Could cognitive revolution happen in non-sapiens humans?

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,673
Florania
A few different species of humans might have coexisted:
Homo erectus
Homo neanderthals
Homo florensis
Denisovans
Red deer cave people

Yuval Noah Harari is known for proposing the idea of cognitive revolution
and the inventions of shared myths and fictions in Homo sapiens.
Could this happen to non-sapiens humans?
How might the resulting civilizations be different?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,239
SoCal
If Yuval Noah Harari is correct, cognitive revolution means the ability to organize by collective fictions and myths, such as states, companies, religions, and more.
In that case, Yes, just as long as their cognitive abilities would have evolved enough.
 

notgivenaway

Ad Honorem
Jun 2015
5,775
UK
We don't fully know how we became sapient, or what sapience really is.

We know, as far as we can see, that only humans are able to be self-aware to the degree that we can ponder our existence, other realities, and conceive and develop technology. But then for all we know, maybe cats and dogs believe in a god and an afterlife, or lions and tigers think that if they hunt to the best of their abilities, Panthera-Ra would meet them in the afterlife and bless them well. the issue here is that humans can speak and have language, and we know cats and dogs have basic emotions and feelings. I'm not saying they are sapient, but consciousness or sapience is hard to define.

The common view is that we became behaviourally modern around 50,000 years ago, since this is the point where we see art, advanced culture, and traits that we consider human beyond anatomical. We can see modern human skeletal features in bones going back to 200,000 years ago. But up until then, there is little evidence of advanced tool-making or art.

But this begs the question as to how or why we became "behaviourally modern" 50,000 years ago. And why then and not before, or later? Was it a genetic mutation at random? Or an adaptation? But if it was an adaptation, to what exactly?

Neanderthals could have been at our cognitive level, but there isn't much evidence that they progressed in their lifespan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Oct 2017
355
America ??
The main problem is that we know so little of archaic humans apart from fossils, that’s really all we have to examine them. Yes they’ll always be a big mystery to us. I suppose what is apparent is that their tool remains appear remarkably uniform & simple throughout all that hundreds of millennia of fossil record don’t they? Anatomical & behavioural revolutions rarely happen among animals the way its evidenced in our archaeological cognitive revolution do they? In terms of cognitive revolution, notgivenaway has explained it well above, but I don’t see any reason why they couldn’t have had their own, it just that they wouldn’t show in the archaeological record that’s all.

They must have had all the advanced features of great ape cognition for sure, which actually means a lot in the context of nature. But their brain cases alone suggest that their cognition probably differed from us at least minimally even if subtly, among other things they were probably lacking in our levels of abstract thought, but perhaps even in intelligence as well.
& you never know if any archaic humans may have been primarily solitary or minimally social, like how orangutans are noted for being odd for higher primates in that regard or how gibbons are monogamous, do you think that would have been possible for archaic humans?

Let’s try to figure out what was going on in the world in the time frame of 50,000 years ago. Isn’t that when we also start seeing evidence of the first AMH out of Africa migrations across Eurasia, settlement in Australia & megafauna extinction there, approaching of Last Glacial Maximum, decline of other human species remains, as well as emergence of modern races in fossil record?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Dec 2017
312
Regnum Teutonicum
Homo neanderthalensis defentively could. I mean they kind of did it, because they are part of a big chunk of humanity today, because H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens could produce fertile children. If a pure blooded Neanderthal man or woman would be alive today, they would perfectly blend in with the rest of us and nobody would notice. It is likely that they would be even smarter than most people.
H. floresiensis could not have done it, because to survive on the small island there was island dwarfism in the game, which resulted in smaller brain. H. floresiensis had a brain that was by half smaller than that of H. erectus (one half of this half this is the result of the smaller size, the other half maybe because of environmental factors).
H. erectus is difficult. My guess is that they could not, but their successor species would be (like in real life H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis).
For Denisovans there have been found to few fossils to even speculate about this.
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,411
Australia
.....

.... in the time frame of 50,000 years ago. Isn’t that when we also start seeing evidence of the first AMH out of Africa migrations across Eurasia, settlement in Australia & megafauna extinction there, approaching of Last Glacial Maximum, decline of other human species remains, as well as emergence of modern races in fossil record?
No .

Settlement in Australia , at least 65,000 ya , maybe 70, 000

mega fauna extinction 46, 000

peak glaciation 18,000

Australian megafauna - Wikipedia


Mega fauna extinction may not be related to human settlement ;

Megafauna