02/8/24

Looking at Michael Tomasello’s Book (2014) “A Natural History of Human Thinking” (Part 19 of 22)

0346 During the era of collective intentionality, humans become who we evolved to be.

Tomasello taps into that long-forgotten world by reviewing research into the cognitive abilities of newborns and infants. They start to pantomime and to point. But, as they learn speech-alone talk, they pantomime less and less. They continue to point.

This behavioral trend tells me that speech-alone talk usurps the pantomime (or iconic) aspect of hand talk.

Also, it tells me that speech-alone talk can never deliver the pointing (or indexal) aspect of hand talk.

0347 Spoken words point to… what?.. the presence of a speaker?

And, the images that spoken words provide, what of these?

0348 Are they illusions of reference?

Spoken words are codes that trigger decodings of what we imagine the referent must be.

With hand talk, the referent becomes obvious. The referent is what the pantomime imitates. A part stands for the whole. Both the part and the whole are real. We innately anticipate words to be pictures of something so real that it can be imaged and indicated.

With speech-alone talk, the referent of a word is not so obvious. Yet, we innately anticipate that it is. For this reason, civilizations fashion artifacts that validate the reference that we project into our spoken words. The validation works, until, of course, it doesn’t.

0349 Language evolves in the milieu of hand-talk. Technically, language consists of two related systems of differences,parole (talk) and langue (mental processing of talk). Grammar consists of symbolic operations within a fixed and finite system of differences (also known as “a symbolic order”). In terms of semiotics, in linguistic hand talk, the natural sign-qualities of symbol operate unnoticed below the surface of manual-brachial icons and indexes.

Hand-talk words picture and point to their referents. Yet, once hand-talk becomes fully linguistic among all social circles, nonsensical statements, such as “The grass has eyes.”, open novel cognitive territories beyond the range of sensible construction. Sensible construction is mandatory in teams. But, what about community?

A community demands larger cognitive spaces.

Nonsensical statements allow the social construction of evocative judgments that carry meaning beyond literal decoding. “The grass has eyes.” may warn about snakes in the area. It may also be a warning about a particular community member.

0350 What brings all of the above into play?

The domestication of fire does.

0351 With the domestication of fire, cooking provides calories and nutrients not available in raw food. More foods become edible with cooking. A huge expansion of teamwork is called for. More teams mean larger brains and larger groups.

Prior to fire, hominins undoubtedly engaged in teamwork for culinary practices that are currently not imagined (and perhaps, may be unimaginable to our civilized minds). There is a fine art to finding the right conditions for allowing food to rot and still be edible. Rotten food may be more nutritious than raw. After all, it is predigested… or… something like that… and maybe seething with protein-rich edible bugs. Each new trick of food preparation calls for a new team to perfect the methods. Each successful team increases the reproductive success of its team members and selects for physiology and temperament and cognitive capacities that make the methods more and more intuitively natural.

0352 Fire is more than icing on the cake of Acheulean food preparation.

Fire unlocks calories and vitamins by compromising the cellular integrity of raw foods.

No wonder fire-cooked food tastes delicious.

0353 Fire unlocks another opportunity. Now, talk no longer belongs to each team (15). Everyone sits around the fire after a big cooked meal. Talk itself becomes something like a team sport. Talk becomes a communal activity.

Steven Mithen, in Prehistory of Mind (1996), discusses a transition from minds built like Romanesque cathedrals to minds built like Gothic cathedrals. The Romanesque cathedral has a relatively small nave and is ringed by (almost) free-standing chapels. This reminds me of hand-talk locked in teams during the era of joint attention. The Gothic cathedral has a huge nave with small chapels on the sides. This reminds me of hand-talk opening to all in the community, so that fully-linguistic hand-talk changes all the social circles, including teams.

0354 Tomasello does not dabble with such metaphors. He notes that hominin society in the era of collective intentionality may be characterized by two dimensions.

The first dimension is synchronic. To me, that means, at every now, the social circles of family (5), intimate friends (5), teams (15), bands (50), communities (150), along with the nascent mega-bands (500) and tribes (1500) appear, to any individual, something like the tree of life.

The second dimension is diachronic. To me, that means, at every passage, the social circles work in tandem to achieve coherence, resolution and harmony, not with some explicitly abstracted formulation of a necessary order, but with the lives of all present, past and future. The tree of life has always been there. The tree of life will always be there.

0355 Oh, forget the metaphor.

Tomasello’s two dimensions concern the transmission of cultural practices. The word, “conventionalization”, applies.

0356 How does conventionalization come to be?

Obligatory collaborative foraging is so productive that the era of joint intentionality saw the destabilization of two demographic factors. First, as the number of teams increase and as teams become more and more productive (by selective breeding, so to speak), the size of the band (50) increases to the size of a community (150). The hominin brain increases in size proportionately.

The second is that, as the number of communities increase, intergroup competition begins. Intergroup competition becomes a proximate niche in hominin evolution.

0357 The era of joint intentionality overflows into the era of collective intentionality.

02/7/24

Looking at Michael Tomasello’s Book (2014) “A Natural History of Human Thinking” (Part 20 of 22)

0358 Just as the Homo genus first appears during the course of the era of joint intentionality, our species, Homo sapiens,appears during the course of the era of collective intentionality.

Here is a list of Tomasello’s eras of intentionality.

0359 How does the evolution of talk match up with these eras?

0360 The era of individual intentionality starts with the last common ancestor. The voice is not under voluntary control. The arms and hands are, for the most part, under voluntary control. They are used to request, inform and share. But, there are moments when they are less communicative, such as when a big fight happens. Then, the arms and hands become weapons. So do the teeth.

In other words, communicative manual-brachial gestures are most likely to be shared among friends and family. Pantomime and pointing are the primary modes.

0361 Once our lineage is fully bipedal (labeled by the term, “hominid), many species of “southern ape” evolve. The one that leads to our lineage (labeled by the term, “hominin”) adapts to the environment and ecology of mixed forest and savannah by working in teams. “We work for food.” is the motto. The teams are as diverse as what hominins figure that they can eat, that is not already taken by the baboons, vultures, hyenas, and so forth. The Oldowan stone-tool team is the only one to leave artifacts that evolutionary anthropologists study today.

Oldowan stone tools remain unchanged for hundreds of thousands of years.

0362 Hand talk is used in team work. For this to happen, manual-brachial gestures rely on pantomime and pointing. Gestures serve as natural signs, icons and indexes, based on the principles of similarity and indication. Icons and indexes tend to be intuitively obvious.

As voluntary, purpose- and situation-driven hand signs are routinized, they become more and more linguistic. According to Ferdinand de Saussure, language consists of two systems of differences, parole (talk) and langue (corresponding mental processing). The parole aspect consists in routine manual-brachial iconic and indexal signs (gesture-words). The langue aspect is a little more difficult to describe.

0363 Oddly enough, the schoolmen of the so-called “Middle Ages” formalize a portrayal of the way humans think. Impressions are called, in Latin, species impressa. Perceptions virtually situate impressions. They are called species expressa. Then, a perception may or may not be judged. A judgment puts sensation and perception into perspective. A species intelligibilis virtually brings a universal aspect of the species impressa into relation with an intelligible aspect of the species expressa. A species intelligibilis brings a species impressa intelligibilis into relation with a species expressa intelligibilis.

0364 Would Tomasello label this portrayal, “The process of intelligibilization.”?

I wonder.

Am I exhausted?

This is so intelligibilitating.

0365 Here is a picture.

0366 This diagram proves valuable in understanding langue, the mental processing that corresponds to parole (that is, hand talk). A gesture-word gets decoded in the sign-vehicle of the specifying sign, which is located in the slot for species impressa_2a. This is why the natural signs of icon and index are so crucial to hand talk. The referent already exists. All the talker needs to do is to pantomime or to point in order to tell another person on the team the potential of ‘something’ happening_1a in the normal context of teamwork happening_3a.

0367 What does it mean to “me”?

Well, what “you” are telling me must be obvious (each word is an icon or an index) and easy to guess (each word must be distinct enough that I don’t confuse it with another gesture-word). Today, this is called, “sensible construction”. See Razie Mah’s A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0368 Sensible construction associates to the content and situation levels of the scholastic interscope.

Sensible construction associates to interventional and specifying signs, as shown in the following figure.

0369 During the era of joint intentionality, hominins get better and better at talking. They get better and better at sensible construction. The iconicity and indexality of hand talk is crucial. Symbolic features operate under the surface of species impressa_2a.

Also, the exemplar sign, the bridge between the specifying and the interventional sign, becomes more and more embodied. Tomasello’s “common cognitive ground”_3c operates on the potential of mutual intention_1c in the exemplar sign-interpretant. Teamwork itself makes obvious the perspective-level normal context_3c and potential_1c.

Hominins get better and better at performing interventional signs.

The Homo genus appears in the archaeological record during the era of joint intentionality.

0370 The era of collective intentionality begins with the domestication of fire.

Fire changes the dynamics of the band (50) and community (150), hand-talk is no longer confined to team (15) activities. A fully linguistic hand-talk adapts to the opportunity. As noted in How To Define the Word “Religion” (by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues), a fully grammatical hand-talk allows nonsensible statements. Each gesture-word in a statement may be an icon or an index. However, the statement itself may be nonsensical.

0371 A nonsensible statement cannot be sensibly situated_1b. No-one knows what it might mean to me_3b. The specifying sign is thwarted and the exemplar sign, already adapted to the common cognitive ground_3c and shared intentionality_1c of team hand talk, must now figure out… or… “socially construct” meaning, presence and message.

This meaning, presence and message does not fit the slogan, “We work for food.”.

The meaning, presence and message must fit something else, such as “We work for an organizational objective.” or “We work for the object that brings us into… um… organization or… hmmm…. relation.”

But, remember, none of these terms, “meaning”, “presence”, “message”, “organization” or “relation” can be imaged or indicated using hand talk. These explicit abstractions label implicit abstractions that become embodied, through natural selection, during the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

0372 Social construction turns out to be very useful in the proximate niche of intergroup competition, as well as in the proximate niche of increasing number and diversity of successful teams (due to the advantages of cooking with fire).

One wonders about the diverse challenges and opportunities to using a fully linguistic hand-talk. Well, for one, a fully grammatical hand-talk allows one to make metaphorical statements that have two constructions, one sensible and one social. For two, a fully grammatical hand-talk allows one to make nonsensible statements, yielding social constructionsthat may bring members of the community into organization… and… relation.

0373 Not all nonsensible statements are born the same.

Some produce judgments that seal the marriage deal between a man and a woman.

For example, today, many religious traditions place a ring on the finger of each bonded man and woman.

How nonsensical is that?

Some nonsensical statements produce judgments that assist in bringing social circles, such as “band” and “community”, into harmony. When communities come together seasonally, for a mega-band (500) gatherings, or on great occasions, for tribal gatherings (1500), the voice is used for synchronization. Eventually, the voice adapts. Hominins learn to sing. Sexual selection assists in what happens next. The voice comes under voluntary neural control. Generations later, hand-talk enjoys a vocal, musical accompaniment.

0374 Then, in an act of natural genius, musical vocalizations becomes spoken words. At its conception, our species, Homo sapiens, practices hand-speech talk. Two modes of talking, one foundational and one… well… an adornment. One is based on icons and indexes. One sounds out the tones of pure symbols. Each sound-word is different. Yet, not one can picture or point to its referent.

0375 The concept of two modes of talk in a single language may seem strange.

The art and culture of the so-called “Upper Paleolithic” period explores cognitive spaces opened by hand-speech talk.

I suspect that this claim best explains the so-called “Upper Paleolithic Revolution”.

The evolution of talk is not the same as the evolution of language.

02/6/24

Looking at Michael Tomasello’s Book (2014) “A Natural History of Human Thinking” (Part 21 of 22)

0376 In the era of collective intentionality, a common ground_3c brings every social circle into harmony. Collective intentionality_1c enters into every social circle. Diverse social circles prove adaptive in the proximate niches of intergroup competition, migration and settlement into novel environments and ecologies, and surviving the chaotic and often harsh weather regimes of the Pleistocene.

In the time of Homo sapiens, in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, hand-speech talk opens cognitive spaces that bring constrained social complexity to the verge of differentiating the social, the organizational and the individual. But, the iconic and indexal nature of hand talk constrains differentiation, even as the symbolic nature of speech would release the Lebenswelt into unconstrained complexity.

0377 Indeed, the loss of the hand-talk component of hand-speech talk marks the end of the era of collective intentionalityand the start of the first singularity.

0378 Tomasello concludes his chapter on collective intentionality with a note on objectivity. The objective view is the view from “nowhere”. The objective viewpoint rises above both joint and collective intentionality. At least, that is the promise. Objectivity differentiates what joint and collective intentionality sense, but cannot articulate.

In our current Lebenswelt of speech-alone talk, a spoken word can become as objective as a surgeon’s blade. A spoken word can become as objective as a machete. A spoken word can become as objective as a cutting remark. Spoken wordsare purely symbolic beings. They cannot picture or point to their referents.

So, the modern use of the word, “objective”, means cut off from any subjective point of view.

0379 In the late-modern civilizations of the West, a written law is considered objective. It stands above and contains each and every one of us. Similarly, scientific facts and theories are supposed to be objective, because they stand below each and every one of us.

0380 Tomasello give this reader the impression that “objectivity” is one of the benefits of our current Lebenswelt.

0381 But, I wonder.

If I place an “objective” written law_2c above my “subjective” perceptions_2b, and if I insist that my “subjective” perceptions_2b must be underwritten by scientific impressions_2a, then I arrive at a dystopian picture of the way humans think.

0382 Here is the interscope.

Is this the natural end of human thinking?

02/5/24

Looking at Michael Tomasello’s Book (2014) “A Natural History of Human Thinking” (Part 22 of 22)

0383 Chapter five is titled “Human Thinking as Cooperation”.

Tomasello considers other theories of human cognitive evolution (but not including Razie Mah’s masterwork, The Human Niche, available at smashwords and other e-book venues).

He draws four general propositions.

0384 One, for the era of individual intentionality, competition with groupmates leads to sophisticated forms of primate social and practical cognition, characteristic of great apes.

Two, for the era of joint intentionality, obligate collaborative foraging favors the evolution of new forms of hominin social coordination and thinking, without (what a modern anthropologist would label) culture.

Three, for the era of collective intentionality, intergroup competition, exploration of novel ecologies and environments, and larger group size favors the evolution of conventionalized culture.

Fourth, in regards to whatever may be missing in the first, second and third points, culture accumulates and allows specializations that cultivate a wide variety of cognitive skills and types of thinking.

0385 This examination demonstrates that each of these four general propositions coheres with the hypothesis contained in The Human Niche.

This may not be a surprise, since Razie Mah’s masterwork summarizes commentaries on four works in evolutionary anthropology, published within the past three decades.

0386 Here is a list of the four commentaries.

Comments on Steven Mithen’s Book (1996) The Prehistory of The Mind

Comments on Clive Gamble, John Gowlett and Robin Dunbar’s Book (2014) Thinking Big

Comments on Derek Bickerton’s Book (2014) More Than Nature Needs

Comments on Robert Berwick and Noam Chomsky’s Book (2016) Why Only Us?

0387 Along with A Primer on Natural Signs and the masterwork, The Human Niche, these four commentaries constitute A Course on The Human Niche, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0388 But, that is not all.

This examination of Tomasello’s arc of inquiry continues.

01/31/24

Looking at Michael Tomasello’s Book (1999) “The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition” (Part 1 of 12)

0001 In 1999 AD, Michael Tomasello, then co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, publishes the work before me (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts).

To me, this work marks the start of the author’s twenty year journey, culminating in a theory of human ontogeny, published in 2019. The word, “ontogeny”, refers to human development and associates to the human phenotype.

0002 What interests me in Tomasello’s journey?

As noted in Comments on Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight’s Book (2017) Adam and the Genome (available at smashwords and other e-book venues), “phenotype” and “adaptation” are not the same. Instead, these labels apply to distinct actualities that coalesce into a single actuality. One may call that single actuality, an individual, a species or a genus. One may also call that single actuality, “a mystery”.

I am interested in the natural history side of the mystery of human evolution. However, the genetic (or ontogenetic) side cannot be ignored. Plus, natural history cannot be reduced to genetics, or visa versa

0003 Chapter one of Tomasello’s book is titled, “A Puzzle and a Hypothesis”.

Of course, a puzzle is not a mystery. A puzzle can be resolved. A mystery cannot.

The puzzle starts with genetics. Geneticists have examined the DNA of chimpanzees, bonobos and humans and predict that the last common ancestor lives 6 or 7 Myr (six or seven million years ago).

In contrast, physical anthropologists (natural historians) propose the fossil record noted in the following figure. With terminological sleight of hand, they refer to human ancestors as “hominins”, even though the old term for any bipedal primate (ape or human) is “hominid”.

0004 Hmmm. Does the puzzle concern time?

According to genetics, the last common ancestor (LCA) between chimpanzees and humans lives 7 Myr (millions of years ago). But, little significant shows up in the fossil record until 4 Myr. Our lineage obviously evolves feet first. As it turns out, starting around 5 Myr, the extent of tropical vegetation in Africa decreases due to desiccation. Bipedality is an adaptation to mixed forest and savannah.

0005 The fossil record provides other clues, especially stone tools.

The first stone tools are Oldowan. Oldowan stones tools are constructed on site. They are used to scrape meat off of bone and to crack long bones (that are full of fatty marrow).

Acheulean stone tools appear later in the archeological record. Acheulean stone tools are made beforehand and carried with some intention in mind. They have the appearance of a giant tooth. Notably, Acheulean stone tool technology remains unchanged for over a million years. Innovations in stone-tools follow the domestication of fire.

0006 Surely, these two tables are puzzling. In the first, the fossil record pertains to changes in hominin phenotypes. In the second, the fossil record pertains to hominin adaptations, but these adaptations are not phenotypic. They are artifacts. Are these adaptive artifacts cultural? Are they behavioral? I wonder, “Do the words, ‘culture’ and ‘behavior’, capture the matter and the form of these artifacts?” It is as if an adaptation recognizes matter and generates form.

0007 What is the nature of the adaptation that maintains (and occasionally changes) artifacts, as if these artifacts are phenotypes?

Tomasello suggests that an adaptation is a novel form of social cognition. Our lineage adapts to a new way of thinking about one another, eventually allowing sociogenesis, new styles of learning and cultural evolution.

0008 Tomasello proposes that there is one adaptation that potentiates subsequent adaptations.

Razie Mah proposes that there is one ultimate niche for our lineage. The hypothesis is presented in the e-book, The Human Niche (available at smashwords and other e-book venues).

0009 Do Tomasello (in 1999) and Mah (in 2018) propose that our lineage is defined by the same adaptation… er… niche?

What is the difference between an adaptation and a niche?

To these questions, I next attend.

01/30/24

Looking at Michael Tomasello’s Book (1999) “The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition” (Part 2 of 12)

0010 What is an adaptation? What is a phenotype?

What is an adaptation? What is a niche?

Whenever there are two actualities, their corresponding nested forms may sensibly relate to one another in a two-level interscope or they may intersect.

The adaptation and the phenotype form an intersection. The structure is developed in Comments on Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight’s Book (2017) Adam and the Genome (available at smashwords and other e-book venues).

The adaptation and the niche belong to the situation level of a two-level interscope. This interscope is developed in the e-work mentioned above.

0011 The two-level interscope for natural history looks like this.

On the situation level, the normal context of natural selection_3b brings the actuality of an adaptation_2b into relation with a niche_1b. “Niche_1b” is a label for “the potential_1b of an actuality independent of the adapting species_2a“.

An inquirer does not need to know the normal context_3a or the foundational potential_1a of the actuality independent of the adapting species_2a. One need only posit its_2a presence.

0012 Of course, Tomasello does not know this picture of natural history. He also does not know that genetics expresses the same relational structure. A phenotype_2b emerges from (and situates) its genotype_1b in the normal context of body development_3b (ontogenetics_3b). The genotype_1b expresses the potential_1b of DNA_2a.

Then what happens?

The adaptation_2b and the phenotype_2b intersect and constitute a single, contradiction-filled actuality called “an individual”, “a species” or “a genus”.

0013 What does this have to do with Tomasello’s proposal that one adaptation potentiates subsequent adaptations?

Well, since adaptation and phenotype intersect, and since Tomasello cannot disentangle the two, his argument sort of confounds phylogeny (changes in adaptations in a lineage over evolutionary time) and ontogeny (the phenotypic expressions of those adaptations).

Such is the nature of the disciplines of natural history and genetics. They appear to be separate. But they study the same thing.

0014 So, what is Tomasello’s hypothesis?

In terms of phylogenetics (natural history and adaptations), hominins evolve the ability to “identify” with conspecifics, allowing collaborative activities, as well as a theory of mind.

In terms of ontogenetics (genetics and phenotypes), children innately anticipate that they will grow up amidst individuals who are habituated in “identifying” with conspecifics. “Culture” is another word for that habituation.

0015 Tomasello uses the label, “sociogenesis”, to capture the essence of the business of identifying with conspecifics.

In terms of natural history, sociogenesis_1b is the human niche_1b.

In terms of genetics, sociogenesis is what the phenotype_2b anticipates when it_2b engages the world.

Humans are sociogenetic animals.

0016 So, how does this fit into the two-level Darwinian paradigm?

Here is my guess.

01/29/24

Looking at Michael Tomasello’s Book (1999) “The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition” (Part 3 of 12)

0017 The previous diagram poses a difficulty.

What is the actuality that potentiates sociogenesis_2a, other than a society generating environment_2a?

Does this sound like a tautology?

A tautology is an argument that concludes with its founding assertion.

This banana must taste good because all bananas taste good.

0018 Ah, does this mean that Tomasello cannot articulate the actuality independent of the adapting species_2a because he has already placed a curtain over it that says, “Here is a society generating environment_1b.”?

For most species_2b, the actuality_2a underlying the niche_1b is a material or instrumental condition_2a that is readily observed and measured by biologists. For the hominins, the content-level actuality_2a is not so obvious. Indeed, it is so hidden that evolutionary theorists presume that sociogenetic potential_1b already exists because the last common ancestor (LCA), like the contemporary chimpanzee and bonobo, lives in small bands. The capacity for culture_1b is already present.

0019 By 2016, Tomasello figures out one apparent cause for increasing sociogenetic potential. Hominins need to work together to obtain food. This is a very good idea. It also appears in Razie Mah’s e-article Comments on Clive Gamble, John Gowlett and Robin Dunbar’s Book (2014) Thinking Big (available at smashwords and other e-book venues). Australopithecines start to work in teams in order to gather more food than each would acquire foraging alone. In short, working in a team guarantees survival in a way that working alone does not.

This proximate cause does not satisfy the issue at hand. Is there one foundational niche for hominins, such as the sea for dolphins, the air for bats and the web for the spider? Is there an actuality independent of the hominins_2a that contains the potential to generate society_1b?

0020 Razie Mah proposes an answer to this question in the masterwork The Human Niche (available at smashwords and other e-book venues). Triadic relations constitute the actuality independent of the hominin species_2a. Triadic relations for humans is like the sea is to the dolphin, the air is to the bat and the web is to the spider. The only difference is that the sea, the air and the web are obvious material and instrumental conditions. The scientist can observe and measure them. In contrast, triadic relations are neither material nor instrumental. They are immaterial beings that entangle material and instrumental causalities. They cannot be directly observed by scientists, although their entanglements can be measured.

If a scientist cannot directly observe or measure a triadic relation, then do triadic relations really exist?

That is a funny question.

0021 Triadic relations_2a are so real that they potentiate sociogenesis_1b in hominin evolution. Triadic relations_2a make adaptive social relations_2b possible_1b. Plus, triadic relations_2a are in play in every proximate niche_1b. Triadic relations_2asupport an ultimate niche_1b. Proximate niches support divergent evolution. Ultimate niches support convergent evolution. Hominin evolution is at once divergent and convergent.

If I may be so bold as to present the resulting figure as the Tomasello-Mah synthesis for the natural history of hominins.

01/27/24

Looking at Michael Tomasello’s Book (1999) “The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition” (Part 4 of 12)

0022 How does the realness of triadic relations_2a potentiate the genesis of culture_1b?

In chapter two, Tomasello discusses the biological and cultural inheritance of the last common ancestor between the chimpanzee and human.

Theoretically, the last common ancestor (LCA) is similar to the chimpanzee and the bonobo. The DNA begins to diverge around 7Myr. Australopithecus (so-called “southern apes”) are fully bipedal by, say, 3.5Myr. Bipedalism evolves in response to tropical forests giving way to mixed forest and savannah during the Pliocene.

In so far as the LCA has “culture”, the culture consists of youngsters learning content and situations through exposure, learning on their own and mimicking others. Examples include macaque potato washing, chimpanzee tool use, chimpanzee gesture signaling, and the ability of chimpanzees to learn human-designed symbols.

0023 Tomasello and colleagues argue (earlier, in 1993) that cumulative cultural evolution depends on imitation and innovation. Apes do both. Humans do both. So, there may only be a quantitative difference between the LCA and our own species. Or, that difference may be more than quantitative, since anatomically modern humans innately express tendencies to imitate and innovate.

0024 So what is being imitated and innovated in humans, that might be qualitatively different than in chimpanzees?

Could it have something to do with triadic relations?

In the following discussion. I rely on two short works by Razie Mah, A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction (available at smashwords and other e-book venues).

0025 I start with imitation.

Why would a youngster chimpanzee imitate another’s actions?

The action of another chimpanzee is an actuality. To the extent that the youngster engages with that actuality, the youngster senses that the actuality₂ has a normal context₃ (say, foraging for food) and a potential₁ (say, getting termites from a log).

0026 During the Latin Age, schoolmen propose that, for this extension, the normal context is ‘what is happening’_3a and its corresponding potential is the possibility of ‘something’ happening_1a.

They call the actuality, “species impressa“, (say it like you are speaking Italian). “Species” means “a kind of”. “Impressa” means sensation, impression, qualia or feeling.

Can I say that the adult (fashioning a twig to fish for termites) and the youngster (who is watching and will soon imitate), are fashioning the same content-level nested form?

0027 The next step, according to the scholastics, is a category-based nested form that sensibly situates the content-level nested form. When humans are sensible, then a situation-level category-based nested form virtually emerges from (and situates) a content-level nested form. I call this interscope, “sensible construction”.

The youngster chimpanzee gets a perception (a species expressa_2b) from its impressions (its species impressa_2a) of what the other chimpanzee is doing_2a. The older chimpanzee is fishing for termites using a twig.

0028 Then, the youngster imitates.

01/26/24

Looking at Michael Tomasello’s Book (1999) “The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition” (Part 5 of 12)

0029 What is happening_3a? What does it mean to me_3b?

These questions define sensible thought.

One can say that the mental operations signified by the scholastic interscope for the way humans sensibly think must be typical of the species, that is, phenotypic. One can also say that this sensible construction is cultural, since the actions of the adult cultivates the mind of the youngster.

0030 I can ask, “How many types of these habitual events are there?”

Well, as many as there are ways to eat.

For tropical forest, individual foraging does the trick.

For mixed forest and savannah, the southern apes must have had a few more challenges. Locations with lots of foodchange with the seasons and with the weather. Plus, each plentiful location has more food than any one can eat on the spot. So, the hominins rely on one another to remember all these details of location and season and other pertinent information. They do so by forming teams. One lucky team (of 15 cooperators) can gather enough food for an entire band (of 50 members).

0031 If a particular sensible construction (coupling a food event_2a with a perception_2b) occurs often enough, then could it support sociogenesis, in the style of seasonal (and occasionally permanent) teams?

The answer is obviously, “Yes.”

0032 But, how are teams (15) different than friends (5) and the band (50)?

Tomasello hones in on the idea of joint attention. The process starts with natural clues that a certain food is available to a team, which is already prepared for obtaining and processing that food, when it is available. This serves as a preamble to what happens next.

0033 Clearly, triadic relations, such as the category-based nested form and sign-processing are in play. Each member of a team has similar impressions_2a. A team_3b spontaneously assembles. If the use of twigs by chimpanzees to fish for termites is cultural, then assembled teams are cultural units. Each team-member remembers this or that. Each offers a style of operation for others to imitate. Plus, the assembled team engages in what Tomasello calls, “joint attention”.

Sensible construction serves as the amble, or “walk” in Old English. Remember that southern apes are bipedal.

0034 Once the team is engaged, the preamble changes slightly.

The amble changes accordingly.

0035 The circuit of preamble and amble continues until the job is complete.

Chapter three, titled “Joint Attention and Cultural Learning”, paints a picture similar to these diagrams, but without the triadic relations.

0036 Plus, Tomasello dwells on the behavior of newborns and infants, noting how their attention fixes on objects (species impressa_2a) as well as other persons and self (team_3b).

Indeed, if any infant could talk, he or she would say that the most important team in the world is mom and me.

01/25/24

Looking at Michael Tomasello’s Book (1999) “The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition” (Part 6 of 12)

0037 At around the age of nine months, sensible construction comes to life.

On the content level, the normal context of what is happening_3a brings the actuality of ongoing events with others_2a into relation with the potential of ‘something happening’_1a.

On the situation level, the normal context of what it means to me_3b brings the actuality of the object of attention_2b into relation with the potential of ‘social referencing’_1b.

Tomasello provides details. For example, three types of joint attention emerge in sequence. First, check the attention of others. Next, follow the attention of others. Then, direct the attention of others.

0038 Tomasello aims for a theoretical account that addresses two questions.

First, why do all joint attentional skills manifest in a particular pattern?

Second, why do they manifest starting at nine months of age?

0039 Tomasello proposes that infants start to engage in joint attention when they begin to “understand” others as intentional agents like the self.

Is understanding (that is, comprehension) necessary?

Or does competence in the above sensible construction suffice?

Infants pay attention to the actions of others_2a and situate the implied social reference_1b with an object of joint attention_2b.

Does this classify as sociogenesis?

Yes, it does.

0040 Plus, the above sensible construction does not depend on an explicit abstraction of the self as a participant.

Instead, the sensible construction generates the self as a participant_3b within joint action_2b.

0041 The sensible construction pictured above is experienced holistically.

Social and cognitive scientists can only observe and measure facets of this whole relation. So, they build models that explicitly abstract one of the elements. This foregrounds the abstracted element and backgrounds the others. For example, experiments may be designed to foreground the self_3b, with the result that objects of joint attention_2b may be classified as “like me” and “not like me”.

Are social and cognitive scientists observing what their models are asking them to look for?

Uh oh. Is this another tautology (point 0017)?

I wonder whether Tomasello’s research program may be an exercise in social construction, because social constructions often have a tautological character, where the perspective level refers back to the content level, and the situation level takes on a vague or an unsettled tone.

0042 I can say that models of newborns and infant psychology support a hypothesis that human ontogeny (body and behavioral development) is phenotypic. Phenotypes and adaptations not the same. But, they constitute one entity. Adaptation and phenotype coincide in that entity. But, they are not the same

So, a question arises about the potential that an adaptation exploits or avoids. That niche is the potential of something independent of the adapting species.

For human ontogeny_2b, not as a phenotype, but as its corresponding adaptation_2b, the niche_1b, must be… hmmm… the potential of culture, where culture is something independent of the adapting species_2a.

0043 To me, this recalls the awkwardness of points 0014 through 0019.

Here is a diagram of the resulting Darwinian paradigm.

0044 Tomasello (and other cognitive psychologists) construct Darwinian paradigms that locate culture_2a as the actuality independent of the adapting species_2a in order to identify phenotypic traits as adaptations_2b. The adapting species are children_3b, which the above paradigm labels as “individuals within culture”_3b.

The normal context of natural selection of individuals within culture_3b brings the actuality of phenotypical patterns of human development_2b into relation with the potential_1bof an actuality independent of the adapting species_2a.

What is that independent actuality_2a?

Culture_2a.

An Archaeology of the Fall

A Horror Story by Razie Mah