https://www.sciencealert.com/assassin-bugs-scientists-reveal-how-a-deadly-insect-manipu...

"An insect that harvests and modifies plant resin to snare its prey adds to a growing body of evidence that suggests we may be underestimating the cunning of invertebrate animals.

"The assassin bug (Pahabengkakia piliceps), found across Thailand and China, smears its legs with plant resin, but not just for the reason you might think. The smell of the sap lures their prey to the optimal attack position, greatly improving the odds of the bug's success in hunting.

***

"So here's what P. piliceps does. It dips its legs in the resin deposited by the worker bees, applying an even coating to its front and middle legs. Then, it sits by the hive entrance, and captures the guard bee that comes scurrying over to see what the fuss is all about. The assassin bug then retreats with its secured prey to a nearby safe location.

"It gets even more interesting, though. Even though resin is all around the entrance to the hive, the guard bee makes a beeline (heh) for the waiting assassin bug. Something else seemed to be at play.

"To investigate, the researchers conducted field experiments in which they examined the stickiness of the resin and the role it played. They smeared the hindlegs and butts of some of the assassin bugs with bee resin and watched what happened.

"Even assassin bugs with resin smeared on their butts and hindlegs – not the legs they use for grabbing – showed more hunting success than assassin bugs with no resin. This suggested that the stickiness played only a partial role in successful predation, unlike their Australian relatives.

"So the researchers conducted experiments to find out why. They hypothesized that, when resin dries, it emits volatile compounds at a lower rate, and that by smearing it on their legs, the assassin bugs increase the volatile release rate.

"Chen and colleagues placed some resin in a ventilated environment, and measured the emission rate before and after smearing. Sure enough, the volatile emission rate was higher after smearing.

"This suggests that, by manipulating the resin, the bugs are signaling to the bees that they need to come and deal with a problem. Then, they just become a bigger problem.

"To be classified as tool use, a behavior must satisfy three criteria:" they write in their paper, "1) exerting control over a manipulable external object closely linked to a specific goal; 2) altering the user's or another organism's physical properties through a dynamic mechanical interaction; or 3) mediating the flow of information between the user and the environment or other organisms in the environment."

"The application of resin – an external object – alters the physical properties of the assassin bug's body to achieve a specific goal. That fits the specified criteria. It's interesting, though, that the way the tool is used differs from the way assassin bugs in Australia use a very similar tool. P. piliceps' bee specialization may play a role in this; but it will need further investigation.

"'While the role of food specialization in the evolution of resin use warrants future multi-species comparative studies within a phylogenetic framework," the researchers write, "this stingless bee-specialized assassin bug system offers a valuable model for investigating adaptive evolution and tool-use behaviors, with fewer ethical constraints than vertebrate-based studies.'"

Comment: what is now instinct appears to have developed by conceptualization of a tool's use, the author's assumption. On the other hand, trial and error was a possible method of development. Just as we have tested crows to show they use thinking, we must test the insects in the same way to achieve the same level of certainty. Insect thought would not surprise me.

DAVID: There is no question language broadens the form of consciousness we have. But my dog is conscious in a minor way. I see him head for the kitchen meal with intentionality. He must be conscious in his simple way, and he knows many words.

dhw: We are in agreement. I’m sure he also remembers routines, is aware of your kindness to him, looks forward to his daily walks, and loves you to bits. But if you kicked him and starved him, I suspect he would be equally conscious of his miserable life, although of course he couldn’t put it into words. The same would apply to us humans before we began to invent our language.
That is why I disagree with Matt’s (Jayne’s) statement that “our ability to be conscious entirely relies on language”. Language grows from what our consciousness experiences, but in turn language enables us to share those experiences with others and hence expand the range of their own consciousness.

DAVID: I agree. Consciousness drives language development.

Thank you.

DAVID: (to xeno) You have presented a fascinating very learned discussion. I appreciate it as educational.

dhw: Once again, we agree. This is a rarity!!!. And three cheers for language, which enables us to expand our range of consciousness through such education.

We agree more than one might think.

We are in agreement. I’m sure he also remembers routines, is aware of your kindness to him, looks forward to his daily walks, and loves you to bits. But if you kicked him and starved him, I suspect he would be equally conscious of his miserable life, although of course he couldn’t put it into words. The same would apply to us humans before we began to invent our language.
That is why I disagree with Matt’s (Jayne’s) statement that “our ability to be conscious entirely relies on language”. Language grows from what our consciousness experiences, but in turn language enables us to share those experiences with others and hence expand the range of their own consciousness.

DAVID: I agree. Consciousness drives language development.

Thank you.

DAVID: (to xeno) You have presented a fascinating very learned discussion. I appreciate it as educational.

Once again, we agree. This is a rarity!!!. And three cheers for language, which enables us to expand our range of consciousness through such education.

dhw: But we did spill into new places!...Again, I’d say it is our intelligence that has given us domination, and our language is a tool invented by our intelligence but also enabling us to use, communicate and expand our intelligence to maximum effect.

xeno: So when I mean "spill into new places," I didn't mean geographically. I meant the mental world.

dhw: Ah, OK, but the argument also applies to the artefacts, which were the RESULT of thought and engendered new language, and to the mental world (see below).

xeno: by the time of Ecclesiastes, you have someone who is speaking about their own internal life using introspective words and phrases. There's a co-evolution going on between our use of language and our ability to be conscious.

dhw: There is no question that language developed to cover more and more areas of our existence. Only what has expanded, in my view, is not the “ability” to be conscious but the range of things we are conscious of.

xeno: Jaynes makes the point very well I think, that our ability to be conscious--entirely relies on language--which is good because it means we can *always* increase our ability to be conscious just by virtue of having a deeper vocabulary.

dhw: I sort of agree, but this is too simplistic for me. I will use “awareness” as a synonym of consciousness in order to make my argument clearer. I see the process in phases: 1) awareness/ the “ ability to be conscious” is always present; 2) our awareness of each new experience/invention/ concept spawns new language; the language does not spawn the experience; 3) however, we use the new language to pass on the range of subjects that other humans can then be made aware of. And so language is a tool which enables consciousness to expand the range of what it is aware of – and of course this expansion was massively enhanced by the invention of writing. That’s why you have chosen books to illustrate the whole process. As time goes by, we see a complexification of vocabulary which corresponds to and results from the complexification of the thoughts arising from new experiences, discoveries etc.

xeno: Intelligence is necessary but not sufficient to explain our difference with the rest of the animal world. Our intelligence creates new connections but only on the foundation built by prior words and concepts.

dhw: Only partly agreed. The principle is the same for animals, which use their own language to meet their own needs, but because of our superior intelligence, our needs cover an almost infinitely larger range of subjects than theirs, and so our language is almost infinitely more complex. Each NEW word results from the need to give expression to the thought – it does not create the thought.

xeno: The further back in time, the more concrete and specific the language. Less room for a rich mental consciousness. Less room for an inner space.

dhw: Yes, because as time goes by, the range of experience broadens for lots of different reasons – and language is one of them, because it enables others to build on each new line of thought.

DAVID: Consciousness, defined as I have elsewhere as the ability for introspection, is different in kind between the neolithic age and today. And that consciousness is itself the sole difference us and all the other creatures. You simply cannot have what we have without language--language is what makes consciousness possible.

dhw: I don’t like this definition. Introspection is only one form of consciousness. One of the points you made earlier concerned our arrogance in our treatment of animals and other humans – a refusal to recognize that they too are conscious. Animals are conscious of pain, conscious of the past (through memory), consciously respond to anything that threatens their safety, consciously solve problems, devise strategies, cooperate with or fight against other animals. And I have no doubt that our ancestors were equally conscious of everything that concerned their survival, and perhaps had a range of gestures and grunts to cover all their requirements. Introspection, in my view, is not caused by language, but language arises from the need to express and communicate this particular form of consciousness.

I agree introspection is done by using language now. But it is still 'I am aware that I am aware'. And I would guess Erectus operated that degree without many words.

xeno: (And as I pointed out earlier, even the word "consciousness" didn't exist until John Locke invented it.) This means precisely that we have a greater ability to be conscious than our ancestors.

dhw: ... Do you believe that the Romans were not as conscious as we are, that there was no introspection? Ditto with the ancient Greeks and the ancient Egyptians? How do you know that all the homos of whom we have no written record were never introspective? My point is that language may be used to enhance consciousness by expanding the range of what we are conscious of, but language itself develops from intelligence/consciousness, and can then be used as a tool with which we can help others to expand the range of their awareness - not their ability to be aware.

I’ve run out of time, and will stop here. In any case, I’m sure this is enough to set a few sparks flying!

I agree. Consciousness drives language development.

Matt: I ran out of space, but I wanted to sum up:

The most important part of Jaynes' observations here is when he treats the Iliad as an archaeological record of language and then traces the development of words like psuche which throughout the entire Iliad only carries the meaning of blood or inner organs--so that by the time of Antigone we now have the same word, psuche being used now as descriptions of inner states... that process has a history, and the practical consideration is this: if the language lacks words for describing our dynamic inner states--it's reasonable to conclude that we were incapable of reasoning about those things. You *have* to have the words to be able to effectively reason about it. All known languages exhibit this tendency away from inner thinking the further back in time we go.*

Part of the problem is that we learn words like "psyche" and "consciousness" and then take for granted that these things are relatively new and open up new avenues of exploration that didn't exist prior. We extrapolate our present backwards and assume that ancients "thought like we do" and this is false. Would we still have an inner life? Of course. But without an ability to reason about that inner life, we lose--in my opinion--that bit that makes us fully human.

Jaynes opened me up to some vast arrays of possibilities, and even if I'm not utterly convinced of his main argument, putting a section of ancient texts under the microscope like that has convinced me that language is central to the development of the kinds of rich and varied societies that we have today. Why I downgrade the intellect here is because all of that language was created by that combination of analogy and metaphor--very simple processes. Yes, eventually we reached a point where words could be invented from scratch--John Locke invented "consciousness" because English lacked a word to describe it, so he went to latin and created the word using the roots "con" (together) and "scio" (to know). I state this only to suggest that our natural instinct is always to create from what is already there.

*A criticism I myself have about this language theory of consciousness is that written records began as a way to record inventories and transactions, and because societies at that time had rich oral traditions, its entirely plausible that these ancients just didn't think to use writing to record things like inner emotional states. However, for me this is overshadowed by the simple fact that particular words we use to discuss inner states patently did not exist and that they are themselves historically contingent.

You have presented a fascinating very learned discussion. I appreciate it as educational.

xeno: But coming back to Jaynes, he details the process of metaphor building and extension that to my mind unlocks the key as to bbbhowbbb we ended up dominating the planet, which ought to be a fascinating question for most of us. It also explains why we were relatively "silent" prior to recorded history--we lacked the language that allowed us to spill into new places.

DHW: But we did spill into new places! Our non-sapiens and our sapiens ancestors’ bones are to be found all over the world, as are their artefacts. It’s not language that enables exploration and invention, though no doubt exploration and invention would have resulted in an increased vocabulary of sounds. Again, I’d say it is our intelligence that has given us domination, and our language is a tool invented by our intelligence but also enabling us to use, communicate and expand our intelligence to maximum effect.

Matt: So when I mean "spill into new places," I didn't mean geographically. I meant the mental world. An exercise that Julian Jaynes has the reader perform that is IMHO a radical exercise, is to read the OT Book of Amos, and then contrast that with the OT book of Ecclesiastes.

IIRC Amos is dated around 760BCE and Ecclesiastes is dated around 450BCE. Why that's important is that the time range is contemporaneous with various Greek classics that were also being written (Antigone was written in 441BCE) The important contrast is that by the time of Ecclesiastes, you have someone who is speaking about their own internal life using introspective words and phrases.

There's a co-evolution going on between our use of language and our ability to be conscious. Jaynes makes the point very well I think, that our ability to be conscious--entirely relies on language--which is good because it means we can *always* increase our ability to be conscious just by virtue of having a deeper vocabulary. However, the process of building language is by metaphor and analogy--ideas don't spring up on their own without it being related to some prior concept.

To try to make this point a little more concise, our intelligence and ability to be analogical isn't complete without language. Intelligence is necessary but not sufficient to explain our difference with the rest of the animal world. Our intelligence creates new connections but only on the foundation built by prior words and concepts.

Jaynes had a different goal for his book, so he didn't make this argument, but I would posit that other animals are capable of analogical thinking, the separator between us is the invention and use of language. Once we began the process of using analogy and metaphor to begin expanding our vocabularies, more and more things in the world began to enter our orbit. And in the time period that Jaynes focuses on, he maps a transition between what he calls "bicameral" thinking with what we take for granted today.

In Amos, God barks commands to the people, no inner space. In Ecclesiastes, we have a rich internal space. You might think like I did when presented with this argument--maybe there was a different audience for the texts, however ancient Greek and Sumerian historical records ALSO track an identical development of language over the exact same time periods. The further back in time, the more concrete and specific the language. Less room for a rich mental consciousness. Less room for an inner space. This ratchets between 2000BCE and the time period he covers, the beginning of the end for bicamerality occurring in the Bronze Age collapse in the 200yrs of either side of 1177BCE. The core of his argument is this: the consciousness that we take for granted today is the result of metaphorical and analogical reasoning that built the language structure that in turn created and deepened the space for that consciousness in the first place. Consciousness, defined as I have elsewhere as the ability for introspection, is different in kind between the neolithic age and today. And that consciousness is itself the sole difference us and all the other creatures. You simply cannot have what we have without language--language is what makes consciousness possible. (And as I pointed out earlier, even the word "consciousness" didn't exist until John Locke invented it.) This means precisely that we have a greater ability to be conscious than our ancestors.

If you stick to just the left-hand column at this site, you'll get very quickly the partial picture of where my head is at on this issue. The Bicamerality part of his thesis is controversial but the observations he makes stand on their own outside of his more radical ideas.

There is no question language broadens the form of consciousness we have. But my dog is conscious in a minor way. I see him head for the kitchen meal with intentionality. He must be conscious in his simple way, and he knows many words.

xeno: So when I mean "spill into new places," I didn't mean geographically. I meant the mental world.

Ah, OK, but the argument also applies to the artefacts, which were the RESULT of thought and engendered new language, and to the mental world (see below).

xeno: by the time of Ecclesiastes, you have someone who is speaking about their own internal life using introspective words and phrases. There's a co-evolution going on between our use of language and our ability to be conscious.

There is no question that language developed to cover more and more areas of our existence. Only what has expanded, in my view, is not the “ability” to be conscious but the range of things we are conscious of.

xeno: Jaynes makes the point very well I think, that our ability to be conscious--entirely relies on language--which is good because it means we can *always* increase our ability to be conscious just by virtue of having a deeper vocabulary.

I sort of agree, but this is too simplistic for me. I will use “awareness” as a synonym of consciousness in order to make my argument clearer. I see the process in phases: 1) awareness/ the “ ability to be conscious” is always present; 2) our awareness of each new experience/invention/ concept spawns new language; the language does not spawn the experience; 3) however, we use the new language to pass on the range of subjects that other humans can then be made aware of. And so language is a tool which enables consciousness to expand the range of what it is aware of – and of course this expansion was massively enhanced by the invention of writing. That’s why you have chosen books to illustrate the whole process. As time goes by, we see a complexification of vocabulary which corresponds to and results from the complexification of the thoughts arising from new experiences, discoveries etc.

xeno: Intelligence is necessary but not sufficient to explain our difference with the rest of the animal world. Our intelligence creates new connections but only on the foundation built by prior words and concepts.

Only partly agreed. The principle is the same for animals, which use their own language to meet their own needs, but because of our superior intelligence, our needs cover an almost infinitely larger range of subjects than theirs, and so our language is almost infinitely more complex. Each NEW word results from the need to give expression to the thought – it does not create the thought.

xeno: The further back in time, the more concrete and specific the language. Less room for a rich mental consciousness. Less room for an inner space.

Yes, because as time goes by, the range of experience broadens for lots of different reasons – and language is one of them, because it enables others to build on each new line of thought.

DAVID: Consciousness, defined as I have elsewhere as the ability for introspection, is different in kind between the neolithic age and today. And that consciousness is itself the sole difference us and all the other creatures. You simply cannot have what we have without language--language is what makes consciousness possible.

I don’t like this definition. Introspection is only one form of consciousness. One of the points you made earlier concerned our arrogance in our treatment of animals and other humans – a refusal to recognize that they too are conscious. Animals are conscious of pain, conscious of the past (through memory), consciously respond to anything that threatens their safety, consciously solve problems, devise strategies, cooperate with or fight against other animals. And I have no doubt that our ancestors were equally conscious of everything that concerned their survival, and perhaps had a range of gestures and grunts to cover all their requirements. Introspection, in my view, is not caused by language, but language arises from the need to express and communicate
this particular form of consciousness.

xeno: (And as I pointed out earlier, even the word "consciousness" didn't exist until John Locke invented it.) This means precisely that we have a greater ability to be conscious than our ancestors.

You pointed out that he derived it from the Latin. Do you believe that the Romans were not as conscious as we are, that there was no introspection? Ditto with the ancient Greeks and the ancient Egyptians? How do you know that all the homos of whom we have no written record were never introspective? My point is that language may be used to enhance consciousness by expanding the range of what we are conscious of, but language itself develops from intelligence/consciousness, and can then be used as a tool with which we can help others to expand the range of their awareness - not their ability to be aware.

I’ve run out of time, and will stop here. In any case, I’m sure this is enough to set a few sparks flying!

The most important part of Jaynes' observations here is when he treats the Iliad as an archaeological record of language and then traces the development of words like psuche which throughout the entire Iliad only carries the meaning of blood or inner organs--so that by the time of Antigone we now have the same word, psuche being used now as descriptions of inner states... that process has a history, and the practical consideration is this: if the language lacks words for describing our dynamic inner states--it's reasonable to conclude that we were incapable of reasoning about those things. You *have* to have the words to be able to effectively reason about it. All known languages exhibit this tendency away from inner thinking the further back in time we go.*

Part of the problem is that we learn words like "psyche" and "consciousness" and then take for granted that these things are relatively new and open up new avenues of exploration that didn't exist prior. We extrapolate our present backwards and assume that ancients "thought like we do" and this is false. Would we still have an inner life? Of course. But without an ability to reason about that inner life, we lose--in my opinion--that bit that makes us fully human.

Jaynes opened me up to some vast arrays of possibilities, and even if I'm not utterly convinced of his main argument, putting a section of ancient texts under the microscope like that has convinced me that language is central to the development of the kinds of rich and varied societies that we have today. Why I downgrade the intellect here is because all of that language was created by that combination of analogy and metaphor--very simple processes. Yes, eventually we reached a point where words could be invented from scratch--John Locke invented "consciousness" because English lacked a word to describe it, so he went to latin and created the word using the roots "con" (together) and "scio" (to know). I state this only to suggest that our natural instinct is always to create from what is already there.

*A criticism I myself have about this language theory of consciousness is that written records began as a way to record inventories and transactions, and because societies at that time had rich oral traditions, its entirely plausible that these ancients just didn't think to use writing to record things like inner emotional states. However, for me this is overshadowed by the simple fact that particular words we use to discuss inner states patently did not exist and that they are themselves historically contingent.

xeno: But coming back to Jaynes, he details the process of metaphor building and extension that to my mind unlocks the key as to bbbhowbbb we ended up dominating the planet, which ought to be a fascinating question for most of us. It also explains why we were relatively "silent" prior to recorded history--we lacked the language that allowed us to spill into new places.

DHW: But we did spill into new places! Our non-sapiens and our sapiens ancestors’ bones are to be found all over the world, as are their artefacts. It’s not language that enables exploration and invention, though no doubt exploration and invention would have resulted in an increased vocabulary of sounds. Again, I’d say it is our intelligence that has given us domination, and our language is a tool invented by our intelligence but also enabling us to use, communicate and expand our intelligence to maximum effect.

So when I mean "spill into new places," I didn't mean geographically. I meant the mental world. An exercise that Julian Jaynes has the reader perform that is IMHO a radical exercise, is to read the OT Book of Amos, and then contrast that with the OT book of Ecclesiastes.

IIRC Amos is dated around 760BCE and Ecclesiastes is dated around 450BCE. Why that's important is that the time range is contemporaneous with various Greek classics that were also being written (Antigone was written in 441BCE) The important contrast is that by the time of Ecclesiastes, you have someone who is speaking about their own internal life using introspective words and phrases.

There's a co-evolution going on between our use of language and our ability to be conscious. Jaynes makes the point very well I think, that our ability to be conscious--entirely relies on language--which is good because it means we can *always* increase our ability to be conscious just by virtue of having a deeper vocabulary. However, the process of building language is by metaphor and analogy--ideas don't spring up on their own without it being related to some prior concept.

To try to make this point a little more concise, our intelligence and ability to be analogical isn't complete without language. Intelligence is necessary but not sufficient to explain our difference with the rest of the animal world. Our intelligence creates new connections but only on the foundation built by prior words and concepts.

Jaynes had a different goal for his book, so he didn't make this argument, but I would posit that other animals are capable of analogical thinking, the separator between us is the invention and use of language. Once we began the process of using analogy and metaphor to begin expanding our vocabularies, more and more things in the world began to enter our orbit. And in the time period that Jaynes focuses on, he maps a transition between what he calls "bicameral" thinking with what we take for granted today.

In Amos, God barks commands to the people, no inner space. In Ecclesiastes, we have a rich internal space. You might think like I did when presented with this argument--maybe there was a different audience for the texts, however ancient Greek and Sumerian historical records ALSO track an identical development of language over the exact same time periods. The further back in time, the more concrete and specific the language. Less room for a rich mental consciousness. Less room for an inner space. This ratchets between 2000BCE and the time period he covers, the beginning of the end for bicamerality occurring in the Bronze Age collapse in the 200yrs of either side of 1177BCE. The core of his argument is this: the consciousness that we take for granted today is the result of metaphorical and analogical reasoning that built the language structure that in turn created and deepened the space for that consciousness in the first place. Consciousness, defined as I have elsewhere as the ability for introspection, is different in kind between the neolithic age and today. And that consciousness is itself the sole difference us and all the other creatures. You simply cannot have what we have without language--language is what makes consciousness possible. (And as I pointed out earlier, even the word "consciousness" didn't exist until John Locke invented it.) This means precisely that we have a greater ability to be conscious than our ancestors.

If you stick to just the left-hand column at this site, you'll get very quickly the partial picture of where my head is at on this issue. The Bicamerality part of his thesis is controversial but the observations he makes stand on their own outside of his more radical ideas.

dhw: Ah, dear Matt, you always provide us with fascinating new topics. Yes, this one should have a thread of its own! As usual, I’ll select those comments I think require further discussion.

xeno: The thing that makes humans special--is that we have learned to utilize language.

dhw: Different forms of life have different forms of language, and they are all utilized for the same purpose, which is communication. As far as we know, our language is only special because its range is almost immeasurably greater than the “languages” of other species. This leads to complex questions of anatomy, and cause and effect.

Anatomy: I would suggest that as humans gradually extended their experiences of the world, they needed more and more sounds to convey their increasingly complex thoughts. The effort to produce new sounds would have brought about the anatomical changes that make the new sounds possible (in the same way as pre-whale legs would have evolved into flippers, through their constant use in water instead of on land).

Cause and effect: The thing that made humans special in the first place was the expansion of our intelligence as it graduated from immediate needs (animal level) to the almost infinite range of things we can think about now. In the early days, Mr Ugg thought he needed something sharp to cut an animal skin. Only when he had made it did he name it “knife” (or “couteau” or “Messer”.) In other words, language is the result of what makes us special, not the cause, as we needed new sounds to communicate new thoughts, and eventually new structures, as our thoughts became increasingly complex. (And of course we continue to expand language in order to keep up with the novelties our intelligence provides.) However, what is also unique is the sheer range of our means of communication. Through our language and our inventions (above all, writing), we can pass on every thought/idea/concept/invention that ever existed, and later generations can build new ideas and words out of EVERYTHING that has been thought in the past and present. This has resulted in our actually thinking in words, because for instance, someone had a concept of some strange being that might have created the world, and they invented the word God. So now we think in terms of God (or Allah or Jehovah) and we take for granted what the word means.

xeno: we built up vocalizations to be the rich tapestry of language that we have today, a difference that does make us different, but I can't say different in kind exactly. Take away language and you take away humanity. And many philosophies have gone down a wrong path using that difference "in kind" to justify terrible behavior towards other species (and even our own.)

dhw: Oh, you are so right – but I don’t think this is a matter just of language. It is our range of thought, our mighty inventions, our ability to find means of controlling other species and other humans that lead to some humans’ arrogant attitude towards other forms of life.

xeno: But coming back to Jaynes, he details the process of metaphor building and extension that to my mind unlocks the key as to bbbhowbbb we ended up dominating the planet, which ought to be a fascinating question for most of us. It also explains why we were relatively "silent" prior to recorded history--we lacked the language that allowed us to spill into new places.

dhw: But we did spill into new places! Our non-sapiens and our sapiens ancestors’ bones are to be found all over the world, as are their artefacts. It’s not language that enables exploration and invention, though no doubt exploration and invention would have resulted in an increased vocabulary of sounds. Again, I’d say it is our intelligence that has given us domination, and our language is a tool invented by our intelligence but also enabling us to use, communicate and expand our intelligence to maximum effect.

Thank you for raising this subject. I’m sure you will have plenty of wise comments to make on all the above!

There must have been a time when communication was 'sign' hand gestures and proto words. That sufficed in exploring the Earth, driven by our intelligence which arrived long before language. When considering natural evolution, as dhw does, what caused such a complex brain to appear? Our ape cousins survived easily without it. Bipedalism preceded the brain and can be said to drive the brain's development, but what caused bipedalism? This is why design is so appealing. Natural development does not make sense.

xeno: The thing that makes humans special--is that we have learned to utilize language.

Different forms of life have different forms of language, and they are all utilized for the same purpose, which is communication. As far as we know, our language is only special because its range is almost immeasurably greater than the “languages” of other species. This leads to complex questions of anatomy, and cause and effect.

Anatomy: I would suggest that as humans gradually extended their experiences of the world, they needed more and more sounds to convey their increasingly complex thoughts. The effort to produce new sounds would have brought about the anatomical changes that make the new sounds possible (in the same way as pre-whale legs would have evolved into flippers, through their constant use in water instead of on land).

Cause and effect: The thing that made humans special in the first place was the expansion of our intelligence as it graduated from immediate needs (animal level) to the almost infinite range of things we can think about now. In the early days, Mr Ugg thought he needed something sharp to cut an animal skin. Only when he had made it did he name it “knife” (or “couteau” or “Messer”.) In other words, language is the result of what makes us special, not the cause, as we needed new sounds to communicate new thoughts, and eventually new structures, as our thoughts became increasingly complex. (And of course we continue to expand language in order to keep up with the novelties our intelligence provides.) However, what is also unique is the sheer range of our means of communication. Through our language and our inventions (above all, writing), we can pass on every thought/idea/concept/invention that ever existed, and later generations can build new ideas and words out of EVERYTHING that has been thought in the past and present. This has resulted in our actually thinking in words, because for instance, someone had a concept of some strange being that might have created the world, and they invented the word God. So now we think in terms of God (or Allah or Jehovah) and we take for granted what the word means.

xeno: we built up vocalizations to be the rich tapestry of language that we have today, a difference that does make us different, but I can't say different in kind exactly. Take away language and you take away humanity. And many philosophies have gone down a wrong path using that difference "in kind" to justify terrible behavior towards other species (and even our own.)

Oh, you are so right – but I don’t think this is a matter just of language. It is our range of thought, our mighty inventions, our ability to find means of controlling other species and other humans that lead to some humans’ arrogant attitude towards other forms of life.

xeno: But coming back to Jaynes, he details the process of metaphor building and extension that to my mind unlocks the key as to bbbhowbbb we ended up dominating the planet, which ought to be a fascinating question for most of us. It also explains why we were relatively "silent" prior to recorded history--we lacked the language that allowed us to spill into new places.

But we did spill into new places! Our non-sapiens and our sapiens ancestors’ bones are to be found all over the world, as are their artefacts. It’s not language that enables exploration and invention, though no doubt exploration and invention would have resulted in an increased vocabulary of sounds. Again, I’d say it is our intelligence that has given us domination, and our language is a tool invented by our intelligence but also enabling us to use, communicate and expand our intelligence to maximum effect.

Thank you for raising this subject. I’m sure you will have plenty of wise comments to make on all the above!

I misread that, thanks for the clarification!

xeno: This suggests the following:
1. Memory of past aggression
2. Enough consciousness to realize some level of individual self-control.
3. A willingness to try a non-aggressive strategy to get desired outcomes which directly implies
4. The ability to plan and adjust. You have to be able to imagine different outcomes to pick a different strategy.
What this study directly assaults is the idea that macaques are automatons that react via instinct. They think like we do, sans language. (dhw’s bold)

DHW: I agree completely. And I would extend the bolded comment to all organisms, though with the obvious proviso that our own human range of thought goes way, way, way beyond the limits of other life forms.

Matt: The thing that makes humans special--is that we have learned to utilize language. A very fascinating and controversial book was Julian Jaynes' "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind." He brought some things to light that I hadn't considered before in the process of unfolding his argument, but he focuses in deeply on the importance of metaphor and extension as the primary method by which we built up vocalizations to be the rich tapestry of language that we have today, a difference that does make us different, but I can't say different in kind exactly. Take away language and you take away humanity. And many philosophies have gone down a wrong path using that difference "in kind" to justify terrible behavior towards other species (and even our own.)

But coming back to Jaynes, he details the process of metaphor building and extension that to my mind unlocks the key as to how we ended up dominating the planet, which ought to be a fascinating question for most of us. It also explains why we were relatively "silent" prior to recorded history--we lacked the language that allowed us to spill into new places. The controversial part of his thesis is the idea that Schizophrenics represent a vestige of what "normal" humanity looked like in prehistory. In Jaynes' thesis, the explosion of language tracks with the explosion of civilization and texts like the Iliad show us vestiges of an older, more alien way that people dealt with Gods. I'm going way off topic here though, if it interests you guys I can make an official topic for it.

I have always thought that having language expanded the ability to think and develop ideas and produced what we are today. At the grunt and point level ideation had to be simple.

DAVID: that the monkeys were able to change their social behavior when forced with survival issues is not surprising. "I have to tolerate them to have shade" is a self-serving decision. It does not represent empathy.

dhw: It simply represents the fact that monkeys are intelligent enough to know what’s good for them. Of course anything that improves chances of survival is self-serving! Fundamentally, our own social systems are (or should be) based on the same principle: do whatever is good for all of us. Sadly, there are countless individuals whose basic principle is do whatever is good for me. This ties in with some of the discussions we had with xeno on Buddhism!

xeno: This study demonstrates comparatively that different species can find non-destructive solutions when it comes to resource sharing.

dhw: Actually this study deals with groups of the same species. It would be fascinating to know whether the same cooperation takes place between different species. However, this doesn’t invalidate the points you make below, since individual groups of the same animal species are just as likely to be in conflict as individual groups of humans.

xeno: This suggests the following:
1. Memory of past aggression
2. Enough consciousness to realize some level of individual self-control.
3. A willingness to try a non-aggressive strategy to get desired outcomes which directly implies
4. The ability to plan and adjust. You have to be able to imagine different outcomes to pick a different strategy.
What this study directly assaults is the idea that macaques are automatons that react via instinct. They think like we do, sans language. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: I agree completely. And I would extend the bolded comment to all organisms, though with the obvious proviso that our own human range of thought goes way, way, way beyond the limits of other life forms.

I agree.

"Our study provides rare evidence of an abrupt change in selection on sociality in the face of a large and persistent ecological disturbance. These findings show the potential of social flexibility to provide resilience to rapid and unpredictable environmental fluctuations in animals and emphasize a dynamic link between the environment and fitness consequences of social behavior."

David: Comment: that the monkeys were able to change their social behavior when forced with survival issues is not surprising. "I have to tolerate them to have shade" is a self-serving decision. It does not represent empathy.

Matt: I think this comment glances by the more critical point that there isn't an intrinsic drive to dominate and push away 'the other' There's a tendency in Darwinism (thanks to Spencer) to view species as a more concrete thing than they really are.

This study demonstrates comparatively that different species can find non-destructive solutions when it comes to resource sharing. Nowhere in the abstract is there an assertion of empathy. However, "if you won't hurt me, I won't hurt you" is in my book empathy.

If you see two species that were formerly fighting with each other and then after a catastrophic event, they get along just fine, it at minimum suggests the ability for a limited imagination even if we're going to decide that empathy is too strong a word for what's going on. Clearly, the macaques are at least able to sequester their previous behavior to permit continued survival. This suggests the following:

1. Memory of past aggression
2. Enough consciousness to realize some level of individual self-control.
3. A willingness to try a non-aggressive strategy to get desired outcomes which directly implies
4. The ability to plan and adjust. You have to be able to imagine different outcomes to pick a different strategy.

What this study directly assaults is the idea that macaques are automatons that react via instinct. They think like we do, sans language. But I mean, even Aristotle acknowledged that dogs have reason.

I agree this was a thoughtful decision.

xeno: This suggests the following:
1. Memory of past aggression
2. Enough consciousness to realize some level of individual self-control.
3. A willingness to try a non-aggressive strategy to get desired outcomes which directly implies
4. The ability to plan and adjust. You have to be able to imagine different outcomes to pick a different strategy.
What this study directly assaults is the idea that macaques are automatons that react via instinct. They think like we do, sans language. (dhw’s bold)

DHW: I agree completely. And I would extend the bolded comment to all organisms, though with the obvious proviso that our own human range of thought goes way, way, way beyond the limits of other life forms.

The thing that makes humans special--is that we have learned to utilize language. A very fascinating and controversial book was Julian Jaynes' "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind." He brought some things to light that I hadn't considered before in the process of unfolding his argument, but he focuses in deeply on the importance of metaphor and extension as the primary method by which we built up vocalizations to be the rich tapestry of language that we have today, a difference that does make us different, but I can't say different in kind exactly. Take away language and you take away humanity. And many philosophies have gone down a wrong path using that difference "in kind" to justify terrible behavior towards other species (and even our own.)

But coming back to Jaynes, he details the process of metaphor building and extension that to my mind unlocks the key as to how we ended up dominating the planet, which ought to be a fascinating question for most of us. It also explains why we were relatively "silent" prior to recorded history--we lacked the language that allowed us to spill into new places. The controversial part of his thesis is the idea that Schizophrenics represent a vestige of what "normal" humanity looked like in prehistory. In Jaynes' thesis, the explosion of language tracks with the explosion of civilization and texts like the Iliad show us vestiges of an older, more alien way that people dealt with Gods. I'm going way off topic here though, if it interests you guys I can make an official topic for it.

It simply represents the fact that monkeys are intelligent enough to know what’s good for them. Of course anything that improves chances of survival is self-serving! Fundamentally, our own social systems are (or should be) based on the same principle: do whatever is good for all of us. Sadly, there are countless individuals whose basic principle is do whatever is good for me. This ties in with some of the discussions we had with xeno on Buddhism!

xeno: This study demonstrates comparatively that different species can find non-destructive solutions when it comes to resource sharing.

Actually this study deals with groups of the same species. It would be fascinating to know whether the same cooperation takes place between different species. However, this doesn’t invalidate the points you make below, since individual groups of the same animal species are just as likely to be in conflict as individual groups of humans.

xeno: This suggests the following:
1. Memory of past aggression
2. Enough consciousness to realize some level of individual self-control.
3. A willingness to try a non-aggressive strategy to get desired outcomes which directly implies
4. The ability to plan and adjust. You have to be able to imagine different outcomes to pick a different strategy.
What this study directly assaults is the idea that macaques are automatons that react via instinct. They think like we do, sans language. (dhw’s bold)

I agree completely. And I would extend the bolded comment to all organisms, though with the obvious proviso that our own human range of thought goes way, way, way beyond the limits of other life forms.

"Our study provides rare evidence of an abrupt change in selection on sociality in the face of a large and persistent ecological disturbance. These findings show the potential of social flexibility to provide resilience to rapid and unpredictable environmental fluctuations in animals and emphasize a dynamic link between the environment and fitness consequences of social behavior."

Comment: that the monkeys were able to change their social behavior when forced with survival issues is not surprising. "I have to tolerate them to have shade" is a self-serving decision. It does not represent empathy.

I think this comment glances by the more critical point that there isn't an intrinsic drive to dominate and push away 'the other' There's a tendency in Darwinism (thanks to Spencer) to view species as a more concrete thing than they really are.

This study demonstrates comparatively that different species can find non-destructive solutions when it comes to resource sharing. Nowhere in the abstract is there an assertion of empathy. However, "if you won't hurt me, I won't hurt you" is in my book empathy.

If you see two species that were formerly fighting with each other and then after a catastrophic event, they get along just fine, it at minimum suggests the ability for a limited imagination even if we're going to decide that empathy is too strong a word for what's going on. Clearly, the macaques are at least able to sequester their previous behavior to permit continued survival. This suggests the following:

1. Memory of past aggression
2. Enough consciousness to realize some level of individual self-control.
3. A willingness to try a non-aggressive strategy to get desired outcomes which directly implies
4. The ability to plan and adjust. You have to be able to imagine different outcomes to pick a different strategy.

What this study directly assaults is the idea that macaques are automatons that react via instinct. They think like we do, sans language. But I mean, even Aristotle acknowledged that dogs have reason.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk0606?utm_source=sfmc&utm_medium=emai...

"Abstract:

Extreme weather events radically alter ecosystems. When ecological damage persists, selective pressures on individuals can change, leading to phenotypic adjustments. For group-living animals, social relationships may be a mechanism enabling adaptation to ecosystem disturbance. Yet whether such events alter selection on sociality and whether group-living animals can, as a result, adaptively change their social relationships remain untested. We leveraged 10 years of data collected on rhesus macaques before and after a category 4 hurricane caused persistent deforestation, exacerbating monkeys’ exposure to intense heat. In response, macaques demonstrated persistently increased tolerance and decreased aggression toward other monkeys, facilitating access to scarce shade critical for thermoregulation. Social tolerance predicted individual survival after the hurricane, but not before it, revealing a shift in the adaptive function of sociality."

***

"Discussion:

"We found that monkeys were persistently more tolerant of others in their vicinity and less aggressive for up to 5 years after Hurricane Maria. Relationships based on social tolerance became more numerous and predicted individual survival after the storm, especially during the hottest hours of the day. These findings support our hypothesis that the adaptive benefits of social tolerance are linked to accessing a thermoregulating resource—shade—in response to increased heat stress. Monkeys were not simply being passively “squeezed” into now-limited shaded spaces but instead showed a generalized increase in social tolerance, including outside of thermoregulatory contexts, suggesting a fundamental change in how they engaged with others. Notably, social tolerance did not predict survival before the hurricane, demonstrating that hurricane-induced drastic changes in ecological pressures altered the benefits individuals gain from social relationships. These results show that an extreme climatic event and its aftermath altered selective pressures on a social phenotype and identify ecosystem fluctuations as potential evolutionary drivers of sociality in group-living animals.

***

"Our study provides rare evidence of an abrupt change in selection on sociality in the face of a large and persistent ecological disturbance. These findings show the potential of social flexibility to provide resilience to rapid and unpredictable environmental fluctuations in animals and emphasize a dynamic link between the environment and fitness consequences of social behavior."

Comment: that the monkeys were able to change their social behavior when forced with survival issues is not surprising. "I have to tolerate them to have shade" is a self-serving decision. It does not represent empathy.

https://phys.org/news/2023-08-stealth-swimmers-fish.html

"A new study provides the first experimental evidence that the trumpetfish, Aulostomus maculatus, can conceal itself by swimming closely behind another fish while hunting—and reduce the likelihood of being detected by its prey.

"In this 'shadowing' behavior, the long, thin trumpetfish uses a non-threatening species of fish, such as parrotfish, as camouflage to get closer to its dinner.

"This is the only known example of one non-human animal using another as a form of concealment.

***

"'When a trumpetfish swims closely alongside another species of fish, it's either hidden from its' prey entirely, or seen but not recognized as a predator because the shape is different," said Dr. Sam Matchette, a researcher in the University of Cambridge's Department of Zoology and first author of the study.

***

"'The shadowing behavior of the trumpetfish appears a useful strategy to improve its hunting success. We might see this behavior becoming more common in the future as fewer structures on the reef are available for them to hide behind," said Dr. James Herbert-Read in the University of Cambridge's Department of Zoology, senior author of the study."

Comment: see the pictures to appreciate the trick. This is an instinct that probably started
when a trumpetfish tried it out. Yes, that was an intellectual perception as in Turner's studies.

https://knowablemagazine.org/article/living-world/2023/rediscovering-legacy-charles-hen...

“'Turner was one of the first, and you might say should be given the lion’s share of credit, for changing that perception,” says Charles Abramson, a comparative psychologist at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater who has done extensive biographical research on Turner...Turner also challenged the views that animals lacked the capacity for intelligent problem-solving and that they behaved based on instinct or, at best, learned associations, and that individual differences were just noisy data.

***

"In one of his early studies, Turner set out to investigate if spiders built webs through rigid instinct or if they could respond creatively to novel situations. Meadows make for fairly uniform conditions in which to build webs, he wrote in 1892. “But when the external environment becomes more heterogenous, it is interesting to note how the spiders become masters of the situation.” He meticulously described structures of 27 webs he found on windowsills, down railroad embankments, in log piles. “Was this web the result of blind instinct? I think not,” he wrote about an especially contorted web above a hole in a stone wall that effectively cornered insect prey.

"Turner coupled his observations with experiments that forced spiders to deal with awkward spatial challenges in their web-building. He collected spiders and placed them first into cylindrical bottles, where they constructed circular webs, and then moved them into boxes, where a few made rectangular ones. Finally, he destroyed parts of existing webs and found that the spiders came up with clever solutions to efficiently patch them up. All these experiments pointed to a capacity for learning, contradicting the dominant scientific narrative. Although web-weaving is instinctive, Turner concluded, “the details of construction are the products of intelligent action.” (my bold)

***

"In a series of creative experiments that involved running ants of a dozen different species through an elaborate maze, Turner concluded that the creatures weren’t guided by a homing instinct, but instead relied on a variety of cues as well as memory, all coming together as a simple form of learning. In a separate study, he placed an ant on a small island and observed that the ant attempted to build a bridge to the mainland using materials at its disposal. The ant went beyond trial-and-error learning, seeming to size up the situation and come up with a goal-directed solution — something ants were not considered capable of at the time. (my bold)

***

"Without a doubt, the barriers Turner faced in establishing and maintaining his scientific career were extremely steep and were forged by flagrant racism and by the mundane circumstances that it engendered. He found a mentor at the University of Cincinnati, where he completed undergraduate and master’s degrees in 1887 and 1892, respectively. He earned a reputation as diligent and brilliant, which likely helped him gain a position as an assistant lab instructor, something few other Black students would have been considered for. But his luck on that front ran out when he sought a faculty position at the University of Chicago after he finished his PhD in zoology there in 1907, likely the first Black scientist to do so, Abramson says. He was considered for a post, but the professor who invited him to apply died and, according to sociologist and civil rights activist W. E. B. Du Bois, his replacement refused to hire a Black scientist.

"Unable to secure the University of Chicago position, Turner became a science teacher at Sumner High School in St. Louis, the first Black high school west of the Mississippi."

Comment: Turner, as a black Ph.D. was unfortunately ignored. He clearly showed (note my bolds) that instinctual behavior with additional perception created solutions for problems.