Explain How Consciousness and Language Evolved

Originally posted by Heronumber0
Some very important points made Byrd. I think the post was about the aquatic ape hypothesis which is not widely accepted.

Further research discounted the theory although I believe the originator of the idea still champions it.

a An epiphenomenological event where the conscious is like a foam on the 'sea' of biochemical reactions
or
b Selected for by Natural Selection or the collective nature of human activity

or
c. Given to man by a Divine Entity to separate him from animals.

a and b are still under discussion and debate with neither side giving way.
set
c. is another point of view - not magic but somehow guidance. Why develop humans and leave them without guidance?

Or it's something that all creatures have and the situations that the human ancestors found themselves in gave them a huge advantage when they had a more "words" for their language of grunts and all.

Humans and their ancestors tend to live in groups of 20 to 75 individuals ("troops" and not "herds" or "prides"). For animals that only live in one area (like meerkats), a set of 100 sounds or so can cover almost every situation (from "herd of big things" to "sneaky meat eaters" to "flood! get the kids out!"). But for wandering creatures, a larger set of sounds is needed.

I once played in a "caveman" LARP, where they gave us exactly 15 words to try and get things across to the group. The game master set up the situation as we were a group of cave men, and we had just been trapped in a cave. When we explored, we would be told certain things like "you see a small opening" and you had to figure out how to tell the rest of the group "come over here" and "hit this wall". We also had assigned social roles, and it was amusing to see the leader and shaman squabbling (with only 15 words) over whose plan was best. You wanted to invent words.

I think that as groups got larger and as they moved around the land and as they met new things, they had to add more than just the basic communication sounds of their ancestors... and thus language formed.

But we won't know until we get a time machine!

Originally posted by junglelord
well byrd I think that if we look at brain size and the development of brain size over time...we see that 750cc is a important threshold for language.

There's a couple of issues here...

First, you're assuming that language arose in a certain member of the hominid group... and I should point out that there's no proof of when language arose.

Secondly, you're assuming tha the other hominids couldn't communicate. This would be directly contradicted by any number of vertebrates and invertebrates. So language didn't just suddenly pop up.

You cannot compare a modern person with a modern brain with dwarfism to my theory as it is related to non modern brains therefore you logic is flawed. You are trying to mix apples and oranges. I hope you see the error of your logic.

You were the one who stated absolutly that it was brain size that mattered and not development of certain areas of the brain. I simply pointed out that if this was true, midgets (not dwarves -- medically there's a difference in the two) and small-statured humans could not speak... while the larger gorillas (some of whom have brains in the 750 cc range) could speak.

In fact, by the standards you present, Australopithecus garhi could not speak (450 cc cranium). However, the presence of stone tools and campsites indicates some sort of social organization and culture transmission. Teaching a complex task requires more than just a simple set of sounds... and likewise, having complex tasks to teach requires learning and developing new sounds.

By your own admission the morphological changes of the brain must be present. Therefore the size and the shape of the brain and the development of critical areas are therefore evolving hand in hand with brain size.

I'm not sure the endocranial casts support this, particularly given the wide variation in human brain shapes. The temporal lobe is not as well differentiated in the samples I see ...but, on the other hand... in the Body Worlds exhibit there's a normal brain where the lateral sulcus/fissure of Sylvius is not well defined (here's another one, in fact: download.videohelp.com... )

Sadly, I see the endocranials casts of Australopithecus being discussed but I don't actually see one. I don't have any access to endocranial casts and Wernecke's and Broca's areas don't seem to have any distinctive landmarks other than "this part of the brain". Even the old standard "posterior aspect of the temporal lobe and inferior to the fissure of Sylvanus" is not exactly helpful in brain specimens with no apparent fissure. There's any number of modern humans where this feature is obscure or apparently missing on an examination of the external surface.

Mine were listed based on the ability to say nouns and to pronuciate which is still true...therefore by necessity the tongue must be in a different position based on the original material I presented

Larynx doesn't have any function in pronunciation, I'm afraid. Nor does it function in the ability to say nouns. It modulates pitch and tone; phonemes are produced by the pharynx, tongue, lips, and mouth:
en.wikipedia.org...

I offered a rational reason as to why we can hold our breaths and apes cannot...its a possible answer but just a theory. I don't see a better one from you.

Actually, apes and monkeys CAN hold their breath. A little bit of googling refreshed my hazy memory of Japanese monkeys who both swim and dive. Macacques also swim and dive. www.zoolex.org...

While chimps are poor swimmers, as far as I know they can hold their breath briefly.

But, until I see some data from primatologists on which ones hold their breaths and which do not, I'm not running out to do any speculation. I make goofy mistakes if I don't get the facts first.

So I think it's a stretch to say absolutly that brain size determines the ability to speak and use language. Communication is basic to all life forms and each has a "language" it uses.

In terms of information delivery and complexity, ours is the most complex language(s) around.

on the contrary I believe that the australiopiticus did have a very evolved communication.
probably like a pygmy...clicks, whistles, glottal stops, etc.

your own wikipedia link says this

Sound is generated in the larynx, and that is where pitch and volume are manipulated. The strength of expiration from the lungs also contributes to loudness, and is necessary for the vocal cords to produce speech.

Fine manipulation of the larynx is used in a great way to generate a source sound with a particular fundamental frequency, or pitch. This source sound is altered as it travels through the vocal tract, configured differently based on the position of the tongue, lips, mouth, and pharynx. The process of altering a source sound as it passes through the filter of the vocal tract creates the many different vowel and consonant sounds of the world's languages.

I fail to see how the larynx is not involved in making vowels.
again if you wanted a thesis then you should ask for one.
I am merely pointing out facts.

you have not changed those facts by pointing out that I dont write a thesis on each subject.

I stick by my 750cc claim based on development of speech in children and the change in position of the organs of speech and basic evolution.
its a good lower level for speech as it follows some basic assumptions of brain evolution as well even if it is a little antiquated

Traditionally, theoretical approaches for assessing hominid brain evolution have fallen into two categories: (1) In the past, efforts were made to identify cerebral "rubicons", such as a "critical mass" of 750 cc (suggested by Author Keith) as the brain size that distinguished hominids from other primates. (2) Classically brain evolution has been analyzed in terms of "residual" brain factors (encephalization factors) such as Harry Jerison's "extra neurons" that remain after body size factors have been accounted for (allometry).
www.anthro.fsu.edu...

however in language, Tarzan knows that animals talk and that brain size is not the critical factor, rather brain development

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Program 3709
May 18, '06
Hummingbirds: Brain Size Doesn't Matter


Anthropologists like to distinguish humans from other animals, by pointing to our large brain capacity, and our ability to learn and imitate language. But new research suggest the lowly hummingbird, with a brain smaller than the size of a pea, may share some of our most complex abilities. I'm Jim Metzner, and this is the Pulse of the Planet.

Erich Jarvis is an Assistant Professor of Neurobiology at Duke University Medical Center. He's comparing brain activity of hummingbirds with that of other animal species that can learn and reproduce sounds.

"Hummingbirds have taught me that brain size does not matter. They have one of the smallest brains in the world, and yet they do behaviors that are very complex, similar to humans. Dogs for instance, or cats, have much larger brains than hummingbirds. But they don't have this ability to imitate sounds. So size does not matter, it's the actual structures in the brain that matter."

Comparing the underlying brain activity of a Brazilian hummingbird to the language centers of the human brain may help medical researchers learn more about human language disorders.

"That's been one of the more exciting parts about this research for me. Because songbirds and humans probably have similar brain pathways. It doesn't matter if they got it from a common ancestor or they got it separately. The point of the matter is that it seems to be similar. Which means that hummingbirds, songbirds and parrots, can be used as animal models to study diseases that involve speech and language and related problems."
www.pulseplanet.com...

[edit on 12-5-2007 by junglelord]

My mistake Darkside, of course, we have to look outside the box to understand the true reality.

You can't look outside the box. Anything you can think of such is only pure speculation.

I agree Darkside but this is where Divine Revelation comes in handy from the Divine Intelligent Designer, who gives us a route map and clues into another type of evolution-the spiritual kind. He is the guide out of the box.

Originally posted by Heronumber0
I agree Darkside but this is where Divine Revelation comes in handy from the Divine Intelligent Designer, who gives us a route map and clues into another type of evolution-the spiritual kind. He is the guide out of the box.

Too bad he's a creation of our brain matrix

"Dieu a crée l'Homme et pour le remercier l'Homme a crée Dieu"

- Can't remember

[edit on 13-5-2007 by DarkSide]

i came acoss an article and immediately thought of this thread.
richarddawkins.net...

its an article about consciousness in humans/animals.

alot of the comments at the end are worth a read too.

I believe that DNA encodes for more things then we realize at present.
that animals and consciousness article mirrors those beliefs...if I can say that.

Originally posted by Urn
i came acoss an article and immediately thought of this thread.
richarddawkins.net...

its an article about consciousness in humans/animals.

alot of the comments at the end are worth a read too.

An interesting article, but also brings up the conundrum of defining consciouness. They do make an interesting point about cells having some level of awareness in order to react to things within the environment.

I haven't read much philosophy (yet) about this matter, but it seems like an interesting area to explore. I'll be doing some reading on psychology in the next few months and will make a note to read up on what current thought is in that field.

Byrd -great article about a so-called consciousness in animals. However, it relies on the ability to recognise a 'self' entity in a mirror using the anesthetic-spot test. Where it falls down, however, is that we cannot examine the nature of complex human interactions. As social beings, it helps to understand how others feel.

That being the case, it helps to say things like: 'I thought you thought I was being sad' for example. That is a complicated interaction that I have not read about which can be verified in non-human primates.

We just have to admit that language and consciousness are two improbable rare events in the course of humanity. I say God, others say DNA. However I do wonder about clones ?

"Dieu a crée l'Homme..."

Hallelujah, Darkside - have you seen the light?