Culture And Intelligence

[Dov Henis]

(1) Culture is a biological entity. It is an elaboration/extension of the cell's manipulation beyond its outer membrane. It has been selected for survival of the genome by means of manipulating/adjusting the cell's outer circumstances, in addition to the cell's outer membrane which was selected much earlier for controlling the inner cell's circumstances.

 

(2) Being a biological entity culture is definitely a general ubiquitous trait of all living systems, all, regardless of size or of extent of cellularization of the organism, from mono to multi-celled. This is obviously and simply the next complexing evolution level up from celling. For the genome's survival, i.e. proliferation, it is required first to control the in-cell living atmosphere, and consequently next to control the out-of-cell circumstances. Elementary.

 

(3) You see endless phenomena of culture in monocelled communities and in multi-celled organisms (google animals/birds courtings f.e.). You also see a large variety of phenotypic cultures within the culture of each genotype.

 

(4) The core (wordnet.princeton) definition of "intelligence" is "the ability to comprehend, to understand and profit from experience". These surviving abilities are different for the different phenotypes within a genotype, therefore each phenotype has its own meaning of "intelligence".

 

(5) Intelligence is to culture approximately as essential amino acids are to proteins. Culture evolves in response to circumstances only by use of intelligence and to the extent and scope feasible by the nature and extent and scope of intelligence.

 

(6) Ergo the branching evolution of humans from other primates per my earlier suggestions.

 

(7) And if you can reckon what might be the next up level (above genome celling and culture) for further ascertaining survivability of humans, you might guesstimate the future course of human evolution.

 

I think and suggest,

 

Dov

[Dov Henis]

Following some remarks above this subject conveyed to me elsewhere:

 

1. My definition of culture for this thread is (wordnet.princeton) "the attitudes and behavior that are characteristic of a particular social group or organization".

 

2. Thus in 'my culture' social behavior = cultural behavior and each and all behaviors function and serve for the survival of genomes.

 

3. The cultural phenomena of every organism are artifacts which involve biological intra-/inter-cell expression and/or process. Biological and cultural domains are not ontologically distinct, but instead culture inheres in biology. Saying that "by nature humans are cultured organisms" is coming my way, but I observe 'my culture' in ALL organisms, not only in humans. Culture is displayed in several ways by monocelled communities and by multi-celled organisms.

 

4. When some readers state "I believe some multicellular organisms exhibit signs of culture but not to the degree that we do" they are using two different definitions of culture in the sentence. Likewise when some state "other primates aren't as intelligent as humans" they use, agagin, two different definitions of intelligence in the sentence.

 

5. Some readers are coming my way when they state that "On a behavioral ecological level, the varying degrees of culture are forms of social adaptation to cope and survive in a biological environment".

 

6. I do indeed suggest that intelligence parameters are the building blocks of culture.

 

7. Again, I reflect that presently we comprehend the up-to-now two major junctions of Earth-life capabilities evolution, i.e. genes-genome celling and culture. If we can guesstimate what further capability might enhance human surviveability it might be tantamount to foreseeing future human evolution, to reading tommorow's newspaper headlines.

 

8. I do not imply that there is a human's (or other's)"culture gene". In regards to humans I cited, elsewhere, data that shows that since human departure from chimp "genes expressed in the brain have changed more on the human lineage than on the chimpanzee lineage, not only in terms of gene expression but also in terms of amino acid sequences".

 

I muse,

 

Dov

[Dov Henis]

Forwarded by Dov:

 

Elephants see themselves in the mirror

30 October 2006 NewScientist.com news service

Peter Aldhous

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10402?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=dn10402

 

Happy the elephant with an X-shaped mark on her head in chalk.

They can recognise themselves in a mirror, passing a test of self-awareness that is failed even by the majority of our primate relatives.

 

Until recently, this ability was thought to be the exclusive preserve of humans and great apes. Then, in 2001, Diana Reiss at Columbia University in New York, US, showed that dolphins tended to position themselves to view a mark on their bodies that would not otherwise be visible, showing that they too could recognise their own reflections.

 

Like humans and apes, dolphins are highly social animals with large brains, and seem to show empathy towards one another. So Reiss turned her attention to another large-brained and apparently empathetic species – the Asian elephant.

 

Teaming up with Frans de Waal and Joshua Plotnik of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, US, Reiss presented three elephants at the Bronx Zoo in New York City with a mirror. They began inspecting themselves with their trunks while staring at their reflections. One elephant, called Happy, also repeatedly touched a mark painted onto its head, as this video demonstrates, where the camera is behind one of the mirrors (2.6MB, mov format).

 

A previous attempt to investigate self-recognition failed, apparently because the mirrors used were too small. “Elephants don’t have the best eyesight,” de Waal says. “It’s important that the mirror is the size of an elephant and is accessible.”

 

Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0608062103)