Evolution of Intelligence.. Thoughts and stuff

[spoILAMS]

I have some different ideas about how the brain works, and want to know to what extent they make sense. I a recent college graduate but have only ever taken one psychology and one philosophy/linguistics class, so it is difficult for me to see to what extent the theory adds up with the science.

 

I think that words, language, the imagination, and consciousness as we know it are results of an evolutionary adaptation to the vocal-auditory system that produced the first "thought". I think the mechanism that allowed this was sub vocalization. Internal, self-referential gestures. As you know, how did language evolve? is a very difficult question to approach. However, I think its interesting to start with the question how did thoughts evolve?

 

Let me explain by starting with some thoughts about evolution. Our most recent evolutionary ancestors were bipedal, nomadic, omnivorous, self-aware, capable of simple problem solving, referential gestures and vocalizations, lived in communities, etc. Evolution is driven by selection pressures the biggest threats to survival and reproduction driving natural selection. As they became more evolved they also became more reliant on community to provide insulation in terms of food, childrearing, protection, etc. At some point, they became resistant to external selection pressures due to both their dominance over other species/nature and the fact that the greatest threat to the survival of their genes would be the destruction of their community itself. In other words, they quite literally became their own worst enemies. This means that mutations with adaptive value to the survival of the community itself would be selected more strongly and propagate through the population better. Meanwhile, if a mutation occurred that prioritized an individuals fitness at the expense of the community, there would be selection pressures against the rest of the community to counter this mutation, else eventually those with the mutation would out-compete those without the mutation, and the community would likely fail. I think that these unique evolutionary conditions allowed an intra-species evolutionary arm race to occur, sparked by the first thought, which led to the rapid expansion of the human brain into what we know today.

 

Consider a hypothetical evolutionary path of mutations on referential vocalizations in particular, alarm calls. The idea of an alarm call is that an organism draws attention to himself by shouting an alarm, hurting his chances of survival but increasing the chances of survival of those around him.

 

It would be beneficial to the species for volume modulation to evolve. For example, say that an individual begins to whisper, or gesture, when a predator is close and the members of the community are within earshot or eyesight, rather than shouting. This would raise the fitness of both the alarm caller and the community. Imagine if a trait mutated whereby an individual gains the ability to cheat by not giving an alarm call (suppressing the alarm call and freezing in place until an alarm call is given). This would raise the individuals fitness; the individual would simply wait for some other brave soul to call and get eaten. Thus, allowing the gene to propagate, but at a cost to the fitness of the community.

 

There would now be a selection pressure for the other members of the community to stop the cheating. For example, an individual can gain the ability to associate negative emotions with cheaters meaning they are less likely to get mated with, less likely to get food, less likely to get protection, etc. The offspring of cheaters and anti-cheaters would have the ability to both cheat and associate negative feelings with other cheaters. There now exists a selection pressure for the offspring to be able to modulate their own cheating. For example, say they evolve the ability to associate negative feelings with their own cheating. This could be considered a precursor to a conscience.

 

There are now selection pressures for cheaters to get better at cheating, anti-cheaters to get better at policing, and cheating anti-cheaters to regulate their own cheating.

 

a) Getting better at cheating When to cheat? How to cheat? How to avoid punishers. The cheater could learn to recognize police and not cheat around them.

b) Getting better at policing better at recognizing, anticipating, and remember cheaters, better at punishing cheaters, better at making other p-Humans aware of cheaters, etc.

c) Getting better at self-policing - Again, to vocalize, or not to vocalize? But with self-associations costs rather than community association costs as the determinant. How to get rid of negative feelings after cheating? How to avoid negative feelings while cheating? This could be considered selection for a conscience; a neurological mechanism to teach an individual right from wrong. Empathy and the golden rule would be selected: treat others the way you would want to be treated.

 

If we consider the first alarm call suppression the first thought, then further adaptations to cheating, policing, and self-policing would likely come from further mutations to the auditory-vocal-behavior system. As a system for thoughts became more complex and universal, as they became more able to regulate behavior of self and others, there would need to be a central processing mechanism for filtering which thoughts are important, which should be perceived at any given moment, which should be shown, which should be hidden, which should be repressed, which should be acted on, etc. This is what people refer to as the minds eye.

 

The minds eye is most closely associated with mental imagery - however, the mind has many more similarities to the eye than images. Consider the phrase a picture is worth a thousand words. What about a mental picture?

 

Where am I looking? Is anyone looking at me? Of the things in my visual field, what is it important to be focusing on and what can be filtered out? How can I store images to be acted on at a later time? When is it beneficial to pretend like I did not see something? When is it beneficial to pretend like I saw something that I did not? What should I be doing in response to what I see?

 

What am I thinking about? Is anyone thinking about me? Of the thoughts and words I am processing, which are important to be focusing on and which can be filtered out? How can I store thoughts to be acted on at a later time? When is it beneficial to pretend like I did not think something? When is it beneficial to pretend like I thought something that I did not? What should I be doing in response to what I think?

 

I think of this as attention regulation, and suspect it involves a saccadic-activation system, such that humans are literally "seeing" and responding to their thoughts as they are the words in the environment. It is interesting to think about this in terms of consciousness. Could vocal thoughts (and spoken words) lead to conscious behavior, subvocal thoughts to subconscious behavior, and nonvocal thoughts to unconscious behavior?

 

Let me divert to words. What is the difference between thoughts, speech, and words?

 

Thoughts are words that are private (sometimes, even to the thinker), speech is words that are public, but a word itself is something separate. Every consciously perceived sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell has words associated with it. In fact, there is nothing that humans perceive that does not have words associated. At the same time, every word has sights, sounds, touches, tastes and smells associated with it. The evolution of a word then allowed for a connection between the senses and allowed for a completely new way for memories to be organized and compared in the brain, and a completely new way for decisions to be made. I think the subvocal-saccadic activation system was responsible for this reorganization.

 

A word then is a complex consisting of the memories of the senses which boths activates and is activated by motor neurons; generally, movements of the larynx; the memory of the vibrations produced by sub vocalizations and vocalizations. Considering that this system evolved from the vocal-auditory system, the memory of the vibrations can also generally be called the sound of a spoken word, sound of a thought. However, the generally distinction is important; for example, when thinking about those who are deaf or cannot speak, or those who think in terms of images or feelings.

 

Imagine berry pickers who display emotions on their face when tasting and smelling different berries. Yuck! Or Mmm, tasty. The rest of the tribe would watch these facial expressions to determine whether or not to eat the berries. If we consider word the aforementioned motor neurons, we can see that when a viewer sees the emotions associated with the facial expression of a particular reaction to picking berries, the activation of the word complex will allow the viewer to experience the smell and taste of the berry allowing them to learn through the experience of the eater, informing the eater whether they should eat similar berries. The impacts of this smell/taste-emotion-facial expression/word linkage can be seen in language. I do not think it is a coincidence that someone can be described as behaving, speaking, or looking salty, bitter, sweet, sour, or why something that makes you feel bad can make you feel "like shit", or why persistent negative thoughts can cause physical pain in the indigestion system.

 

I do think that mirror neurons, and the mirror neuron twist are integral to understanding this system (or vice versa).

 

Examples from behavior:

 

State Dependent Memory Cogito Ergo Sum

 

I think, therefore I am. This is a famous line most often associated with Descartes and the idea of the separation of mind and body. I suspect it proves just the opposite. Would Descartes have changed his opinion had he known about sub vocalization? For example, I think happy therefore I am happy. Consider that all words have behavioral, emotional, and physical associations, and that there are a lot of words being activated in the brain in any given situation. A state then might be considered the sum total effect of these behavioral, emotional, and physical associations of words.

 

This idea combined with the power of words explains many of the biofeedback related phenomenon of human behavior. For example, consider meditation, whereby a human tells himself to be calm, relax to enter a state of relaxation, one free of thoughts, emotions, worries, etc. Consider the phenomenon where, if a human forces a smile on his face, that human is more likely to say and think happy things. Consider how a human hears the word pizza, his mouth may start to water as he remembers the taste and smell of pizza. Consider that when you get off work, the closer you get to the bathroom, the harder it is to not pee your pants. Consider that it feels good to talk.

 

This picture of state dependent memory makes me wonder whether drugs work primarily by affecting the body. For example, if cocaine works simply by putting the body into a hyper excitable state, from which excitable thoughts and behavior necessarily follow.

 

Priming

When a human sees yellow on a can of soda, they are more likely to describe that soda as tasting lemony. If a student associates himself with Einstein before a test, he is more likely to do well on the test.

 

Personification

When a human stares at the clouds, each may take on the identity of something that looks similar. The wind can howl like a wolf. A swaying tree can resemble a mother rocking her baby to sleep.

 

Synesthesia

Permanent, conscious, involuntary associations between perceptions of two or more senses. Only abnormality according to this model is that the association is conscious.

 

Object recognition

When a human is trying to recall a particular food, they may confuse the food with food that looks, tastes, or smells similar, or simply food whose name is homophonically similar.

 

The Power of Belief

To believe something is to anticipate that something is going to happen. There is power in belief, as anticipation allows a human to increase his chances of success by acting as though something will happen before it happens. In this model, this is due to the activation of state dependent memory; for example, a basketball player who repeatedly and calmly pictures himself making a three pointer at the end of the game will be more likely to make a three pointer at the end of the game due to the enhanced state associated with this act. Another example can be seen with the placebo effect. If a human believes that a pill will make him happy, he is more likely to be happy due to the state associated with the pill.

 

I am sorry if at spots, I have not been the clearest. I really need help figuring out what I am trying to describe.

Edited September 9, 2016 by spoILAMS

[studiot]

You don't seem to be asking any specific question or making any specific point for discussion so I will ask one.

 

 

 

The Power of Belief
To believe something is to anticipate that something is going to happen. There is power in belief, as anticipation allows a human to increase his chances of success by acting as though something will happen before it happens. In this model, this is due to the activation of state dependent memory; for example, a basketball player who repeatedly and calmly pictures himself making a three pointer at the end of the game will be more likely to make a three pointer at the end of the game due to the enhanced state associated with this act

 

Are you referring to the Gilovich, Vallone and Tversky study?

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=Gilovich%2C+Vallone+and+Tversky+study%3F&gbv=2&oq=Gilovich%2C+Vallone+and+Tversky+study%3F&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3...1297.1297.0.2734.1.1.0.0.0.0.125.125.0j1.1.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..1.0.0.ldAhvHWGIIY

[spoILAMS]

Thank you for the reply! I wasnt referring to any specific studies, at least not conciously. I think this specific example popped into my head because of an article I read on Lebron James a long time ago.

 

The hot hand fallacy is, I think, specifically about how we unconsciously perceive odds. For example, if we flip a coin and get 4 tails in a row, on the 5th flip it may feel like you have a higher chance of getting heads, but this is a fallacy, because how we think does not affect the outcome of the coin flip.

 

My point about the basketball players was about the power of belief and specifically, of positive visualization. For example, take two players, equal in all aspects, except player A spent a few minutes "watching himself succeed" and player B spent a few minutes "watching himself fail" before the game. Who is more likely to make that last shot, and why?

 

My answer is A, and it is because of the positive associations to the state (collection of words) that is brought forth during the shooting of that basketball.

 

To attempt to make my point more clear, consider what awareness is. There are certain things we are almost always aware of; what are I doing? Am I alone? What am I thinking about? How do I feel? What time is it? Where am I?

 

What I am suggesting is that parts of the brain are metaphorically asking these questions and or hearing and behaving to the answers constantly, with "words", and that is what makes us "aware". To take it a step further, I think when you raise your left arm, somewhere within you are saying "I am raising my left arm."

 

To backtrack, though, I think this also helps explain the hot hand fallacy. How we think does not affect the coin flip, but we expect it to because how we think usually does affect the outcomes of our behavior. Such as with positive visualization.

[Ophiolite]

At some point, they became resistant to external selection pressures due to both their dominance over other species/nature and the fact that the greatest threat to the survival of their genes would be the destruction of their community itself. In other words, they quite literally became their own worst enemies

I stopped reading at this point. It would require substantial peer reviewed literature to convince me that this was a valid statement. If the statement is an integral part of your thesis, which it appears to be, the whole thesis is invalidated by this, currently, unsubstantiated assertion.

[spoILAMS]

It is not integral. It is how I imagine an intraspecies evolutionary arms race could occur. If it doesn't make sense, please be more specific.

Edited September 9, 2016 by spoILAMS

[Ophiolite]

I'm not sure how to be more specific.

 

You have made a very clear and definitive assertion. "At some point, they became resistant to external selection pressures..."

 

You did not say "they became less influenced by external selection pressures", or "internal, social selection pressures came to be more important than previously". I would not have any particular trouble with those statements.

 

However, that is not what you said - your point was "they became resistant to external selection pressures". As written that means that external selection pressures had no practical effect on them. Famine, plague, unfavourable climate changes, etc. no longer acted as significant selection pressures. I just cannot by that without some solid research material to back it up.

 

If you just worded it badly, I can accept that and move on. But if you meant it, as written, it rings warning bells for me.

[spoILAMS]

Thank you for the reply. Worded incorrectly. I wanted to edit it as relatively more resistant. I look at it as a tipping point.

[Memammal]

I read everything and I found the broad gist thereof quite appealing and within reason...subject to Ophiolite's fair comment. I am still digesting...and considering some of the more intricate points. I am not qualified to give you a scientific opinion, but at first glance it seems to be a pretty novel idea. Is it entirely original though..?

[spoILAMS]

Thanks. It is hard to claim anything is original because I have read so many peoples thoughts through the last few years, but this is mostly stuff I have written on scratch paper in "aha" moments. I am no scientist or philosopher, though, just someone with an idea that won't go away.

Edited September 9, 2016 by spoILAMS

[DrmDoc]

I'm not sure how your topic here relates to the topic (Subconscious vs. unconscious) from which you referred me. If I understand correctly, your comments essentially here speculate on the evolution of thought. There is, perhaps, a less speculative path to understanding that evolution through the investigation and study of how our brain likely evolved, in my opinion.

[Ophiolite]

Thank you for the reply. Worded incorrectly. I wanted to edit it as relatively more resistant. I look at it as a tipping point.

Thank you for clarifying. As a general point I think it is important when pitching an idea to be meticulous in ones phrasing. Otherwise pedantic assholes will attack with all the vigour of a mongoose when they spot a snake.

[StringJunky]

...Otherwise pedantic assholes will attack with all the vigour of a mongoose when they spot a snake.

Yes, Ophiolite. I appreciate your autobiographical candour.

[iNow]

Philosophy: using 641 words to describe would could equally be explained in 5.

[spoILAMS]

If I understand correctly, your comments essentially here speculate on the evolution of thought. There is, perhaps, a less speculative path to understanding that evolution through the investigation and study of how our brain likely evolved, in my opinion.

Thank you for the reply.

 

What I am trying to say is that the evolution of thoughts caused the evolution of the brain as we know it. That the vocal-auditory system became the prime location for random mutations to be able to propogate, because at some point, in a community, the traits imparted by these mutations are marginally more important to reproduction and survival than, say, being able to hunt a little better or run a little faster.

 

I would really appreciate more feedback. What makes sense? What doesn't? What can I explain more clearly? I was aiming for brevity so as not to scare people off from discussing.

Edited September 11, 2016 by spoILAMS

[DrmDoc]

Thank you for the reply.

 

What I am trying to say is that the evolution of thoughts caused the evolution of the brain as we know it. That the vocal-auditory system became the prime location for random mutations to be able to propogate, because at some point, in a community, the traits imparted by these mutations are marginally more important to reproduction and survival than, say, being able to hunt a little better or run a little faster.

 

I would really appreciate more feedback. What makes sense? What doesn't? It is hard for me to take a step back and "look at the bigger picture".

 

If I now understand correctly, you're speculating that brain evolution arose from thought processes propagated by random mutations in our species vocal/auditory systems. That's an interesting idea but does it have a basis in brain structure and function? The reason I ask is that I believe the evolutional theories we pursue about the brain should be supported by evidence of that evolution in brain structure. If your ideas are valid, for example, we should find a strong and clear functional correlation of those ideas reflected in what brain structure reveals about its evolution. When we evaluate what our brain's functional structure reveals about its evolution, there is clear evidence of the factors leading to the evolution of the attributes in speculation here, again, in my opinion.

[spoILAMS]

Yes and yes, I think. I was hoping someone here would know whether this was consistent with the neurocog aspect. I will go to the library to reference some scientific articles on Monday. Broke my laptop, but I used to have many saved that helped steer my reasoning.

[iNow]

It could potentially help to recall that we homosapiens evolved from much simpler forms.

 

Even single celled organisms differentiate between food and not food, ouch and not ouch, but go farther.

 

Even atoms and quarks differentiate. Particle and antiparticle, but go farther still...

 

All matter and energy differentiates... Matter and dark matter, energy and dark energy. This is rmbedded in everything, us too.

 

Starting with the premise that some hairless ape we self-describe as human... A single species among a vast kingdom of ancients... A life form that's only been around for a fraction of a second of the last minute of the last hour of the last day of the last month of the vast cosmic calendar... Implicitly assuming that humans somehow successfully represent t=0 personally strikes me as a mistake.

 

Language enhances some types of intelligence, yes. Language is about much more than just self-talk and internal cognition, though. It's music and math and Mendeleev's matrix and much much more.

[Strange]

What I am trying to say is that the evolution of thoughts caused the evolution of the brain as we know it. That the vocal-auditory system became the prime location for random mutations to be able to propogate, because at some point, in a community, the traits imparted by these mutations are marginally more important to reproduction and survival than, say, being able to hunt a little better or run a little faster.

 

 

I have two problems with this concept.

 

One is that thought is not dependent on speech or language. (Not everyone thinks in words or by subvocalising as you you suggest. And people without speech do not seem to be limited in their ability to think.) Shared thought is enhanced by the use of language but gesture, images and other tools can get quite a long way as well.

 

The other is that I don't understand what it can mean for "the evolution of thought" to precede the evolution of the brain. Thoughts happen in the brain and the range of possible thoughts are, presumably, determined by the capability of the brain. How could thoughts somehow "exceed" this capability, and how would that cause the brain to evolve? It sounds like a sort of mental Lamarckism.

Edited September 11, 2016 by Strange

[DrmDoc]

Yes and yes, I think. I was hoping someone here would know whether this was consistent with the neurocog aspect. I will go to the library to reference some scientific articles on Monday. Broke my laptop, but I used to have many saved that helped steer my reasoning.

 

Brain evolution may seem a complex issue when you don't know were to start. Even neuroscience, in my opinion, can get it wrong; however, I would suggest you start with a clear idea of evolution and how it may present in brain structure. If our brain evolved from simpler structures and functions, we should find some evidence of those simpler aspects and attributes in contemporary brain structure, which is precisely what we find when we examine the functional hierarchy of our central nervous system (CNS) from spinalcord to cortex. You should also understand the significance of afferent versus efferent responses and neural pathways. Afferent neural pathways regard the input paths of sensory stimuli and responses into brain structure; whereas, efferent paths regard the output paths of our brain's responses. This may be important to your ideas because thought and vocalizations are efferent responses of brain function, while our auditory system involves the detection of afferent sensory stimuli.

[Memammal]

In light of some of the comments the OP should perhaps consider the broader term of communication as the impetus...from very basic forms of communication (thus incorporating all forms of sentient life from day of birth) to the most advanced forms... and communicating both ways, i.e. sending and receiving. But that would start overlapping into the theory of Memetics, not so? Maybe that was why I was curious about the origin of this idea..?

Edited September 12, 2016 by Memammal

[spoILAMS]

Language enhances some types of intelligence, yes. Language is about much more than just self-talk and internal cognition, though. It's music and math and Mendeleev's matrix and much much more.

I agree with you, but have inexperience in these areas.

Certainly the nature of math is something outside of language, but our ability to understand numbers is consistent with the picture I am trying to paint. Again, I believe words led to a new way for memories to be organized in the brain. Check my first attachment. “One”, “Two”, “Three”. Words are a way to categorize reality. One bark? One dog. One howl? One wolf. Two howls?

 

Music is something that I struggle with, however, I do think it is important. For example, I do think the universal relationship between tone and emotions is built into the brain and related to language, attention regulation, and information processing. I do not think it is a coincidence that thoughts have tone, just like spoken words. If I understand them correctly, I think this touches on what both DrmDoc and Memammal later suggest, which is that if this system is real, it evolved from a communication mechanism (either intrapersonal or interpersonal) that was already present in the structure and function of the human brain.

I have two problems with this concept.

 

One is that thought is not dependent on speech or language. (Not everyone thinks in words or by subvocalising as you you suggest. And people without speech do not seem to be limited in their ability to think.) Shared thought is enhanced by the use of language but gesture, images and other tools can get quite a long way as well.

 

The other is that I don't understand what it can mean for "the evolution of thought" to precede the evolution of the brain. Thoughts happen in the brain and the range of possible thoughts are, presumably, determined by the capability of the brain. How could thoughts somehow "exceed" this capability, and how would that cause the brain to evolve? It sounds like a sort of mental Lamarckism.

 

 

I agree with the first problem both problems. Let me quote my OP.

"A word then is a complex consisting of the memories of the senses which boths activates and is activated by motor neurons; generally, movements of the larynx; the memory of the vibrations produced by sub vocalizations and vocalizations. Considering that this system evolved from the vocal-auditory system, the memory of the vibrations can also generally be called the “sound of a spoken word”, “sound of a thought”. However, the “generally” distinction is important; for example, when thinking about those who are deaf or cannot speak, or those who “think” in terms of images or “feelings”. "

If you look at my first attachment, consider what I mean by “Word”. The generally distinction refers to the fact the importance of this reorganization comes not from the activation of words themselves, but from the co activation of the sensory input. After the brain developed neuronal pathways to understand the world in this way, I suspect the word itself acted only as a substitute-able neuronal anchor point.

 

For the second problem, I also agree. I believe that as the capability of the brain expanded to “think” about different things in different ways, these capabilities themselves either expanded to the entire population, or became the selection pressure that allowed further mutations to “thinking” to propagate. This was my entire point with the cheating, policing, self-policing hypothetical scenario.I hate to be hypothetical, but I will again to show you the power of what I am suggesting. Consider again the population that consists of individuals who “learn” to freeze in place, cheating the alarm call contract by vocal suppression and inaction, raising their own fitness at the expense of the communities. As the arms race ensues.. there would be selection against cheaters, meaning that random mutations that allowed cheaters to cheat better would be “selected for”, in the sense that all the other cheaters would eventually fade from the population. For example, if one of these individuals has a random mutation that allows him to listen and react to his own suppressed alarm call as though it had come from someone else. “Learning” in this sense isn’t Lamarkism, it is straight Darwin.

 

Brain evolution may seem a complex issue when you don't know were to start. Even neuroscience, in my opinion, can get it wrong; however, I would suggest you start with a clear idea of evolution and how it may present in brain structure. If our brain evolved from simpler structures and functions, we should find some evidence of those simpler aspects and attributes in contemporary brain structure, which is precisely what we find when we examine the functional hierarchy of our central nervous system (CNS) from spinalcord to cortex. You should also understand the significance of afferent versus efferent responses and neural pathways. Afferent neural pathways regard the input paths of sensory stimuli and responses into brain structure; whereas, efferent paths regard the output paths of our brain's responses. This may be important to your ideas because thought and vocalizations are efferent responses of brain function, while our auditory system involves the detection of afferent sensory stimuli.

 

I agree with you about the brain structure and functions. I do have some ideas, but will send you a PM on this subject because I am afraid it will derail the thread, and because it is something I can only speculate on with my knowledge of neuroscience.

 

In terms of afferent vs efferent pathways, I suppose I am saying that the brain evolved specialized neurons (mirror neurons?) which are efferent neurons treated as afferent neurons, in the sense that the brain “learned” to respond to sensory information from “thoughts” as though the sensory information was real. For example, consider my second attachment and the berry picker example again. When I see the emotions on your face from eating a berry that made you sick, it makes me a little sick because I am reacting as though I displayed the emotions from eating the berry.

 

In light of some of the comments the OP should perhaps consider the broader term of communication as the impetus...from very basic forms of communication (thus incorporating all forms of sentient life from day of birth) to the most advanced forms... and communicating both ways, i.e. sending and receiving. But that would start overlapping into the theory of Memetics, not so? Maybe that was why I was curious about the origin of this idea..?

 

I had never heard of Memetics until reading your post.

 

END OF POST, the rest will be edited to a different post when there is a reply to separate the two, since they are being auto-linked together.

I will use this post to try and link supporting scientific articles, facts, quotes, and other people whose theories relate to this one, for anyone who is thinking about it seriously. I know it is all correlation. Will continually update and organize this post as I get more time.

 

• Manhes P, Velicer GJ. Experimental evolution of selfish policing in social bacteria. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2011;108(20):8357-8362. doi:10.1073/pnas.1014695108.

 

"In nature, evolution within cheater-infected lineage groups may proceed faster than the rate at which cheaters are passively lost from a population due to kin selection operating at the group level (33). Thus, local cheater frequencies might often be shaped by complex coevolutionary arms races in which diverse cooperators, cheaters, and policers cycle through phases of exploitation and resistance among socially cotransmitted lineages (19, 34)."

 

(33) Van Dyken JD, Linksvayer TA, Wade MJ. Kin selection-mutation balance: A model for the origin, maintenance, and consequences of social cheating. Am Nat. 2011;177:288–300.

(19) Zhang QG, Buckling A, Ellis RJ, Godfray HCJ. Coevolution between cooperators and cheats in a microbial system. Evolution. 2009;63:2248–2256.

(34)Wade MJ. The co-evolutionary genetics of ecological communities. Nat Rev Genet.2007;8:185–195.

 

• Literary Darwinism: Evolution, Human Nature, and Literature, By Joseph Carroll

"In cheating and the detection of cheating, some Darwinian social thinkers see an evolutionary arms race that is in large measure responsible for the development of human intelligence"

• Cognitive Psychology, pg 12, By Robert J. Sternberg, Karin Sternberg

"John B. Watson proposed that thinking was nothing more than subvocalized speech."

 

• Wikipedia article on subvocalization:

"Schizophrenics are known to experience hallucinations and it is thought that these auditory hallucinations are a result of over activation of the muscles in the larynx."

"In objection to a subvocalization mechanism basis for auditory imagery is in the fact that a significant amount of auditory imagery does not involve speech or stimuli similar to speech, such as music and environmental sounds.^[32] However, to combat this point, it has been suggested that rehearsal of non-speech sounds can indeed be carried out by the phonological mechanisms previously mentioned, even if the creation of nonspeech sounds within this mechanism isn’t possible.^[33]"

[32] Pitt, M. A., & Crowder, R. G. (1992). The role of spectral and dynamic cues in imagery for musical timbre. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance, 18, 728–738.

Jump up[

33] Baddeley, A. D., & Logie, R. H. (1992). Auditory imagery and working memory. In D. Reisberg (Ed.), Auditory imagery pp. 179–197.

 

From Wikipedia, on David McNeil

"According to Mead's Loop, mirror neurons underwent a "twist" whereby they came to respond to one’s own gestures as if they came from someone else: this is what evolved. The "twist" works because it brings the significance of one’s own gestures into the same areas of the brain where speech is being orchestrated"

"Mead’s Loop and the mirror neuron "twist" would be naturally selected in scenarios where sensing one’s own actions as social is advantageous. For example, in imparting information to infants, where it gives the adult the sense of being an instructor as opposed to being just a doer with an onlooker, as is the case with chimpanzees.^[14] Entire cultural practices of childrearing depend upon this sense.^[15][16] Self-awareness as an agent is necessary for this advantage to take hold. For Mead's Loop to have been selected the adult must be sensitive to her own gestures as social actions."

 

[14] Klob, B. & Whishaw, I.Q. (2009). ‘’Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology’’ (6th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers

Jump up[15] Burgess, N. & Hitch, G. J. (1999). Memory for Serial Order: A Network Model of the Phonological Loop and its Timing.Psychological Review, 106(3), 551-581

Jump up[16] Baddeley, A., Eysenck, M. W. & Anderson, M. C. (2009). Memory. New York, NY: Psychology Press

 

Mental Saccades in Control of Cognitive Process Janusz A. Starzyk, Senior Member, IEEE

 

"Abstract—This paper proposes a cognitive architecture that uses mental saccades to perform cognitive search in support of motivated behavior and learning. It is intended to control behavior of robots in real environments and avatars that learn how to operate in virtual worlds. Mental saccade is a parallel concept to the visual saccade and yields sequential cognitive search for most likely solution to a problem. This model uses attention switching mechanism that combines the effect of observations, internal motivations and abstract cognitive planning. Thus, a system that uses this model, will not only follow its internal motivations but will also take advantage of opportunities that present themselves in the environment. This model is intended for development of computational cognition, learning and intelligence in a machine."

 

http://visualmemoryresearch.org/topicA3.html

 

"*4 The Acoustic Experiences which can incite Vertical Saccades include:

1)  Hearing Music with both eyes closed , and with a digital downward traction applied to the upper lids ( tag ; ),

2 )  Listening, in status  , to the speech of others. The consonants and the prosody in the delivered speech patterns can trigger elevations of the globes, modulated in frequency and amplitude;

3)  Speaking aloud: Saccadic synkinesis is again present when the words are self- articulated ;

4)  Whispering the same phrase.. ( at 20 dB ? )

5)  Hummed Speech, although lacking in expletives , mode is effective . see “Processing Prosodic Boundaries in Natural and Hummed Speech. Ischebeck AK,2007, an fMRI Study.

6 )  Reminiscing .. silently re-thinking : Articulating a phrase or a brief comment , and then mentally re-iterating the identical phrase in silence can also replicate the previous patterned – excursions of the globes While these “ virtual – audio stimuli ” continue in silence , the oculomotor sequences may be videotaped, or recorded by EOG . Responses for up to 30 seconds may accompany some ten iterations when made using a three or four-seconds- silent- phrase, as this small packet is recapitulated in “private speech”.

7)  Inventing a Novel Phrase .. Mentation .. thinking-up but not expressing a novel phrase does not immediately trigger this oculomotor response , but after several iterations an oculomotor entrainment may continue for many cycles ;

Silent Steady Counting by seconds, or packaged as phrased triplets > 15 packets . With silent recitation of the alphabet , phonemes up to twenty gives inconsistent results .

That unvoiced , private speech can also generate this autonomous epi-phenomenon seemed remarkable ."

Edited September 12, 2016 by spoILAMS

[DrmDoc]

I agree with you about the brain structure and functions. I do have some ideas, but will send you a PM on this subject because I am afraid it will derail the thread, and because it is something I can only speculate on with my knowledge of neuroscience.

 

Internal activation.png

In terms of afferent vs efferent pathways, I suppose I am saying that the brain evolved specialized neurons (mirror neurons?) which are efferent neurons treated as afferent neurons, in the sense that the brain “learned” to respond to sensory information from “thoughts” as though the sensory information was real. For example, consider my second attachment and the berry picker example again. When I see the emotions on your face from eating a berry that made you sick, it makes me a little sick because I am reacting as though I displayed the emotions from eating the berry.

 

If I now understand correctly, your idea is that thought evolved as a type of internal reflection or feedback of sensory perception or detection. I think you should probably be asking yourself what evolutional pressures might have compelled this development. The anatomy of our CNS reveals functional developments contiguously increasing in complexity starting with the spinal brain (myelencephalon). At this level of our brain's evolution, we find rudimentary afferent neural systems that suggest the intake of nutrients as a compelling factor in the early organization of brain structure. In subsequent contiguous CNS developments (metencephalon), we find more sophisticated afferent neural systems associated with sound detection. This is significant because it's the first real indication of mobility among early ancestral animals where they were likely orienting themselves either away from or towards sensory stimuli. The next significant stage of afferent neural development came with the detection of visual stimuli at the diencephalon level of brain evolution contiguously beyond the MET and MYEL. The introduction of visual stimuli compelled developments in brain structure that likely led to the capacity for thought responses. There's a lot more detail involved, but you probably can sense where this is heading. If you have further interest, the philosophy forum is probably not the right place for this discussion. I hope this helps.

Edited September 12, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Memammal]

I had never heard of Memetics until reading your post.

It seems that I was somewhat off topic, but just to clarify:

The propagation of thoughts/ideas/behaviour has a strong correlation with memetics;

The concept of cheaters is reminiscent of the Selfish Gene Theory that gave rise to memetics.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Memammal