Jochen, I'm not Nick, but we usually think pretty similarly about these issues, so I will attempt a short answer:
The most obvious problem with Humphrey's hypothesis is that lots of things that are not humans are conscious. The problems with Pinker's hypothesis are much more awkward to explain. One relatively light weight problem is that it is much more natural to think of our cognitive prowess as relying on our linguistic ability, but Pinker's theory would require that we be in the 'cognitive niche' before we evolved language. (A more complex problem is that Pinker's theory is inherently incompatible with Darwin's notion of evolution, which was about the distribution of traits over geographic space. Things that are useful everywhere cannot, by definition, count as adaptations. But that is a messy, messy can of worms.) Eric P.S. Most modern evolutionary psychologists would have very different opinions about these issues than Nick and I. On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 05:37 PM, "Jochen Fromm" <j...@cas-group.net> wrote: > Nick, >you are an expert in evolutionary psychology. >Do you agree with Humphrey's hypotheses that >human consciousness is an adaptation to living >in a society of selves and Pinker's similar idea >that language is an adaptation to the cognitive >niche? see http://bit.ly/dOeRLZ > >-J. > > >============================================================ >FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > Eric Charles Professional Student and Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
