A Valid Language

This post is written in response to Alex's critique of Neanderthal's in Love.

While I recognize that there is a definite argument for and against the existence of developed language in Neanderthal culture, I am compelled to take the opposing side and defend Mithen's belief that the Neanderthal hmming is enough evidence, along with physiological traits, to conclude that the Neanderthals had a sufficient form of communication through sound. Music and sound is an important part of everyday life for many people. We as humans communicate not only through our developed language but also through other verbal sounds and expressions. Sighs, groans, exclamations and other expressions of emotion or feeling punctuate our lives. I believe it would be easy for us to get along without any sort of symbolic language, that is language that conveys thoughts and ideas through specific words and explanations.

Imagine talking to someone who does not have any experience with language. In order to communicate with this person, one would have to not only use gestures and body language but also I imagine sound. Music and sound is the one "language" that can cross through all cultures, whether they exist with a spoken language of their own or not. A symphony is the same no matter what language you speak. The music is the same and the feelings the music invokes is the same. It conveys a basic emotion or sensation that the composer intended.

This is what the Neanderthals seemed to be doing with their hmming. Granted, they could not convey specific ideas and details, but they could communicate emotion and feeling. The communication of emotion is just as important as the communication of fact. There are many cultures that still use forms of sound to communicate rather than a set language like we do. And the inclusion of the Neanderthal hmmming seems to me to be just as valid a form of language as any we may have today.

The Puzzle of God

I am not a very religious person, however I have always been curious about it. How different religions relate to one another, how and why religion was formed, and what impact it has had and continues to have on society. In that respect, I found this article very interesting.

The disagreement that Henig identifies in the first section about why we have a tendency to believe in God, whether it is adaptive or an evolutionary byproduct, really got me thinking. I have always been slightly critical of religion and of God existing independent of human creation and thought. Whether God and religion grew out of adaptation or out of a byproduct of evolution, it is clear that Henig argues for a scientific explanation of God.

I feel that the article really took off when Henig introduced the idea of the spandrel. If religion is a spandrel, then it is simply an evolutionary byproduct that occurred over time. But would religion as a spandrel be functional or neutral? I don't know if that is a question that can be answered. Those who are devoted to their religion and feel that it is a strong part of their life and culture would say that it is certainly functional. That is assuming that these people accept that religion is a spandrel at all. However, I would think that people who are less religious or atheist would tend to believe that religion is a neutral spandrel. That we could get along without it, it has no real purpose, it just evolved along with us.

This concept of spandrel helps to answer my remaining question about whether we created God ourselves or did God create us. What also helps is the outline of agent detection, causal reasoning and theory of mind that Henig gives immediately following the introduction of the spandrel idea. In agent detection, I was reminded of our discussion on Monday about the section in our brain reserved for prayer or any other religious activity. The theory of agent detection reveals that our brains are ready for belief in the supernatural. Causal reasoning gives a more explanatory reasoning for supernatural activities. Henig uses the example that thunder was caused by Zeus' thunderbolt. Obviously, as science progresses, such explanations like this will become inadequate because we will learn what really does cause thunder or lightening. Does that then eliminate the belief of there being a God or a supernatural being? It can't. Because even today if we recognize that there is a logical explanation for something, we still maintain the belief in God or a supernatural being. That goes back to the agent detection where we have an innate ability to believe in the supernatural, even if we have to deny what we know as logical.