Just what is it about human consciousness that separates humans so palpably from our simple simian cousins?
If we look at what we both have we find that the difference is rather small. Both of us have similar vision and other senses. It was once claimed that the opposing thumb gave us the dexterity to make tools - having twice as many, the Chimp wins on that one. What about spoken language? As Descartes observed, Non speaking humans can still make themselves understood even without sign language.
If we consider also the enormous range of human intelligence there must be a range of intelligent chimps that have, say, an IQ not less than some low intelligence humans.
It is at this crossing point that we find the real clue - it is not the size of the brain or the problem solving ability that is the key, but it is something to do with the way intellectual resources are utilised that makes the real difference.
If this is so then a chimp could not make use of a much bigger brain or a higher IQ. Such may actually be a selective disadvantage to that individual.
Watching our local chimp place boxes one on top of another to get a banana clearly places him among many of my close friends, but it is the parent child relationship that really shows up as different. Young chimps learn off their parents only by imitation and they only learn skills which are immediately applicable.
Humans ‘think’ about the future. They teach children by lesson, not just example. If this was not so then first flints would have been the last. As most of the tribe can survive without the replacement for tooth or claw, no-one would bother to copy. But if it were taught, if the advantages could be demonstrated, then the use of tools would take hold. Further, a tool kept for the future does not have to be constructed fresh each time - an enormous advantage and huge saving in resources.
We see the absence of this in chimps when they have been taught simple signs and are then placed with chimps not exposed to such lessons. The behaviour does not spread. The chimp with the knowledge does not share it because the mental capacity to think in such abstract terms simply doesn’t exist.
But chimps must be right at the very cusp. Who knows what subtle change results in the higher consciousness (that includes abstract thinking, speech and so on). I would say that it is a slightly different utilisation of the cerebral cortex.
Once the change happens, children are taught things that they may not encounter for years to come. They can be taught about tribal history, hunting, even of animals no longer found in their area, of skills and of art.
The number of times I’ve read totally absurd and naive accounts of what cave paintings might have been for. The simplest of all application of evolutionary biology shows us that there is a selective advantage to those individuals who were taught about the dangerous (by animals, weather, attacks from other tribes etc) outside world while still in the safety of parental care, say, back at the cave.
There is no selective advantage to individuals that learn of religion or who can draw their kill on the wall. Companions tell a much better story: "you should have been there!!"
Children can be taught with the use of simple models made of grass or other readily available materials, the cave painting (the earliest are overwhelmingly of the type that just happen to be perfect for the instruction of children) and finally of words.
But what do all these things have in common? Contemplation beyond the immediate - of tomorrow, of when we will be hunting, of things that are not present, of things that might happen and so on. For that you need the extra intellectual tool - imagination.
You don’t need words or cave paintings or other devices to describe the palpable present, the present that all can see. You only need these for things unseen.
In the communication that chimps become capable of, the sign language, most if not all of the signs and the chimps utilisation of them concerns things which could be communicated by other means because they all involve the visible present.
It’s a hot barmy night. Cheeta and I will play cards for bananas (he won’t take IOUs, but that isn’t because he’s dumber than me - I won’t take’em either).
Kind Regards, Robert Karl Stonjek.
© Robert Karl Stonjek 2003