Recent developments (Brazilian Stonehenge, 250,000 year old tools, etc) have got me thinking about mankind again. The true history of our species is overwhelmingly unwritten. The accepted chronology of events is pathetically white-washed (and by that I mean caucasian) and understandably conservative. When anthropologists and other experts in the field peg something, like the discovery of agriculture, at 8-9,000 years ago they are doing so based on the oldest verifiable data that they have. This does not preclude earlier developments in agriculture, and in fact societies have been known to acquire and subsequently lose skills and knowledge based on their needs (who among us, for instance, knows much of anything about the cotton gin or the slide rule?).
In reality my interest runs deeper than that. As much as our cultural evolution fascinates me the really interesting thing to contemplate is how we made the leap from apes to beings capable of a complex culture? How did we become so adept at manipulating extra-genetic information and become capable of handing things and ideas down to future generations and sideways to our compatriots? What occurred inside our brain that kicked the door wide open for communication? How did we go from grunts symbolizing nouns to a language consisting of completely abstract components (syllables) designed to assemble into an even more abstract language?
The answer, I think, is psychotropic drugs. Envision a creature only marginally simpler than yourself. Capable of figuring out problems, outwitting lesser animals, possibly showing affection or otherwise expressing yourself. Take away the capacity for communication as we understand it. Allow for monosyllabic grunts that mean "food" or "water" or "fire" or "club" but not "family" or "boundary" or "swim" or "faster". Not that our creature did not have an understanding of these concepts or live within their meaning, but take away any ability to reference this concept to a fellow being.
Now add mushrooms. Or ergot or mescaline or any of the hundreds of plants containing DMT. When we, sophisticated, talkative, industrious, and expressive, take these drugs we are UNIVERSALLY overwhelmed with a rush of thoughts that is unrepressable, exhilirating and enlightening. Dosing a simpler (but only just) mind with one of these chemicals (a mind that has never been altered, mind you! or even understood stimulation beyond the forest floor or the serengeti) would cause a rush no less profound and no less forceful and creative. The meagre language we've developed to explain ourselves and our environment is hardly a match for a mild dose of mushrooms. Imagine if our creature and his tribe, unable to truly communicate, had an entire evening in which to try and explain the chaos inside their heads. Would they not begin to attach the abstract to grunts, if only as a placeholder? Would they not attempt to explain how they felt, not only in that moment, but in general? Would they not begin the process of attaching names to formerly unnamable and crafting sonic symbols for that which had never been uttered?
Let me know what you think.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I would say that it is hard to formulate what a creature in that position would do with access only to common nouns. Do present day humans, on hallucinogens, create language for their experience as well? But this isn't the same, as we have many adjectives, verbs, adverbs, etc, so we can mix and combine these in much more accurate descriptions.
There have been studies on the children of apes we have taught rudimentary recognition and production of language, and the children have a much more advanced vocabulary than their parent.
http://www2.gsu.edu/%7Ewwwlrc/biographies/kanzi.html
It may just evolve naturally with need, but psychotropic chemicals may have had a part to play too, especially with shamanistic and other religio-magickal rites.
It does seem that primates are indeed "hard-wired" for language. I think this study as well as the well-known case of Koko indicates this. I should have probably gone more in-depth. However, I still tend to think that despite some latent characteristic in the brain it was in fact a hallucinogenic experience that provided the "need". It didn't alter the brain (certainly not in an inheritable, genetic way. That would be blatantly incorrect Lamarckism) However, when we look to the leap from language capability to the roots of constructing a language we move from biological evolution to memetic/cultural evolution. In this type of evolution (while it obeys the mathematics of biological evolution), as it occurs within the extragenetic information (in this case the language), "progress" can be affected by environment and the actions of individuals. Traits that become part of the human experience are handed down verbally or in writing to generations to come.
So the thesis, I guess, is not that "mushrooms mutated our brains" but rather "the ______ experience unleashed our abilities". And noting the impact on creativity and abstract thought, I think this is more than reasonable.
Anyway, thanks for the comment.
I agree with you, natural evolution gave humans the tools, and hallucinogens are a more than possible impetus for the design and structure of new apects of language.
It's very difficult to draw a lot of conclusions about culture and language such as humans have created, as it seems to be unique to us alone. Not that other species don't have simple cultural activities,and maybe even languages (such as dolphins, whales, certain primates, etc), but human culture is so advanced now compared to these other examples (at least in our egocentric opinion).
But yes, I think we can come to the logical conclusion that naturally occuring drugs had more than a small role in pushing humans to develop abstract ideas, and the language to communicate them.
Two things I think should be mentioned here: a) drugs 10,000 years ago consisted of much milder things like marijuana that was not hydroponically grown, and some hallucinogens. There was no true heroin, cocaine (besides the coca leaf), no crack, methamphetamine, LSD (ergot, but not LSD-25), etc., b) much drug use was ritualized, so was used by priests, shamans, etc., or was used by lay people during spiritual undertakings like spirit quests, etc.
Maybe the reason we have such large problems with drugs today is that a) newer drugs are much worse for you than the naturally occuring, non-artificially concentrated drugs, and b) the respect that drugs were used with has vanished in the recent past.
I'm not sure I entirely buy the whole drug induced evolution theory. Granted, I completely understand why the idea seems appealing, but I can't yet work it back to genes. One organism's revelation will not be passed on to its offspring. The activation of some latent ability is interesting, but why would such ability exist before the language? When trying to boil this all down to an evolutionary mechanism, it becomes clear that our understanding of the brain and cognizance in general remains pretty meager. We are not yet in a position to say what biological elements must be in place to grant access to a particular mental concept. Also, this drug theory would hinge on the claim that the only difference between ape brains and man brains is that one has been activated and is continually reactivated by recorded culture, and the other remains dormant. However, it is quite clear that ape brains and man brains have very real physical differences. More so, I would say, than could be expected to evolve over the forty some thousand years since man achieved his current form.
I did make a comment concerning my concern that the original post suggested Lamarckism. This is a tricky subject, but I still think the concept is sound. Man's brains and ape's brains ARE different and yet primates still show a tremendous capacity for language (far above just about any other animal). And yet they are not known to verbalize in very sophisticated ways in nature. What I'm suggesting is that psychotropic drugs allowed activation of latent traits ( very much like apes are currently activated by sign language) in individuals who were then able to spark the cultural phenomenon of sophisticated verbal language via the accelerated insight of the drug. Once spawned, the language itself would provide the stimulus for later generations. Likewise, in a society that is gradually developing language those with higher proclivity for speaking (and eventually writing) would be selected (causing a change in environment modifies the process of natural selection). I guess, as to your question of why a latent trait would develop in the first place, we have to try and understand why it occurs in apes. Another thing to consider is the relative flexibility of function within the physical structure of the brain. It, I believe, has been documented that certain disabilities such as blindness lead to stronger characteristics in other parts of the brain. Just as well, perhaps the brain function that makes up the groundwork for language is also key in things that are only tenuously related such as sympathy, love, anger etc.
Whatever the case, I think it's of supreme interest. And I don't think science has come up with a satisfying answer to the questions of The Great Leap (and yes I'm aware of the misleading nature of that name).
Thanks for keeping me on my toes
Post a Comment