Thank you for reading! :) Well this is not something that I necessarily assert - it is more my attempting to describe Logan's theory of the Extended Mind Model. As a primatologist that has spent considerable time researching the cultural abilities of chimpanzees, I can definitely confirm that chimpanzees can understand symbols. But they lack a certain hierarchical levelling with their symbolic construction. They do not generative a grammar with these symbols and express ideas about themselves and their environment, they simply make demands. I think it is quite unclear if other organisms actually think conceptually. I would lean to the side that they do not. From the study you linked about elephants have a call for humans - I'm not quite sure how that is an example of conceptual thinking. That is a one-to-one perceptual reaction from previous negative interactions. If they then flexibly used these sounds to discuss the nature of humans when we weren't around - then you would be into conceptual thinking IMO. Haha yes, quite true. The same likely happened in four independent regions for the development of writing as well! I certainly think post-language is something that could emerge this century. I've kind of touched on this before on Hubski. I hear ya, brother. Let's hope Venter's project is a massive success!Nice little write up, thank you. :)
My only beef is with your statement that humans are exclusively concept-based thinkers.
I vaguely recall hearing someone's musings, I think it was Terence McKenna (sorry everyone!!), who theorized that language arose out of a frustration exactly like what's mentioned in your write up. Complex social situations existed, but there was no protocol for communicating them. This frustration probably drove our ancestors crazy, and necessitated the need for language.
It will be interesting to see whether or not the shortcomings of language will play into the next, even more complex, more efficient protocol of communications
I really dig the future, I just hate getting older.
I dunno... is there a definite line in the sand? We've all heard various different interpretations of what "conceptual thinking" entails, but to me (again, subjective), it seems like having a unique identifying sound that relays an exact meaning to fellow elephants constitutes a concept. Discussing the nature of humans is a much higher level of conceptualization, I would argue. Interesting thoughts. Check out Princeton's project. Personally, I think it's bunk, but I wish SO badly that the noosphere was real. Eternal life scares me about as much as dying. I'm not so sure we're meant to live forever... call it a gut feeling. Then there's the question of Earth's limited resources. But damn, my survival instinct is just as deeply ingrained as the rest of us. Cheers. :)From the study you linked about elephants have a call for humans - I'm not quite sure how that is an example of conceptual thinking. That is a one-to-one perceptual reaction from previous negative interactions. If they then flexibly used these sounds to discuss the nature of humans when we weren't around - then you would be into conceptual thinking IMO.
I certainly think post-language is something that could emerge this century. I've kind of touched on this before on Hubski.
I hear ya, brother. Let's hope Venter's project is a massive success!