Читать онлайн книгу "Mechanisms of cultural evolution"
Mechanisms ofВ cultural evolution
Victor Efremenko
The definition of cultural evolution is given from a natural scientific point of view. The functional structures of the brain, called memes by R. Dawkins, turned out to be replicators that allow explaining the cultural adaptations of a social society, which makes it possible to abandon a philosophical consideration of the processes of cultural evolution, to understand the inconsistency of Marxism and the genetic shortcomings of autocracy in Russia.
Mechanisms ofВ cultural evolution
Victor Efremenko
© Victor Efremenko, 2020
ISBNВ 978-5-0051-8833-5
Created with Ridero smart publishing system
Introduction
The book attempts toВ reconstruct the milestones ofВ the evolutionary path that the Primate species Homo sapiens followed toВ create civilization. The final stage ofВ the evolution ofВ this species was cultural evolution, which turned it, which did not have any significant morphological advantages, into the dominant species on the Planet earth.
This became possible because the final stage of the evolution of Homo sapiens did not occur as the evolution of other species – due to the creation of some morphological advantages (fast legs or sharp fangs) for themselves, but due to behavior modification. Behavior modification became possible with some brain structure that appeared in our ancestors. The evolution of the brain provided, in the long run, great advantages for the species in survival and reproduction.
Upsetting some, IВ still have toВ declare that man is not aВ divine creation, and did not even descend from aВ monkey, he is an advanced primate, whose behavior is regulated not only byВ the system ofВ instincts created byВ genetics, implemented through the structures ofВ the brain, but also byВ the second system on top ofВ the first genetic, aВ functional system, but also implemented byВ brain structures.
InВ other words, for aВ person we have aВ control system with two control loops nested one into the other. Such control systems inВ regulation theory are called systems with subordinate regulation. The inner loop output serves as the input toВ the outer loop. InВ simple words, this means that cultural evolution takes place taking into account the existing morphology and instincts ofВ the species Homo sapiens.
The external control loop is formed by functional brain regulators MEMs, which determine the mentality of a person and are often factors that restrain instinctive (genetic) behavior. But this inhibition is not observed in all cases, not in all individuals, and not always. Therefore, you have to look at a person from two points of view in order to better understand him – from the socio-cultural and biological.
Human societies are populations subject toВ natural selection, capable ofВ inheriting acquired cultural achievements. Note that aВ person on aВ desert island cannot evolve culturally. Only societies can evolve, just as populations evolve inВ biology, not individuals.
Evolution, including cultural, must have 3В indispensable attributes inherent inВ the biological evolution ofВ any living object. For biological evolution, these are species variability, selection and inheritance.
Genes provide for variability and inheritance, and Darwinian selection weeds out nonviable specimens. Genes are replicators inВ biological evolution.
The cultural evolution ofВ social behavior, like any evolution ofВ living things, must also have these attributes.
Since the genes that serve as replicators ofВ the entire biological evolution cannot fix the beneficial changes acquired during life (this is aВ postulate ofВ genetics), it must be admitted that the observed cultural evolution ofВ aВ person, apparently, occurs with the help ofВ other replicators (MEMs) and another inheritance mechanism.
It should be mentioned that there is no evolution of culture in itself. Culture is inanimate and cannot evolve. The fading of colors over time in the artist’s painting cannot be called the evolution of culture.
Only the expression В«human cultural evolutionВ» makes sense.
We have yet toВ give aВ definition ofВ culture, since no one has yet proposed such aВ definition (adequate).
For the first time, aВ generalized concept ofВ culture is formulated inВ the book, mechanisms ofВ human cultural evolution are proposed, where MEMs are replicators, the totality ofВ which is phenotypically manifested as aВ mentality that creates aВ psychological portrait ofВ aВ person, determines the way ofВ his thinking and, ultimately, determines his behavior inВ specific conditions. InВ other words, mentality is considered as the phenotype ofВ the entire complex ofВ human MEMs.
This approach toВ cultural evolution makes it possible toВ build some models ofВ the behavior ofВ local societies, carefully applying the schemes ofВ population genetics.
Sociology studies the behavior ofВ people inВ large and small societies. This is done purely empirically. No basis other than philosophical conjectures has been laid as aВ basis, which is important for the practice ofВ science. The founders ofВ this science began toВ develop from scratch, not taking into account that Homo sapiens is one ofВ the primate species undergoing aВ stage ofВ cultural evolution.
Since philosophers have penetrated into this science, they raise as the most important naive, meaningless questions: В«Are people able toВ control the conditions ofВ their own lives, or are their actions aВ consequence ofВ the influence ofВ external social forces? Is society aВ product ofВ human action?В»
The influence on human behavior ofВ genes, upbringing, education and the social environment is considered differently byВ different schools ofВ sociologists. But unambiguous answers toВ these questions can be offered byВ sociobiology. It is she who should become the basis ofВ sociology inВ order toВ fill the desert between biology and sociology.
Human societies (societies) are only biological objects that develop over time under the influence ofВ selection, like all other species ofВ living nature, and inheritance is an integral part ofВ this development. Man and societies are part ofВ biological evolution, which claims that all living objects inВ nature originated from one original living object.
The idea ofВ evolution cannot be considered only one ofВ the hypotheses explaining the world order, as stubborn creationists preach. This is the only reasonable theory that allows you toВ combine the available information about the life ofВ different creatures at different times.
Even Pope John Paul II announced in an appeal to the Catholic Church that the Vatican agreed to transfer Darwin’s evolutionary teachings from the category of hypotheses to the rank of scientific theory. In his speech, the Pope recognized it acceptable to believe that the human body is the result of evolution.
If you recognize these obvious statements, then discussing the turns ofВ the evolutionary path ofВ societies should be based on evolutionary theory, and not philosophical and moral and ethical ideas, because they are different for different people or groups, are adaptations ofВ culture toВ the situation at certain points inВ time and therefore change along with the furnishings.
The conclusions, as aВ result ofВ this type ofВ discussion, will be different byВ different researchers.
InВ science, the conclusions drawn byВ scientists on the basis ofВ the presented experience should be the same. If some scientific theory does not allow making unambiguous conclusions, then the theory is considered unsatisfactory.
For example, if some issues ofВ intracellular development are considered, then the conclusions ofВ American and Russian scientists will be inВ agreement, but if issues related toВ social development are considered, i.e. development with the participation ofВ many multicellular organisms ofВ the species Homo sapiens, there is usually no agreement.
No, because the researchers are on different platforms and have different points ofВ view. If we discuss social issues from one universal platform ofВ sociobiology, then the differences can be overcome as aВ result ofВ discussion. Therefore, IВ propose aВ unified platform for discussing social issues. But there are many influential opponents ofВ convergence ofВ views who parasitize on this difference.
Modern man is the result of evolution. This does not mean a call to equate a person with animals, but reminds that all living organisms and even worms have a structure programmed using the same universal genetic code, all have a cellular structure and each cell has a nucleus with a set of genetic material in it…
The difference in behavior between humans and other species is not caused by a person’s upright posture or his ability to work hard. The difference is caused by the presence of an additional, advanced in cultural evolution, regulation system (external regulation loop) that uses the properties of the brain.
Changes inВ behavior, due toВ cultural evolution, made the species Homo sapiens the dominant species on the planet, allowed the creation ofВ civilization.
Why do you need toВ write aВ book that popularizes biological tools for dealing with social problems ofВ society?
The fact is that now the problems ofВ society are considered from the standpoint ofВ philosophy, humanitarian concepts, and so on. Such aВ traditional approach was developed inВ the course ofВ the historical development ofВ man, and this seems toВ indicate the validity ofВ its application.
Traditions are an important element ofВ the mechanisms ofВ inheritance inВ cultural evolution, but they cannot be the basis ofВ modern scientific ideas.
The time has passed when I. Newton called his great book with an exposition of mechanics «Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy» (1684—1686). This name is a tradition of deep antiquity. There is no longer any philosophy in his book. Newton combined separate information about mechanical phenomena, partially revealed before him («I stood on the shoulders of giants» wrote Newton) into one integral theory, held together not by philosophical language, but by mathematical one. Later, many naturalists followed this path, refusing to philosophical verbal descriptions of reality.
However, 200В years after Newton, two В«wise menВ» published the В«Communist ManifestoВ» calling, on the basis ofВ some philosophical ideas, toВ take up the modernization ofВ social relations inВ human society.
Their philosophical ideas had nothing toВ do with biological concepts. They believed that human societies resemble plasticine, from which you can sculpt anything. AВ similar idea ofВ the possibility ofВ constructing social relations according toВ the wishes ofВ the elite has survived inВ Russia toВ this day. These ideas became widespread inВ different societies, led toВ bloody revolutions and numerous victims.
The book shows that there is aВ big difference inВ biological and engineering design. InВ biological engineering, there are no drawings or sketches ofВ the final result. Structures are created, but nobody knows the end result. Structures are alive from the moment they appear and remain so during ontogenesis. Responsibility for biological design rests with everyone involved, not with the manager, as inВ the case ofВ engineering projects.
The process ofВ creating aВ human body is controlled not byВ some separate parts ofВ the embryo, but byВ the system as aВ whole. AВ living system must remain alive all the time, without shutdowns for repair or reconstruction. The systems ofВ aВ multicellular organism have aВ certain autonomy, they are not controlled from aВ single center.
States and individual societies, consisting ofВ living people, themselves should be considered as living organisms with their own needs and capabilities. Social life is linked byВ many successive chains, and breaks inВ some ofВ them lead toВ the destruction ofВ parts ofВ the system, which can be fatal for the entire system as aВ whole. Still, social systems are more resilient than aВ house ofВ cards. They have some plasticity, adaptability toВ external influences.
The ruling elites sometimes propose solutions, ostensibly for the benefit ofВ society, toВ replace individual building blocks with others, believing that social systems can be rebuilt inВ thisВ way.
But since the systems are alive, even the noble aspirations ofВ reformers who do not take this fact into account can lead toВ an undesirable result. Specific examples ofВ such unreasonable behavior are considered inВ the last chapters on the examples ofВ reformatting the Russian Empire.
1.В Human, brain,В mind
The emergence ofВ Homo sapiens
Somewhere in southern Africa, about 160—180 thousand years ago, another species appeared in the hominid family of a large order of primates, which biologists gave the name Homo sapiens. This species, not distinguished by any physical qualities, as a result of its unusual evolution, became the dominant species on the Planet. The appearance of new species, as well as their disappearance, are ordinary events in the long evolution of living nature, which has been going on for 3.8 billion years. But in this case, a species arose that turned into a person, became the dominant species, affecting the entire ecosystem. In his development, man went beyond the Earth and acquired the ability to destroy all life on Earth with one careless movement.
The uniqueness of the evolution of this species lies in the fact that it began to evolve differently from all other species, adapting to environmental conditions due to morphological changes, i.e. by changing the structure of individual organs. He didn’t grow hair to keep warm in cold climates, he didn’t grow strong claws like those of predators, his legs didn’t become too fast to flee from predators.
InВ order not toВ freeze, he built housing and acquired clothing from skins, created tools for labor and hunting, used fire, which was used even before the appearance ofВ this species, byВ his distant ancestors. He lived inВ small, friendly collectives, connected byВ social relations, where he had toВ communicate aВ lot, make primitive tools ofВ labor, develop tactics ofВ collective action, thereby ensuring greater security for himself.
As aВ result ofВ evolutionary development, he acquired aВ developed language ofВ communication and an advanced mind, which helped him toВ survive inВ difficult and hostile conditions. Language and reason, have aВ common basis, influence each other and determine the direction ofВ evolutionary development.
This evolution ofВ Homo sapiens, evolution through adaptation ofВ behavior, not morphology, has been called human cultural evolution.
The exit from Africa ofВ Homo sapiens and the development ofВ other continents inВ time is shown on theВ map:
(http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey (https://ridero.ru/link/kDXB2czyOb1ROL))
Homo sapiens originally lived in small hunter-gatherer tribes. Life in tribes requires constant communication. In the presence of a large brain potential, this led to the development of a fairly informative language of communication. Not being endowed with special physical qualities, representatives of the species Homo sapiens were forced to make tools for hunting and everyday life. The genetically determined feature of the brain morphology of this species has created a great potential for the development of the mind. The ancestor’s brain of this species has grown 3 times in 2 million years.
Economic activity contributed toВ the realization ofВ this potential, and the development ofВ reason increased the effectiveness ofВ all activities.
There is aВ positive feedback (PIC) between the result ofВ work and the increase inВ intelligence. The mind increases the efficiency ofВ work, and creative work develops the mind. Such positive feedback processes lead toВ rapid evolution inВ this direction.
You can read more about the origin and evolution ofВ man inВ the book byВ A. Markov (Evolution ofВ man. InВ 2В books. 2011). This book is based on research inВ anthropology, genetics, and evolutionary psychology.
We are not interested inВ genetics, not biological evolution, but inВ the unique path ofВ human cultural evolution, which made it possible toВ create civilization.
Brain andВ Mind
The ancestral brains of Homo sapiens grew enormously over a relatively short period of evolutionary time. Three million years ago, the volume of the skull of an adult Australopithecus was 400—500 cubic meters. cm. Two million years later, his supposed descendant, Homo erectus, had a brain with a volume of about 1000 cubic meters. cm.
Over the next million years, it increased to 900—2000 cubic meters. cm. in modern Homo sapiens.
But the brain is not yet the mind. Brain architecture and environmental pressures work together toВ create intelligence.
The most important factor that made human cultural evolution extremely effective is the appearance ofВ sufficient intelligence inВ Homo sapiens inВ the course ofВ evolutionary development.
ByВ reason, I, toВ talk about cultural evolution, IВ mean:
The ability toВ build inВ the brain such models ofВ fragments ofВ the surrounding world that allow predicting some events ofВ reality without performing the experiment itself.
The ancestors ofВ Homo sapiens already had intelligence, it is clearly manifested inВ the behavior ofВ many species ofВ animals, but its further growth stopped at aВ certain level, not allowing other species toВ further advance along the path ofВ cultural evolution.
The ancestors ofВ Homo sapiens already had intelligence, it is clearly manifested inВ the behavior ofВ many species ofВ animals, but its further growth stopped at aВ certain level, not allowing other species toВ further advance along the path ofВ cultural evolution.
The new science – infodynamics – deals with the most general regularities in the processes of transmission, transformation, processing and storage of information.
One ofВ the provisions ofВ this science is that consciousness, thoughts, science itself and other results ofВ human mental activity are secondary reality, i.e. approximate models ofВ the real world.
The model cannot coincide with reality 100%, be the same with it from any point ofВ view. It can only be adequate from aВ certain point ofВ view.
Models describing the same group of phenomena can have different description accuracy and different range of applicability. For example, the laws of electrodynamics formulated by Maxwell are an example of a model that is remarkable and useful under certain conditions. These laws summarize all information about electrical phenomena, but they are interesting among qualified physicists. They will not be useful to a simple electrician, and even more so to the layman, since there are simpler local representations that are a consequence of Maxwell’s equations.
The human mind builds models byВ being attached toВ its own point ofВ view, toВ its platform from which aВ person perceives the world. The point ofВ view is formed byВ those principles and ways ofВ thinking that aВ person learned at the initial stage ofВ his life. Model representations that aВ person carries inВ himself depend on the motivation (orientation) ofВ his mind.
If inВ childhood you were inspired with the idea ofВ the divine creation ofВ the world, then theological thinking forces you toВ look at the world from this point ofВ view, where everything is arranged according toВ the will ofВ the creator, where you cannot doubt the basic principles, you need toВ explain all phenomena so that they fit into the framework accepted dogmas. Then there is almost no freedom ofВ choice for you. They have already chosen for you. Your mind is motivated inВ aВ certain way. Therefore, the religious fanatic and the scientist see the world differently.
The ratio ofВ the brain andВ mind
The brain is an environment built byВ genetics from specialized cells called neurons. The brain can perform aВ number ofВ functions: it collects information about the external environment from the sense organs, from nerve cells about the internal environment, processes information, remembers and, depending on the results, controls behavior.
The brain is able toВ store processed information for some time. The brain ofВ aВ newborn already possesses some В«ReasonВ» inВ the sense that information processing programs are already operating inВ it. But these are programs innate В«wiredВ» into it. This is the original firmware ofВ the brain, which is not available toВ us and therefore, it is incorrect toВ call it the mind.
Part ofВ the brain is dedicated toВ the mind. The functions ofВ this part are called consciousness, because we are aware ofВ the nature ofВ the information inВ consciousness.
The functions performed byВ the brain are realized byВ changing the functional states ofВ its individual fragments (local neural networks), just as inВ aВ computer only the contents (states) ofВ certain cells change during operation.
The mind does not directly depend on the size of the brain. So an elephant with a huge brain has a mind much smaller than a human. His brain is not adapted to learning as much as the human brain. We can say that the architecture of the elephant’s brain does not allow organizing an effective mind.
We are aware and control only the information that is inВ consciousness. InВ the brain, apart from consciousness, there is aВ space called byВ S. Freud subconsciousness and unconsciousness. The differences are that the programs ofВ the unconscious are formed earlier, while the subconscious is formed inВ the processes ofВ upbringing and education.
The subconscious and the unconscious contain and operate with information that is inaccessible toВ consciousness, but plays an equally important role, performing the functions ofВ automatic (without the participation ofВ the mind) control ofВ individual body functions.
InВ addition, the unconscious and the subconscious put pressure on consciousness, motivate it. Consciousness controls behavior taking into account the already formed unconscious and subconscious.
Finding reason
Although part ofВ the brain is allocated for the mind, it is not there initially. The mind is created inВ the processes ofВ adaptive self-organization. These processes are influenced byВ innate instincts (unconscious), the environment inВ which aВ person lives, the processes ofВ education and upbringing that form the subconscious. For the development ofВ the mind, the processes ofВ education and training must correspond toВ innate properties, otherwise they will be ineffective.
The brain can be compared toВ aВ computer. Without programs, aВ computer is useless. The operating system and suite ofВ utilities are installed under the control ofВ professional programmers. Other programs are installed byВ the user himself according toВ his needs. Self-installed programs must be compatible with the operating system.
Reason can be considered aВ semblance ofВ custom programs with adaptive capabilities. But the mind is not created byВ programmers (teachers and educators), but arises inВ the processes ofВ self-organization. Teachers and educators are only helpers inВ these processes. They should be considered as an external environment inВ which the mind and subconscious are formed. Education and upbringing are effectively perceived byВ the body at certain stages ofВ its development. The social environment is essential for the formation ofВ the mind and subconscious.
The formation ofВ the mind takes place inВ the process ofВ self-organization inВ aВ certain social environment.
Some unreasonably believe that the human mind is an innate entity that distinguishes it from other primates. But this is not the case.
There are known examples when aВ person who grew up inВ aВ flock ofВ animals (Mowgli) remains at the same level ofВ development as other representatives ofВ the flock. It is no longer possible toВ train him toВ become aВ full-fledged person, since the right time has been missed.
It is also known that no matter how much you educate the monkey, it can become very smart, but it will not be able toВ reach the average human mind.
This means that not the mind itself, but the ability to develop is an innate, genetically given property. Ability should be viewed as a window that opens at a specific time period. Whether a person uses this window depends on the person’s environment.
InВ biological evolution, genes inВ most cases create aВ kind ofВ predisposition, but do not rigidly determine the processes.
If we do not take into account the environmental factors, their effect on the development processes inВ living organisms, then we slide towards genetic determinism, if we ignore the organizing principle ofВ genes, then we take the position ofВ the notorious T. Lysenko. These extremes should be avoided.
Human beings are genetically different from other primates inВ their ability toВ develop their minds. Mind is aВ genetic potential that is timely realized inВ aВ person at certain stages ofВ his development. Realizing the potential is aВ matter ofВ education and upbringing.
The ability toВ develop the mind distinguishes humans not only from monkeys, but also within human populations, these abilities differ greatly. Representatives ofВ biological species have varying degrees ofВ severity ofВ different characters. It is this variability ofВ characters that makes it possible for selection toВ work. The remark also applies toВ reason, which is subject toВ social selection inВ aВ social society. The variability ofВ species according toВ different characteristics was discovered byВ Charles Darwin, inВ this case variability is the difference between people inВ terms ofВ the capabilities ofВ the brain for functional development.
Real progress comes from those people whose minds are above average. It is possible without aВ big mistake toВ assume that there is aВ threshold value ofВ the mind at which effective innovation is possible. ToВ create conditions for work inВ science, for aВ person incapable ofВ it, who does not reach the threshold, is aВ waste ofВ money. AВ person is born with some potential for the development ofВ reason, but whether it will be realized inВ life depends on many circumstances.
InВ the development ofВ the mind, the role ofВ upbringing and education is very great, but not unlimited. The innate genetic programs ofВ the unconscious (instincts) and the learned programs ofВ the subconscious do not allow all information toВ be absorbed byВ the brain. Hence, it is clear that the order inВ which the material for training is presented is important. Which set ofВ material will be learned earlier will be censored for subsequent assimilation.
Inborn instincts are formed at the earliest stages ofВ ontogenesis. Therefore, the brain ofВ aВ newborn is not an empty vessel that can be filled with anything. He assimilates something and rejects something that does not take root there.
Information is not copied to the brain. External information signals lead to the reconstruction of information in the brain in the form of functional states of local neural networks. If you still call this process copying, then copying is approximate. Some signals may not be recreated in the recipient’s head, and some recreated may not take root in the brain, displaced by other information.
Everyone has come across this. The authority ofВ the teacher inВ the eyes ofВ the student increases the degree ofВ assimilation.
It must be remembered that the processes ofВ upbringing and education consist inВ creating favorable conditions for the student and nothing more. You can only learn something yourself. Reason cannot be bought for money, you have toВ work on it yourself. Money can only buy В«crustsВ».
Today’s level of intelligence was formed as a result of co-evolution. Biological evolution has created the morphology of the human brain, adapted to significant functional development, filled it with some initial content. Cultural evolution realizes the development opportunities inherent in genetics with the help of social institutions.
If inВ the process ofВ ontogenesis aВ brain is created that is not capable ofВ development, then training and upbringing will not be able toВ correct this deficiency, but they can, apparently, toВ aВ greater or lesser extent, make it less noticeable (mask). However, not capable ofВ developing inВ one direction, the brain can be very suitable for developing inВ another.
What can you compare with? Apparently with aВ processor, inside ofВ which aВ number ofВ connections between the elements are missing or they themselves are ofВ poor quality as aВ result ofВ aВ technology violation. Therefore, aВ computer with such aВ processor will not work as it should. But it may turn out that he can solve some problems quite successfully.
Based on the above, we can conclude:
Mind is an acquired function ofВ the brain. Therefore, like any acquired property, the mind, according toВ the concepts ofВ genetics, is not inherited. Only the brain is inherited, its general structure, like the structure ofВ other organs.
Smart dads and moms don’t necessarily have smart kids. As for geniuses, according to the signs «Nature often rests on their children.» This observation corresponds to the ideas of genetics about the peculiarities of the inheritance of properties in the sexual reproduction process. Sex cells that program hereditary traits are formed in a stochastic process (meiosis). This is a real lottery. A bomb does not hit the same funnel twice, and geniuses are not born one after another from a pair of the same parents. This is a piece goods. But all children of the same parents can be talented to varying degrees.
InВ the Bach family, many generations were musicians, but the brilliant Sebastian Bach had toВ learn music, like everyone else. He may owe his greatness toВ his unique genotype. But this is not enough if he himself did not make sufficient efforts toВ achieve the goal.
The shortcomings of upbringing and education, guiding the process of personality formation at a young age, appear later and are difficult or impossible to correct in the future. The emergence of a correctly oriented mind, as well as the child’s assimilation of certain rules of behavior in society, largely depends on the culture of family relations.
Proper upbringing and education depends on many social institutions operating inВ society, on the well-being ofВ the social society itself.
IQ.
Various tests are used to numerically assess the mind. Intelligence quotient (IQ – intelligence quotient, read «aykyu») is a quantitative assessment of a person’s intelligence level (IQ). One of the most famous tests for its determination is Eysenck’s test. Studies have shown that both genetics and the environment affect this indicator. Human races have some genetic differences in this criterion. Asian countries have the highest IQ values: Hong Kong, Korea, Japan, China). Russia and America were in their fifties.
Below is a picture from the book: IQ and the Wealth of Nations – a book published in London in 2000. The book is authored by Dr. Richard Lynn and Dr. Tatu Vanhanen.
Considering the above map, we notice that the most intelligent creature Homo sapiens came from Africa, the continent with the lowest level ofВ intelligence today. Coming out ofВ there, it В«grew wiserВ», evolving inВ the vastness ofВ Europe and Asia.
IQ byВ country
Motivation ofВ theВ mind
Everything that aВ person perceives from the real world with the help ofВ his senses is reflected inВ the brain inВ the form ofВ virtual reality.
An important property ofВ the mind is its orientation. It depends on the social environment inВ which the mind was formed. The mind can be oriented towards good deeds, unkind or useless. Hence the expression В«evil geniusВ». Therefore, it is not enough toВ characterize aВ person with the epithet В«SmartВ».
There are many В«evilВ» intelligent personalities inВ history. Evil inВ the sense that their minds were directed against the entire society or some part ofВ it.
2.В Socialization and cultural adaptation
Methods ofВ cognition
The Homo sapiens species simultaneously used 3В methods ofВ obtaining information.
AВ practical way based on experience inВ developing methods ofВ work, assimilating customs and moral values inВ populations, obtaining other information toВ satisfy their vital needs.
The religious method of cognition refers to general questions about the structure of the world. Although he gave incorrect (from the current point of view) answers about the structure of the world, it is better than nothing. After all, in ancient times, people began to ask the question – why? The simple answers of religious legends were easily replicated in their heads. So religion conquered the minds, made life easier, grouping people according to faith.
The evolutionary significance of religions consists, in my opinion, in the fact that religions contributed to the emergence of social relations in large communities, restraining aggression in people’s behavior within a certain framework, creating in the minds of people some moral norms demanded by a social society by instilling faith in one or another God, rooting customs, some moral principles by methods of manipulating consciousness.
There are many religions inВ different parts ofВ the world, where isolated populations ofВ Homo sapiens previously lived, but this only suggests that they were inВ demand byВ the logic ofВ cultural evolution, the development ofВ the HS mind and communication languages. All religions have their own gods, their own principles and their own holidays. Religions do not have any consensus on this matter.
The scientific method ofВ cognition, based on experience, which is generalized, gives all knowledge aВ systematic nature ofВ laws that allows you toВ make scientific predictions, and as aВ result, engage inВ innovative activities: invent technologies and tools for hunting, labor and war. For aВ long time, the last two methods ofВ cognition did not intersect and coexisted peacefully.
Socialization and reason
Without sufficient reason, without the ability toВ think abstractly, the scientific method ofВ cognition would be impossible, which means that all innovations are impossible, aВ high level ofВ technology development, an increase inВ labor productivity are impossible. AВ civilization built without advanced intelligence would not be very effective.
Ants are very social insects. They embarked on the path ofВ socialization 100В million before us. years old. They are biologically successful. But their brains are too small toВ create an effective mind. They have aВ distributed mind like aВ community. Socializing individuals without sufficient intelligence has aВ limited effect.
The mind ofВ one person cannot cope with aВ difficult task. Big tasks require the consolidated efforts ofВ many separate minds. For thousands ofВ years, stone tools were made byВ our ancestors, but there was no effective breakthrough. It was not because creative people were disunited, living inВ small tribes. There was aВ slow evolution ofВ the mind itself, the methods ofВ hunting, obtaining food, technological methods ofВ making stone tools.
ToВ get results from the work ofВ the mind, you need an appropriate environment, exchange ofВ views with colleagues, and all kinds ofВ creative interaction. If the founder ofВ our Russian science, M. Lomonosov, had not been able toВ get from his village toВ Moscow, he would have remained an unknown peasant, plowing the land and repairing clamps, and Moscow University would not bear his name.
The mind inВ the brain arises inВ the processes ofВ self-organization. Among savages, reason will be ofВ little demand. There is no demand forВ it.
All computer microcircuits (hardware) remain motionless until the user turns on the power, thus combining all microcircuits into aВ single structure. The brain is the same carrier ofВ the mind, as the В«hardwareВ» ofВ the computer is the carrier ofВ programs.
Socialization activates the processes ofВ self-organization, strengthens the mind, making it collective, belonging toВ the entire society. Only the collective mind is able toВ build aВ developed civilization.
Living inВ large settlements (socialization) makes possible the division ofВ labor, which greatly increases its productivity inВ comparison with labor inВ subsistence farming. This was noted byВ the founder ofВ economic doctrine A. Smith inВ his famous work В«The Wealth ofВ NationsВ».
An increase inВ labor productivity naturally causes the development ofВ trade, navigation, scientific research and many other areas and activities. At the same time, market relations arise, and the construction ofВ civilization begins.
The transformation of Homo sapiens into a human can be conditionally attributed to the period 6000—10000 years ago. This is the conditional beginning of social (cultural evolution), the point when the constantly increasing speed of cultural evolution has reached a speed that is significant by human standards. Interestingly, church leaders consider the same date as the beginning of the world – when God descended and created everything. And before this date, nothing supposedly happened. But scientists believe that prior to this date, there was biological evolution for 3.8 billion years. Such a «small» difference in world outlook.
The emergence ofВ cultural adaptations
Any evolution ofВ living things consists inВ adaptation (adaptation) toВ environmental conditions.
Cultural adaptation is the preservation inВ generations (inheritance) ofВ information obtained as aВ result ofВ activity, which changes thinking and behavior.
InВ biological evolution, genetic inheritance ofВ properties acquired during aВ lifetime is impossible, which has theoretical and experimental confirmation. Cultural adaptations occur inВ all mammals due toВ the presence ofВ aВ brain. But there is aВ natural limit that limits the further spread ofВ these adaptations inВ populations.
The species Homo sapiens managed to overcome this limit. By the way, 50 thousand years ago, there were several other species of great apes, which also managed to overcome the limit, but as a result of natural selection, they became extinct before they survived to this day. The most famous of them are Neanderthals, which represent a separate parallel branch, which are 99.5% genetically identical with modern humans. The evolutionary branches of the ancestors of Neanderthals and modern humans diverged about 500—700 thousand years ago.
It was not labor or walking upright that turned Homo SР°piens into aВ man. The most important factors that determined the emergence ofВ adaptations ofВ cultural evolution for Homo Sapiens and his transformation into aВ man who has become the dominant species on the planet are the following.
1. Achievement ofВ sufficient intelligence byВ the species ofВ Homo Sapiens as aВ result ofВ evolutionary development.
2. Socialization ofВ the species, i.e. unification first into tribes, then into large settlements, into cities and states.
Separately, neither reason nor socialization can lead toВ such aВ unique result that we have for aВ person. Eusocial insects (ants, termites, bees, etc.) created their civilizations ofВ aВ lower level, without sufficient intelligence.
2.В Socialization and cultural adaptation
Methods ofВ cognition
The Homo sapiens species simultaneously used 3В methods ofВ obtaining information.
AВ practical way based on experience inВ developing methods ofВ work, assimilating customs and moral values inВ populations, obtaining other information toВ satisfy their vital needs.
The religious method of cognition refers to general questions about the structure of the world. Although he gave incorrect (from the current point of view) answers about the structure of the world, it is better than nothing. After all, in ancient times, people began to ask the question – why? The simple answers of religious legends were easily replicated in their heads. So religion conquered the minds, made life easier, grouping people according to faith.
The evolutionary significance of religions consists, in my opinion, in the fact that religions contributed to the emergence of social relations in large communities, restraining aggression in people’s behavior within a certain framework, creating in the minds of people some moral norms demanded by a social society by instilling faith in one or another God, rooting customs, some moral principles by methods of manipulating consciousness.
There are many religions inВ different parts ofВ the world, where isolated populations ofВ Homo sapiens previously lived, but this only suggests that they were inВ demand byВ the logic ofВ cultural evolution, the development ofВ the HS mind and communication languages. All religions have their own gods, their own principles and their own holidays. Religions do not have any consensus on this matter.
The scientific method ofВ cognition, based on experience, which is generalized, gives all knowledge aВ systematic nature ofВ laws that allows you toВ make scientific predictions, and as aВ result, engage inВ innovative activities: invent technologies and tools for hunting, labor and war. For aВ long time, the last two methods ofВ cognition did not intersect and coexisted peacefully.
Socialization and reason
Without sufficient reason, without the ability toВ think abstractly, the scientific method ofВ cognition would be impossible, which means that all innovations are impossible, aВ high level ofВ technology development, an increase inВ labor productivity are impossible. AВ civilization built without advanced intelligence would not be very effective.
Ants are very social insects. They embarked on the path ofВ socialization 100В million before us. years old. They are biologically successful. But their brains are too small toВ create an effective mind. They have aВ distributed mind like aВ community. Socializing individuals without sufficient intelligence has aВ limited effect.
The mind ofВ one person cannot cope with aВ difficult task. Big tasks require the consolidated efforts ofВ many separate minds. For thousands ofВ years, stone tools were made byВ our ancestors, but there was no effective breakthrough. It was not because creative people were disunited, living inВ small tribes. There was aВ slow evolution ofВ the mind itself, the methods ofВ hunting, obtaining food, technological methods ofВ making stone tools.
ToВ get results from the work ofВ the mind, you need an appropriate environment, exchange ofВ views with colleagues, and all kinds ofВ creative interaction. If the founder ofВ our Russian science, M. Lomonosov, had not been able toВ get from his village toВ Moscow, he would have remained an unknown peasant, plowing the land and repairing clamps, and Moscow University would not bear his name.
The mind inВ the brain arises inВ the processes ofВ self-organization. Among savages, reason will be ofВ little demand. There is no demand forВ it.
All computer microcircuits (hardware) remain motionless until the user turns on the power, thus combining all microcircuits into aВ single structure. The brain is the same carrier ofВ the mind, as the В«hardwareВ» ofВ the computer is the carrier ofВ programs.
Socialization activates the processes ofВ self-organization, strengthens the mind, making it collective, belonging toВ the entire society. Only the collective mind is able toВ build aВ developed civilization.
Living inВ large settlements (socialization) makes possible the division ofВ labor, which greatly increases its productivity inВ comparison with labor inВ subsistence farming. This was noted byВ the founder ofВ economic doctrine A. Smith inВ his famous work В«The Wealth ofВ NationsВ».
An increase inВ labor productivity naturally causes the development ofВ trade, navigation, scientific research and many other areas and activities. At the same time, market relations arise, and the construction ofВ civilization begins.
The transformation of Homo sapiens into a human can be conditionally attributed to the period 6000—10000 years ago. This is the conditional beginning of social (cultural evolution), the point when the constantly increasing speed of cultural evolution has reached a speed that is significant by human standards. Interestingly, church leaders consider the same date as the beginning of the world – when God descended and created everything. And before this date, nothing supposedly happened. But scientists believe that prior to this date, there was biological evolution for 3.8 billion years. Such a «small» difference in world outlook.
The emergence ofВ cultural adaptations
Any evolution ofВ living things consists inВ adaptation (adaptation) toВ environmental conditions.
Cultural adaptation is the preservation inВ generations (inheritance) ofВ information obtained as aВ result ofВ activity, which changes thinking and behavior.
InВ biological evolution, genetic inheritance ofВ properties acquired during aВ lifetime is impossible, which has theoretical and experimental confirmation. Cultural adaptations occur inВ all mammals due toВ the presence ofВ aВ brain. But there is aВ natural limit that limits the further spread ofВ these adaptations inВ populations.
The species Homo sapiens managed to overcome this limit. By the way, 50 thousand years ago, there were several other species of great apes, which also managed to overcome the limit, but as a result of natural selection, they became extinct before they survived to this day. The most famous of them are Neanderthals, which represent a separate parallel branch, which are 99.5% genetically identical with modern humans. The evolutionary branches of the ancestors of Neanderthals and modern humans diverged about 500—700 thousand years ago.
It was not labor or walking upright that turned Homo SР°piens into aВ man. The most important factors that determined the emergence ofВ adaptations ofВ cultural evolution for Homo Sapiens and his transformation into aВ man who has become the dominant species on the planet are the following.
1. Achievement ofВ sufficient intelligence byВ the species ofВ Homo Sapiens as aВ result ofВ evolutionary development.
2. Socialization ofВ the species, i.e. unification first into tribes, then into large settlements, into cities and states.
Separately, neither reason nor socialization can lead toВ such aВ unique result that we have for aВ person. Eusocial insects (ants, termites, bees, etc.) created their civilizations ofВ aВ lower level, without sufficient intelligence.
3.В Cultural evolution ofВ Homo sapiens
About evolution
EVOLUTION – (from Lat. Evolutio – deployment) in a broad sense, a synonym for development; processes of change occurring in living and inanimate nature, as well as in social systems.
This term is used toВ refer toВ the entire development process, which consists ofВ fairly smooth periods and sharp revolutionary periods. Sometimes this term is used toВ name only smooth periods ofВ development.
The idea ofВ evolution cannot be considered only one ofВ the hypotheses explaining the world order. InВ biology, this is the only reasonable theory that allows you toВ combine the available information about the life ofВ different creatures at different times.
Prerequisites for the evolution ofВ living things
The prerequisites for the evolution ofВ living nature are as follows:
1. Variability ofВ objects ofВ living nature. Descendants are not clones ofВ the parents and are always different from them inВ some aspects.
2. Selection. Living objects, being inВ populations, are forced toВ fight for limited food resources. Therefore, inevitably there is aВ struggle with others like themselves or with environmental conditions for vital resources, i.e. the possibility ofВ existence and reproduction. Charles Darwin called these processes natural selection.
3. Inheritance. Those individuals that, byВ their innate qualities, will be most adapted (adapted) toВ the conditions ofВ existence, have more chances toВ survive and reproduce. These qualities inВ biological evolution are provided byВ the mechanisms ofВ inheritance.
Charles Darwin established the first two conditions, but he knew nothing about the mechanisms ofВ inheritance. The mechanisms ofВ inheritance were investigated later.
If at least one ofВ these conditions is not met, for some objects, then they do not evolve. Throughout biological evolution, the first and third conditions are met due toВ the presence ofВ genes inВ cells, which play aВ key role inВ the mechanisms ofВ inheritance.
Genes ensure the inheritance ofВ only innate properties, and not acquired during life.
This is one ofВ the cornerstones ofВ population genetics.
Human cultural evolution has been observed throughout the entire historical period. Its manifestation consists inВ the accumulation ofВ cultural achievements (adaptations) byВ humanity, achievements not innate, but acquired. This raises questions about how cultural adaptations arise and where they accumulate and what are the mechanisms ofВ their inheritance. After all, cultural evolution is an observable fact. What plays the role ofВ replicators (from the Latin replicatio, renewal, repetition) inВ cultural evolution instead ofВ genes?
Evolution without genes
InВ populations ofВ living organisms, inВ response toВ changes inВ the external conditions ofВ existence, adaptations arise as aВ result ofВ selection. These adaptations are fixed inВ genes and transmitted during the sexual process toВ the next generation, i.e. genes carry out vertical replication, link generations through inheritance.
Adaptation inВ biological evolution is aВ change inВ the morphology ofВ organisms, allowing the body toВ better adapt toВ the conditions ofВ existence. At the cellular level, adaptations consist inВ modifying the genome, which largely programs the morphological features ofВ the organism.
Due toВ the established mechanism ofВ transmission ofВ adaptations through the sexual process, the restructuring ofВ the morphology ofВ organisms inВ populations occurs slowly, according toВ the scale ofВ human life.
The historical process ofВ human development (cultural evolution) demonstrates the development ofВ culture. One culture replaces another, inheriting some ofВ the features ofВ the previous one. These changes occur much faster than the processes inВ biological evolution.
The presence ofВ the evolution ofВ human culture indicates that three conditions necessary for its course are fulfilled. But inheritance inВ culture is the inheritance ofВ acquired properties that cannot be carried out with the help ofВ genes. It can be concluded that the observed human cultural evolution, apparently, occurs with the help ofВ other replicators (not genes) and aВ different inheritance mechanism.
Therefore, we can talk about the cultural (social) evolution ofВ man, as evolution without genes, occurring with the help ofВ other replicators. Over the past millennia, the appearance ofВ new significant morphological changes inВ aВ person has not been seen, he has remained the same as he was. All changes inВ the conditions ofВ existence are determined byВ the cultural evolution ofВ aВ person.
Culture and mentality
It is time toВ define the concept ofВ the term В«CultureВ». You can find many definitions ofВ the phenomenon ofВ culture, which are given byВ people from different points ofВ view. All these definitions are based on attempts toВ grasp the common inВ different types ofВ cultural manifestations.
Another approach is based on defining aВ culture inВ terms ofВ how it is inherited. The most convincing is the definition ofВ the remarkable cultural scientist Yu. Lotman:
В«Culture is aВ collection ofВ genetically non-inherited information inВ the field ofВ human behavior. Art is part ofВ culture along with science.В»
The term В«mentalityВ» comes from the Latin В«mind, thinking, way ofВ thinking, mental dispositionВ», meaning aВ general mental attitude, aВ relatively holistic set ofВ thoughts, beliefs, skills that creates aВ picture ofВ the world inВ the head. Mentality is both aВ characteristic ofВ the type ofВ thinking (consciousness) and the subconscious activity ofВ the brain.
A prerequisite for evolution in populations or societies is natural selection. In the cultural evolution of a person, adaptations consist in changing the mentality, which changes (adapts) a person’s behavior in such a way as to adapt it to external conditions, including the social environment.
But cultural adaptations do not arise at birth, but during life with the development ofВ the mind. Since these mental adaptations are not inherited through genes, the question arises as toВ how they are passed on toВ subsequent generations. What replicators help this process take place? This issue will be discussed later.
Clarification ofВ the term В«cultural evolutionВ»
Please note that it is incorrect to talk about the evolution of culture in itself. Culture is recorded in the form of traces of human activities. Culture is an inanimate substance and cannot evolve as a living one, with the creation of adaptations. The evolution of culture is manifested through changes in the discovered traces of human activity in different eras. If the traces of a person’s activity change, then apparently because the person himself changes, his thinking (mentality) and, as a result, his behavior change.
AВ person has morphologically changed insignificantly during the historical period, but his В«soulВ» has changed. And speaking inВ scientific language, the mentality ofВ aВ person has changed.
When anthropologists talk about changes in the bones of ancient animals from different eras they found, they conclude about the evolution of one or another species, and not about the evolution of the bones themselves. It’s the same with culture. An important clarification is that it is not the evolution of culture, but the cultural evolution of man.
When they start talking about the evolution ofВ culture inВ itself, they fall into aВ logical dead end. It is impossible toВ talk about the evolution ofВ an inanimate entity. And here art historians, philosophers and everyone who joined them are trying toВ find aВ way out, talking about the inheritance ofВ elements from different cultures. This is aВ conversation about nothing. Warm and heavy cannot be combined inВ one theory.
Some cultural researchers see this incongruity. Cultural anthropologists such as Julian Steward drew attention toВ the Darwinian concept ofВ В«adaptationВ» inВ the middle ofВ the 20th century, arguing that all societies must adapt toВ the environment inВ one way or another.
Functional adaptations ofВ the brain
The activity of the brain is a change in the functional state of its individual fragments (neurons). The essence of functional changes can be demonstrated using the example of a water tap. The water tap has two positions – «Open» and «Closed». The difference between these two functional states of the crane cannot be determined visually. The tap looks the same in both positions. If you supply water to its input, then the difference in these states will immediately be revealed. The difference manifests itself in the work, i.e. in behavior.
Mentality should be considered as aВ result caused byВ all functional states ofВ parts ofВ the brain, both consciousness, subconsciousness and unconsciousness. ToВ aВ large extent, only the unconscious can be inherited, since it is the result ofВ the work ofВ genes.
Therefore, the mentality can only be partially inherited, and transmitted byВ genetics toВ the next generation ofВ the species.
On the mechanisms ofВ creation and preservation ofВ cultural adaptations inВ the following chapters.
Culture and cultural evolution
From the point ofВ view ofВ sociobiology, culture can be defined inВ thisВ way.
Culture is aВ manifestation inВ human behavior and thinking ofВ aВ set ofВ functional adaptations ofВ the brain that arose as aВ result ofВ the historical process ofВ development ofВ the species Homo sapiens, which are transmitted from person toВ person, from generation toВ generation inВ aВ non-geneticВ way.
Those who are trying toВ give aВ definition ofВ culture that could combine into one group, for example, poetry, ballet and painting, cannot understand that such attempts are not constructive. Many philosophical definitions ofВ culture have been invented, and none ofВ them is meaningful. At the same time, everyone notes the complexity ofВ constructing such aВ definition.
So you took the wrong side, gentlemen. Human culture can be correctly defined inВ terms ofВ sociobiology, not philosophy.
It is obvious that cultural manifestations should be united not according toВ the ways ofВ expressing thoughts, emotions, behavior inВ them, but according toВ the way these manifestations are inherited inВ societies. Culture is the accumulation and manifestation ofВ the development ofВ various aspects ofВ the human personality, and what is common toВ all manifestations is that they are accumulated and transmitted toВ subsequent generations inВ aВ non-geneticВ way.
The evolution ofВ culture should be considered as aВ change inВ time ofВ the preserved manifestations (traces) ofВ activity inВ different spheres ofВ the social (living inВ society) man, just as the change inВ time ofВ the remains ofВ ancient animals is traces ofВ biological evolution.
The term В«cultureВ» inВ this formulation acquires an expansive meaning, since it covers both science and religious beliefs, as was pointed out byВ the cultural scientist Yu. Lotman. It is impossible toВ argue with the fact that humanity is evolving. But not like other primates, not like other species. This is especially noticeable over the past 300В years, when science acquired aВ systematic character, uniting the islands ofВ knowledge ofВ previous eras.
Human evolution due toВ functional adaptations ofВ the brain is fast, compared toВ slow biological evolution, which can therefore be ignored when analyzing the changes that occur inВ societies. You will not find an adequate definition ofВ the concept ofВ В«cultural evolutionВ» anywhere. This expression is replaced byВ the expression В«cultural evolutionВ», as if these are equivalent concepts. It is time, finally, toВ give the first adequate definition.
Cultural evolution – time-consistent changes in human culture in society, caused by functional changes in the brain. Culture is one shot from the film «Human Cultural Evolution».
InВ the process ofВ biological evolution, with the appearance ofВ aВ brain inВ multicellular organisms, it became possible inВ it toВ maintain functional adaptations that regulate behavior. The significance ofВ non-genetic adaptations inВ humans has increased over time. Finally, evolution on aВ new trajectory, which led toВ the development ofВ civilization, made the good old morphological methods ofВ adaptation for Homo sapiens little inВ demand.
Although the world around us has changed greatly with the development ofВ civilization, the global principles ofВ evolution have been preserved. Now, as before, inВ order toВ survive inВ the World, you need toВ adapt toВ it. No other way. Living together inВ the modern world on one planet Earth, covered byВ numerous communications, will not work according toВ your own rules. Everyone needs toВ adapt inВ order toВ live.
Endless talks about unchanged sovereignty for states are manipulations ofВ public opinion, psychological opium for the people. Sovereignty for states becomes limited. AВ discussion is permissible on the question ofВ how best toВ fit into this world, with minimal losses for oneself. If, nevertheless, the discussion goes inВ the wrong direction, then perhaps the next branch ofВ the evolution ofВ intelligent beings will be an inorganic machine civilization.
Differences inВ human evolution from other species
Some people find it intolerable to realize that man and any kind of monkey have a common ancestor, that man is one of the species of the order of primates. I don’t understand this snobbery. But even among the human tribe, you can find representatives that seem terrible to every civilized person.
When you get toВ know aВ person, it is more correct toВ look not at his distant ancestors, but at what he is today. For aВ more detailed analysis, you should also pay attention toВ relatives.
InВ this section, we will show some ofВ the differences between human evolution and the evolution ofВ other mammalian species. According toВ the biological classification, it is customary toВ consider aВ person toВ be one ofВ the species ofВ the order ofВ primates, therefore, he must obey the biological laws common toВ all, but this turns out toВ be not entirely true.
1. The basic model, which well describes the dynamics ofВ animal population, is the logistic model proposed byВ the Belgian mathematician Verhulst back inВ 1838. The logistic curve, which is aВ solution toВ the Verhulstom equation, indicates aВ rapid increase inВ the number ofВ the species at the beginning and aВ slowdown when it reaches the ceiling ofВ the ecological niche. Thus, the capacity ofВ an ecological niche is aВ systemic factor that determines the ceiling for population growth inВ aВ given habitat.
The logistic model reflects the dynamics ofВ populations, the number ofВ which, under any initial conditions, approaches with time toВ aВ certain stationary value.
Simply put, as long as there are resources for development, the number ofВ this species grows rapidly, but resources are always limited, which causes limitation ofВ the population size. Growth stops. The ecological niche is filled. AВ biological species is aВ passive consumer ofВ existing resources.
Demography does not obey this law, although we are typical monkeys inВ morphology and mathematicians had toВ invent their own equations for humans that describe the demographic process.
On the models ofВ population growth (http://www.keldysh.ru/papers/2005/prep13/prep2005_13.html)
This suggests that, under the guise ofВ HS, someone has appeared whose numbers do not obey the general rule.
2. The ecological niche, which limits the distribution ofВ any species, is expanded byВ man and is not aВ limiting parameter forВ him.
3. With an increase inВ the population size, the area occupied byВ it increases proportionally. So it was with HS. But for some time, people began toВ crowd into cities.
4. Natural selection is selection, as aВ rule, individual selection inВ populations. Different structures (state, private) appear inВ societies, and along with individual selection, there is also group selection, selection between social structures within states and between different states on the planet. InВ particular, the class struggle and other types ofВ joint struggle ofВ different social groups for some preferences is aВ manifestation ofВ group selection.
These processes ofВ group selection cannot be adequately described within the framework ofВ socio-Darwinism, but only within the framework ofВ sociobiology, because this is mental selection, not selection based on morphological properties. For biological systems, group selection is not characteristic, but for human societies it is important.
5. People have created constitutions, laws that guarantee them certain rights. InВ biological evolution, no one guarantees anyone any rights.
6. The speed ofВ human social evolution is much higher than biological and is still increasing.
The listed changes (deviations from the usual biological evolutionary path) indicate that man has somehow evolved and is significantly different from Homo Sapiens, which appeared 160—180 thousand years ago. But these differences are not genetic. Differences in behavior are caused by functional changes in the states of neural networks, changes in thinking.
Functional changes inВ thinking are analogous toВ changes inВ the software environment inВ aВ computer, which give it different qualities.
These arguments are enough toВ admit that man is no longer an animal and cannot be viewed from aВ purely biological standpoint. It has evolved. But this happened not with the help ofВ genes, as the evolution ofВ species inВ biology takes place, but with the help ofВ other replicators and aВ different mechanism ofВ inheritance.
4.В The origins ofВ cultural evolution
For any evolution ofВ living things, energy resources are needed toВ support the processes ofВ life, and hence homeostasis. The plant world receives energy directly from the Sun, using the reaction ofВ photosynthesis, biological objects for energy must be fed on organic food with energy stored inВ it. Cultural evolution is human evolution inВ the field ofВ information processing and needs toВ be fed byВ an information resource.
All organic resources are limited, so biological objects are forced toВ fight for them inВ different ways. The struggle for coexistence leads toВ natural selection ofВ individuals inВ populations, useful adaptations are preserved inВ populations inВ the process ofВ inheritance.
The information resource ofВ cultural evolution is essentially unlimited. Having learned how toВ extract, exchange and use it, aВ person gains almost unlimited power and significant ecological release. Human actions are no longer fully determined byВ environmental conditions, there is aВ certain В«free willВ».
Information resource properties
InВ real life, when two subjects share resources (voluntarily or as aВ result ofВ coercion), then the resource increases for one, and decreases for the other. This is aВ fundamental rule ofВ life following from the laws ofВ conservation ofВ matter. Thanks toВ this property, competitive relations ofВ living beings for resources arise, and history is the incessant wars ofВ mankind for material resources.
If aВ person shares an apple with aВ friend, then he has only half ofВ the apple left for consumption. There must be motivation toВ share.
Information is also aВ resource, aВ resource with special properties.
The donor’s information resource, when shared with others, does not decrease, which radically distinguishes it from any material resource.
If people share an information resource, it makes both ofВ them richer. The mind is aВ tool that allows information toВ be used. And it is beneficial toВ share information, because it makes everyone richer.
The one who received becomes richer because the resource received can be used toВ his advantage (it is assumed that this is some information and technological resource), and the other, acting as aВ donor, has aВ chance toВ receive aВ similar resource inВ the future from the recipient, if between the counterparties have established aВ relationship ofВ trust.
This property of information resources makes the process of uniting people endowed with sufficient intelligence in large agglomerations (the process of socialization) beneficial and evolutionarily inevitable, where one can communicate and share experience (information), and where, as a result of communication, everyone’s information security increases. Socialization allows the exchange of information between people, there is a possibility of division of labor, leading to a multiple increase in productivity, to an increase in the wealth (resources for development) of society.
Thus, the emergence ofВ sufficient intelligence inВ the HS makes it possible toВ use an information resource that has such aВ remarkable property.
The reasons for the emergence ofВ cultural evolution
Not upright posture ofВ aВ person, i.e. the movement ofВ aВ person on two limbs, and not work made Homo sapiens aВ person, as they write aboutВ it
evolutionists are philosophers. These are only accompanying factors ofВ this metamorphosis.
Two factors made cultural evolution possible:
1. AВ developed mind and advanced communication languages created byВ it, which made it possible toВ work effectively with information.
2. The property of an information resource – when sharing it with others, it does not diminish in the original owner.
Man has managed, living inВ relatively small communities ofВ hunter-gatherers, toВ create developed languages ofВ communication, and his mind made it possible toВ extract useful information from everyday experience and systematize. For example, the mind suggested that it is possible not toВ roam, collecting prey and hunting, but toВ live inВ one place, raising what is possible, domesticating animals and raising livestock. The creation ofВ relatively large settlements revealed the benefits ofВ cooperative interaction, because inВ such settlements, the division ofВ labor, the exchange ofВ information is already possible, and the protection against possible aggressive actions ofВ the neighboring population increases.
Languages ofВ communication were the tool allowing toВ own, use, exchange information.
Correct division ofВ labor
The variability ofВ species discovered byВ Charles Darwin extends toВ the species Homo Sapiens. Only aВ small percentage ofВ gifted people inВ societies are able toВ extract information and dissect it inВ the brain so that it turns out toВ be useful for the life ofВ not only them, but aВ significant number ofВ people. Therefore, large agglomerations are needed, inВ which there will be aВ certain number ofВ such people.
The wealth ofВ peoples is not inВ the accumulated gold, it is inВ the technologies mastered, inВ the ability toВ develop innovations, inВ the division ofВ labor, inВ the correct use ofВ the information resource.
AВ team ofВ creative people is needed for innovation. It cannot be done alone.
The correct division ofВ labor means that it is Archimedes (people ofВ this kind) who thinks, invents, learns, Hercules performs feats, the Macedonian conquers India, Abram and Joseph as the most wise, compose religious texts that are supposedly dictated from above, and the common man works hard with their qualifications. And everything starts toВ develop rapidly due toВ the cooperation ofВ efforts. But this is ideal. This is not exactly how it happens inВ life.
But it is still clear that inВ aВ large community there should be more smart, gifted people. And if one ofВ them invents the wheel, the idea ofВ the wheel becomes common property, and today the whole world is already on wheels. But there was someone first who came up withВ it.
In A. Tvardovsky’s «Vasily Terkin» this idea about innovation in relation to the field kitchen in the war is formulated as follows.
Smart, toВ be sure,
There was the same oldВ man
What did the soup come upВ with
On wheels straight.
ToВ use the information resource and share it, they need some trust inВ large societies.
Homo sapiens had aВ significant obstacle on the way toВ socialization. This is intraspecific aggression. It is justified, is an adaptation, toВ the conditions ofВ existence inВ ancient times, when every stranger on the territory ofВ the tribe was considered an enemy and was subject toВ exile, since the territory provided the tribe with food, just like now it is happening inВ the animal world.
Overcoming intraspecific aggression
On the trajectory ofВ biological evolution, HS was retained byВ those adaptations that had been developed inВ previous periods.
Genetic adaptations are always aВ modification ofВ the genome toВ the previous environmental conditions and inВ this sense they are obsolete, since the environmental conditions themselves change over time.
So, for example, in Africa, the homeland of HS, lions still live in prides, marking their territory. Any lion who invades someone else’s territory is considered by the leader of the pride as an enemy that must be expelled or destroyed. After all, the habitat is a matter of feeding the pride.
Likewise, the ancient hunter-gatherers considered the enemy ofВ any HS located on their territory that did not belong toВ their family. This is where aggression is needed toВ destroy or expel aВ stranger.
We must understand that this behavior is genetically determined, we can even say that this is aВ genetic adaptation, which also sits inВ our genes inВ aВ somewhat softened form. This adaptation manifests itself as an instinct that creates aВ certain pattern ofВ behavior.
Even in recent times, primitive people not only killed their enemies, but did it with special cruelty – they buried them alive, scalped them, and so on. They did it without any apparent need, by order of their primitive instinct. Such behavior is described by Charles Darwin, who observed how the natives on Tierra del Fuego were killed by the colonists simply because «they quickly multiply.»
Consequently, inВ order toВ overcome (restrain the innate instinct) ofВ aggression, it is required toВ create inВ the brain some moral prohibitions that block this instinct. It is necessary toВ change the mentality ofВ aВ person byВ changing the functional state ofВ individual brain nodes inВ the process ofВ education. Religions have served this purpose.
Therefore, inВ the religious information about the В«correct faithВ», inВ addition toВ information about the structure ofВ the universe, there was also information ofВ aВ certain moral ethical nature. The examples showed how toВ behave inВ aВ society ofВ their own kind and described the punishments that, inВ the event ofВ violation ofВ these moral standards, will be imposed on the guilty person after his death on this Earth. Life was supposed toВ be eternal, and the soul was immortal, so punishment is aВ serious punishment. Among these moral prohibitions was, as aВ rule, the principle ofВ В«Thou shalt not kill.В» Religion has turned out toВ be an important institution ofВ influencing the mentality ofВ people inВ the sense ofВ restraining aggression towards their own kind.
The introduction byВ the primitive religion ofВ some moral norms and rules ofВ human behavior inВ various situations, the creation ofВ some general rules ofВ prohibition, was very important for life inВ aВ social society.
Without these rules, as experience shows, the relationship turned out toВ be prohibitively cruel, and there could be no talk ofВ any cooperation.
God or gods are present inВ all religions, but they are not the essence ofВ religions. They should be viewed as aВ way ofВ bringing religious knowledge from somewhere above, from aВ cult figure, so that believers do not even have aВ thought toВ challenge or modernize them. The fact is that the process ofВ replicating information inВ the brain is not nearly as accurate as the process ofВ DNA replication. Here, toВ make it more accurate, we need inaccessible gods inВ religions. They have no other functions. ToВ confirm this thought, you can recall the game В«Broken PhoneВ», where after several replications, the information changes beyond recognition.
ByВ introducing into the consciousness ofВ religious rules ofВ behavior that limited aggression, providing for punishment for violations ofВ prescriptions, apparently, it was possible toВ curb this genetic adaptation toВ aВ significant extent (Aggression toВ aВ stranger). Note, not toВ destroy, but toВ curb, because we cannot rebuild the genome. And genes create innate instincts as aВ result ofВ aВ cascade ofВ sequential biochemical reactions that affect the nervous system and brain. There are no patterns ofВ behavior directly inВ the genes; only the rules for constructing proteins from the 20В available amino acids are fixed inВ them.
Aggression is still bubbling inside us today, and the way out for it is blocked to one degree or another by moral prohibitions in the brain. It is costly to contain these emotions in terms of physical health. You have to pay for everything. But the payoff is greater. At this stage of the transition of the population from the existence of tribal tribes to the existence in the form of large agglomerations, where the individual’s aggression must be somehow curbed, religion has played, apparently, a significant role.
The same position on the unification ofВ people (socialization) is held byВ the philosopher and economist ofВ the liberal trend, Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek inВ his work В«Pernicious arroganceВ».
Quote.
В«Often these rules (morality) forbade the individual toВ perform actions dictated byВ instinct. Forming actually new and different from the previous morality, they restrain and suppress В«natural moralityВ», that is, those instincts that rallied the small group and ensured cooperation within it, blocking and making it difficult toВ expand.
However, the decisive factor inВ the transformation ofВ an animal into aВ human was precisely the curbing ofВ innate reactions caused byВ the development ofВ culture.
The norms and habits learned inВ infancy become as much aВ part ofВ our personality as that which was already guiding our behavior when the assimilation was just beginning.В»
5.В Replicators ofВ culture
Human cultural evolution is an observable fact. It must have mandatory attributes like any evolution ofВ living things. Therefore, it is required toВ indicate its replicators and inheritance mechanisms, since the corresponding attributes ofВ biological evolution (genes) cannot explain the fact ofВ cultural evolution.
Sociobiology studies the phenomenon ofВ human cultural evolution from aВ natural scientific standpoint. It can be presented as an attempt toВ penetrate the scientific approach into the area where the humanities now dominate. The humanities do not need toВ justify the very existence ofВ cultural evolution, they just need toВ postulate it. But science seeks toВ reduce the number ofВ postulates toВ aВ minimum. If you postulate something, then there is no need toВ prove it and explain it. Naturally, sociobiology encounters powerful resistance from the humanities and those who have joined them, since it deprives them ofВ their daily bread (and not only).
Sociology, important for practice, developed exclusively on an empirical basis, must follow from sociobiology, as chemistry does from physics. As far as history, biographical and fiction books are concerned, they should be viewed as research protocols for sociology.
Replicators byВ R. Dawkins
The idea of replicators of culture was expressed by R. Dawkins. Clinton Richard Dawkins (March 26, 1941) – English ethologist, evolutionary biologist, scientist and popularizer of science
Dawkins has become widely known since 1976, when his book В«The Selfish GeneВ» was published, inВ which the term В«memeВ» was introduced into the lexicon, denoting aВ unit ofВ cultural information that is copied and transmitted from one carrier toВ another and is subject toВ mutations, natural selection and artificial selection.
Dawkins writes: «All living things evolve as a result of the differential survival of replicating units. It so happened that the gene – a DNA molecule – turned out to be the dominant replicating unit on our planet.
It seems toВ me that aВ new type ofВ replicator has recently appeared on our planet. It is still inВ childhood, still floundering awkwardly inВ its primordial soup, but evolving at such aВ rate that it leaves the good old gene far behind.
The new broth is the broth ofВ human culture. We need aВ name for the new replicator, aВ noun that would reflect the idea ofВ aВ unit ofВ cultural heritage transmission or aВ unit ofВ imitation. AВ suitable Greek root gives the word mimem, but IВ want the word toВ be monosyllabic, like gene. IВ hope my classically trained friends will forgive me if IВ shorten mimem toВ meme.
In Dawkins’ replicator-idea, propagated by imitation. There is a lot of unsaid in this definition. Let’s assume that Dawkins only set the task of finding a certain entity that would satisfy the set task – to be a replicator in cultural evolution.
If it was possible toВ find aВ cultural replicator and mechanisms for its transmission inВ generations, then it would be possible toВ build aВ theory about human behavior inВ societies, reminiscent ofВ population genetics.
This task belongs toВ the section ofВ cultural microevolution. It will not be possible toВ solve it as G. Mendel did, formulating the three laws ofВ heredity. The human brain is much more complex than peas, on which the laws ofВ heredity were first discovered.
We know how information is transmitted over radio channels. But we do not understand enough how it is transmitted between people. Information from one brain to another is transmitted by a certain code (words, pictures, tactile sensations, etc.). Understanding this code by the receiving party allows it to recover the transmitted information to a certain extent. Information is not copied directly from one head to another, but is reproduced by the recipient again in accordance with the code. This algorithm is used to compress transmission channels in digital methods of transmitting information – music, video.
InВ one head, MEM (information) exists inВ the form ofВ functional states ofВ aВ certain group ofВ neurons, and the perceived information through the sense organs inВ another head is recreated inВ the form ofВ another MEM, is realized through the functional states ofВ another group ofВ neurons.
How identical the initial MEM will be inВ the second head depends on the state ofВ the surrounding neurons. When we read aВ verse, everyone perceives it differently. He will excite one, recalling something from the experience, the other will leave indifferent. But the information sent toВ the head is the same.
Understood inВ this way, MEMS can still be considered replicators, albeit imprecise. But what determines the quality, completeness and speed ofВ information transfer can only be guessed at, since we have only fragmentary data characterizing the work ofВ the brain.
Long before R. Dawkins, back inВ 1898, V. M.В Bekhterev inВ his article В«The Role ofВ Suggestion inВ Public LifeВ» wrote about В«mental microbesВ», which, В«like real physical microbes, act everywhere and everywhere and are transmitted through the words and gestures ofВ those around him., through books, newspapers, etc.В»
Transmitted toВ others, В«mental germsВ» can change some aspects ofВ their behavior.
New MEM replicators
ToВ build aВ theory ofВ cultural evolution, we need aВ more elaborate model ofВ the replicator, reflecting its properties and manifestations, with some predictive power.
The behavior ofВ the entire multicellular organism is regulated byВ the supercellular control system, aВ system created on the basis ofВ the nervous system, brain and sensory organs. This is the highest (outer) circuit ofВ the subordinate control system.
It cannot be imagined that he acts independently and according toВ aВ permanently established algorithm. The adaptive regulation ofВ this external loop depends on the results ofВ the work ofВ the internal control loops, on the state ofВ the external environment.
Individual brain cells (neurons) are connected inВ neural networks that have many nodes that process and store information. It looks like aВ multi-core processor, but with an incredibly large number ofВ cores. There are about 80В billion neurons inВ the brain, which is 4В orders ofВ magnitude more than all genes inВ the human genome. It is possible that inВ the brain, some neurons will turn out toВ be В«junkВ», non-coding, like most ofВ the genes inВ the genome.
The structures of this network are local associations of neurons – the «words» of the neural code of the MEM. These associations are not physical, but functional. The functional states of neurons are encoded by information received by the brain from the sense organs about the external environment, about the state of the organism itself from its nerve cells. The incoming information is processed by the MEM system, which can be considered as a set of regulators that determine the activity of various brain structures that affect the behavior of the whole organism.
If you feel hungry, cold, irritated, joyful, or any other need ofВ the body, then this appropriately directs thoughts and changes behavior. Regulators that control processes inВ accordance with the established regulation law are themselves capable ofВ changing (adaptive regulators) byВ internal needs. This changes the vector ofВ our thinking and behavior. The entire control system resembles the slave control system used inВ an electric drive, when the external control loop takes into account the state ofВ the internal one. Only inВ the body, the parameters ofВ the regulators are set not byВ the developers, but byВ the totality ofВ the surrounding factors. InВ other words, regulators are adaptive.
The brain acts inВ accordance with the many signals that enter it. Most ofВ them come from the environment external toВ aВ person, and the other part from the internal environment.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию (https://www.litres.ru/pages/biblio_book/?art=63470387) на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.
Если текст книги отсутствует, перейдите по ссылке
Возможные причины отсутствия книги:
1. Книга снята с продаж по просьбе правообладателя
2. Книга ещё не поступила в продажу и пока недоступна для чтения