Showing posts with label Evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Evolution. Show all posts
Friday, May 7, 2010
The Evolutionary dominance of the "hive" mind.
It is a common theme in scifi of individualistic humans meeting a species with a collective conciousness. The model is social insects like ants, bees, and termites, where the individual organisms are merely constituents of the hive.
The usual result is that the humans recoil in horror, particularly if the hive species attempts to incorporate humans into such a collective. E.g. The Borg in Star Trek.
When brain-computer interfaces become practical, that technology combined with wireless networking will lead to a human version of a "hive" like collective conciousness. What is more the collective will be competitively dominant over non-networked individuals. This is the case since those who are not networked will not have access to information relevant to survival, while those who are networked will.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Mirror Neurons, Learning, and Culture
FIRE UP THOSE MIRROR NEURONS! LETS LEARN SOMETHING!
Mirror neurons for those of you who haven't heard are specialized neurons within the brain which fire under two circumstances. First, when an individual takes some action. For instance, grasping a piece of fruit. They also fire when another individual is observed taking an action. I.e. Watching another ape grab a piece of fruit.
These neurons were discovered by almost two decades ago by a group of Italian neurophysiologists. And the ape reference was not gratuitous, the first subjects found to possess mirror neurons were macaque monkeys. Given the close evolutionary relationship between humans and primates a natural question arises, "Do humans have mirror neurons?" Recent evidence suggests that the answer is Yes. In this piece, I'm going to suggest some implications of the presence of mirror neurons in humans for the evolution of human society.
First a definition, a culture is a suite of behaviors shared by a more or less extensive group of human individuals. Such cultures are often identified by the physical artifacts that they produce through those behaviors. In fact, when archaeologists characterize a culture they use such artifacts almost exclusively, e.g. stone and bone tools, ceramics, cremated burial remains. They are constrained to do so since most behaviors don't leave durable traces. Anthropologists and sociologists have an easier time of it, in at least some ways, since they can observe actual behaviors.
Cultures possess three common features. First, the behaviors they encompass are reinforced by the other members of the culture. Second, those same behaviors identify differences from other exterior cultures. Finally, the suite of behaviors which define a culture must, at least initially, have contributed to the reproductive fitness of the members of the culture. The reason for this is simple, behaviors that reduce reproductive fitness fall out of the meme pool. The behavior of chasing mammoths over the cliff improves the nutritional status of all of the members of the culture which adopts it and thus their survival chances. The behavior of following the mammoths over the cliff has precisely the opposite effect.
What does this have to do with mirror neurons? Well, where do those behaviors come from? and how do they propagate through a group of people? My hypothesis, to put it formally, is that mirror neurons are what enable the development of human cultures.
The model looks something like this:
Look! Oog has found a new way to get our favorite snack food, termites. See, he's sticking a twig into the termite mound and the silly buggers bite onto it. Then he just pulls the twig out and enjoys the delicious, protein rich, crunchy snack.
Maybe Oog shares his termites with a particularly attractive female that he's had his eye on. Alternatively she shares her termites with a cute male she's had her eye on. This will boost his/her evolutionary success.
Oog and Mr/Ms Oog's kids watch mom and dad to find out how to fish for termites. Other members of the community do too. They can do this because mirror neurons create the spark that transmits the behavior throughout the group. And voila, you now have a termite fishing culture established.
The example is drawn from the actual observed behavior of chimpanzees in the wild. In point of fact, a number of distinct chimp cultures have been identified in western and central Africa. Given the substantial advantages that modern humans possess in gray matter, it really isn't a stretch to believe that the learning process described above occurs over and over again in the creation of a human culture.
Mirror neurons for those of you who haven't heard are specialized neurons within the brain which fire under two circumstances. First, when an individual takes some action. For instance, grasping a piece of fruit. They also fire when another individual is observed taking an action. I.e. Watching another ape grab a piece of fruit.
These neurons were discovered by almost two decades ago by a group of Italian neurophysiologists. And the ape reference was not gratuitous, the first subjects found to possess mirror neurons were macaque monkeys. Given the close evolutionary relationship between humans and primates a natural question arises, "Do humans have mirror neurons?" Recent evidence suggests that the answer is Yes. In this piece, I'm going to suggest some implications of the presence of mirror neurons in humans for the evolution of human society.
First a definition, a culture is a suite of behaviors shared by a more or less extensive group of human individuals. Such cultures are often identified by the physical artifacts that they produce through those behaviors. In fact, when archaeologists characterize a culture they use such artifacts almost exclusively, e.g. stone and bone tools, ceramics, cremated burial remains. They are constrained to do so since most behaviors don't leave durable traces. Anthropologists and sociologists have an easier time of it, in at least some ways, since they can observe actual behaviors.
Cultures possess three common features. First, the behaviors they encompass are reinforced by the other members of the culture. Second, those same behaviors identify differences from other exterior cultures. Finally, the suite of behaviors which define a culture must, at least initially, have contributed to the reproductive fitness of the members of the culture. The reason for this is simple, behaviors that reduce reproductive fitness fall out of the meme pool. The behavior of chasing mammoths over the cliff improves the nutritional status of all of the members of the culture which adopts it and thus their survival chances. The behavior of following the mammoths over the cliff has precisely the opposite effect.
What does this have to do with mirror neurons? Well, where do those behaviors come from? and how do they propagate through a group of people? My hypothesis, to put it formally, is that mirror neurons are what enable the development of human cultures.
The model looks something like this:
Look! Oog has found a new way to get our favorite snack food, termites. See, he's sticking a twig into the termite mound and the silly buggers bite onto it. Then he just pulls the twig out and enjoys the delicious, protein rich, crunchy snack.
Maybe Oog shares his termites with a particularly attractive female that he's had his eye on. Alternatively she shares her termites with a cute male she's had her eye on. This will boost his/her evolutionary success.
Oog and Mr/Ms Oog's kids watch mom and dad to find out how to fish for termites. Other members of the community do too. They can do this because mirror neurons create the spark that transmits the behavior throughout the group. And voila, you now have a termite fishing culture established.
The example is drawn from the actual observed behavior of chimpanzees in the wild. In point of fact, a number of distinct chimp cultures have been identified in western and central Africa. Given the substantial advantages that modern humans possess in gray matter, it really isn't a stretch to believe that the learning process described above occurs over and over again in the creation of a human culture.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Ecology and Rhetoric
This post deals with two things that I have absolutely no professional training in. I also haven't surveyed the literature to determine whether this is novel, but I suspect in might be. Why, because of what C.P. Snow called the Two Cultures. These are roughly speaking the sciences and the humanities. I therefore believe that no one has likely considered the relationship between ecology and rhetoric, but I would be happy to be corrected.
The term which I find particularly interesting from a rhetorical point of view is "invasive species." Here's what Wikipedia has to say about them. What interests me about the term in the value set that it appears to incorporate. Specifically, most of us are likely to have the notion that an invasion is a bad thing. (I except certain former officials of the Bush Administration.) Consequently, our knee-jerk reaction to hearing the an invasive species has established itself in a particular locality is probably negative.
Now current theories of speciation, suggest that geographic and/ or reproductive isolation are necessary for a new species to emerge. The late Stephen J. Gould suggested, in fact, that speciation might occur through a process of punctuated equilibrium. What does this mean for ecology? Unless a species never leaves the biome where it evolved by whatever mechanism, it must be invasive at some point. If a newly emerged species is fitter in an evolutionary sense than the parent species, or the species that fill the same niche elsewhere it will spread at the expense of those species.
Now, living in the South, I am well aware of the toll that kudzu lays upon native species. However, the problem with such introductions is not the species itself, but the absence of the controls that have evolved in its native biome.
In the sense that the term is often used, humanity could be considered an invasive species everywhere in the world except for Africa south and east of the great rift system. Now perhaps invasive species carries exactly the appropriate connotation needed for ecology. However, I really think a more appropriate term is "exotic species."
The term which I find particularly interesting from a rhetorical point of view is "invasive species." Here's what Wikipedia has to say about them. What interests me about the term in the value set that it appears to incorporate. Specifically, most of us are likely to have the notion that an invasion is a bad thing. (I except certain former officials of the Bush Administration.) Consequently, our knee-jerk reaction to hearing the an invasive species has established itself in a particular locality is probably negative.
Now current theories of speciation, suggest that geographic and/ or reproductive isolation are necessary for a new species to emerge. The late Stephen J. Gould suggested, in fact, that speciation might occur through a process of punctuated equilibrium. What does this mean for ecology? Unless a species never leaves the biome where it evolved by whatever mechanism, it must be invasive at some point. If a newly emerged species is fitter in an evolutionary sense than the parent species, or the species that fill the same niche elsewhere it will spread at the expense of those species.
Now, living in the South, I am well aware of the toll that kudzu lays upon native species. However, the problem with such introductions is not the species itself, but the absence of the controls that have evolved in its native biome.
In the sense that the term is often used, humanity could be considered an invasive species everywhere in the world except for Africa south and east of the great rift system. Now perhaps invasive species carries exactly the appropriate connotation needed for ecology. However, I really think a more appropriate term is "exotic species."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
