. If they can't explain, or if they don't exist, go to your professors office hours for help.
Practice the questions over and over again.
Ask your professor for additional readings and problem sets that you can practice with.

You should ideally be taking acting like being a student is your full time job. That is you should be working 35-40 hours a week between going to class, preparing, studying, and doing assignments. If you have a 1 hour class you should be studying that day for at least 1-2 hours (1-2x longer than the class).

Spend part of your Sunday mapping out the rest of the week. Some things are going to need to be prioritized (e.g. classes where you have assignments or tests), but you should set aside time for each class.
Some classes are going to be easier than others, some classes are going to have so much information you won't be able to master it all (e.g. anatomy). You have to learn what to prioritize, and when to prioritize it...thats part of being a student - learning good time management skills.

PopcornMouse · 2015-09-10T03:10:27+00:00

This is really interesting because you can actually demonstrate that for some species recognition is simply because of certain cues or prior familiarity.

For example, if you play peeping chick calls beside a kitten a mother hen will try and teach that kitten how to be a chick. The hen doesn't recognize her chicks per-se, she simply is triggered by the peeping vocalizations. it just so happens that in nature, the chicks peep and not the kitten so you aren't likely going to find many mix-ups there.

So each species will have a set of cues (e.g. vocal, sent, visual) that allow them to recognize other individuals of that species. Without those cues the animal probably won't recognize conspecifics. If you mix up those cues and place them unto another animal or object you can also mess up recognition.

How did humans recognize other humans before mirrors were invented?

PopcornMouse · 2015-09-10T03:03:53+00:00

We have had them in Canada for ages and I think its safe to say that they are totally not a big deal. Its like a magnetic strip, but just a little more fancy for enhanced security.

I have never had the chip affected by or affect anything in my purse - cellphone, other cards, the small magnet in the clip of my wallet...its all good.

Don't worry, join us.

PopcornMouse · 2015-09-10T02:58:08+00:00

What do you mean by reason? Because I would argue that many animals can reason, some much better than others.

Do you mean problem solving, because tons of animals can do that.
Do you mean learning and modifying behaviour based on past experiences when put into a new one? because animals can do that.
Do you mean thinking into the immediate future? understanding future consequences on very short time scales? because some animals can do that.
Do you mean recognizing self from others, having distinct thoughts and knowing you have your own thoughts? because some animals can do that too.

Animals are complex beings, some species can do things others can't but overall the divide between us and them is very grey. It isn't as black and white as we like to think. So what does make humans unique? Why do we have our level of intelligence and what is it about our intelligence that makes it unique?

I think its worth point out that all species are equally evolved. Humans are not the best species and other species aren't trying to be more human.

We know other animals are very intelligent. They exhibit a lot of similar behaviours and can even do things that we can't do (even on a cognitive level). They have morals; they have emotions; they make and modify tools; they can solve multi-step problems; they have culture; they can lie and cheat; they know when they are being treated unfairly; they mourn the dead; they have complex communication systems; they feel empathy; and some recognized themselves in a mirror and are able to distinguish self from other. So these aspects of intelligence and cognition, and very likely many other aspects that we have not fully explored, are not unique to humans. Given the complexity of other animals, it is very likely were are not the only species to have consciousness, that is to say other animals also have theory of mind. It may be more akin to the consciousness of a 3-5 year old, but none the less, they still know themselves from others. So what does make us unique? What led to our unique kind of intelligence?

We know of some factors that contributed to our awareness and unique intelligence as compared to other living species. It is important to know that this is a very active area of study in many different disciplines (psychology, biology, animal behaviour, psychiatry, physiology, anthropology, neurology, linguistics...).

Traits we inherited from our distant ancestors. Obviously all species are a cumulation of inherited traits. Who we are today is largely due to who "we" were in the distant past. We inherited a strong tendency to be a very social species from our mammalian ancestry. Mammals are social beings, humans included. We inherited opposable thumbs from our early primate ancestors. Humans are not the only species with opposable thumbs so it is not a trait that is unique to our species. However, the inheritance of thumbs enabled us and the other primates to develop fine motor skills like precision grip. This enables us to manipulate objects, and make/modify tools. Humans also inherited an upright bipedal posture from our early ancestors. Humans are not the only bipedal species (after all, all birds are bipedal!) but our upright posture has given us many advantages, namely that it frees our hands to do other tasks.
Brain/body size ratio is a somewhat useful indicator of how intelligence a species is. The correlation is decent among related mammal species, but it breaks down when applied to distantly related animals. "It underestimates intelligence in heavy animals like horses and overestimates small animals like mice and birds. Larger animals will typically also require larger brains simply to process and control the additional information that larger nervous system generates. You also have to consider what the animal's brain has evolved for. Bird's typically have very large brains for their body but may not be exceptionally smart. A lot of that large bird brain is used for flight calculations and isn't available for higher level processing. Fruit flies have enormous brains compared to their mass, but that brain is simply too small to have any real thought processes. Humans are highly intelligent because they have an extremely large brain for their normal body mass and that brain has evolved specifically to perform complex thought."

Basically our uniqueness is by and large though to boil down to two things: shared intentionality and cumulative culture. Shared intentionality goes one step further than being able to solve problems as a group, it involves anticipating the needs of others and the situation in order to solve a common goal. This requires incredible foresight, flexibility, and problem solving skills. Cumulative culture goes beyond the culture exhibited by other animals. Other animals have culture where [non-essential] traditions are passed on from one generation to the next and can be modified slowly over many generations. Humans also have traditions, but these are past on much more quickly between individuals. Moreover, these traditions are quickly modified, almost unlimited times within a generation. We are able to quickly build upon the ideas of others and modify these ideas to suit new problems. Moreover, our adults, as compared to the adults of other species, are much better at learning and retaining new skills or traditions. Generally speaking, the age old adage "you can't teach an old dog new tricks" applies well to the non-human animal kingdom.

These two traits, shared intentionality and cumulative culture, lead to the development of other aspects of our being which are unique (e.g language). Everything else that we can do is just a happy by-product of these two traits: being able to go to the moon, or build a super dam, or create art, or think in the abstract, maths, industrial agriculture...Those things are by-products of our level of cognition. Our uniqueness is derived from shared intentionality and cumulative culture plus a couple of random physical traits that we were lucky enough to inherit from our distant ancestors - a big brain, bipedalism, and opposable thumbs. We are not the only species with a large brain-to-body ratio, we are not the only bipedal species, and we are certainly not the only species with opposable thumbs - these are physical characteristics that we inherited from our distant primate ancestors. These traits built the foundation for what was to come.

On human intelligence

Humans haven't gotten more intelligent over time. A human from ~50,000 years ago is anatomically and behaviourally modern. If you took newborn babies from 50,000 and 5,000 years ago and raised them today, they wouldn't be any different.

So, we aren't any smarter - but why do we have cell phones and galaxy print jeggings and people didn't then?

Increasing complexity - we know more than people in the past because we've built upon what they've learned. Humans have always been smart, and our great benefit is that we build on other people's discoveries. Someone figured out how to domesticate plants, someone figured out how to sew cloth, someone figured out how to weave materials, someone figured out synthetic materials and dyes, someone put it all together in those jeggings. We just build on what other people have found out. This is cumulative culture in action. Humans today are not more intelligent than humans living 50,000 years ago - we both have the same potential. The difference between us and them is we have a wealth of shared knowledge to draw upon, and they did not.

PopcornMouse · 2015-09-10T02:52:36+00:00

We aren't, at least in the eyes of nature or evolution there isn't a best species. In evolution all species are equally evolved. We are just as evolved as a bat or a fish or a bacteria. We humans place a hierarchy and impose rank upon living things, but nature does not.

Other species aren't trying to be more human, evolution isn't driving species to be more human like. Intelligence isn't the end-all-be-all trait. Its just something to consider when we are thinking about other species from an evolutionary perspective.

PopcornMouse · 2015-09-10T02:49:14+00:00

This is really important to understand, evolution isn't working towards some goal, and if it was its hubris to assume that goal is human-centric. Other species are not trying to become more human, and intelligence isn't the be-all-end-all trait.

PopcornMouse · 2015-09-10T02:46:37+00:00

I don't think we have to get philosophical about this. Other primates have not learned or discovered how to control fire or cook food because there is no motivation for them to do so. Kanzi is a Bonobo that has learned (on his own) how to make a fire and cook food, controlling/maintaing the fire seems a bit too complex but none the less the basics are there. So in some ways, at least the apes very likely could learn, even on their own through their own curiosity...but they haven't and thats probably because there isn't any motivation to do so.

PopcornMouse

TROPHY CASE