evolutionary psychology

[The Grand Nudger]

Are you aware of the reports and the films of chimpanzee packs hunting, killing and eating monkeys, rocks and sticks as weapons, a cacophony of noise, a large and joyful ritual.  I don't think anyone is aware of an individual or one or two chimps displaying this behavior.

Red colobus, yeah, mostly adolescents.  They sometimes take antelope too.  It crushed the earlier supposition that human beings had descended from exclusively herbivorous species.  We now think that we inherited our dietary proclivities and attendant behaviors from a common ancestor between chimps and ourselves...this would place hunting much.... much..... further back than the development of language as it's been limited in thread.  Recall, it's something that you think chimpanzees don't have, and can't understand.  If we're limiting language as we have in thread, then this behavior... isn't an example of that behavior...and, in the process, we've argued against our own contention.  

There is a contemporary human analog, though.  Coursing hare.  A prehistoric analog could have been border raids and body snatching.  We've been doing stuff like this for nearly two million years.  All of the difficulties in placing language between anatomic and full modernity repeat themselves, but now play out over the course of millions of inexplicable years rather than tens of thousands or a hundred thousand.

It's for reasons like these, and more, that we don't think language is specific to human animals alone, and that we don't think that human language is an adaptation to hunting, to say nothing of considering language the prime factor in human development. We communicate primarily with each other about each other, early hominids weren't frequent hunters, much of the communicating world never turned into the world of civilization or society and all of the surviving hunter gatherer analogs are the literal opposite of contemporary civilization. They don't even reflect early civilization. Language is great, I like words. It's definitely a neat trick. It just doesn't seem to do what you think it does. In specific cases, it lacks the utility you think it has. There's a reason that obligate predators are quiet. It's called ears. Now, mind you, that doesn't help those poor little monkeys, since they've been driven up a tree with nowhere else to go and they're no match for the individual chimps anyway. A vert pit. Seal clubbing.

In the land of pure speculation, we might posit that given some undetermined amount of time and a persistent tool culture like our own megafauna specialists they could get around to hunting more antelope, say, or even bigger game. The ones that do take antelope might already be showing their prowess....and it's clear that they wouldn't have to start talking like we talk to accomplish that both from their own existent example and our archaeological record. It's also clear, again from their own existent example, our own, and our record...that hunting and communicating doesn't necessarily lead to human language or human civilization.

[brewer]

No, because you thought your statement (and this one) actually made sense.

We are living in a very primitive time in mankind's history. The fact that we still communicate in such a flawed way as "language", proves how primitive it is, and our technology, also proves how primitive it is. Present-day technology, is nothing compared to what could exist in the future.

If you said this in jest we might find it amusing, but we know it was not posted for a laugh and I find it somewhat disturbing and sad.

[evolcon]

Are you aware of the reports and the films of chimpanzee packs hunting, killing and eating monkeys, rocks and sticks as weapons, a cacophony of noise, a large and joyful ritual.  I don't think anyone is aware of an individual or one or two chimps displaying this behavior.

Red colobus, yeah, mostly adolescents.  They sometimes take antelope too.  It crushed the earlier supposition that human beings had descended from exclusively herbivorous species.  We now think that we inherited our dietary proclivities and attendant behaviors from a common ancestor between chimps and ourselves...this would place hunting much.... much..... further back than the development of language as it's been limited in thread.  Recall, it's something that you think chimpanzees don't have, and can't understand.  If we're limiting language as we have in thread, then this behavior... isn't an example of that behavior...and, in the process, we've argued against our own contention.  

There is a contemporary human analog, though.  Coursing hare.  A prehistoric analog could have been border raids and body snatching.  We've been doing stuff like this for nearly two million years.  All of the difficulties in placing language between anatomic and full modernity repeat themselves, but now play out over the course of millions of inexplicable years rather than tens of thousands or a hundred thousand.

It's for reasons like these, and more, that we don't think language is specific to human animals alone, and that we don't think that human language is an adaptation to hunting, to say nothing of considering language the prime factor in human development.  We communicate primarily with each other about each other, early hominids weren't frequent hunters, much of the communicating world never turned into the world of civilization or society and all of the surviving hunter gatherer analogs are the literal opposite of contemporary civilization.  They don't even reflect early civilization.  Language is great, I like words.  It's definitely a neat trick.  It just doesn't seem to do what you think it does.  In specific cases, it lacks the utility you think it has.  There's a reason that obligate predators are quiet.  It's called ears.  Now, mind you, that doesn't help those poor little monkeys, since they've been driven up a tree with nowhere else to go and they're no match for the individual chimps anyway.  A vert pit.  Seal clubbing.  

In the land of pure speculation, we might posit that given some undetermined amount of time and a persistent tool culture like our own megafauna specialists they could get around to hunting more antelope, say, or even bigger game.  The ones that do take antelope might already be showing their prowess....and it's clear that they wouldn't have to start talking like we talk to accomplish that both from their own existent example and our archaeological record.  It's also clear, again from their own existent example, our own, and our record...that hunting and communicating doesn't necessarily lead to human language or human civilization.

Hunting in large groups, which is still practiced is sub-Saharan African requires non visual communication over distances, it is hard not to suppose that hunting, herding and killing large game, in groups was not the genesis of language. One of the problems with trying to construct a  theory for the advent of language is that the timeline for the beginning of any these events is still debated. So while we do not know the exact genesis of language, we know that it co evolved, along with larger brain size and complexity. All that we can really assume is that language evolved during the 2 million years of the Pleistocene, from a proto-language, to a language with full-blown syntax and grammar.

[The Grand Nudger]

The painted dogs seem to be doing pretty good on that count. I think there's probably something to be asked. Would you consider what many other animals and perhaps even plants do a proto-language?

That, in effect, we're better at doing a thing than they are, and being better at this, in this way, is advantageous? Even here I'd wonder - as we seem to have brought the dogs in because they were better.....at this, than us? Or at least that whatever they had made us better together.

[evolcon]

If you don't think that human language, and the way it allows us to control our thoughts, and the way we use it to think, and discuss, with others, the past, and the future, to plan and to strategise. Than there is nothing more that I can say to convince you, it is of course a theory, but give it some thought. If you know of a compelling theory other than "it just happened" as Gould, Lewoten and others believe, I don't know of it. I think all evolved traits required a driving need.

[arewethereyet]

I think the goalposts have moved from the beginning of this thread. And in rereading some of the beginning posts, I see that our friend, evolcon, decided long ago that he's too old to change his mind. So...I guess this whole thing is just so much blah, blah, blah.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you don't think  that human language, and the way it allows us to control our thoughts, and the way we use it  to think, and discuss, with others, the past, and the future, to plan and to strategise.  Than there is nothing more that I can say to convince you, it is of course a theory, but give it some thought. If you know of a compelling theory other than "it just happened" as Gould, Lewoten and others believe, I don't know of it. I think all evolved traits required a driving need.

Well.....I don't think it's language that does any of that, but I didn't ask you that at all.  I asked you if you thought that the sorts of communication at least some other creatures get up to counts as a proto language.  Like the proto language we once used.

I don't recall anyone telling you that anything just happened, and you may be operating under a slight misconception if you think that evolution has anything to do with being driven towards a need.

[evolcon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7wFotDKEF4

[brewer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ9ZdgCC4OU

[evolcon]

Or than there is this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A84MgzOtOLA