Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA02355 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 1 Mar 2000 20:31:55 GMT Message-Id: <200003012032.PAA21290@mail1.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 14:33:37 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Subject: Re: Monkeys stone herdsman in Kenya In-reply-to: <38BD6B3A.A1B07FE3@fcol.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Date sent: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 11:10:51 -0800
From: "Robert G. Grimes" <grimes@fcol.com>
Organization: Grimes & Grimes, Consulting
To: Robert Logan <logan@physics.utoronto.ca>
Copies to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Monkeys stone herdsman in Kenya
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Dear Robert,
>
> My personal pique is probably at the use of the word "consciousness" as separating
> humans from other animals. How much of this is due to the influence of Judæo
> Christian concepts from the bible on our culture or how much is independently
> derived, sans the other influence, is sometimes questionable of man's approaches.
> Your paper sounds intriguing and I will read it as soon as possible. Again, my
> personal leanings have been toward the degree of complexity as to the status of
> "consciousness" in humans relative to animals. Certainly, because of a major lack
> of language capability, etc., the "Time-Binding" abilities are certainly minuscule
> as well as communicating their concepts to others of a different genus. Still, the
> Great Tit cases in England where milk bottle caps became a liability as the Great
> Tits learned to open the caps, the widening zone of expansion of this innovation,
> etc., appears to many to exemplify "communication," and to a degree, conscious
> options.
>
The difference is not consciousness; it would be absurd to claim
that animals are not aware of their surroundings. The difference is
in recursive self-conscious awareness (and the great apes are on
our side of that difference).
>
> Now, some separate communication form, such as imitation, etc., may be just
> differences in definition and it is true that our differences may be solely on a
> semiotic basis. My humorous reference to my doggie Taffy was simply to remind
> everyone of the obvious "grasp" of many of our animals, who share fairly "intimate"
> relationships to humans, to our own communications (my wife and I have to spell
> "cookie" to prevent our puppy form going berserk when the word is mentioned, an
> obvious degree of "awareness of abstraction" in my opinion, i.e., she can't "spell"
> but she can associate multiple symbols for likes and thus can partially profit from
> words, etc.).
>
Stimulus-association with positive reinforcement (reward); the
sound of the word "cookie" with the yummy nibble - pure Skinner
(although dogs are capable of much more than that).
>
> I don't mean to imply acceptance of the theory of Jaynes' "Origin of Consciousness
> With the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" but I do feel something similar happened
> in man and that many of other animal forms simply do not have the cerebral
> syntactical equipment nor capacity process or to proceed far from where they are in
> "hearing themselves think." But, in another fashion of speaking, they may be in
> some similar position as man prior to the "bicameral" division breaking down, i.e.,
> lack of "self awareness," can't "hear themselves think." Just as some subjects
> function perfectly well after blockage of the corpus callosum, others, particularly
> those with superb abilities, seem to be severely impaired from such blockage or even
> much lower-order CNS insults.
>
> Thus, the distinction between man and animal is immense but still, IMHO, to a
> varying degree depending upon the animals and the the relationships where
> communication may transpire. If we can substitute, even to a small degree, certain
> symbology for other signals, sound, sight, olfactory, tactile, etc., then
> communication does transpire if only on a Pavlovian basis, still "communication" in
> a signal/response mode that is modifiable (learning) can represent a low level of
> consciousness and communication in making this association. But, does this mean
> that those animals "hear themselves think," or can manipulate other media to
> communicate their wants, needs, etc., (Time-Bind), probably not, and then they are
> indeed, "not conscious."
>
Few would consider Skinner's selectively pecking pigeons to be
self-aware, but they must be conscious of the stimuli presented to
them, and discriminate between them, in order to selectively
respond.
>
> It just may be that an "either/or" approach, rather than a multiordinal scale of
> meaning or representation of "consciousness," is part of our problem in
> communication or agreement on these questions. Again, I just may be
> anthropomorphizing these associations in a manner similar to my interpretation of my
> dog's actions when she wants to accompany me and I leave her behind, only to return
> and find that she has pulled every tissue from the Kleenex box and torn them up all
> over the floor. This latter being something she doesn't ever do except under those
> circumstances (although, with a much greater offense on our part, she may urinate in
> our bed). Repeated instances of ears elevating, nose twitching as she searches for
> familiar clues, perceptive stare, etc., when certain words are mentioned (and now we
> think she has caught on to our "spelling" of "cookie," may simply be something else
> other than identifying familiar behavioral symbology, whether movement or sound,
> with desires or needs on her part. And, no doubt, we may "want" to translate such
> activity into something else like "consciousness."
>
Separation anxiety is probably genetically tied to the nature of
canines as social pack animals rather than loners; their pack
loyalty and uneasiness at separation are transferred from
conspecifics to the humans they own. Cats, for instance, are not
as social by nature and are not known for such displays.
>
> But, sometimes I may approach these questions with too much of a "solution finding
> bias" (how's that for "non-objective"), I still may be in an anthropomorphizing bent
> or bias. For example, even though we hear the words (and use them) "hear ourselves
> think," I do not "hear myself think" nor do I "see things in my mind" (excluding the
> dream state), so one of our problems remains the inability to see the differences in
> others and thus, the differences in their perceptions of even what we consider
> empirical knowledge about ourselves. But, again, my personal concepts may still be
> too much of those of a "dilettante" in this regard...
>
Don't you "hear" a phantom voice in your head reciting what you
read?
>
> I'll read your paper, look forward to your book, and perhaps admit that you have
> "converted" me a little later...
>
> Again, welcome aboard...
>
> Cordially,
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> Robert Logan wrote:
>
> > Robert and list members I do not believe my response to Robert's posting
> > which is enclosed below ever made it to the list as I never saw it there
> > my self and I received a message form the postmaster saying it was
> > undeliverable. If you folks have already seen this my apologies
> > Snipped for brevity...
>
> > I go on in my paper The Extended Mind to argue
> > that:
> >
> > "The origins of speech and the human mind are shown to have emerged
> > simultaneously as the bifurcation from percepts to concepts and a
> > response to the chaos associated with the information overload that
> > resulted from the increased complexity in hominid life. As our ancestors
> > developed toolmaking, controlled fire, lived in larger social groups and
> > engaged in large scale co-ordinated hunting their minds could no longer
> > cope with the richness of life solely on the basis of their perceptual
> > sensorium and as a result a new level of order emerged in the form of
> > conceptualization and speech. Speech arose primarily as a way to control
> > information and then was used as a tool for communication contrary to
> > popular beliefs and inherited wisdom. Thought is not silent speech but
> > rather speech is vocalized thought.
> >
> > The mechanism that allowed the transition from percept to concept was the
> > emergence of speech. The words of spoken language are the actual medium
> > or mechanism by which concepts are expressed or represented. Word are
> > both metaphors and strange attractors uniting many perceptual experiences
> > in terms of a single concept. Spoken language and abstract conceptual
> > thinking emerged together at exactly the same point of time as a
> > bifurcation from the concrete percept based thinking of pre-lingual
> > hominids. This transition was the defining moment for the emergence of
> > the fully human species Homo sapiens sapiens."
> >
> > The above quote is from the paper:
> > The Extended Mind: Understanding Language and Thought in Terms of
> > Complexity and Chaos Theory
> >
> > This paper can be accessed at
> > http://physics.utoronto.ca/undergraduate/JPU_200Y/EM_Front_page.html
> >
> > I would appreciate your reaction to these points and my argument that
> > Taffy and other "dumb" (as in non-speaking not stupid) animals are not
> > capable of the kind of consciousness that humans experience becasue of
> > their lack of speech and hence a system for conceptualizing. For me
> > language is both a medium of communication and a system of
> > conceptualization and information processing.
> >
> > I extend my invitation to react to my position to all members of this
> > list.
> >
> > By way of introduction I am a physics prof at the U of Toronto. I have had
> > the good fortune of working with and collaborating with Marshall McLuhan.
> > My principle research interests are applying chaos theory to understand
> > the nature of language including speech, writing, math, science, computing
> > and the Interent which I consider to be part of an evolutionary chain of
> > languages. I believe I have developed a model for the evolution of
> > language which can be found in my book The Fifth Language, 1995, Toronto,
> > Stoddart. I would be happy to send the first chapter of this book by email
> > to any member of the list who emails me a request.
> >
> > I recently read an article by Richard Dawkins in a collection of essays
> > entitled The Third Culture which reignited my interest in his work on
> > memes. I have come to the conclusion that language and in particular
> > speech, writing, math, science, computing and the Internet are the sources
> > of memes. A science theory is a meme and Thomas Kuhn theory of scientific
> > revolution is about the creation and propogation of memes. I would love to
> > explore these ideas with anyone on the list.
> >
> > Many thanks for your attention if you have read this far in my first
> > posting. I hope to hear from those whose interest I might have piqued.
> > I am rather new at the meme game but believe I have something to share
> > vis-a-vis language, communications and chaos/complexity theory.
> >
> > Hoping to hear from some of you.
> >
> > Bob Logan
> > ****************************************************************************
> > * Robert K. Logan - Assoc. Prof. of Physics - University of Toronto *
> > * 60 St. George Street - Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1A7 - Canada *
> > * e-mail: logan@physics.utoronto.ca *
> > * phone: (416)978-8632 or 652-2570 or 927-9200 fax: (416)927-7077 *
> > * Author of: The Fifth Language: Learning a Living in the Computer Age *
> > * and The Alphabet Effect *
> > ****************************************************************************
> > Snipped for brevity
>
> --
> Bob Grimes
>
> http://members.aol.com/bob5266/
> http://pages.hotbot.com/edu/bobinjax/
> http://www.phonefree.com/Scripts/cgiParse.exe?sID=28788
> Jacksonville, Florida
> Bob5266@aol.com robert.grimes@excite.com bobinjax@hotbot.com
>
> Bobgrimes@zdnetonebox.com
>
> Man is not in control, but the man who knows he is not in control is more
> in control...
>
> Quoth the Raven, "Nevermore....."
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
>
===============================This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 01 2000 - 20:32:00 GMT