A beautiful mind?

"The prehistory of the mind" by Steven Mithen is a book dealing with some of the mysteries of human prehistory. We know that Neanderthals had larger brains than modern humans, and could manufacture spear points by a rather complicated process. We also know that they managed to survive in really forbidding territories during the Ice Ages. It's obvious that the Neanderthals weren't stupid. And yet, they never created anything resembling a human culture. They had no art, no religion, and even their technical skills were static. They never developed beyond making those spear points. Why? Similar problems arise during studies of even earlier humans. Homo erectus could manufacture hand axes and successfully spread from Africa to Asia and Europe. But once again, the hand axes never developed pass a certain point. The technology of Homo erectus also remained static. Nor did they develop a symbolic culture.

The plot thickens when we realize that originally not even our own species, Homo sapiens sapiens, had a culture. The first artwork has been dated to 40,000 years BP. Yet, Homo sapiens sapiens was around already 100,000 years BP. For about 60,000 years, "modern" humans (with large brains and all) lived on the same level as the Neanderthals - smart, perhaps, but not smart enough to creatively develop new technologies, let alone art or religion. Even more curious, culture seems to have come into being all of a sudden, without a gradual transition from more primitive forms. What on earth is going on?

Some people have drawn supernatural conclusions from this. Perhaps creative human intelligence can only be explained by invoking gods, spirits or space aliens? An example of such a wild approach is Graham Hancock's book "Supernatural" (which I reviewed some years ago). As a mainline archaeologist, Steven Mithen naturally cannot accept the supernatural approach. Intelligence as such clearly evolved. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that even the sudden appearance of culture has some kind of natural explanation. But what could it be?

Steven Mithen takes as his point of departure the idea that the mind consists of several different moduls. One of these Mithen calls "general intelligence". The other moduls are technical intelligence, linguistic intelligence, social intelligence and natural history intelligence. The idea that the mind can be divided in this fashion might still be contentious in some circles, but Mithen believes that there is empirical support for the idea. Studies of brain damage, autism or epileptic seizures suggest that different parts of the brain do indeed control different abilities. Even more controversial is the idea that the moduls are genetically determined. The human mind isn't a blank slate. In a sense, we are born with innate concepts about how to organize the world around us. Small children seem to have an intuitive knowledge of elementary psychology, biology and physics. They also seem to have innate templates for language acquisition.

Our species have the ability to integrate the separate moduls of the mind. This seems to happen already when we are about three years old. But what would happen to our intelligence if the moduls weren't integrated? What if there was no connection between, say, social intelligence and technical intelligence?

Steven Mithen believes that this is the clue to the mystery of the early human mind (or chimp mind, for that matter). The general intelligence probably evolved first. Then the social intelligence was added. Chimpanzees have a developed social intelligence, most famously documented by Frans de Waal in his various books on the subject. Chimpanzees can also use twigs, branches and stones as tools, but chimpanzee mothers have great difficulty teaching this primitive tool-use to their offspring (they do try). The success rate seems haphazard. It's almost as if their technical intelligence (which makes tool-use possible) isn't integrated with their social intelligence (in this case, teaching and learning). Indeed, Mithen believes that chimpanzees must use their general intelligence to learn tool-use, which makes the process a difficult one of trial and error. Mithen is also sceptical to the claims that chimpanzees and bonobos have learned to master language. In his opinion, even the famous bonobo Kanzi falls far short of three year old humans when it comes to language use.

Over the course of evolution, more and more moduls were added, and the existing ones became more advanced. However, the integration of the various moduls didn't take place until about 40,000 years ago in our own species. This might explain the seemingly anomalous intelligence of the Neanderthals and other early humans. As already noted, Neanderthals could manufacture points and spears, but their spears seem to have been very primitive compared to spears used by modern hunters and gatherers. For instance, an Inuit harpoon consists of 26 different components. A Neanderthal spear only had two or three! Nor was there any development over time, despite an obvious selection pressure for technological advances (the Ice Ages). The Inuit in the Arctic have responded to their own "ice age" by improving their technology. The Neanderthals did nothing! The author also notes that Neanderthals almost never used bone, ivory or antler to manufacture tools, despite having access to this material. They only used stone. This too is curious. The only possible explanation is that the various moduls of the Neanderthal mind were to a large extent still operating independently of each other.

Of course, it's very difficult for us to even imagine how such a mind can possibly work. How can social intelligence be disconnected from technological intelligence? The best analogy Mithen can think of is how we subconsciously master the driving of a car, while speaking to a passenger. After the car ride, we hardly even remember the traffic signs, turn pikes or other vehicles. Yet, we must have noticed them somehow! A more bizarre analogy used by the author is that of an epileptic seizure known as "petit mal", during which the subject might continue doing household chores or even playing the piano, while the conscious mind is blocked. Perhaps this was how Neanderthal mind worked? Mithen also believes that the Neanderthals had a very empirical consciousness. People were people were people, animals were animals, and so on. This empirical consciousness made it impossible for the Neanderthals to grasp the concept of art or religion, which requires symbolical thinking.

Only Homo sapiens sapiens have achieved cognitive fluidity. And once the various sectors of the mind are interconnected, culture sprouts fully formed, without transitional forms. In a sense, our symbolic minds are both a triumph and a tragedy. They make it possible for us to develop a sophisticated language, writing, art and modern science. However, they also make "modern" humans prone to illusions and superstitions. As Pascal Boyer points out in his book "Religion Explained", religion is based precisely on a kind of negative connection between our innate intuitions. The gods and spirits violate some of our intuitions, while conforming to others. A spirit violates our intuitive physics (it has a body, but can be invisible, or pass through solid objects), while nevertheless having access to socially relevant information (confirming our intuitive psychology). Mithen points out that racism is another product of symbolic thinking. In this case the intuitive idea that different animals have different "essences" is projected on various human groups.

Ironically, the Neanderthals couldn't develop racism or religion, precisely because their minds weren't capable of creative analogy and symbol. Another Neanderthal may have been seen as a competitor, but not as a member of a different "race" with other properties. A physical object was physical, period. They weren't imbued with any spiritual properties.

The cultural, scientific and aesthetic achievements of humanity are therefore ultimately the products of the same integrated mind that spawned religion, superstition and racism. At least according to this author! This may or may not be true. However, since secular humanism, enlightenment and even tolerant religion are also possible, humans aren't doomed to suffer from a beautiful mind...