Some activities of the human and animal beings are similar. So, there is an
idea that evolution from animal brain to human brain could be possible.
As we already emphasized, MDT is just a tool, which is used here to see if
there is any possibility to evolve from an animal brain to a human brain. The
theory does neither support, nor reject such a possibility.
Based on MDT, the main difference between a human brain and an animal brain is
the facility of the human brain only, to make and operate symbolic models. The
common part of the two types of brains is the facility to make and operate
image models.
The evolution problem is to see if there is any possibility to change some
parameters in the structure of image-model devices to reach the capability of
making and operating symbolic models. On the other hand, a new hardware that
should be added to the animal brain is considered as not compatible with an
evolutive process.
As we saw in the previous section, the highest level reached by the animal
brain is level 2. With a peak on level 5, the superiority of the human brain
is huge.
Let's see some arguments that support the evolutive process. For instance,
let's analyze whether by increasing the level of conceptualization of the
models, it will be possible to get closer to the ability to make and operate
symbolic models. Thus, if a class of models is more and more conceptualized,
such models should be so simplified that they could be very close to a
symbolic definition. Therefore, a change from level 2 to level 3 could be
reached by evolution.
But, let's analyze an example. So, we have "this apple", "an apple", "a
fruit", "food". This is an example of increasing level of conceptualization
with the last two items as symbolic elements. The animals have a shortcut by
making a model to tell them if what they meet is or not food. In this way, the
animals have a fast solution for problems based on image models. There is no
advantage to increase the level of conceptualization. Thus the evolution could
be blocked by a fast solution, based on image-models.
The advanced conceptualization should be supported in a group of vulnerable
animals. To survive, the communication could be decisive. By increasing the
level of conceptualization, the communication could be more and more precise.
This seems to be the only serious argument for increasing the level of
conceptualization. On the other hand, there is already a system of
communication on level 2. Thus, a sound or a combination of sounds is
associated with a label-type model. It can activate any ZM-model. This type of
communication is faster than that based on symbolic models and usually precise
enough for the normal necessities of a group of animals. Unfortunately, here
we did not see again any advantage from increasing the level of
conceptualization.
But, if, for a group of animals, there is a lot of information which comes in
fast succession, then the animals will be forced to make more and more
simplified models and this should force them to increase the level of
conceptualization.
Let's see another example. A person goes somewhere in the desert. Without
special equipment, his chance to survive should be very low. But, around him,
could be some animals which survive without special efforts. For animals, it
is more important "to invest" in "equipment" then to increase the level of
conceptualization of the models.
Anyways, at least in theory, it is possible to evolve from an animal brain to
a human brain based on an increase in the level of conceptualization. If the
animals have or not the tendency to do this, is another issue.
Let's analyze again the evolution of the brain. A concept model is a model
which fits a large number of entities. It has to be recorded, maybe, by the
same hardware as the hardware that records a normal image-model. Also, there
must be a connection between a concept model and every particular model
covered by it.
By increasing the level of conceptualization (e.g. from "apple" to "fruit")
the structure becomes very complex. The structure becomes even more complex
when it evolves from "fruit" to "food". In theory, an evolutive process could
produce this process but the increase of the complexity is so huge that it is
difficult to believe that this could be produced without specialized hardware.
Level 2 is very close to level 3, but, as we see, no animal was able to reach
level 3. Even the most advanced animals, like dolphins, have no tendency
towards level 3.
The first drawings on cave walls were dated back to about 150000 years ago.
Such drawings must be produced by some long-range image-models. But, such
drawings are of no use without some explanations (symbolic messages). The
reason is that the same drawing can be associated with a lot of situations. It
is fair to consider that, at that moment, the primitive human beings were able
to use a symbolic model for communication (a primitive language).
One idea is that the increasing capacity of the brain to make long range
image-models was a support to make also symbolic models. This idea cannot be
supported, based on MDT.
Indeed, the drawings made by 5 to 12 year old children are rather primitive
drawings. At such age, children have very few long-range models. But they are
able to make and operate symbolic models, including languages to communicate
with computers.
Thus, it seems that the long-range image models are not necessary to make
symbolic models. Also, this supports the idea that the symbolic models are
made by a special hardware.
The existence of a specialized hardware is based on the following:
There is an image model and the associated label-model (a word). The word has
a definition (based on other words). It is clear that there must be a hardware
to record the image-model and another (associated) hardware to record the
definition. On level 4, the image model does not exist anymore.
If this new hardware should be build based on evolution, it is difficult to
understand why we have no intermediate stages. The dolphins, which are
considered as the most advanced animals, have no tendency to build symbolic
models.
There are some experiments with monkeys, which can be understood as support
that some monkeys are able to make symbolic models. Such cases can be
generated by a software implementation of the function to build and operate
symbolic models.
As we already know, a model in PSM is very efficient but it blocks the
evolution (the model is transmitted unchanged or with small changes, from a
generation to another). If an animal builds, e.g. by accident, an advanced
model of interaction with the external reality, such a model cannot be
transmitted to the next generation. Only if a hardware implementation exists,
a new model will be transmitted to the next generation. This seems to be a big
problem for the evolution of the beings.
Without a hardware implementation, the solution is to transmit such models
based on education. If there were groups of monkeys which lived together for a
very long time, then a good model could be transmitted from a generation to
another by education. In this way, a hardware implementation is built up also
if the time available is long enough.
After many generations of monkeys who are forced to build symbolic models, it
is possible, theoretically, that some hardware occurs to support the symbolic
model building. This could be the process that generated the human brain by an
evolution process.
The main argument against evolution from animals to humans is the fact that
the 2 years old children are able to build and operate symbolic models. At
that age they haven't either enough long-range models to understand the
external reality and they are not capable to build such models. The maturity
of a human being is reached around the age of 18, and thus the facility to
build symbolic models is clearly a hardware facility.
Conclusions:
1. Long-range image-models are not an explanation for the occurrence of
symbolic models.
2. The symbolic-models could occur from image-models by a huge increase in the
level of conceptualization in very special conditions (e.g. large groups of
monkeys which live together for a very long time).
3. The symbolic-models are built and operated by a specialized hardware.
There are two possibilities: either evolution if statement 2 is valid or
external intervention if not.