Hi Arlo, Inserted ...
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote: > [Ian] > So the previous social pattern isn't fossilized in all its glory in the > future biology, but it does preserve traces / shadows, which reinforce the > advantage on the next cycle, and so on. > > [Arlo] > But clearly you mean that these traces/shadows are recorded in some form of > genetic sequence or code, no? [Ian] Yes, but several orders down, in genetic coding for how these things develop (in the womb, in early life, etc). > Now, I do think, as I've said (and Tomasello > describes) that there is feedback from the social level influencing > biological patterns. > > There is fossil evidence, for example, that since the Late Pliostene (~2 > million years) human morphological evolution showed the greatest changes in > increasing brain size and reduction of the bony skull superstructure > coinciding with the first evidence of what we would consider sophisticated > social behavior. Clearly, the trajectory of human neural evolution owes in > large part to the "flexing" of certain neural areas, rather than simply > evolving in response to the inorganic environment. > > This I will agree with, that the neurobiology of the human brain has evolved > over the past million years specifically adapting to social and (later) > intellectual activity. In this case, yes, the human is "predisposed" to > enter the world with the tools necessary to quickly assimilate and > appropriate culture and intellect. > > But, this is a bit different from suggesting (if you are) that social and/or > intellectual patterns become embedded in the genetic sequence so that even a > human devoid of human culture (and hence human intellectual activity) will > be able to spontaneously reproduce those patterns in some way. [Ian] That's right I wasn't suggesting the fully formed patterns were, but some of the potential is fed back. And no, you will notice that I said the development time-scales were a fundamental part of this - so never "spontaneously". Even an isolated individual has the development potential "fossilised". > > [Ian] > Hmmm - need to wind my brain back to old discussions - but use of the word > social behaviour here with social animals (and ants and bees ?) is not > necessarily the same as Pirsigian social level patterns, is it? > > [Arlo] > No, its not. Pirsig had stated that the social and intellectual levels are > reserved for humans, and that is probably the one point of contention I have > with his ideas. [Ian] Actually as you go on to say ... this is not really contentious, just a matter of being clear "which kind" of social behaviour in higher animals does fall into this level, so that the bio-social boundary is clearer. Note - I didn't say no I said "not necessarily". > > [Ian] > Surely we need symbolic communication and sharing of social patterns between > the individuals - not just instinctive, biological , biochemical "social" > behaviours ? > > [Arlo] > Right, and my point about wolves includes more than just instinctual > behavior. I think we do see evidence of (perhaps very crude) symbolic > mediation. [Ian] As above - yes. This justs become our working definition of what makes the social level social and the bio not. Certainly nothing even remotely as sophisticated as the most > primitive human languages, but I also see the levels as gradations that > begin with extremely simple patterns of activity and scale to the > ultra-complex patterns we see near the next point of emergence. > > To me, then, the distinction between the very crude symbolic communication > among wolves and their instinctual biological behavior is really right there > in that fractal point between the two levels. To make a point, the more > sophisticated symbolic communications among primates and certain other > species (humpback whales, perhaps), even being crude by human standards > certainly far far outsurpasses what we see among wolves. So don't think when > I say we see evidence of social activity among wolves that I think wolves > have some elaborate language and barter goods and invent myths and hold > ceremonies, etc. [Ian] Agreed. And not just wolves / dogs, but dolphins, rats, crows, even cattle / antelope / sheep .... show tell-tale signs. > > [Ian] > This is why I always qualify these points with the self-other individual > consciousness aspect. > > [Arlo] > Tomasello's main argument in "The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition" is > that deep in phylogenetic history, a biological adaptation in a group of > primates would cause them to evolve along a unique trajectory away from the > other herds of primates and into what would become the human species, and > this singular biological adaptation was the ability to perceive conspecifics > as intentional-- and later, mental-- agents like the self. > > To be clear, Tomasello would not argue that this specific neural adaption > was FOR this to occur, it likely had some other significance, but it > nonetheless became the springboard by which the entire edifice of the social > level was able to launch. He calls it the ability for "shared attention", > and while that sounds like "self-other" I think its worth noting that for > Tomasello the key is that the other becomes an intentional agent like the > self. As I said, a mouse has the awareness of "self" and "not self" in the > sense that it has an awareness of where its body ends and "not me" begins. > But that isn't enough, according to Tomasello, the "self" has to also > recognize that an "other" shares the same intentional attention as the self, > that is it sees others as not just "not me" but "like me". > > One final note, Tomasello's position is likely more in line with Pirisg's > than my own, in that for Tomasello, social and subsequently intellectual > endeavors are unique to the human species. > > [Ian] > Did I mention I was reading Ian Gilchrist ? > > [Arlo] > You mean Iain McGilchrist? :-) [Ian] Sure did ;-) > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
