The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
In other species, individuals learn, but their knowledge disappears when they die. So each generation has to start from scratch.
A few animals have very limited shared memory.
Only humans externalise memory in physical form, so learning and culture don't just persist across generations, but become cumulatively detailed and increasingly widespread and accessible.
Tool use isn't that unusual. A few animals can share tool strategies. Only humans can share tool strategies in a way that persists long after the original inventors died.
Case 2: in chimps, tool use and learning most effective between age 3-5. A 16 year long longitudinal study.
Case 3: Archeologists find remnants of continued tool use on the same site for 4300 years.
I can learn how to do integration by reading Wikipedia or buying a book. The point is not that I'm learning from other individuals, but that the knowledge persists and exists externally and independently.
I can learn to play the blues by listening to recordings made by someone who died a long time ago. You're going to have a hard time convincing me there's any evidence of similar transmission in animals.
Tool use is not the point here.
Anyway: a knowledge exists in the brain of an individual (who has learned it). If this individual, chimp or human, do not teach it, then it is lost. Otherwise it is transmitted. Chances are that the second individual will be young (study about learning age 3-5 for chimps), so will survive its teacher: if he becomes a teacher in his time, then the knowledge has been transmitted to the next generation.
Does knowledge exists independently from a living mind? This is a philosophical question I do not have an answer to.
That's the third paper, talking about continuous transmission attested by archeological evidence during a period of time.
If you're restraining your though to transmission through a media like writing, recording and so on, then what about human oral cultures or pre-historical ones?
I feel the limit is much more tenuous and that it may be impossible to find something other than a difference in degree (of intelligence, communication, culture...) between species that are akin to ours.
personal memory -> shared herd memory -> external persistent shared memory -> abstracted external shared memory.
Each is a superclass of the previous one, and the differentiator - as I said - is that once memory is externalised, face to face transmission is no longer required, and it also becomes possible to symbolically abstract, summarise, model and share experience without having to living it personally.
That's a difference in kind, not a difference in degree. It took humans a long time to invent it, but once it was invented it made a lot of other things possible, including brain tools like computers, which not only store information outside of individual experience, but can leverage innate intelligence in novel ways.
Specifically, I'm thinking of the theory that European post-WWII Social Democracy is a consequence of two world wars in 30 years decimating the male minitaristic elite. But the effect of that did not survive the coming of age (1980s) of the generation born after WWII (1950s), because they could learn toxic culture from the "classic" writings of dead people. A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
Nobody could read hieroglyphs or Sumerian cuneiforms either. But the knowledge they embody was still there all the time, just waiting to be decoded. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
I don't really think oral skills had much to do with decoding hieroglyphs or cuneiforms. Archaeological evidence, and other writings, of various ages, were what permitted it.
I postulate that encoded knowledge is objective and intemporal (but, obviously, contextual in its interpretation) It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
We were able to use the other writings because we knew how to read their descendants. Reading is a skill we pass on orally.
Reading and writing are enhanced language skills that can be learned after that. Humans are capable of teaching themselves to read (with difficulty, but it can be done - just as most people can learn the basics of most languages, given tapes and books.)
The point isn't that language exists, but that enhanced skills allow information to persist and accumulate outside of human brains, and to be transmitted without personal contact.
And it's not just writing. Some of the most popular language courses are spoken-word. They're recorded and replayed to order.
Again, the key difference is that they continue to exist independent of direct personal contact. Just like iPad games for kids that teach them word basics when their parents aren't around.
Just saying.
We're really bad at flying by flapping our forelimbs around, which is something else entirely.
by Oui - Feb 4 9 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 2 8 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 26 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 31 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 22 3 comments
by Cat - Jan 25 61 comments
by Oui - Jan 9 21 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 13 28 comments
by Oui - Feb 49 comments
by Oui - Feb 311 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Feb 28 comments
by Oui - Feb 263 comments
by Oui - Feb 16 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 313 comments
by gmoke - Jan 29
by Oui - Jan 2732 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 263 comments
by Cat - Jan 2561 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 223 comments
by Oui - Jan 2110 comments
by Oui - Jan 21
by Oui - Jan 20
by gmoke - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 1841 comments
by Oui - Jan 1591 comments
by Oui - Jan 145 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1328 comments
by Oui - Jan 1221 comments