When aliens come to Earth to investigate life here, they don’t simply beam up a specimen and start probing. (And they’re also, by the way, not disproportionately interested in the anus.) Only a novice prober would do a simple beam-and-probe, and would surely get a quick rap on a proboscis from the instructor. The problem with abducting an animal of interest, all by itself, is that you can’t understand an animal without an appreciation of the environment the animal inhabits.
These alien probers, you see, have a motto, and it roughly translates as: “My eye is not a squirt gun even though it shoots blood when in zero gravity.” It emanates from the experiences of their first alien astronauts who, upon experiencing zero gravity for the first time, were surprised to find their eyes shooting blood on everything they looked upon. Live video of that debacle set back their space program for a decade, as you can imagine, but to the alien evolutionary biologists it was a great illustration of how animals are packed with quirks, or crazy things they do in unnatural circumstances. Their alien eyes did not evolve for zero gravity, because zero gravity situations just never came up (unless in free fall from, say, a high cliff, in which case blood-squirting-eyes only serve to make the stain on the ground more memorable).
What an experienced alien prober does is gather as much information about the animal’s habitat as possible. In fact, they beam up entire habitats so that they can study the animal in its home at their leisure. Alien Probe School graduates are consummate ecologists, understanding that organisms evolved to do stuff with their complex mechanisms, but that if you drop an organism into an environment for which it did not evolve, it will often do other stuff, and usually quite unsophisticated stuff. For example, had their alien eyes actually been selected to become eye squirt guns in zero gravity, they would surely have become much better than they are, e.g., not so pulsatile, and less excruciatingly painful.
By following their alien principles of good probing, they’ll have abducted what they need in order to some day, and with great effort, have a complete knowledge of the organism, from its genome to its “phenome.” The phenome is the set of things the animal can do, implemented ultimately via the genome and the way it acts within the evolutionary habitat. For example, your cell phone’s genome is the electronic circuitry (or perhaps the engineer’s drawings for the circuitry), whereas its phenome is the list of things it can do, often enumerated in the user’s manual, exactly the manual that is missing for the Earth organisms the alien probers want to unravel.
But something unexpected happened when they followed these wise principles on humans, abducting an entire primitive tribe of humans and the mountain they lived on. They already had abducted earlier hominids who had no language or music, and were interested to see what was new about these speaking and singing humans. To their surprise, the aliens could discern no difference between the non-speaking, non-musical hominids and the speaking and singing humans.
Their biology was indistinguishable, they concluded.
They were the same animal. Could the difference be due to a difference in habitat? No, they concluded, the earlier and newly abducted mountains appear to have no relevant differences. Same animal, same habitat, and yet the modern humans are a giant leap beyond, or at least distinct from, the more ancient Homo sapiens. They scratched their antennae. Why, the aliens wondered, did the modern humans behave so fundamentally different? Why did they have language and music? Why did the modern humans seem like something fundamentally different from the great apes, whereas the non-linguistic non-musical humans seemed to fit more within the apes, namely as a very bright great ape.
How could two identical creatures in identical habitats end up so different in sophistication that it seemed natural to deem them different species?
The modern humans clearly must have have *learned* language and music. But that only seemed to worsen the dilemma for the probers. How can you teach an animal a lesson so powerful that it practically becomes another species? Speech and music comprehension, the aliens knew, are astoundingly complex, complex in the way natural selection creates the complex. These modern humans, the aliens noted, were competent at language and music in the highly adapted way animals evolve to be capable at things. But from their alien experiences as ecologists, they knew that if an animal is not designed to accommodate that level of complex processing, then you can’t just force feed it. You can’t teach a deer to catch and eat mice. No course will get your dog to climb trees like a monkey. And you can’t train a human to comprehend fax machine sounds. You simply cannot teach old hominids new tricks worthy of natural selection. The human brain is not such a rich general purpose learning apparatus that it can learn tasks as richly complex as language and music. Yet there they were, the modern humans with brains highly honed for speech and music. The alien probers were stumped.
They reasoned: The humans don’t have language or music innately in the head. And it doesn’t come from their habitat. And they also don’t simply learn something that complicated. There must be selection of some kind underlying the human capability to do language and music, but what kind of selection could it be if it is neither natural selection nor learning?
One of the alien probers wondered whether there *might* be design, or selection, underlying the difference between modern humans and their non-linguistic and non-musical ancestors – not natural selection and not learning, but cultural selection. This is a selection process that selects not on biology, but on human artifacts that are used by biology. The human artifacts are animal-like, in the sense that they themselves have evolved over time, under selection pressure. These artifact-creatures (in the realm of “memes”), like naturally selected biological creatures, can be highly complex, with all the hallmarks of an engineering masterpiece.
“Aha!” the alien prober exclaimed. The modern humans are not merely learning language and music, they’re being raised in an environment with symbionts. Language and music are technological masterpieces that evolved to live with non-linguistic hominids and transform them into something beyond their biology. What makes these modern humans no longer the non-linguistic Homo sapiens apes they biologically are is not on the inside, and not in the ancestral environment. It is due to a novel variety of evolving entity the humans have been evolving with. Language and music are evolved organism-like artifacts that are symbiotic with these human apes. And like any symbiont, these artifact symbionts have evolved to possess shapes that fit the biology, namely our brains. As a metaphor with symbionts, these aliens could then begin digesting what we modern humans are.
What are we, then, in the eyes of alien probers? We are our biology, from the genes on up. But we are more than that, indicated by the fact that the probers don’t abduct just a human, but entire human habitats. We are our biology within its appropriate habitat. But that’s true about all animals on Earth. The special thing the aliens had to grapple with when they started probing humans was that biology and habitat are not enough. They needed to abduct the cultural artifact symbionts that were co-evolving with us. That’s not something any other animal can lay claim to. The pieces of what we are can be found in our wet biology, the habitat, but also in the artifactual symbionts we have been co-evolving with.
Our language, music and other highly culturally evolved technologies are, like our genes and our habitat, deeply part of the modern human recipe. The human code is not just the genome, and not just the genome and habitat. The human code is now found in the structures of language and other cultural artifacts.
Comments
Mark,
You might enjoy the 'sci-fi noir' movie Dark City (1998, Alex Proyas), which examines exactly the questions you raise above, albeit from the point of view of the specimen under study - a human and his complete 'tribe', under observation without them knowing about it. An exceptionally good movie, on many levels.
Another obvious reference is the novel 'Slaughterhouse five', by Kurt Vonnegut.
My own hunch is that it is quite likely our 'Alien probers' would already be aware of the concepts of culture and language, as emergent phenomena on an (initially) biologic substrate. Presumably they would have some kind of culture and language as well, and have an inkling how that developed in the course of their own evolution.
It seems quite oversimplified to me to suggest language and culture would be like an ON/OFF switch - either totally absent, or present in an otherwise biologically identical specimen. It is much more realistic to suggest that our earliest ancestors already had a a primitive language and culture, which underwent co-evolution with the genome/phenome of our ancestors. We see (very) primitive language and culture even in other primates...
Cheers!
You might enjoy the 'sci-fi noir' movie Dark City (1998, Alex Proyas), which examines exactly the questions you raise above, albeit from the point of view of the specimen under study - a human and his complete 'tribe', under observation without them knowing about it. An exceptionally good movie, on many levels.
Another obvious reference is the novel 'Slaughterhouse five', by Kurt Vonnegut.
My own hunch is that it is quite likely our 'Alien probers' would already be aware of the concepts of culture and language, as emergent phenomena on an (initially) biologic substrate. Presumably they would have some kind of culture and language as well, and have an inkling how that developed in the course of their own evolution.
It seems quite oversimplified to me to suggest language and culture would be like an ON/OFF switch - either totally absent, or present in an otherwise biologically identical specimen. It is much more realistic to suggest that our earliest ancestors already had a a primitive language and culture, which underwent co-evolution with the genome/phenome of our ancestors. We see (very) primitive language and culture even in other primates...
Cheers!
Bob Brand (not verified) | 01/26/10 | 15:50 PM
Thanks for your comment. And I do agree that language would not be ON/OFF. But on my view the transition may have been fast, because I believe it was a cultural invention, one that culturally evolved over time to be optimized to fit our brains. ...specifically, by culturally evolving to mimic nature. Early versions of language would have been poor technologies, but would eventually have gotten better and better. -Mark
Mark Changizi | 01/27/10 | 11:01 AM
I sometimes wonder if the reality of culture whuich changes over time, and occasionally very rapidly, presents psychologists with something of a dilemma. For in attempting to construct explanations of human behavior we are confronted with the feedback from culture that can give rise to behavioral repertoires that are intrinsically unpredictable. So no matter what grand "Theory of Everything" that psychologists may create there must and always will be realities of human behavior that can not be predicted or modeled for perhaps even understood. That is, because of the interplay between humans and the culture they create which in turn creates them, humans are on one great long exploration into an incalculable evolutionary development. The horror, the horror, of operant conditioning!
Once again Mark, you make my brain hurt. I appreciate it.
John.
Once again Mark, you make my brain hurt. I appreciate it.
John.
John H. (not verified) | 01/27/10 | 06:18 AM
Mark Changizi | 01/27/10 | 11:08 AM
Mark
Part of the problem I'm trying to understand is what would have driven the development of our brains in the first place. In other words, the evolution of "reason". I suspect once our brains were sophisticated enough then culture and language aren't that hard to envision, but it's that initial transition that has me wondering.
Part of the problem I'm trying to understand is what would have driven the development of our brains in the first place. In other words, the evolution of "reason". I suspect once our brains were sophisticated enough then culture and language aren't that hard to envision, but it's that initial transition that has me wondering.
Gerhard Adam | 01/27/10 | 12:37 PM
Mark Changizi | 01/28/10 | 23:05 PM
Gerhard,
I haven't read this oft mentioned text but the following link may provide you with some ideas.
http://www.julianjaynes.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdow...
Jaynes became famous for The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. His argument appears to be that consciousness as we experience it today is a very recent phenomenon that rose only 3,000 years ago.
"Reason" is a word I am prefer to avoid. Some behaviorists argue that "reason" is simply the result of operant conditioning. I'm inclined to think that trying to uncover the evolutionary emergence of reason is probably going to fail. I am more to the view that reason is a product of culture as much as it is of biology. Then again, I know nothing about reason.
My understanding is that the Bicameral Mind text is very difficult to understand.
Hope this helps,
John.
I haven't read this oft mentioned text but the following link may provide you with some ideas.
http://www.julianjaynes.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdow...
Jaynes became famous for The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. His argument appears to be that consciousness as we experience it today is a very recent phenomenon that rose only 3,000 years ago.
"Reason" is a word I am prefer to avoid. Some behaviorists argue that "reason" is simply the result of operant conditioning. I'm inclined to think that trying to uncover the evolutionary emergence of reason is probably going to fail. I am more to the view that reason is a product of culture as much as it is of biology. Then again, I know nothing about reason.
My understanding is that the Bicameral Mind text is very difficult to understand.
Hope this helps,
John.
John H. (not verified) | 01/28/10 | 00:48 AM
John
Thanks for the reference. I am familiar with it, but I have to confess that I've never read it.
From what I recall about Jaynes work, the evolution of the brain would've already been rather firmly established, so while I can appreciate all the points regarding culture and its influence, it seems to me that this must be a secondary development.
In particular, I've been trying to think about a small incremental step that could've occurred that would push us just slightly beyond animal's capabilities lie. In that respect, it seems that once we reached that point, it may have been a "tipping point" which suddenly created an opportunity for new and innovative evolutionary steps to occur.
I realize that this is all speculative, but it seems that most of the "higher" animals are clearly capable of learning from their experiences, they have recollections of their past, and since they must make decisions, they can clearly extrapolate those experiences into the future (to a degree). This would suggest that almost everything we consider to be learning and basic intelligence is present in these animals.
The distinction that I've been thinking about with humans, is that we also share the same capabilities, but I'm envisioning that at some point our ancestors realized that they could use that information to control an outcome. In other words, instead of reacting to circumstances, the realization that circumstances might be controllable to a degree would give rise to rudimentary "projection" of outcomes.
Don't know if that sounds reasonable, but that's kind of where my thinking is.
Thanks for the reference. I am familiar with it, but I have to confess that I've never read it.
From what I recall about Jaynes work, the evolution of the brain would've already been rather firmly established, so while I can appreciate all the points regarding culture and its influence, it seems to me that this must be a secondary development.
In particular, I've been trying to think about a small incremental step that could've occurred that would push us just slightly beyond animal's capabilities lie. In that respect, it seems that once we reached that point, it may have been a "tipping point" which suddenly created an opportunity for new and innovative evolutionary steps to occur.
I realize that this is all speculative, but it seems that most of the "higher" animals are clearly capable of learning from their experiences, they have recollections of their past, and since they must make decisions, they can clearly extrapolate those experiences into the future (to a degree). This would suggest that almost everything we consider to be learning and basic intelligence is present in these animals.
The distinction that I've been thinking about with humans, is that we also share the same capabilities, but I'm envisioning that at some point our ancestors realized that they could use that information to control an outcome. In other words, instead of reacting to circumstances, the realization that circumstances might be controllable to a degree would give rise to rudimentary "projection" of outcomes.
Don't know if that sounds reasonable, but that's kind of where my thinking is.
Gerhard Adam | 01/28/10 | 01:18 AM
Mark Changizi | 01/28/10 | 23:08 PM
Gerhard,
I suggest that the biological changes you are thinking about began with Homo Erectus, circa some 1.5 myr ago. Erectus got as far as China and Indonesia, there is even some very speculative evidence that Erectus was present on the Australian continent, where I come from(Kow Swamp or Lake Mungo).
Some issues for consideration here are:
Angular Gyrus:
A large set of axons that link the language and visual cortices.
Corpus Callosum:
Mark might know but I suspect this must be much larger in humans than other primates though that could be an "exaptation" arising from rapid encephalisation.
Cerebellum
I have been advised that in humans the cerebellum is quite large. Originally thought to be only involved in the "fine tuning" of motor functions, there is now ample evidence to suggest it is involved in a great many functions ranging from language to eye co-ordination.
Posterior - Anterior "Balance"
The literal rise of the frontal lobes *may* have diminished our sensory perceptions and so made us more reliant on the summing of various sensory data which enabled a richer comprehension of the world. I realise that in evolutionary terms this is putting the cart before the horse but it seems to me that if an organism can integrate various sensory modalities it will enable a more nuanced appreciation of those senses. For example, being able to integrate what we are hearing with what we are seeing will enable us to perceive threats and benefits that might otherwise go un-noticed. Thus in past experience I associated the sound of hooves in the distance with the sight of far off prey at night I might more easily apprehend what it is I am hearing but not seeing. This clearly raises the suggestion that integrating all these sensory modalities is a type of "reason". Yeah okay I'm really struggling here ...
Better stress management via the orbitofrontal cortices.
The orbitofrontal cortices have direct inhibitory inputs into the amygdala. Through better regulation of the amygdala early hominids would have been less inclined to go berserk and more inclined to engage in deliberation about the problem at hand.
Socialisation.
As I previously mentioned in one of Mark's posts, humans are not very good in isolation, it is our co-operative potential that makes us so powerful. Accordingly there is a strong selection pressure to become more co-operative and this requires a markedly higher level of allocentric capacity than in other primates. This also directly relates to the stress management issue because if we are too inclined to go berserk then obviously we are not going to be great socialisers.
I suggest that the biological changes you are thinking about began with Homo Erectus, circa some 1.5 myr ago. Erectus got as far as China and Indonesia, there is even some very speculative evidence that Erectus was present on the Australian continent, where I come from(Kow Swamp or Lake Mungo).
Some issues for consideration here are:
Angular Gyrus:
A large set of axons that link the language and visual cortices.
Corpus Callosum:
Mark might know but I suspect this must be much larger in humans than other primates though that could be an "exaptation" arising from rapid encephalisation.
Cerebellum
I have been advised that in humans the cerebellum is quite large. Originally thought to be only involved in the "fine tuning" of motor functions, there is now ample evidence to suggest it is involved in a great many functions ranging from language to eye co-ordination.
Posterior - Anterior "Balance"
The literal rise of the frontal lobes *may* have diminished our sensory perceptions and so made us more reliant on the summing of various sensory data which enabled a richer comprehension of the world. I realise that in evolutionary terms this is putting the cart before the horse but it seems to me that if an organism can integrate various sensory modalities it will enable a more nuanced appreciation of those senses. For example, being able to integrate what we are hearing with what we are seeing will enable us to perceive threats and benefits that might otherwise go un-noticed. Thus in past experience I associated the sound of hooves in the distance with the sight of far off prey at night I might more easily apprehend what it is I am hearing but not seeing. This clearly raises the suggestion that integrating all these sensory modalities is a type of "reason". Yeah okay I'm really struggling here ...
Better stress management via the orbitofrontal cortices.
The orbitofrontal cortices have direct inhibitory inputs into the amygdala. Through better regulation of the amygdala early hominids would have been less inclined to go berserk and more inclined to engage in deliberation about the problem at hand.
Socialisation.
As I previously mentioned in one of Mark's posts, humans are not very good in isolation, it is our co-operative potential that makes us so powerful. Accordingly there is a strong selection pressure to become more co-operative and this requires a markedly higher level of allocentric capacity than in other primates. This also directly relates to the stress management issue because if we are too inclined to go berserk then obviously we are not going to be great socialisers.
John H. (not verified) | 01/28/10 | 02:36 AM
I think that all of these ideas are good suggestions, but if we really step back for a moment, these would be possible adaptations and explanations for those traits.
I'm trying to envision something like a gorilla mentality and asking what event might have occurred which suddenly pushed a primate "over the edge" to begin the long evolutionary trek to greater brain development. It could've been something as simple as seeing an animal fall into a hole, and suddenly realizing that we could potentially force a repeat of that situation.
Once this occurred, every opportunity to acquire more data points would've only improved on our ability to create these "what if" situations and potentially exploit them. Any individual that had improved memory or greater brain size, may have been at a fitness advantage and perhaps that served as the selection pressure for the larger brains?
It's clearly a story at this point, but until we can figure out what the point in having a bigger brain was, it's hard to imagine what it was an adaptation for.
I'm trying to envision something like a gorilla mentality and asking what event might have occurred which suddenly pushed a primate "over the edge" to begin the long evolutionary trek to greater brain development. It could've been something as simple as seeing an animal fall into a hole, and suddenly realizing that we could potentially force a repeat of that situation.
Once this occurred, every opportunity to acquire more data points would've only improved on our ability to create these "what if" situations and potentially exploit them. Any individual that had improved memory or greater brain size, may have been at a fitness advantage and perhaps that served as the selection pressure for the larger brains?
It's clearly a story at this point, but until we can figure out what the point in having a bigger brain was, it's hard to imagine what it was an adaptation for.
Gerhard Adam | 01/28/10 | 07:39 AM
Mark Changizi | 01/28/10 | 23:11 PM
Oh damn, I forgot to mention "spindle cells". According to Elkhonen Goldberg these cells are particularly rich in the human right hemisphere and send long projections throughout that hemisphere. These types of cells are found in other mammals but in humans are much more prevalent. Goldberg speculates that these cells facilitate a type of cerebral cross talk. Given recent studies suggestion that neural synchronous firing is very important in cognition and especially attention, these cells may play pivotal roles in integrating the various cerebral functions.
John H. (not verified) | 01/28/10 | 02:57 AM
From the abstracts of the Gifford Lectures by Professor Simon Conway Morris FRS
Don't you just luvvit?
... whilst the trajectory of hominid evolution allows insights into our unfolding self-awareness the crucial steps remain strangely elusive. Clearly it has some link to the increase in brain size, but direct correlations are surprisingly elusive. One approach is to re-trace the hominid trajectory: suppose we found some living australopithecines? How should we treat them? A nice cup of tea or a short trip to the zoo?
Don't you just luvvit?
Robert H Olley | 01/28/10 | 13:47 PM
Mark,
Gerald Edelman wrote long ago Bright Air, Brilliant Fire, that one of his colleagues asserted that consciousness may even exist in snakes, but only those in warm climates!
Jaynes is not referring to consciousness so much as he is about how our thinking about the world changed so long ago. I'm doubtful of that but it is interesting to note that if you look at the writings of St. Paul he does seem to endlessly struggle with integrating a Hellenic view of the world and a Judaic view of the world. He fails.
At the start of my life many people still adopted a Laplace view of animals, little better than machines. Hey I've had pets so that was obviously rubbish. I think consciousness is prevalent throughout mammals and a recent study even suggested that magpies have self awareness - they passed the Gallup Test. I'm not even sure if self awareness is different from consciousness. I'm doubtful such investigations are going to be fruitful but hey it is fun to play Mr. Speculator every now and then. Science often begins with speculation.
I've just finished reading a text by M. Kaku, the professor of physics. He mentions that because of the "observation issue" in QM there is a minority view amongst physicists embracing pantheism. Methinks perhaps they are taking their physics too seriously. Nonetheless I find something attractive about the idea that consciousness is as much a function of the universe as are our proclamations regarding the physical laws.
With regard to the emergence of reason, perhaps we first have to decide if reason is a function of the individual or a function of many individuals. Good luck with that.
Gerald Edelman wrote long ago Bright Air, Brilliant Fire, that one of his colleagues asserted that consciousness may even exist in snakes, but only those in warm climates!
Jaynes is not referring to consciousness so much as he is about how our thinking about the world changed so long ago. I'm doubtful of that but it is interesting to note that if you look at the writings of St. Paul he does seem to endlessly struggle with integrating a Hellenic view of the world and a Judaic view of the world. He fails.
At the start of my life many people still adopted a Laplace view of animals, little better than machines. Hey I've had pets so that was obviously rubbish. I think consciousness is prevalent throughout mammals and a recent study even suggested that magpies have self awareness - they passed the Gallup Test. I'm not even sure if self awareness is different from consciousness. I'm doubtful such investigations are going to be fruitful but hey it is fun to play Mr. Speculator every now and then. Science often begins with speculation.
I've just finished reading a text by M. Kaku, the professor of physics. He mentions that because of the "observation issue" in QM there is a minority view amongst physicists embracing pantheism. Methinks perhaps they are taking their physics too seriously. Nonetheless I find something attractive about the idea that consciousness is as much a function of the universe as are our proclamations regarding the physical laws.
With regard to the emergence of reason, perhaps we first have to decide if reason is a function of the individual or a function of many individuals. Good luck with that.
John H. (not verified) | 01/28/10 | 23:32 PM










It is such a recent phenomenon, that he has postulated that a sequence has arisen in the human memome which he has called mortgage, but this idea has received quite a lot of ridicule and rejection in the the scientific community on his planetoid.