Re: Are we "special"?
Paul Crowley (Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk)
Fri, 06 Dec 96 09:44:18 GMT
In article <581nfn$289@news.NL.net>
G.Hanenburg@inter.nl.net "Gerrit Hanenburg" writes:
> Paul@crowleyp.demon.co.uk (Paul Crowley) wrote:
> >we have not begun to outline its probable evolution or the reasons for that
> If you mean by reasons the possible selection factors that played a
> role in the evolution of a complex brain then you are mistaking your
> own ignorance for a lack of reasons.
> Hypotheses that have been put forward to explain the evolution of a
> complex brain invoke socio-ecological factors such as group
> size,social (Machiavellian) intelligence,and complexity of foraging
If you have seen any hypothesis that you think has some value,
please outline it. Because, without exception, every one I've
come across in the literature has been so weak, so unexamined
and so poorly thought through, that I would repeat: "we have not
begun to outline its probable evolution or the reasons for that
evolution". In most cases one can say something like ". . but
chimps do this" or " . . orangs do that ." or " . . bees are
more complex .".
More fundamentally, there appears to be something in the
training of PA's that forces them to focus on the strictly
mundane and seems to render them incapable of recognising
complexities of either a physical or philosophical nature.
And the nature and evolution of language are both of these.