Explain How Consciousness and Language Evolved

Im hoping you remember the basic finding of Moth's during the industrial revolution. The different color moth couldn't survive well until the industrial revolution, then that color was favorable to survival and the other colors were not. In time, the dominate dolor switched because it was now a survival trait.

Say you are a black rabbit, I am a white rabbit. We live in the antartic region. Here comes our predator. Who is more likely to survive if we are equal in every other way? I am. The snow and my white fur make it much more probable that I will survive. Now say over the course of 50 years, our region loses all its snow. Guess what, my white fur is now a negative trait rather then positive.

As a result, the population of white furred rabbits will thin out, and in time, possibly become extinct. This is one of the ways evolution occurs.

These trait are completely random at birth. Recess genes, dominate genes, etc. are things you are born with. How they serve as an advantage or disadvantage may determine your survival. If they hinder your survival, the amount of offspring you have may be limited or even excluded completely from the equation. That means less of that trait is now in the collective gene pool.

It takes time for that gene to be removed from the gene pool, but if it makes survival that much harder, then chances are it will in time be eliminated. Recessive genes and "mutations" that are survivable and don't make the playing field that uneven will be neutral.

If you get a trait that mutates and makes you MORE apt to survive, then you will have more offspring, thus more of your dominate genes in the collective gene pool. Regardless of whether it is good bad or neutral, it takes time to see any of their effects on the collective genes of a speicies.


Now, as for how we evolved into what we are. That took a very long time simply because we worked our way up to it. Developing vocal cords took most likely thousands and thousands of year. The lingustic part of the brain took many more thousands of years, and pre-dates our existance. In other words, our ancestors down the evolution chain were already starting to develop these characteristics.

It is unfortunate we killed off all of the other intelligent species thousands of years ago, like the neanderthal. It's not that we are so unique, but that we killed off everything that could compete with us in a sense. Obviously if something can understand vocal commands, whether or not it can put meaning to them, it has some sort of lingustic function. Dogs respond to commands. Does that mean they think like us? No, but it does mean that there is some connection being made with vocalizations and intentions. If I say "get out of there" to my dog, it knows its somewhere it is not suppose to be. It may not understand why, or think about that, but it understands the command given. If it didn't have any lingustic area, how would it be able to make that connection?

Just because we have one much more advanced and skilled doesn't mean they lack any at all.

www.wired.com...

Some food for thought there.

Now as for consciousness it is hard to say. That is one that could deserve its own thread entirely apart from language. Language is much different then consciousness.

Some good points raised here. You have given a beautiful account of Natural Selection which is not the whole evolutionary argument.

Let's be specific about language. Why did it develop? There is debate over why. Also there is debate about how?

'Some people, Stephen Jay Gould most prominent among them, believe language to be the byproduct of other evolutionary processes, not a special adaptation that arose by ordinary natural selection acting on mutations'

library.thinkquest.org...

Even in this link above there is disagreement about how language originated and people like Pinker actually believe in the Natural Selection of language.

So, you see. These eminent scientists are also guessing. How can you perform experiments to prove this stuff. Your truth is as good as mine.

PS: Kettlewell faked some of his results on the peppered moth experiments under pressure from a tyrannical supervisor. Plus ca change...

Originally posted by Heronumber0We are going off topic slightly. No-one has given me an account of evolution of language or consciousness. Not even a mention of epiphenomenology? What's wrong?

What's wrong is that it's a specialized study (anthropology, linguistics, forensic anthropology, and paleontology) and there aren't many on this board who have studied these topics.

Secondly, your question really is hard to answer because the terms are vague. What do YOU mean by "consciousness"? All living things are conscious by definition (moving away from things that will hurt them and toward food sources and other things necessary for life.)

The question about language is harder, because all creatures (including bacteria) have communications mechanisms... some primitive ones (ants, bees) have fairly explicit and complex languages. They appear to have 'grammars' ("words" that are put together in a certain way to mean things.)

Technically, all living things have the traits you just mentioned. Since it's been present even in the simplest forms of life, why do you have a problem with it arising and becoming more complex in more complex forms of life?

To follow on from other's, the very fact that primates and even dolphins can be taught language and be communicated with, proves it isn't an inherently human trait. Chimps, monkeys, other primates, cetaceans and other animals have wildly varying sounds and calls, with grammar and syntax, even in some cases such as whale populations, they have been observed to have local "accents" or dialects of the same basic communication method.

Also, following on from your recursive thought question, animals that have been taught to use language invariably use symbols that are not obviously connected to the word they want to use, say for example, a star symbol could mean "give me fish".

If an animal does not have the ability for recursive thought, they would not grasp that a star symbol would mean fish. After all, it doesn't look like a fish, but they've made the connection that a particular symbol can mean something other than what it looks like.

Similar behaviour has been observed in wild populations, so it cannot be argued that it is something that humans have done to captive animals. Even so, the very fact the animal is capable of it proves we are not quite as superior as we thought we were.

Originally posted by Heronumber0
'Some people, Stephen Jay Gould most prominent among them, believe language to be the byproduct of other evolutionary processes, not a special adaptation that arose by ordinary natural selection acting on mutations'

Even in this link above there is disagreement about how language originated and people like Pinker actually believe in the Natural Selection of language.

But we have no reason to think it didn't happen. This is how science works in these areas of uncertainty. People form hypotheses, then we test how robust they are against the evidence, with time we come to a greater understanding of the phenomena under examination. Must be better than throwing in the towel and claiming 'just tooooo complex, must be magic'.

So, the big problem here is, on top of the definitional issues, that language and consciousness don't form fossils of any sort. The best we can do is do a lot of genetic and comparative detective work. If these traits formed via evolutionary mechanisms, we would expect to see basic forms in related species. And indeed we do. As for a detailed explanation, this will likely take time, we didn't even have complete genomes till a few years back...

FOXP2 is an interesting find, it seems to have acquired recent mutations that were under high selective pressure. We know it is related to language in some way (but not language alone). If we damage FOXP2 in young mice, they lose their ability to vocalise. We have three additional mutations compared to mice, and two compared to chimps. However, FOXP2 is actually a regulatory gene, it seems involved in facial musclature in some way. But we don't know exactly what genes it regulates.

So, we have some intriguing findings, and I'm very sure we'll find more. Language involves all kinds of traits, both in the physical vocalisation and in the neural components. But on the neuro side, we know that other primates have an analogous Broca's area.

As for consciousness, well, even more problematic than language, just what exactly is it? The best we can really do is assess the genes underlying our expansive neocortex. This is a major difference between humans and apes, and apes and other species, in the nous department. Again, we are finding genes that seem to have undergone relatively recent rapid evolution (e.g. ASPM and Microcephalin; see Bruce Lahn's work). It seems there are new alleles related to these genes that are even now spreading through the human population.

There is compelling research going on at this moment. But I expect that even in 500 years when the science has moved our understanding on in leaps, someone like yourself will be making the same arguments against this knowledge. Makes me rather sad. So, why even ask about the difficult questions that we all can readily admit we don't have clear answers to, but are working on, when even the more robust explanations to other areas of evolutionary biology are so readily dismissed by some?

[edit on 7-5-2007 by melatonin]

well I can see that we have different paridigms of the universe vs the multiverse
I believe that we are more then evolution.
I believe that the vowels and the chakras have an intimite connection.
consciousness is a holographic event.

I have a masters in neurology and anatomy. so for the purely morpholgical differences and possible evolution processes I offer the following.



Anthropologist that have studied the fossil skulls of early man (Homo erectus) and their predecessors Paranthropus and the Australopithecus speculate that the brain volume that divides man from his forerunners is 750 cc. The brain volume of the Gorilla and Robust Australopithecus is 500 cc. The brain volume of Homo erectus was between 900 cc and 1,200 cc. The cranial capacity of the Folk was about 1,200 cc. The brain volume of modern man averages 1,400 cc. A brain of at least 750 cc seems to be critical for speech. The human brain reaches 750 cc by six months of age.

Speech is also due to the position of the larynx in the throat. In the great apes it is much higher and touches the uvula. In man the larynx is positioned much lower in the throat. One important adaptation that must have occurred in order for humans to speak is the ability to consciously hold one's breath. Other primates don't speak because they are physiologically unable to voluntarily hold their breath and because the larynx is too high. Also the range of sounds that humans can make is a result of our "descended" larynx. The only other known animals with this feature are the dugong, sea lion and walrus. After birth in the case of humans, the larynx moves deeper into the throat, and no longer makes contact with the uvula, as in the great apes. The larynx begins its descent between 4 - 6 months of age and by 18 months the larynx is in its final position at the base of the throat. This morphological character allows humans to take air in not only through the nose, but also through the mouth.

This attribute also allows for choking and the risk of death by drowning in one's own fluids. What advantage would mouth breathing give us? Mouth breathing also allows for more air to be taken into the lungs very quickly before a dive into water. Mouth breathing also allows for increased intake of oxygen, allowing for greater endurance while running, for example. If we consider our ancestors as purely savanna/dry land dwellers, then finding a good reason for this adaptation is not difficult. It is possible the need to run from predators was the evolutionary push.


[edit on 7-5-2007 by junglelord]

Something else occurs to me about the whole holding one's breath thing.

Chuck a baby in some water. They will instinctively hold their breath and try to swim. They might not be so good at the swimming part, but they can hold their breaths easily.

EDIT: Should you try this experiment, please remember to remove the baby from the water before they drown.

They can hold their breaths, but they can't breath water

[edit on 7/5/07 by stumason]

Some excellent points have been made which I will ponder over. However, let me simplify gain.

Let's just treat human consciousness as the ability to think recursively.

As for language, the ability to vocalise recursive thoughts.

As I have mentioned before, it is the roles of scientists to hypothesise and look for analogous organisms but humans are UNIQUE and cannot be EASILY subjected to universal similarity. Thank God, humans are heterogeneous. And it is the role of believers to question hypothetico-deductive science as will it always be.

If you want a difficult topic then I hypothesise that all of you do not exist as matter. Now prove it to me beyond doubt! Do you see how silly this gets?

Originally posted by Heronumber0
As I have mentioned before, it is the roles of scientists to hypothesise and look for analogous organisms but humans are UNIQUE and cannot be EASILY subjected to universal similarity. Thank God, humans are heterogeneous.

the only reason humans are "unique" is that all our direct competitors were wiped out during the last 100 000 years. (I put unique in brackets because apes, dolphins, whales , and orcs are impressively intelligent)

And it is the role of believers to question hypothetico-deductive science as will it always be.

By saying "wow look at these odds! That's IMPOSSIBLE! GOD DID IT", or by using arguments from ignorance "like the time they tried to prove the flagella was IC". That's why scientists laugh at IDers, because ID is not a scientific theory...

I still laugh when I hear about the creationnists that tried to invalidate the laws of gravity by stating that the apple did not fall because of gravity but because of the will of god.

[edit on 8-5-2007 by DarkSide]

Originally posted by DarkSide
the only reason humans are "unique" is that all our direct competitors were wiped out during the last 100 000 years. (I put unique in brackets because apes, dolphins, whales , and orcs are impressively intelligent)

Sorry, say that again...

Orcs?

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by DarkSide
the only reason humans are "unique" is that all our direct competitors were wiped out during the last 100 000 years. (I put unique in brackets because apes, dolphins, whales , and orcs are impressively intelligent)

Sorry, say that again...

Orcs?

typo. I meant Orcas, of course

Explain How Consciousness and Language Evolved

Monkeys eating shrooms!

Our progenitors probably followed herds before we started farming, what grows out of cow dung?

[edit on 8-5-2007 by Stale Cracker]

Originally posted by DarkSide

typo. I meant Orcas, of course

I thought as much, but you never know!

hehehe

Originally posted by junglelord
A brain of at least 750 cc seems to be critical for speech. The human brain reaches 750 cc by six months of age.

That actually doesn't follow. If this were true, people like General Tom Thumb ( en.wikipedia.org... ) would not be able to speak or hold an intelligent conversation. The mechanism for language is far more complicated than that.

Speech is also due to the position of the larynx in the throat. In the great apes it is much higher and touches the uvula. In man the larynx is positioned much lower in the throat.

That's really an oversimplification because the position of the larynx affects only the number of sounds we can make. Language and speech are shaped by the mouth and the tongue. This has to do with the anchoring of the muscles on the hyoid bone as well as the speech recognition and speech processing areas of the brain (Broca's area and Wernecke's area.)

One important adaptation that must have occurred in order for humans to speak is the ability to consciously hold one's breath.

What's the basis of this claim? Animals and humans can both make sounds while breath is being exhaled... holding the breath has nothing to do with speaking -- or at least the context here is so vague that your point isn't clear.

The only other known animals with this feature are the dugong, sea lion and walrus.

...which aren't capable of speech.

All animals pant (breathe through their mouths) when they need extra oxygen. Humans aren't the only ones.

Some very important points made Byrd. I think the post was about the aquatic ape hypothesis which is not widely accepted. I prefer to focus on the development of language which is either:

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.

c. is another point of view - not magic but somehow guidance. Why develop humans and leave them without guidance?

Is matter a reality? Or are we in a matrix? Or is this another thread?

Originally posted by Heronumber0
Is matter a reality? Or are we in a matrix? Or is this another thread?

If the universe is a matrix, a simulation in some quantum computer, would you call the designers "divine"?

Very good point. Are you calling the Designer of this matrix 'Aliens'. If this was the case, where are the inconsistencies or flaws? I honestly do nt see any flaws in creation.

True we have suffering but much of it is based on human origin and social engineering. Genetic diseases are an exception of sorts but to a believer, the suffering is a spiritual purification in the same way that pure gold is purified by fire to elevate it to a new level.

The only evolution I see with my eyes is spiritual. Spiritually elevated people like the prophets and non-prophets e.g. Gandhi have had a HUGE impact upon humanity. Where do aliens come into the equation?

Originally posted by Heronumber0
Very good point. Are you calling the Designer of this matrix 'Aliens'. If this was the case, where are the inconsistencies or flaws?

How can we ? We are limited to our own physical reality. If we are a simulation, we can't conceive of the "true" reality. Therefore we can't see the flaws. Just like a fish can't conceive of the flaws of it's aquarium.

No i'm not callign the designers, if any, aliens. Aliens are only lifeforms of another planet, and would be equally the result of programmation as we are.

True we have suffering but much of it is based on human origin and social engineering. Genetic diseases are an exception of sorts but to a believer, the suffering is a spiritual purification in the same way that pure gold is purified by fire to elevate it to a new level.

So people born with a genetic disease must be lucky... They will suffer more and become thus purer. what a logic.

The only evolution I see with my eyes is spiritual. Spiritually elevated people like the prophets and non-prophets e.g. Gandhi have had a HUGE impact upon humanity. Where do aliens come into the equation?

There have been lots of so called "prophets" and spiritually elevated" people but the world remains the same nasty place it was a 1 000 years ago. The only difference is that we have democracy, social welfare and medicine, and that's not thanks to religious people.

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.

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. 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 just used brain size as a critical measurment over time and language...I assumed other people would understand the rest. I also correlated that with the development of the infant brain and speech via descent of the organs of speech...not the desent of the tongue.

Your attempt to discredit that shows your inability to comprehend my basic logic or a biased position, of which logic will not serve you.

Case in point

My information on language and the larynx is correct and if you want a thesis why did you not ask. I know that language is essential via many different morphological reasons, I just wanted to list several, thanks for adding more. 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...if you wanted a fascial chain for the deep front line why did you not ask>

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.




Anthropologist that have studied the fossil skulls of early man (Homo erectus) and their predecessors Paranthropus and the Australopithecus speculate that the brain volume that divides man from his forerunners is 750 cc. The brain volume of the Gorilla and Robust Australopithecus is 500 cc. The brain volume of Homo erectus was between 900 cc and 1,200 cc. The cranial capacity of the Folk was about 1,200 cc. The brain volume of modern man averages 1,400 cc. A brain of at least 750 cc seems to be critical for speech. The human brain reaches 750 cc by six months of age.

Speech is also due to the position of the larynx in the throat. In the great apes it is much higher and touches the uvula. In man the larynx is positioned much lower in the throat. One important adaptation that must have occurred in order for humans to speak is the ability to consciously hold one's breath. Other primates don't speak because they are physiologically unable to voluntarily hold their breath and because the larynx is too high. Also the range of sounds that humans can make is a result of our "descended" larynx. The only other known animals with this feature are the dugong, sea lion and walrus. After birth in the case of humans, the larynx moves deeper into the throat, and no longer makes contact with the uvula, as in the great apes. The larynx begins its descent between 4 - 6 months of age and by 18 months the larynx is in its final position at the base of the throat. This morphological character allows humans to take air in not only through the nose, but also through the mouth.

This attribute also allows for choking and the risk of death by drowning in one's own fluids. What advantage would mouth breathing give us? Mouth breathing also allows for more air to be taken into the lungs very quickly before a dive into water. Mouth breathing also allows for increased intake of oxygen, allowing for greater endurance while running, for example. If we consider our ancestors as purely savanna/dry land dwellers, then finding a good reason for this adaptation is not difficult. It is possible the need to run from predators was the evolutionary push.









[edit on 12-5-2007 by junglelord]

How can we ? We are limited to our own physical reality. If we are a simulation, we can't conceive of the "true" reality. Therefore we can't see the flaws. Just like a fish can't conceive of the flaws of it's aquarium.

So people born with a genetic disease must be lucky... They will suffer more and become thus purer. what a logic.

There have been lots of so called "prophets" and spiritually elevated" people but the world remains the same nasty place it was a 1 000 years ago. The only difference is that we have democracy, social welfare and medicine, and that's not thanks to religious people.

My mistake Darkside, of course, we have to look outside the box to understand the true reality. As for the point about genetic diseases, of course they are not fortunate. But they are the results of genetic crossovers which are outside of their control. The only redeeming feature of their lives would be spiritual growth, but I agree that this reasoning is flawed. Perhaps as the knowledge of the human genome grows we can counsel people to resuce the future rate of genetic diseases - most of which are debilitating not evolutionary steps forward.