Files
memex/0_inbox/in/books/TWOW/html/64 The origin of the reflective level of neurological organization.html
2026-03-15 14:37:05 -04:00

509 lines
36 KiB
HTML
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<title> </title>
<meta name="generator" content="LibreOffice 4.2.8.2 (Linux)">
<meta name="author" content="Amr Gharbeia">
<meta name="created" content="20010831;0">
<meta name="changed" content="20150722;225055728296647">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin-left: 2cm; margin-right: 1.2cm; margin-top: 1.2cm; margin-bottom: 1.25cm }
p { text-indent: 1.27cm; margin-bottom: 0.25cm; direction: ltr; color: #99ccff; line-height: 120%; text-align: left; widows: 2; orphans: 2 }
p.western { font-family: "Arial", sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; so-language: en-US }
p.cjk { font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt }
p.ctl { font-family: "Simplified Arabic"; font-size: 10pt; so-language: ar-EG }
p.sdendnote-western { margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; text-indent: -0.6cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; color: #000000; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; so-language: en-US; line-height: 150%; widows: 0; orphans: 0 }
p.sdendnote-cjk { margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; text-indent: -0.6cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; color: #000000; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 150%; widows: 0; orphans: 0 }
p.sdendnote-ctl { margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; text-indent: -0.6cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; color: #000000; font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; so-language: ar-SA; line-height: 150%; widows: 0; orphans: 0 }
a.sdendnoteanc { font-size: 57% }
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang="en-GB" text="#99ccff" dir="ltr" style="background: transparent">
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><font face="Verdana, sans-serif">T<img src="" name="TtsOtkCRS09_08" align="right" hspace="5" width="175" height="20" border="0">he
origin of the reflective level of neurological organization. </font>The
only reason to doubt that the reflective state of evolution is
inevitable have to do with its origin, that is, how a simple and weak
form of rational imagination tried out as a random variation on
linguistic brains could make reflective brains powerful enough to
control some new condition for which they would be natural selected. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">There
was, however, an original function for the reflective level of
neurological organization. It comes from a uniquely demanding form of
natural selection that primitive spiritual animals eventually imposed
on themselves. They waged war on one another. The advent of war meant
spiritual animals had to make a new kind of choice between
incompatible kinds of behavior. That choice could not be made very
reliably with naturalistic imagination. But it could be made much
more reliably with rational imagination, even if it were not very
reliable and occurred only in the leader of the group. Thus, since
the capacity to use psychological sentences was a possible random
variation on linguistic brains, it was tried out, and it was quickly
selected for controlling an urgent new condition affecting their
reproduction. That began a stage of evolution that made the members
reflective subjects and eventually gave them the enormous power of
reason. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><font face="Verdana, sans-serif">The
advent of war. </font>Since the use of natural sentences originally
evolved to coordinate individual behavior mainly in hunting animals,
it is not surprising that primitive spiritual animals would
eventually use it to control the outcome of their interactions with
other groups of non-linguistic hominids. The new sources of free
energy opened up by the use of natural sentences would eventually be
exhausted, because there is only a finite amount of free energy they
can use in any region and their reproduction would multiply the
number of spiritual animals consuming it. Like all reproducing
organisms, spiritual animals would eventually impose natural
selection on themselves. But spiritual animals had a new way of
overcoming scarcity. They could turn their hunting skills on nomadic
bands of hominids, either simply killing them so that they could take
over the supply of usable energy in the territory or, perhaps, even
preying on them, that is, consuming them for the energy such living
organisms contain.</font></font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">The
use of language was the origin of war, because such behavior could
not evolve before the use of natural sentences. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">War could
not be tried out as a random variation by their biological behavior
guidance systems. Membership in hominid societies was, like other
animal societies, rather fluid. Some exchange of members was normal,
if only as an adaptation of the instinct of young primates to mate
outside the group in which they are born. When necessary, nomadic
hominid bands could accept new members, combine with one other to
form new groups, or redistribute members, and fights between single
hominids (or between leaders of coalitions) would determine a
dominance hierarchy within any animal society. Thus, when resources
were scarce and nomadic bands of hominids encountered one another,
there might have been fights among individuals, or even among
coalitions, but no group would systematically kill off all the
members of the other group. Dominance battles do not usually end in
death, and since social level behavior was still instinctive, the
evolution of violent behavior toward all the members of another group
would require the same random variation to occur simultaneously in
nearly all the members of some group. Only if they all happened to
have the new desire to kill all the members of another group (or to
follow their leader in doing so), this social level trait would never
be tried out and, thus, never selected. Such a combination of random
variations is so unlikely as to be impossible, especially if hominids
had the normal inhibition about using other members of their own (or
kindred) species as a source of free energy. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">No such
improbable random variation is required, however, to explain how
spiritual animals could behave in such a violent way toward groups of
non-linguistic hominids. No changes in their desires would be
necessary, because the desire to submit to their leader inclined
every member to do his part in the group plan pronounced by the
leader. Since the use of a primitive language would enable them all
to see how their joint behavior would work together in bringing about
a goal they all desired, they could act with the same intention. They
had practice in the use of language to coordinate violent behavior
from hunting other kinds of animals. They may have felt some
reluctance to take such actions against a kindred species, but it
could be overcome, at least in times of scarcity, by their
disposition to submit to a leader and cooperate in social level
behavior, especially if they were starving and the desire for food
was intense. Even if they could not bring themselves to eat hominid
bodies, they would be motivated by seeing how a plan of attack that
killed all the members of the other group would give them access to
what food there was in the region. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">The
use of natural sentences, therefore, made war against groups of
hominids inevitable. Though war derived from hunting, it was
basically different, because members of hominid bands were disposed
to protect one another. They would fight back as best they could,
when they had no other option (because as we have seen, individuals
on their own were still usually doomed by predatory beasts, such as
lions and packs of wolves). But even with the use of tools to fight
back, hominids were no match for spiritual animals. They had no
defense against attack by a spiritual animal that could adapt the
spatial aspects of its social level animal behavior to spatial
aspects of the situation in imagination prior to acting. Hominids
could be surprised and trapped by the spiritual animals capacity
to impose a geometrical structure on the motion and interaction of
objects in space. (After all, warfare is just a special case of
controlling the thermo&shy;dynamic flow of free energy toward evenly
distributed heat in the region). Nomadic hominids may sometimes have
chosen to run away from their attackers, but even if they survived
predation by other animals, that still deprived them of access to the
food available by hunting in the region. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The new
behavior of spiritual animals was not merely ritualized fighting of
the kind that evolves within a species to divide up limited sources
of energy in a region. They killed all the members of other hominid
groups in order to take over their territory. It was inevitable, when
their own reproduction made resources scarce, because war was a new
way of controlling this most basic condition affecting their
reproduction and it was possible for them. In the end, therefore,
their new means of acquiring energy meant the extinction of
non-linguistic hominids.</font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">This
kind of behavior was not long reserved, however, for use against mere
hominid societies. Adapting to warfare gave linguistic animals
aggressive desires, like anger and hatred, that made it easy for them
to kill animals like themselves. Thus, once all the non-linguistic
hominid societies in their region had been wiped out, spiritual
animals had enough experience with violence against other groups
that, when their own continuing population growth once again made
resources scarce enough, some spiritual animals, at least, would try
the same means against other spiritual animals. It may eventually
have involved yet further changes in the desires they felt towards
other members of their own species. But it would not require all the
members to try out simultaneously the same random variation, because
a leader with a suitable random variation could motivate his
followers. Since war again other spiritual animals was a possible
means of controlling a relevant condition, reproductive causation
inevitably made it actual. That is simply how reproductive cycles of
spiritual animals add up in space over time. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">War against
other spiritual animals was not just predation, for it would usually
result in death for all the members of the other group (except
possibly some women who were kept alive for other purposes). That was
the only safe way for spiritual animals to protect themselves from
members of other spiritual animals who were accustomed to cooperating
in violent behavior. But there is no reason to rule out cannibalism
(if that term applies in this case), because eating the victims of
their killing was a possible source of food. Predation was not,
however, the original function of war even against non-linguistic
hominids. War supplied much more food all at once than could be
consumed, and the risks of battle made it more costly than hunting
other animals. Furthermore, spiritual animals would have engaged in
war, even if they did not eat their victims, since it had the effect
of removing competitors for the energy available in the region. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><font face="Verdana, sans-serif">The
need for a better behavior guidance system. </font>Though war was
inevitable, it was a fateful juncture in evolution. It changed
radically the world in which spiritual animals lived. The environment
posed a new kind of danger for spiritual animals, and they had to
make a new kind of choice between fundamentally different kinds of
behavior. Every time they encountered a society of language-using
animals like themselves, spiritual animals were forced to choose
between war and peace. It was a crucial decision, for if they chose
to be friendly toward a group that was planning to kill them, they
could all die. But if they chose to war against a society that was
willing to be peaceful, they would suffer the losses that such
activities involve. Even if they won, the costs would be unnecessary,
if resources were not scarce. They could, of course, choose to move
out of the way, but that alternative would often mean going without
food as others took over the territory from which they had expected
to acquire energy. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">It
was as important for spiritual animals to be able to make this choice
correctly as it was for the first animals to choose correctly between
ingesting other objects or not — or for the first living organisms
to choose between periods of growth and reproduction. In all three
cases, choosing between the incompatible alternatives was required
for the very existence of organisms of their kind. A wrong choice
could mean the end of their reproductive cycles. In short, spiritual
animals <i>needed </i>a behavior guidance system in the same sense
that living organisms needed a biological behavior guidance system
and heterotrophs needed an animal behavior guidance system. Spiritual
animals already had a behavior guidance system for their social level
animal (and biological) behavior. It was the use of a primitive
language, and we have seen how it is a unique spiritual structural
cause of their social level behavior. Since the animal behavior
guidance system primitive spiritual animals already had was
inevitably the locus of further evolution changes, it would take on
the new behavior guiding function of making choices about war and
peace. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">What makes
this possible, as we shall see, is a higher level of part-whole
complexity in the linguistic representations (due to a higher level
of neurological organization) that were used to coordinate the
members behavior to act on other objects as a whole. That gave them
the capacity for reflection, and since that is the mechanism of
reason, reason might be called a new kind of behavior guidance
system, with the function of making choices about war and peace. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">But reason
takes over the function of guiding the animal and biological behavior
of spiritual animals, and thus, it is basically the same behavior
guidance system that make spiritual animals possible in the first
place. And since the higher level of neurological organization occurs
within the spiritual animals behavior guidance system, the
evolution of reason is more like the evolution of higher levels of
neurological organization in the subjective and manipulative animal
behavior guidance systems. In both cases, is a substantial increase
in the power of the animal behavior guidance system. Thus, choices
about war and peace will be treated as just a new kind of choice that
is made by the spiritual animals behavior guidance system, much as
it also found itself making biological choices, about growth and
reproduction, for the beginning. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">To
be sure, it would not always have been difficult to make the right
choice. There was no need to think twice about any remaining
nonlinguistic hominids they may have encountered when resources
became scarce. And as long as there were plenty of resources,
spiritual animals could live at peace with one another — perhaps,
under favorable conditions, for many generations of population
growth. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">Moreover,
some other societies, at least, could be assumed to be friendly, for
they were closely related biologically. Nomadic bands had to divide
when their populations became too large to gather enough energy by
wandering around, and individuals from such groups would recognize
one another. Sometimes they would have strong attachments, which
would lead them to treat members of other groups like members of
their own group. And mating would give them a motive to maintain
friendly relations with at least some other groups. They had
inherited the primate instinct of mating outside the group, and it
would continue to be naturally selected because of the advantages of
avoiding inbreeding. However, since animal predators made it
dangerous for solitary animals to travel alone, mating would take the
form of exchanges of members between friendly groups that encountered
one another.</font></font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">There
were, however, other spiritual animals around that would wage war on
them. Thus, when they came upon other members of their own species,
spiritual animals would inevitably make a distinction between <i>Us
</i>and <i>Them</i>. It marked a fundamentally different attitude
toward members of other groups, for those who were one of <i>Us</i>
would be of the same “tribe” and would be treated in a friendly
way, like other members of their own group. But members of nomadic
bands from other tribes would be treated like groups that were (or
might be) at war with them. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Furthermore,
war was an extremely strong form of group level natural selection,
which would adapt individuals more basically to membership in
spiritual animals. War was dramatically different from the group
level natural selection imposed on nomadic bands of hominids, for
that was imposed by the habitat that primates invaded. Hominids had
to travel in groups in order to protect themselves from the great
predatory animals of the grasslands. Though hominid bands eventually
imposed natural selection on themselves by the scarcity caused by
their own population growth, group selection was not very strong,
because not all their members died when times were hard. Survivors
could join other groups or form new groups, as many other social
animals do. With the advent of war, however, it was more common that
all the members of a society would die at once. And even if some
members were not killed, it would not be easy for language using
subjects to move from group to group, at least, not when they used
different languages.</font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">The advent
of war would, therefore, cause changes in the desires of the language
using primates who adapted to it. They would evolve a pair of strong,
but opposite desires, mirroring the choice forced on them by their
spiritual nature. One would make them protective of members of their
own group and members of others whom they recognized as one of <i>Us</i>,
whereas the other desire would make them capable of aggression toward
members of groups who were one of <i>Them. </i>One desire would draw
them together, and the other would put them at odds with one another,
making them suspicious and capable of brutality. Both desires would
be strengthened by group level selection, since groups that lacked
either desire would tend to be wiped out by losing in war. Thus,
linguistic animals evolved desires that made them capable of both
kinds of behavior involved in the choice of their spiritual nature
forced to make.<sup><a class="sdendnoteanc" name="sdendnote1anc" href="#sdendnote1sym"><sup>i</sup></a></sup></font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">With
strong desires to behave in opposite ways toward other groups, a
choice between them had to be made every time one spiritual animal
encountered another. Most of the time, there were at least some other
groups around they recognized as members of their own tribe. And in
peaceful regions, for example, where sources of energy had been
divided up into territories, there was probably some warning of the
arrival of bands of language-using primates who would wage war
against them, so that they could be on the look out and prepared to
fight. Between these extremes, however, the input for the choice they
had to make was limited and unreliable. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">Some
distantly related spiritual animals might be given the benefit of the
doubt because of their language. Language would be the main criterion
for tribal membership among primitive spiritual animals, since the
sounds, vocabulary, and surface grammars used by a language are
conventional. And spiritual animals from the same tribe would
normally be treated as one of <i>Us.</i> </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">However,
spiritual animals from other tribes would be fair game — and, by
the same token, quite dangerous. The more remote the relationship,
the greater the danger, for it would be difficult to tell whether
another group was of the same tribe. Even nomadic bands from the same
tribe could be dangerous in special circumstances, such as times of
extreme scarcity or when a string of easy victories made a group feel
invincible. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">And
there would be spiritual animals about which they could not be sure.
Some spiritual animals might happen on the trick of speaking the
language of nomadic bands in the territory so that they would be
treated as members of the same tribe and recognized it as a means to
victory at war. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">The
behavior guidance system of spiritual animals had, therefore, to take
on a new behavior guiding function. Spiritual animals had to choose
between war and peace. That choice was forced on them by their own
means of acquiring energy. It was a fateful decision, because
choosing either war or peace in the wrong situation was a costly
mistake. But in primitive spiritual animals, the choice was made in
an animal-like way, by the relative strength of opposite desires, on
the basis of whatever cues had evolved or been learned as triggers
for those desires. Even when there was time for a leader to hear what
everyone had to say, this behavior guidance system was liable to
disastrous errors. They needed a more reliable way of making the
basic choice entailed by their spiritual nature.</font></font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 1.27cm; margin-right: 2.54cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt"><font face="Verdana, sans-serif">The
nature of reflection. </font>As linguistic animals, however, the need
for a better way of choosing about war and peace could be met by a
mechanism that enabled spiritual animals to “see into the minds”
of other spiritual animals. Which kind of behavior would control the
condition affecting their reproduction in the situation depended on
the plans of the other spiritual animal. If the other spiritual
animal was intending to wage war to control the territory and its
resources, it would be necessary to fight or get out of its way. The
worst mistake would be to take the other spiritual animal to be
friendly when it is planning war. On the other hand, if the other
spiritual animal had peaceful intentions, it would be better,
considering the costs, to avoid war, although fighting might still be
chosen in order to protect or gain territory from which to gather
energy. In any case, to make the correct choice more reliably, it
would have to be able to peer into the mind of the other spiritual
animal and see the plans behind their behavior.</font></font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">All
any spiritual animal had to go on, however, was the observable
behavior of the other spiritual animal. The animal system of
representation had been shaped over eons to be maximally powerful in
detecting physical aspects of objects. That would make them aware of
the bodies making up the other spiritual animal, of their behavior
and motion in space, but it would not always reveal what they needed
to know about the other spiritual animals plans. To be sure,
observation would sometimes make the choice obvious, for example,
when they saw victims of a newly arrived group whom they recognized
as belonging to their own tribe. Or when they were already under
attack by the other group. But what members of the other group said,
especially if said <i>to </i>them, would not necessarily be a
trustworthy guide to the intentions causing their behavior. It might
be disastrous, since the advantages of deception could be discovered
by trial and error. But often they would not even be able to
understand the others language.</font></font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">It
was nevertheless possible, in principle, to discover the other
spiritual animals intentions from their behavior, for there is a
regularity about social level behavior generated according to a plan
of group action. What members of the other group do at one moment is
part of a geometrical structure in time and space, and part of it is
how they will behave in the future and how they would behave in
certain situations. That is, after all, how social level animal
behavior structures the thermo&shy;dynamic flow of free energy toward
increasing entropy to make things happen that would not otherwise
happen. </font></font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">If it were
up to their naturalistic imagination by itself, the spatio-temporal
geometrical structure about their behavior might be too complex or
too subtle to be recognized. But this challenge could be answered.
There was a way for them to recognize the pattern, because such
behavior is guided by the same kind of structural cause as their own.
By identifying the causes behind the other spiritual animals
behavior, they could anticipate the parts of the spatio-temporal
structure yet to come. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">The
mechanism responsible for this remarkable insight is basically the
ability to use a language with psychological sentences, as well as
natural sentences. We have seen how this higher level of neurological
organization gives the linguistic brain a new form of imagination,
rational imagination, by which they can think about psychological
states and understand how they cause behavior (and beliefs).
“Reflection” is an appropriate name for a mechanism that enables
animals to use their own behavior guiding processes to simulate the
behavior guiding processes going on in others.</font></font></font></p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Rational
imagination can be used to explain or predict the behavior of
subjects in any situation. Several psychological images may have to
be predicated of the subject to represent all his relevant beliefs
about the situation he is in and the various desires (or longer range
intentions) that are at work in him, but they can all be held
together as parts of the psychological image that is being predicated
of a subject in the (perceived or imagined) local scene. They are all
imposed at once as a temporary modification on ones own worldview
and goals, as if one were in the others situation. The changes
that occur in ones beliefs or intentions are the predictions one
makes about the other subject, given those premises. The conclusions
may be just inferences about what the subject would come to believe.
But when it leads to new intentions, it is a prediction of the
subjects behavior. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 3.81cm; margin-right: 2.03cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">To serve
the function required by spiritual animals, however, rational
imagination would have to take a somewhat different form. As
suggested at the beginning, what is known is the overt behavior of
the members of the other spiritual animal. Along with common
background beliefs, they are assumed to have whatever additional,
relevant beliefs that come from where they are located in the
territory. In order to predict their future behavior, it is necessary
to work backwards to their common intention by comparing possible
sets of desires and beliefs and the intentions to which they would
lead, for it is basically an inference to the best explanation of
what is known. Thus, rational imagination would enable reflective
subject to tell more reliably what they should do about war and
peace. </font></font>
</p>
<p lang="en-US" class="western" align="left" style="margin-left: 2.54cm; margin-right: 1.27cm; margin-top: 0.49cm; margin-bottom: 0.49cm; line-height: 100%; widows: 0; orphans: 0">
<font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><font size="3" style="font-size: 12pt">Since
being able to see into the minds of other spiritual animals would
serve the urgent function of making correct decisions about war and
peace more reliably, it would help control the condition that affects
their reproduction so dramatically. Thus, the revolutionary change
that begins the reflective stage of evolution is inevitable. </font></font></font>
</p>
<div id="sdendnote1">
<p lang="en-US" class="sdendnote-western" style="margin-top: 0cm; margin-bottom: 0.25cm">
<a class="sdendnotesym" name="sdendnote1sym" href="#sdendnote1anc">i</a>
Such incompatible desires towards objects of basically the same kind
required special mechanisms to avoid the enormous harm caused by
attaching them to the wrong ob&shy;jects. This may have been the
stage at which the ability to cry evolved, particularly in women and
children, for it could be a mechanism for suppressing the violent
dispositions of males disposed toward violence. Their mates and
offspring were otherwise helpless in the face of male anger.
</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>