Jorun is a "psychotechnician" (p. 197) and, like the earlier Coordinators, is directed by an "Integrator." (ibid.)
He thinks about Kormt living and dying alone, then asks:
"...was that solitude any greater than the one in which all men dwelt all their days?" (p. 206)
We know solitude but also society. Indeed, without the latter, we would not exist as self-conscious individuals. And we can forget ourselves completely when engaged in social interactions.
Isaac Asimov's Second Foundation tells us that no one had known his fellow human beings before the psychohistorian, Hari Seldon, and refers to the harmful consequences of "...that ultimate isolation..." But, if Asimov's psychohistorians can do it, then surely the psychotechnicians of Anderson's Galactic Civilization have transcended their inner isolation?
(Having made that claim about his psychohistorians, Asimov then shows them engaged in petty power politics but only because he as an author cannot conceive of a higher psychological state - and also does not keep his account consistent.)
23 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I have to disagree, before we can have any kind of society, humans will first need to be conscious and self aware.
And here, for once, Asimov was more likely to be correct! I fully expect so call psychotechnicians to be as entangled in petty politics as the "psychohistorians." I don't share the hope or optimism you have about human beings transcending their innate flaws.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Without linguistic interactions, we would have animal sensory consciousness but not reflective self-consciousness.
Leaving my optimism to one side for the moment, Asimov states that his psychohistorians have ended their inner isolation.
Back to my optimism, I have enough experience of meditation to see that it points towards self-transcendence.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I would still argue that the ABILITY to have linguistic interactions and hence "reflective self-consciousness" came before any kind of human society was possible.
And I can't help but believe that any attempts at mere "self transcendence" will be ultimately a "Blind Alley" (to be Asimovian!).
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Obviously the potential for language preceded language but language itself could only be activated by social interactions and by communication that began as nonverbal. Without language, we can only think about immediate sense impressions. We cannot have any concept of ourselves as individuals with personal histories and biographies. A dog can believe that its master is at the door but it cannot believe that he will return a week next Thursday because it lacks the language for that. Any proposition with a past or future tense needs abstract symbols, language.
Christians and others pray and meditate. Some of them reach levels of consciousness that transcend familiar mental states.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But I think that favors more my argument than yours. That is, the ability or potential for language preceded social interactions.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course the possibility of language had to be present, as it is not in a horse. But a hominid whose brain is capable of language but who is not yet engaged in any language is not yet a self-conscious individual.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I am not so absolutely sure of that! An example I've thought of from Anderson's works touching on such things being "The Little Monster."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But a being without language has no way of expressing past or future tenses.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But somehow, at some time in the remote past, there was a hominid or hominin who did achieve that.
Ad astra! Sean
He achieved that by using language - by activating his linguistic potential.
(I thought that the hominids in "The Little Monster" did use language.)
Kaor, Paul!
I would need to reread "The Little Monster," but I don't recall the hominids of that story SPEAKING language aloud. We get the interior thoughts, instead, of the chief of that band of hominids. The one who often prayed to "Old Father."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But, without words, he would not be able to have interior thoughts applying concepts like "Old" or "Father." And we get words only by conversing with each other, not by uttering, or inwardly thinking, sounds just as individuals.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I would still argue for thought and consciousness beginning before spoken language. I would concede, however, that some kind of crude, primitive language very rapidly followed as a result.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There was sensory consciousness before language. There cannot have been thoughts with words before language.
I know how to use a word correctly only because other people correct me if I use it wrongly. An individual merely uttering sounds to himself in solitude has no criterion for whether he has uttered a sound correctly. There is no criterion for correctness in that case. In fact, there is no basis for applying the concept of "correct or incorrect" in the first place.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But I can imagine, still using "The Little Monster," the hominin chief in that story starting to clumsily use sounds in purposeful, meaningful ways. And insisting that his band use those sounds the same way. And once that happened, language would develop exponentially from that point.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Maybe.
My idea for the origin of language is this: hominids cooperate in the hunt; they are creeping around on their prey from different angles; hominid A sees from a distance that a predator is stalking B; A deliberately utters not a spontaneous scream of fear but a mock scream, intending by doing this to inform B that he is in danger; if B not only hears the mock scream but also understands that it is intended as a message to him, then that mock scream has become the first word, meaning: "Watch out!" or "Danger!" etc.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
That too is a possible scenario: danger or a threat being a cause for the origin of works like "Watch out!"
The problem being, of course, that no one knows how language originally developed among hominins.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul and Sean!
You might both be interested in a paper on “Language Evolution to Revolution,” by Professor Andrey Vyshedskiy: https://www.bioarxiv.org/content/10.1101/166520v9. Among other things, Professor Vyshedskiy addresses the chicken-and-egg problem by proposing that modern language, which he calls “infinitely recursive” language originated around 62,000 BC, when two children with the same mutation were born into the same band, and both lived long enough for them to develop more sophisticated grammar by talking with each other. I don’t claim to know whether he’s right, but he is scientific enough to propose several ways in which his hypothesis could be falsified; moreover, his idea could potentially explain various things if true.
Best Regards,
Nicholas
Kaor, Nicholas!
That does interest me and I might well try to find Professor Vyshedskiy's article.
Human language possibly originated 62,000 years ago? What interests me is that Neanderthal humans still existed then--and I would like to think they too learned how to speak.
Regards! Sean
Kaor, Sean!
You should have no trouble finding Professor Vyshedskiy’s paper, since I included the URL, https://www.bioarxiv.org/content/10.1101/166520v9, unless I got that wrong. Briefly, the hypothesis is that hominins before about 62,000 BC could speak to a limited degree, but could not use infinitely recursive language. If I say something like “the snake on the boulder near the tall tree behind the hill,” you can visualize what I have described, even if you have never encountered that combination of words before, and you can likewise understand “She had prepared most of the dinner dishes before the guests arrived” (verb tenses, specifically pluperfect). Before 62,000 BC, according to Vyshedskiy, no one would have been able to say or fully understand things like that, although it would have been possible to say things like “Watch out. Snake.” or “Susan, prepare food.”
Presumably Neanderthals would have been able to communicate by sound to at least some degree, but if Vyshedskiy is right, only our H. sapiens sapiens ancestors had the mutation that led to fully developed language and consciousness; he listed, as one of the ways in which his hypothesis could be falsified, that sooner or later someone will be able to clone a Neanderthal, and if that Neanderthal grows up able to use fully recursive language, then his hypothesis is wrong.
Best Regards,
Nicholas
What is certain is that language would have had to develop through stages like these.
Kaor, Nicholas!
Again, very interesting comments by you. What causes me to doubt the notion that Neanderthals did not have or share the mutation leading to fully developed language and consciousness if the fact WE also have some degree of Neanderthal ancestry. The
scientists who study human genetics have shown that Caucasians and, I think, northern Asiatic peoples have about three to five percent Neanderthal ancestry. I doubt any kind of interbreeding would have been likely had Neanderthals lacked the full ability to speak.
Regards! Sean
Kaor, Nicholas!
I tracked down and started reading Prof. Vyshedskiy's article. It's long so I placed the link to that essay in "Favorites" so I can read it at leisure. Thanks!
Regards! Sean
Post a Comment