Re: Human brain on an evolutionary sprint!

From: Jim McGinn (jimmcginn_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/21/05 

Date: 21 Jan 2005 12:58:23 -0800

John Roth wrote:

> Nope. A negative is possible to prove
> only by exclusion, and we don't have
> nearly enough hard evidence to do so.
> Also, even when people think they have
> done so satisfactorilly, history shows
> a distressing number of times they were
> simply wrong.

I agree. Likewise you have no basis for the assumption that
hominids did not form very large groups in the earliest years
of hominid evolution. Afterall, it's common knowledge that
there is no evidence that disputes this supposition. Right?

> > Language DID evolve. (Do I have your
> > agreement so far?)
>
> Why the oh-so-smug posturing?

So that you don't hide behind the vagueness of your position
(or lack thereof) as is so common amongst the members of this
NG.

<snip>

> I don't believe I said anything about
> group size. Whether the record, as
> far as we know it today, supports
> "small", "medium", or "large" groups
> depends on what numbers you put
> on those rather vague labels.

You PA groupies mistakenly tend to assume that vagueness of
evidence requires (excuses) vagueness of your opinions.
people who are actively seeking to gain truth are not afraid
to take a position that might eventually prove itself wrong.

> > So we don't have much of a choice.
> > Language evolved. It did so in large
> > groups or in small ones (forgetting the
> > middle for the moment). To deny one
> > is to favour the other.
>
> Really? How quaint.

You object to Paul taking a stand, using devil's advocate?
This is reflective of the typical dumbass Dieteker position
that we shouldn't ask question we should wait for answers to
fall from the lips of people of authority.

> > There is no great problem about seeing
> > why, and (to a fair extent) how, language
> > would evolve in large groups -- or, at least,
> > be highly beneficial in them.
>
> Well, let's see. We have various communal
> insects, we have a large selection of mammalian
> herbivors, we have quite a few species of fish,
> and other examples of large groups sizes where
> language as we think we know it has failed
> to evolve. Somehow the proposition that large
> group size is somehow critically important
> seems to have missed me.

But we also see a complete absence or language amongst
species that have small group size. Wouldn't this
suggest (though not prove) that one of the prerequisites
of language is large group size?

> > But what about the small-group model?
> > That's the standard-PA 'thinking' and it's
> > what you support. YOU claim -- along
> > with standard PA -- that language evolved
> > in small groups.
>
> As I said above, I haven't said explicitly
> what group size I prefer. I haven't, in fact,
> even thought about it, and on reflection
> I don't think it's very important.

Why not? What if it turns out to be true?

> > (This is rarely {never?} stated explicitly,
> > because standard PA hates being explicit;
> > but it's a clear implication of the whole
> > mind set. -- I'd call it a theory if PA didn't
> > hate theories. It's more a near-universal
> > set of unquestioned assumptions -- to
> > which you subscribe.
>
> More mind reading? You've never met me,
> you don't know me. There's a psychic fair
> downtown this weekend. Maybe you should
> set up a booth there.

Did you or did you not just (above) state the following:
"I haven't, in fact, even thought about it (group size of
early hominids), and on reflection I don't think it's
very important?"

> As far as theory goes, that's simply playing
> with words - something the Creationists
> do all the time.

It's something PA groupies do all the time.

> > So -- (a) Could language have evolved in small
> > groups? (b) Is it likely that it evolved in small
> > groups? (c) Let's assume for a moment that
> > large and small groups were equally likely in
> > the ancestral population -- which would have
> > better favoured the evolution of language?
> >
> > I don't think that there is much doubt here.
> > Small languages, cultures and societies tend
> > to go downhill rapidly -- at a frighteningly
> > rapid pace when they are in competition with
> > larger ones. But even when they work in
> > isolation, they do not seem to do well. The
> > best known example is Tasmanian culture.
> > The number of its artefacts went into decline
> > a few thousand years after it went in isolation.
> > It stopped fishing, sewing and many other
> > activities.
>
> The question isn't what happens to current
> societies when they are below a critical mass.

Paul (obviously) did not propose this as "the" question.
Paul proposed this as another piece of evidence. And it
is, obviously, perfectly reasonable.

> The question has to do with the conditions
> that fostered the first extensions of primate
> signaling mechanisms into a more flexible
> and information rich configuration.

Since when do we depend on PA groupies to define, "the
question," for us?

> > Secondly, the costs of evolving and
> > maintaining a language are huge. (I don't
> > think this statement needs defending -- but
> > complain if you want.) The benefits it yields
> > must correspond. It's very hard to see what
> > they could be in a society made up from
> > small groups.
>
> As you are at pains to point out above,
> language evolved, it did not suddenly appear
> fully fledged. The first significant points on the
> path most likely weren't all that noticable from
> a brain size viewpoint.

Okay. You're point?

> > Thirdly, it's very hard to see how a language
> > COULD evolve in a society made up from
> > small groups. But here we run into a vast
> > swamp of standard-PA-turgidity. Are these
> > small groups territorial? Are they mutually
> > hostile? On what basis did they work?
>
> Well, that at least is a legitimate question

I agree. I've provided my answer to all of these questions.

<snip>

> Just to enlighten you, there are a huge
> number of situations where a relatively small
> improvement in the efficiency of information
> transfer would lead to a very large improvement
> in effectiveness. The ability to give directions
> to a food source is one very obvious one. There
> are others.
>
> > Jim and I are (I think) on substantial agreement
> > here. Early hominids (and all ancestral later ones)
> > MUST have been in large groups. It's easy
> > enough to see the benefits that would result
> > from the evolution of language in large groups.
> > But IF you are a small-group theorist, it's up to
> > you to set out the whole nature of the society.
> > It's not up to us.
>
> It's up to you to be a bit more explicit
> than you have been to this point.

Nobody is immune to the requirement of explicitness,
including yourself.

> I set up the direction giving hypothesis a few
> months ago in a series of posts that you seem
> to have missed. You might try looking them
> up. I have very specific reasons for chosing
> that as a possible first step based on both
> brain and linguistic structures.

Jim

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A Few Things Which Matt and Inabon Probably Wish Did Not Exist....
    ... you're the one who deals only with physical evidence. ... 458 Manchester from the 2nd century BCE is the oldest ... hebrew alphabet is in fact the Aramaic alphabet so an amateur conclusion from ... Hebrew was ever a spoken language. ...
    (soc.history.ancient)
  • Re: German population in Europe after fall of Roman Empire.
    ... complete foreign culture (including language) become practised by ... You say evidence of it does exist - ... >> Linguistics are a poor indicator as it relies VERY heavily on totally ... Instead, Old Norse ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: "Its uncertain whether intelligence has any long term
    ... There is ample evidence that "intelligence" has had considerable ... > with other animals run up against a critical problem - we are capable ... > of things that other animals are not (language being the obvious ... Natural selection propels some species along a ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Smoke two...
    ... rather than as a way to appease God and His priesthood. ... Is there an equivalent thing as a sin of omission in the atheist's ... Europe is a pretty post-religious society, ... we collect evidence. ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: Kilmarnock sex offender in trouble over bank account
    ... believe, based on all the evidence, that my position, on all things, ... This is hardly the forum for a legalistic definition of harm. ... One point of difficulty, for example, is that our society lacks ... You do not mean Paedophiles. ...
    (uk.legal)
Quantcast