The idea of this chapter is speculative. It is included here to demonstrate
the power, which the self-reference paradigm offers. The justifying research
and a scientific proof should follow and show if the picture drawn here is correct,
an oversimplification, or wrong.
Consider hominids with well functioning social structure, which bounds each
group of them together by exchanging social signals regarding individuals
like signals referring bringing up children, hierarchy in a group, common
threats, etc. Let us further as a simplification imagine that these signals
regard only social issues and are realized by some instance in each individuals
Such a system manages enough complexity to be one day (possibly accompanied by
some collapse in the psychics) used beneath its' proper applicability for social
issues to describe issues from the physical world outside of a social group.
It appears than that threes, mountains and lakes acquire personal features e.g.
the'll be managed by the same mental structures as individuals from ones
social group. With one relatively sudden step such hominids acquire powerful
means to handle symbolically their physical surrounding and these symbols come
from social group symbols. Not only became trees, lakes and mountains "he",
"she" or "it", such hominids begin to "hear", what mountains "are saying", etc.
Obviously its' just a misuse of a social competence, but it works. Let's
see how it does:
It is crucial to notice that this false application closes a strong feedback
loop. Such hominids suddenly acquire abstract (symbolical) means to handle
their environment in a new way, which on the other hand drives the redefinition
of the mental social structures mentioned above. What was a social behaviour.
is a behaviour-substitute (a symbol) now. What follows is an explosion of
language and a human culture. As a reminder of this development some "ghosts"
stay back. People hear even to inanimate nature the way the did to their
parents (to members of their old social group). Some overwhelming certainty
of a presence of a human-like being like one's father pervading the nature
which we used to call god might be another consequence of such a development.
While trying to explain the emergence of language the usual starting point
is to expect some sort of adaptation is
The picture drawn above on the other hand didn't presume
that any adaptation has taken place ! It's no competition, nor natural selection,
nor any genetic drift, but only a pure strong feedback closed suddenly, which causes
new complexity to appear. It is even not necessary that
the psychics of such hominids is the most skilled (the biggest) between
neighboring species. Rather a weakness, which made a wrong use of possessed
social skills, which yet closed the feedback.
||An interesting question arises when asking if such a development was necessary
and could be foreseen. It is for example known that elephants show the similar
affinity to this type of "error": They consider dead relatives as if they were
not dead, which appears to be the starting point for social competence structures
used for dealing the purely physical inanimate objects.
could be crucial.
Another point regards objections to the accepted hominisation model, which
claim that the developement of a human kind was not a stright line from australopitecus to homo sapiens
, but rather a discontinuous random link. Such
fossil records fit much better to a sparkling short circuit picture
and thus to the EbS
model. The hominisation was a suddenly
closed self-reference with gains seen only after some period of time.