Where did we come from and what exactly does the word “such” mean? These are the questions that anthropology is trying to answer - a complex, ramified, tree-based discipline, which Compulenta tried to give a slightly more definite form, concentrating on anthropogenesis (not only physical) and the most general works describing something fundamental in man. The rest was sent to the headings "Psychology", "Neurobiology", "Sociology", "History", etc., but now it is time to prepare the hodgepodge again. So, all the most anthropologically interesting things that we wrote, read and argued about in 2012.
First, as usual, about the most general trend and
In the era "before historical materialism" science and philosophy were interested in that in man that distinguished him from the natural world. The 20th century philosopher Merab Mamardashvili summarized this line of thought: “A person, in my opinion, is a creature that is to the extent that it is self-created by some means not given in nature itself. Or, in other words, man in that human that is in him is not a natural being, and in this sense he did not descend from a monkey. Man did not come from anything at all that acts in nature in the form of some kind of mechanism, including the mechanism of evolution. It is clearly distinguished against the background of objects that make up nature and space, by what we intuitively call human in it, and this cannot be attributed by its origin to any mechanisms either in the world, or in biology, or in man himself. I repeat,man is a being, which is to the extent that it self-creates."
Foreseeing the rage of our dear readers-techies (“Idealism!”), We hasten to translate this statement from the philosophical language into a more Russian one: man is the only thing in nature that possesses consciousness, and consciousness cannot be described either physical, biological or psychological instrumentation. On the contrary, the "primitive" language of symbols (myth, art) copes with this perfectly. (Only it is not easy to understand it: it requires destruction and deciphering - in other words, thinking alone is not enough, you need thinking about thinking.) The point is not at all that the so-called idealists assumed consciousness to exist separately from a person, but in what to say about consciousness as such in a very convenient way: as if consciousness (God, the Self, the world of ideas) is some kind of transcendental sphere into which the old human "I" seems to dive, and a new "I" emerges,that is, having an idea, thought, understanding (and, which is important, recognizing the thought or idea as such).
In this sense, everything was said about man in antiquity (not such a big secret - man). But the problem of understanding what has been said remains. In addition, symbols are often perceived literally, that is, not as symbols, but as indications of real-life objects and persons (the same God). All the way we have to decipher them, explain them and, along the way, invent and improve a special language, absolutely incomprehensible to the uninitiated, - the language of philosophy, in which these ambiguities are eliminated. In addition, between us and the meaning of the symbolic and philosophical statements of the past, there is always a very thick screen - culture. For example, they drum into us that, they say, Plato (Descartes, Hegel) was an idealist, that is, a fool who believed in the world of ideas, while it is clear to any normal person that such a world does not exist and cannot exist. And unless you yourself carry out some experience of thinking (no reading guarantees this to you), you will not be able to remove the cultural mask put on Plato. Some for the sake of this experience themselves become philosophers: take, for example, Schopenhauer, who was well aware that he would not say anything new, calling in the preface to his main work to read Kant, and even better - Plato, and even better - the Upanishads.
Partly because of a lack of understanding of the language of symbols and philosophy, partly because of an interest in knowing all aspects of reality, the distinction between human and animal (or, in religious systems, divine and human, higher and fallen) nature in man began to disappear from science (and partly from from philosophy). Man began to be perceived as a special, but still a part of the animal world, and in recent decades (against the background of the successes of biology and neurobiology, psychology and primatology), the belief has grown that a detailed description of all physical processes in the human body (primarily in the brain) we will get a psyche and consciousness working independently of the body. A project has been established to transfer the human personality to cyberspace (this topic has been discussed for a very long time, it should be noted). Neuroscientists argue about the localization of self-awareness and free will in the brain,and primatologists - about the personality of chimpanzees, having unlearned to separate instinct and thinking. All this reminds of the hopes of scientists of Laplace's time that, having described every particle in the Universe, we will get a complete picture of the past and the future. As you remember, after a while, this theory was most brutally fucked up by quantum mechanics. Such quantum mechanics already exists in the human science - it is metaphysics. But today it is customary not to understand it and to ridicule it (at the same time, it is impossible to abandon it, and here and there thinkers begin to resurrect old ideas under the guise of new philosophical systems like existentialism, structuralism, etc.). As you remember, after a while, this theory was most brutally fucked up by quantum mechanics. Such quantum mechanics already exists in the human science - it is metaphysics. But today it is customary not to understand it and to ridicule it (at the same time, it is impossible to abandon it, and here and there thinkers begin to resurrect old ideas under the guise of new philosophical systems like existentialism, structuralism, etc.). As you remember, after a while, this theory was most brutally fucked up by quantum mechanics. Such quantum mechanics already exists in the human science - it is metaphysics. But today it is customary not to understand it and to ridicule it (at the same time, it is impossible to abandon it, and here and there thinkers begin to revive old ideas under the guise of new philosophical systems such as existentialism, structuralism, etc.).
Of course, to a large extent we are all animals, and it is very difficult to distinguish to what extent the work of consciousness (this philosophical term largely coincides with the psychological term "psyche", but not with the psychological term "consciousness"; do not confuse) is due to neurophysiological processes, and in which, on the contrary, affects them. It seems that psychophysiological disciplines go to the same (from their, "materialistic" side), to which metaphysics came before our era and expressed in the language of the supernatural. Here it is worth pointing out the extremely interesting research that Andrew Owen is conducting: he and his colleagues are trying to communicate with people who are in the so-called vegetative ("plant") state. Experiments seem to hint that the brain of such people retains the ability to neurophysiological processes,characteristic of those who are conscious (here the word "consciousness" is used in the medical sense). Unfortunately, there is no way to check whether plant people are really conscious or whether their brains automatically respond to external stimuli - including such complex ones as a request to remember relatives or imagine a game of tennis. It is obvious that in order to clarify the boundaries and the degree of interaction of neurophysiological, mental and mental processes, it is necessary to more actively investigate people who are sleeping and are obviously unconscious. Something similar has already been done, because the interest in the brain was not born yesterday, but yesterday there was no such equipment as today. Do plant people really have consciousness or do their brains automatically react to external stimuli - including such complex ones as a request to remember relatives or imagine a game of tennis. It is obvious that in order to clarify the boundaries and the degree of interaction of neurophysiological, mental and mental processes, it is necessary to more actively investigate people who are sleeping and are obviously unconscious. Something similar has already been done, because the interest in the brain was not born yesterday, but yesterday there was no such equipment as today. Do plant people really have consciousness or do their brains automatically react to external stimuli - including such complex ones as a request to remember relatives or imagine a game of tennis. It is obvious that in order to clarify the boundaries and the degree of interaction of neurophysiological, mental and mental processes, it is necessary to more actively investigate people who are sleeping and are obviously unconscious. Something similar has already been done, because the interest in the brain was not born yesterday, but yesterday there was no such equipment as today.mental and thought processes, it is necessary to more actively investigate people who are sleeping and are obviously unconscious. Something similar has already been done, because the interest in the brain was not born yesterday, but yesterday there was no such equipment as today.mental and thought processes, it is necessary to more actively investigate people who are sleeping and are obviously unconscious. Something similar has already been done, because the interest in the brain was not born yesterday, but yesterday there was no such equipment as today.
Promotional video:
Now let's apologize to Kirill Stasevich for stirring up his diocese (I warned: anthropology is a branchy thing), and proceed to the table of the most interesting news of 2012. Scientists have tried to offer answers to almost all the questions of this discipline. So, in chronological order.
When did our ancestor get off the tree?
Analysis of the teeth of the mysterious species Australopithecus sediba, discovered four years ago in the Malapa caves northwest of Johannesburg (South Africa), showed that this strange creature, which is considered by some to be intermediate between Australopithecus and humans (Homo), ate mainly leaves, fruits, wood and bark. Scientists were greatly surprised, because at that time (about 2 million years ago) all other hominins were leaning on the grasses of the African savannah.
It should be noted that there is, like a giraffe, Au. sediba was not forced: there are vast pastures around. And these individuals, possessing adaptations for climbing trees and walking upright, chose life in the forest. Chimpanzees do the same today, and in ancient times - 4.4 million years ago - a similar lifestyle was led by Ardipithecus ramidus.
What is the conclusion from this? Apparently, the Australopithecines were trying to occupy all suitable ecological niches, not suspecting that a couple of million years later they would be credited with the desire to become our ancestors. Perhaps Au. sediba (by no means all scientists are ready to admit the legitimacy of separating these samples into a separate species) was the branch that has nothing to do with Homo.
Where did the man come from?
Experts have been suspecting for forty years that the straight line of inheritance from Homo habilis through Homo erectus to Homo sapiens is an oversimplification. And this year, perhaps the most solid evidence was presented that several evolutionary paths lead to us. Analysis of three samples found near Lake Turkana (Kenya) showed that 1.7-2 million years ago in East Africa, at least two more representatives of the genus Homo lived side by side with Homo erectus.
One of the skulls (KNM-ER 62000) with a relatively large cavity and a long, flat face is strikingly similar to specimen 1470, which was discovered in the same area in 1972 and which made it possible for the first time to express the idea of the large number of our ancestors. Judging by the new find, these features are not accidental.
Neanderthals, Denisovans … But how many were there?
And clearly more species of Homo cohabited with Homo sapiens than we imagined. In the southwest of China, in the Red Deer Cave (or simply in the Deer), the remains of four individuals were discovered, which may turn out to be representatives of a species unknown to science. It is already striking that the bones are only 14.5-11.5 thousand years old: until now, the youngest representative of the genus Homo, different from sapiens and found in the continental part of East Asia, was 100 thousand years old.
Scientists point to a mixture of archaic, modern and unique features: a rounded skull with prominent brow ridges, a flat but short face with a wide nose and protruding jaws, but no human chin. The brain is quite moderate in size, the frontal lobes look modern, and the parietal lobes are primitive and small. But the molars are larger than those of humans.
It is worth noting that a similar skull was already found in China in 1979. We are now waiting for a full-fledged anthropological and genetic analysis, as well as the results of further excavations. By the way, some experts have warned before that as soon as they start digging all over the world, we will immediately be convinced of the pathetic incompleteness of our understanding of anthropogenesis.