Development of mind

[Graeme M]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this question.

I was thinking about the development of the human mind which led me to wonder how the human brain has evolved to facilitate this. If the mind arises from the function of the brain, I wondered when the human brain developed to the point where it was capable of thinking like a modern human.

I googled the question and after reading several articles, was left not much the wiser. I found little to describe how the internal structures of the brain might have changed in that time. As far as I could tell we know the size, shape and general surface arrangement of the brain from fossil evidence.

But the main thrust of most articles was size. I gather that the size of the human brain increased over the course of several millions of years until around 10,000 years ago when brain size began to decrease slightly. Today's brain appears to be about the same size, or slightly smaller than, the brain of 10,000 years ago.

Broadly speaking, I got the impression that the brain has not changed much other than size in at least the past 20,0000 years. The essential structures appear to have been well in place by that time.

Presumably then, the potential of a human brain to know and understand the knowledge that we have today was present then - 20,000 years ago. That raises some intriguing questions about the mind. But I suppose first I need to know if that core fact is true.

When did the human brain develop into essentially its modern form?

Do we have any evidence that its internal structure and function was the same 20,000 years ago as today?

Does this imply that the brain of a person of 20,000 years ago was as capable of modern thought as a modern brain?

[Delta1212]

 

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this question.

 

I was thinking about the development of the human mind which led me to wonder how the human brain has evolved to facilitate this. If the mind arises from the function of the brain, I wondered when the human brain developed to the point where it was capable of thinking like a modern human.

 

I googled the question and after reading several articles, was left not much the wiser. I found little to describe how the internal structures of the brain might have changed in that time. As far as I could tell we know the size, shape and general surface arrangement of the brain from fossil evidence.

 

But the main thrust of most articles was size. I gather that the size of the human brain increased over the course of several millions of years until around 10,000 years ago when brain size began to decrease slightly. Today's brain appears to be about the same size, or slightly smaller than, the brain of 10,000 years ago.

 

Broadly speaking, I got the impression that the brain has not changed much other than size in at least the past 20,0000 years. The essential structures appear to have been well in place by that time.

 

Presumably then, the potential of a human brain to know and understand the knowledge that we have today was present then - 20,000 years ago. That raises some intriguing questions about the mind. But I suppose first I need to know if that core fact is true.

 

When did the human brain develop into essentially its modern form?

 

Do we have any evidence that its internal structure and function was the same 20,000 years ago as today?

 

Does this imply that the brain of a person of 20,000 years ago was as capable of modern thought as a modern brain?

As far as we can tell, there's no real physiological difference between a person from 20,000 years ago and one alive today, so yes. They'd have been just as capable of thinking as you are.

[EdEarl]

I believe the primary evidence going back into prehistory is mainly fossil skulls, which means brain volume can be determined; thus, weight. However, no brains exist from that era; thus, one cannot know how our brains were interconnected further back into history than the oldest mummified or chemically preserved brain--perhaps a brain as old as a few thousand years for a mummy and a few hundred for preserved. The evidence for when in prehistory brain development occurred can only be deduced by artifacts people left behind, which are mainly stone and bone artifacts, for example the quality of stone tools and bone beads. Thus, the answer to your inquiry is that we do not know precisely.

 

DNA has provided some evidence, but AFAIK no one has identified a DNA sequence that lays out the history of brain development. Some Neanderthal DNA has been found that may be 170,000 years old. IDK how much information can be teased from old DNA.

[Graeme M]

Delta1212, so a human of 20,000 years had a brain essentially the same as today?

 

However, a human of 20,000 years ago couldn't think of things as complex as we think of today. A person of a tribal culture back then could presumably have known all there was to know of the collective knowledge of that tribe. And that knowledge would have been rather simple in today's terms. I'd imagine he could not have formed complex associations and conceptual arrangements of thought as would a modern man, regardless of the structure and function of the brain.

 

It has taken centuries of thinking, of investigation, and the development of more complex language and a means for recording and passing on knowledge to develop the 'mind' of a modern human. Let's take a smart man of 20,000 years ago, and a smart man of today. I'm not entirely sure I know what I mean by 'smart', but let's consider a quite competent, intelligent modern person with a broad understanding of science, philosophy, the arts and who contemplates matters of society and politics. He is educated from childhood to assimilate both knowledge gained over the years as well as modes of thinking and concepts about the external world that allow him to develop a thoroughly modern 'mind'.

 

Our person of 20,000 years ago however does not have the advantage of this. he knows little beyond the basics of survival, some social skills and presumably some religious beliefs of a rudimentary kind. His mental experience could not be as broad or as rich as that of the modern man, regardless of the similarities of brain.

 

In other words, even though the physical organ is the same, and the potential of each brain is the same, the mind of modern man is a far richer and more subtly nuanced thing, is it not?

Sorry, didn't see your comment before I replied EdEarl. What you say seems to match my findings so far - that we have assumed the ancient brain is the same in function as today's brain on the basis of relatively scant information. I have no beef with the idea that an ancient (20,000 years old) brain is the same, I simply wondered what evidence we have for that. Or at what point the human brain is agreed to have assumed the modern form.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Graeme M

[EdEarl]

I believe the human brain/mind has been genetically about as it is now for much more than 20,000y, at least 100,000y. However, nutrition is a factor in brain development. Thus, the start of farming may have contributed significantly to better fed people; thus, smarter people. I believe farming started about 12,000y ago; thus, the average intelligence of people may have increased then.

[mickeytea]

If something like meditation practice can affect the relative sizes of different portions of the brain over the course of a lifetime, I suppose the amount of abstract thought we engage in probably means our modern brain differ slightly from those 20,000 years ago, but is the change at a genetic level? I know very little of epigenetics. Could the acquisition of language have caused changes at a genetic level?

If you're interested in an attempt at a unified theory describing the evolution of consciousness, check out Ken Wilber's work. He's a brilliant philosopher with a background in biology who has now gone a bit nutty.

Edited May 13, 2015 by mickeytea

[StringJunky]

.... Could the acquisition of language have caused changes at a genetic level?

An individual adaptation starts with a mutation, If that mutation is beneficial i.e. enhances the probability of reproduction, that adaptation will be passed on. Think of vocal acquisition as a series of steps that happen over a long time. Because each step is beneficial, it provides the breeding ground for the next step because it's selected for. Simplistically, the more vocally-able individual can chat up more girls! The other advantage with complex language is that one develops a more sophisticated 'inner voice' which allows a better ability to model things mentally, sequentially and be more abstract. That's besides being able to share those ideas with others; individual and collective intelligence increases.

Edited May 13, 2015 by StringJunky

[Acme]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this question.

 

I was thinking about the development of the human mind which led me to wonder how the human brain has evolved to facilitate this. If the mind arises from the function of the brain, I wondered when the human brain developed to the point where it was capable of thinking like a modern human.

 

I googled the question and after reading several articles, was left not much the wiser. I found little to describe how the internal structures of the brain might have changed in that time. As far as I could tell we know the size, shape and general surface arrangement of the brain from fossil evidence.

 

But the main thrust of most articles was size. ...

The short answer is, we don't know. The less short answer is, we are trying to find out.

 

Virtual Fossil Skull Helps Study Brain Evolution

A virtual endocast of a hominid skull that dates back nearly 2 million years raises questions about the evolution of the human brain. The Australopithecus sediba skull is from the most complete early hominid fossils ever found. While some features of A. sediba were more human-like, most notably the precision-grip hand, the brain was more ape-like, says Emory Univ. anthropologist Dietrich Stout.

...

While the A. sediba brain clearly was not a human configuration, a surface bump shows possible foreshadowing of Brocas area, a region of the human brain associated with speech and language, Stout says. Its a big leap, however, to go from a surface bump to really understanding what the cells were doing beneath it, he adds.

 

The researchers plan to expand the analysis, gathering data from more scans of chimpanzee skulls and more hominid fossil specimens from East and South Africa. We want to put as many dots on a comparative graph as we can, to help show us where A. sediba fits in, Stout says.

 

Use of simple stone tools by hominids began about 2.5 million years ago. Was A. sediba a toolmaker? Its hands appear associated with that activity, Stout says, but the evidence is still incomplete. For now, A. sediba raises more questions than it answers. ...

[Graeme M]

mickeytea, thanks for the reference to Ken Wilber, I will look into that as the evolution of consciousness is really where my interest lies.

 

StringJunky, I have little background into evolution/DNA/molecular biology, so don't really understand the detail. But I think I have a general grasp of the concepts. You mention how mutations confer selective advantage and hence that mutation spreads throughout a population.

 

In the case of a human brain, we clearly see that over time, let's use our 20,000 years, the extent of human knowledge has grown enormously. I think, without having read any evidence, that a modern person's 'mind' would be a more complex nuanced thing than an early man's. It is suggested above that that early man's brain has the same form and size and presumably capacity for thought and complex problem solving as today's man.

 

In other words, a new born from 20,000 years ago transferred to today's world could learn knowledge and be able to think much as a modern person could.

 

This means that the full potential for the human mind to know more, and do more with that knowledge, is always evolving. We do not yet know the extent of this capacity. And yet, this ability evolved with no selective pressure that i can think of. What is the advantage to an individual 20,000 years ago in having a brain that is capable of the kinds of thinking, discovery, and complex problem solving that a quantum physicist of the 22nd century might enjoy?

 

Put another way, how is it that the brain formed in all its complexity 200,000 years ago, yet as a species we are still developing the use of that organ?

 

Caveat: I am not leading up to any religious exposition, this is a genuine question rooted entirely in evidence based rational inquiry. I do not believe in God.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Graeme M

[Delta1212]

mickeytea, thanks for the reference to Ken Wilber, I will look into that as the evolution of consciousness is really where my interest lies.

 

StringJunky, I have little background into evolution/DNA/molecular biology, so don't really understand the detail. But I think I have a general grasp of the concepts. You mention how mutations confer selective advantage and hence that mutation spreads throughout a population.

 

In the case of a human brain, we clearly see that over time, let's use our 20,000 years, the extent of human knowledge has grown enormously. I think, without having read any evidence, that a modern person's 'mind' would be a more complex nuanced thing than an early man's. It is suggested above that that early man's brain has the same form and size and presumably capacity for thought and complex problem solving as today's man.

 

In other words, a new born from 20,000 years ago transferred to today's world could learn knowledge and be able to think much as a modern person could.

 

This means that the full potential for the human mind to know more, and do more with that knowledge, is always evolving. We do not yet know the extent of this capacity. And yet, this ability evolved with no selective pressure that i can think of. What is the advantage to an individual 20,000 years ago in having a brain that is capable of the kinds of thinking, discovery, and complex problem solving that a quantum physicist of the 22nd century might enjoy?

 

Put another way, how is it that the brain formed in all its complexity 200,000 years ago, yet as a species we are still developing the use of that organ?

 

Caveat: I am not leading up to any religious exposition, this is a genuine question rooted entirely in evidence based rational inquiry. I do not believe in God.

You've asked some interesting questions that deserve answers, but first I want to call out one point: Do you think you have a more complex mind than that of a modern Chinese farmer?

[Graeme M]

I can't answer that directly as I have no knowledge of what a Chinese farmer does or how he is educated. But at first blush, I would say yes. And I have a good reason for saying that, even though my reason may be quite wrong.

[Acme]

 

You've asked some interesting questions that deserve answers, but first I want to call out one point: Do you think you have a more complex mind than that of a modern Chinese farmer?

I can't answer that directly as I have no knowledge of what a Chinese farmer does or how he is educated. But at first blush, I would say yes. And I have a good reason for saying that, even though my reason may be quite wrong.

 

Inasmuch as you have told us what you are not leading up to, by all means let's hear your reason for the blush.

[Graeme M]

No, on second blush I won't say that. I just don't know enough about modern Chinese farmers and I can't judge my own place in any scale of mental acuity. I suspect I'm fairly dim. In any case it's a diversion from the main idea I am pursuing.

 

Let's go back to my last question. Bear in mind my lack of science background - I've read some books, done a bit of thinking, but that's it. Pretty much failed math and science at school because I just had no interest. But if you need to reply with some detail, please feel free to do so because I think I can generally follow arguments if they don't drop down to the level of esoteric language or equations.

 

What is the generally agreed finding on how the human brain's complexity developed to its present level without that complexity being fully utilised? Or is that a question that makes no sense when you understand molecular biology and the framework of evolution?

[Acme]

No, on second blush I won't say that. I just don't know enough about modern Chinese farmers and I can't judge my own place in any scale of mental acuity. I suspect I'm fairly dim. In any case it's a diversion from the main idea I am pursuing.

OK

 

Let's go back to my last question. Bear in mind my lack of science background - I've read some books, done a bit of thinking, but that's it. Pretty much failed math and science at school because I just had no interest. But if you need to reply with some detail, please feel free to do so because I think I can generally follow arguments if they don't drop down to the level of esoteric language or equations.

Presuming that last question is "Put another way, how is it that the brain formed in all its complexity 200,000 years ago, yet as a species we are still developing the use of that organ?", then I can only imagine the answer is by necessity one of esoteric language and/or equations. Complex questions have complex answers. Nonetheless, in a sense our brain is a tool and as with any tool it can be used for myriad purposes. There is some hint in your wording that brings to mind the meme that we use only 10% of out brains, and if that is the case it is simply wrong.

 

What is the generally agreed finding on how the human brain's complexity developed to its present level without that complexity being fully utilised? Or is that a question that makes no sense when you understand molecular biology and the framework of evolution?

I think it may be more of an issue of time, chance, and social evolution rather than molecular evolution. Granted humans had to molecularly evolve to a point where we gained the brain we have, but past that it has been matters of invention, survival, and cooperation. Before writing, all knowledge had to be passed on orally and unlike what you suggested earlier that all members of a tribe knew everything that the tribe knew, there was specialization. Weavers, hunters, cooks, witch doctors, or whatever 'profession' were specialties. So too is polymathy a specialty. There is no certainty or evolutionary formula regarding talents and there is no certainty that the talented would survive or pass on their knowledge.

 

If you're interested in what consciousness is, I am fond of the ideas of Douglas Hofstadter. His latest book, I Am A Strange Loop synthesizes his thinking on the issue. (Forewarning; esotericism and mathematics be there. It should not be attempted by folks of small souls.)

[Delta1212]

No, on second blush I won't say that. I just don't know enough about modern Chinese farmers and I can't judge my own place in any scale of mental acuity. I suspect I'm fairly dim. In any case it's a diversion from the main idea I am pursuing.

 

Let's go back to my last question. Bear in mind my lack of science background - I've read some books, done a bit of thinking, but that's it. Pretty much failed math and science at school because I just had no interest. But if you need to reply with some detail, please feel free to do so because I think I can generally follow arguments if they don't drop down to the level of esoteric language or equations.

 

What is the generally agreed finding on how the human brain's complexity developed to its present level without that complexity being fully utilised? Or is that a question that makes no sense when you understand molecular biology and the framework of evolution?

I think the mistake you are making is about how the brain is utilised. The brain is an information sponge. It pulls in any information that it flags as important and hunts for patterns. Now hunting is no more or less of a skill than mathematics. A very knowledgeable farmer is no more or less ignorant than a physicist, they just know about different things.

 

One of humanity's biggest advantages is our ability to communicate and share knowledge, and since knowledge can be passed down, it will of course accumulate. But the major advantage there isn't really that we know more, it's that we can spend more time learning what other people have already determined works, and a lot less timing learning things that don't.

 

I know a little bit about how lightbulb filaments work. I know a lot less about how well the materials that people tried unusuccessfully to use as filaments work other than not well.

 

Being on the cutting edge of a field means that you know a lot more detail about what isn't working and why it doesn't work than your successors are likely to when they start building on your successes. They can spend the time that you spent trying out your first wrong idea learning about the idea that finally worked, and then spend the rest of their time figuring things out from there.

 

The brain also evolved to take things in efficiently. You don't have the time or energy to remember every little thing that you see or hear, so the brain has to be able to figure out what is important to retain. Part of that is repetition, for example. Knowing that, and learning other things about how we learn, has helped us to develop strategies for maximizing our retention of information we want to know.

 

If you make good use of those strategies, you might know more than someone who doesn't, but in general everybody has the same amount of life experience at the same age. The person who stays in studying doesn't know more or less than the person who goes out partying. One just knows more about physics and the other knows more about what happened at the party last night.

 

The long and short of it is, people 20,000 years ago didn't know less, on an individual level, than we do. I know more physics, but I also know a bit less about what berries will and won't kill me, the best way to find water if I'm lost and how to effectively track and kill something that is bigger, stronger and faster than I am.

 

Because I didn't have to learn any of that as part of my daily life, I had time to learn other things. We as a society might consider the things I learned instead to be more useful and/or 'advanced', but the brain doesn't really make a distinction. 20,000 years ago, people were using their brains to their full potential (more or less, some people I'm sure make better use of them then and today than others, but in general there isn't that much difference), they were just applying them to different problems and knowledge than we do today.

[Graeme M]

Acme, no, I definitely am not harking to the meme of 10% of the brain. I was more suggesting that while the potential for knowing a lot of information and doing complex things with it existed very early on, the extent to which we do that has increased over time. This must still be happening - for example Einstein's or Hawking's insights are far more complex and expansive than say Da Vinci's or Plato's. Perhaps not comparatively in context, but in an absolute sense. If it is still happening then in time we will see greater knowledge and more capacity to apply that. I think that a high school student today knows more, has better applied knowledge skills, and a more complete understanding of the nature of the universe than a student in the 1600s. Presumably, this must continue to happen until we reach the limits of the brain's capacity to do this.

 

Delta1212, I disagree to an extent though I may be quite wrong! I'll try to explain.

 

I think a poor farmer with limited education IS more ignorant than a physicist. And equally, a physicist is smarter and able to use his mind in more complex ways than a primitive human. I think this relates to the development of language. Regardless of how the brain is structured or whether it has changed appreciably in the past 50,000 years, it is language that allows us to introspect in more complex ways. It allows us to do complex analytical thinking, it permits us to share knowledge and pass it on, and it enables a greater level of shared understanding and cooperation.

 

It seems to me that without language, a person would think in terms of visual images and impressions/feelings. It is much harder to deduce a theory of relativity if you do not have a language to express it in. Written and spoken language, plus mathematics, enables highly complex ideas to be expressed and manipulated symbolically. I don't think that even the smartest primitive man would have the capacity to do that for the simple reason he does not have the language tools to facilitate that. His brain may be capable of it, but his mind is not 'evolved' to take advantage of that capacity.

 

I am sceptical that "people 20,000 years ago didn't know less, on an individual level, than we do". I think they did. They may have had possession of a similar number of facts (though I doubt that too) but they could do far less with those facts. It is a much simpler thing to know what berry is safe to eat, or where to find water, than it is to be able to do many of the things a person might do today. For example, design an engine, write a play, solve an equation, psychoanalyse a patient, undertake a surgical procedure.

[Phi for All]

A very knowledgeable farmer is no more or less ignorant than a physicist, they just know about different things.

Delta1212, I disagree to an extent though I may be quite wrong! I'll try to explain.

 

I think a poor farmer with limited education IS more ignorant than a physicist.

 

It's easy to disagree with what someone has said when you change what they said.

 

 

 

I agree with Delta1212, it's different knowledge, better only because its patterns fit our modern world better. I can change a hose on a modern IC engine, but I'd struggle with the best way to bring down a wild boar and keep my hunters safe at the same time. In the same vein, a veteran modern farmer is going to know a whole lot more about all the nuances of raising crops and animal husbandry than a physicist would. If it came down to which one should feed the town, who would you put in charge?

[Acme]

Acme, no, I definitely am not harking to the meme of 10% of the brain. I was more suggesting that while the potential for knowing a lot of information and doing complex things with it existed very early on, the extent to which we do that has increased over time. This must still be happening - for example Einstein's or Hawking's insights are far more complex and expansive than say Da Vinci's or Plato's. Perhaps not comparatively in context, but in an absolute sense. If it is still happening then in time we will see greater knowledge and more capacity to apply that. I think that a high school student today knows more, has better applied knowledge skills, and a more complete understanding of the nature of the universe than a student in the 1600s. Presumably, this must continue to happen until we reach the limits of the brain's capacity to do this.

The brain never fills up, i.e. it does not have a maximum capacity. The primary limiting factor for an individual to learn is time. While there are stupid people and geniuses, the capacity to know is not determined by a linear function as is say filling a bucket. Hofstadter's strange loop goes to this issue of non-linearity:

In I Am a Strange Loop, Hofstadter defines strange loops as follows:

 

And yet when I say "strange loop", I have something else in mind - a less concrete, more elusive notion. What I mean by "strange loop" is - here goes a first stab, anyway - not a physical circuit but an abstract loop in which, in the series of stages that constitute the cycling-around, there is a shift from one level of abstraction (or structure) to another, which feels like an upwards movement in a hierarchy, and yet somehow the successive "upward" shifts turn out to give rise to a closed cycle. That is, despite one's sense of departing ever further from one's origin, one winds up, to one's shock, exactly where one had started out. In short, a strange loop is a paradoxical level-crossing feedback loop. (pp. 101-102)

Strange loop

 

Were DaVinci or Plato to meet Hawking there is no reason to presume that Hawking could not explain his insights to them to their satisfaction. DaVinci & Plato are some of the giants on whose shoulders Newton stood and Hawking likewise stands on Newton's and Einstein's shoulders. It's shoulders all the way 'round the loop.

 

 

 

Delta1212, I disagree to an extent though I may be quite wrong! I'll try to explain.

I think a poor farmer with limited education IS more ignorant than a physicist. And equally, a physicist is smarter and able to use his mind in more complex ways than a primitive human. I think this relates to the development of language. Regardless of how the brain is structured or whether it has changed appreciably in the past 50,000 years, it is language that allows us to introspect in more complex ways. It allows us to do complex analytical thinking, it permits us to share knowledge and pass it on, and it enables a greater level of shared understanding and cooperation.

It seems to me that without language, a person would think in terms of visual images and impressions/feelings. It is much harder to deduce a theory of relativity if you do not have a language to express it in. Written and spoken language, plus mathematics, enables highly complex ideas to be expressed and manipulated symbolically. I don't think that even the smartest primitive man would have the capacity to do that for the simple reason he does not have the language tools to facilitate that. His brain may be capable of it, but his mind is not 'evolved' to take advantage of that capacity.

Did you know a language when you were born? Can you learn a new language yet today?

[Graeme M]

Phi and Delta, you are taking my comments at a more literal level than I intend. I am not suggesting that my brain, or your brain, has a greater capacity or potential than the brain of an ancient human. On this thread it has been stated that the brain reached its modern form maybe 100,000 years ago. For our purposes we can agree that a modern brain and a 20,000 year old brain would be indistinguishable one from the other.

What I am suggesting though is that the MINDS are different.

It seems to me that the idea of mind has developed over the ages. While the underlying brain remains the same, a smart early human could not have thought of the theory of relativity for example. But neither could a smart modern man if he had lived in isolation from birth.

What people have done is create an entire framework for thinking that allows complex information to be stored, retrieved and applied. Einstein and Hawking for example did not do what they did on their own - they built on the work of others as you note. But first, they had to learn how to think the right way and to apply what they'd learned.

I think that humans have, through the development of language, mathematics, analytical techniques and so on, evolved the mind itself. The mind of an early human was tied up with matters of survival. He may have wondered about his world, but he simply did not have the knowledge, education, skills and techniques to come up with very sophisticated models of the world.

So while an ancient human may not have been intrinsically dumber than a modern human, he did not think as a modern human. And I think modern thinking is fundamentally different.

I suggest that a well educated modern man has a much better toolset of knowledge, language, analytical techniques and contextual understandings that would allow him to perform better at thinking and making sense of the world than an ancient man. Of course he wasn't born with it - he had to be taught. But what he learns and what he is exposed to from birth is a far cry from what the ancient man experienced. The modern mind is a much improved construction, IF we consider its ability to create and understand complex syntheses of the external experience.

Presumably - and I am just guessing here - in an evolutionary sense, this equips us to dominate every niche, in fact it allows us to manipulate the niche to our own advantage. Knowing how the universe works is all well and good, but it's simply a sideline to an exploitive advantage so fundamentally different from all other species that we have come to dominate the entire landscape.

[overtone]

We were fully human, as smart and deeply thinking and mindful as we are now, before we split up into the separated peoples of recorded history.

 

The brains of the Red immigrants to the Americas were separated from the rest of the genetic exchange at least 10k years ago, and probably more like 20k.

 

These brains invented the Mayan calendar (the most accurate and complete on the planet, based on astronomical observation and analysis as deep and abstract as any anywhere), very sophisticated systems of plant breeding and soil maintenance in four or five different locations, and at least a half dozen markedly different types of complex culture based on fundamentally different ecological circumstances and employing different tools etc in various places throughout the Americas.

 

Australian aborigines built boats, or rafts at least, capable of transporting entire tribes across hundreds of miles of ocean and separating their genetics from the pool 40k ago (and speaking fully developed and complex languages, setting up aquaculture ponds and infrastructures in places, organizing the hunting and fire regime over an entire continent with stories that take hours to tell, as well as inventing the boomerang, my nomination for the most sophisticated single object ever invented by human beings),

 

and so forth.

[Graeme M]

We've strayed somewhat from my original question. Which was about brain structure and function. I gather from the responses that the modern brain and the ancient brain (if we use say 100,000 years to define ancient) are largely the same. Certainly a modern brain and one of 20,000 years ago seem to be the same.

 

I want to come back to Overtone's comments at some point, but to return to my earlier question which had become something slightly different.

 

Our brains appear to be capable of quite sophisticated 'thinking', whatever that is. Modern theories and frameworks of thought around all manner of fields of knowledge are I think very well developed. How is it that we evolved a brain able to do this at a time when we didn't use it for that? I don't know much about this - but I will assume that when the modern form appeared, maybe 100-200,000 years ago, humans would have had only basic language and I assume would not have used their brains in the way that a modern thinker might. What selective pressure would cause such a powerful organ to evolve that is so over engineered for the task of survival?

[StringJunky]

... What selective pressure would cause such a powerful organ to evolve that is so over engineered for the task of survival?

Farming and controlled use of fire.

[Graeme M]

Overtone, you make very good points but they may be not quite tackling what I am thinking of. If we accept that ancient brains have the same form and function as ours, then presumably those brains have the potential to do the same feats of thinking as we do today. You note such things in your comment. However, I'm not trying to dismiss those peoples' abilities or achievements. What I am getting at is that modern knowledge is more comprehensive. It must be, otherwise why do people keep learning and coming up with new ideas?

 

Did any of the societies you mention have a collection of knowledge and capabilities as broad as today's? Aborigines had a boomerang. Spears, woomeras, canoes, bark huts and so on. By any modern standard, that is a rather rudimentary civilisation. That's not to be dismissive, it just means that they did not pursue the kinds of knowledge that Europeans seem to have.

 

The techniques by which knowledge is developed and communicated and shared today have been developed and refined over many thousands of years. My point is that a modern mind has access to much more knowledge, learning techniques and skills than an ancient mind. Surely, that makes a modern mind a more complex construction?

 

Let's step back further. At 100,000 years ago, while an anatomically modern brain had appeared, what kinds of language, society, and tools were in use? I don't actually know but I'll suggest quite simple. A person of that time simply could not have entertained the same kinds of ideas that an educated modern person could. I'm not arguing that they couldn't have if they'd been raised in today's world, but that they couldn't have at their time.

 

While knowledge has increased over time, so have the techniques for using it. A modern mind surely is able to entertain complex thoughts than an ancient mind. I am venturing that developing knowledge and its application has developed the mind itself.

 

Farming and controlled use of fire.

 

Did farming and controlled use of fire arise in human populations at 100-200,000 years ago when it is suggested that modern brains appeared? It is argued here that an ancient brain is capable of modern thinking if it were here in our time. That means that the brain that could use fire and farm was already capable of that BEFORE they began to farm and use fire (assuming those things happened later than 100,000 years ago - I don't actually know).

Edited May 15, 2015 by Graeme M

[StringJunky]

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/may/09-archaeologists-find-earliest-evidence-of-humans-cooking-with-fire

[Delta1212]

How are you defining a "more complex" thought?