Enhancing thoughts: Culture, technology, and the evolution of human cognitive uniqueness

Abstract

Three facts are widely thought to be key to the characterization of human cognitive uniqueness (though a number of other factors are often cited as well): (a) humans are sophisticated cultural learners; (b) humans often rely on mental states with rich representational contents; and (c) humans have the ability and disposition to make and use tools. This article argues that (a)-(c) create a positive feedback loop: Sophisticated cultural learning makes possible the manufacture of tools that increase the sophistication of representational decision-making, which in turn allows for yet further increases in the sophistication of cultural learning and tool manufacture.

Tools of the trade: the bio-cultural evolution of the human propensity to trade

“…Importantly furthermore, this point goes beyond the manufacture and use of sophisticated physical tools-swords and ploughshares-but extends to sophisticated cognitive technology as well (Vaesen 2012;Dennett 2000;Osiurak and Reynaud, forthcoming;Schulz 2020). In particular, through cultural learning, humans became able to construct and use advanced mnemonic and inferential tools: quipus, paper, calculating devices like the "Senkereh Tablet" (Sugden 1981) and sundials (King 1955), written language (Basu and Waymire 2006;Basu et al 2009;Tse 2008;Hartley 2019;Mullins et al 2013), myths, songs, dances, and algebraic conventions.…”

“…First, cognitive tools enabled humans to often rely on many highly complex and abstract concepts in their decision making (Landy et al 2014;Stout and Chaminade 2012;Muthukrishna and Henrich 2016;Schulz 2020). Highly complex and abstract concepts do not have a clear empirical signature: there is no easily observable set of features that all causes or all cases of justice have in common.…”

“…Complex representational inferences are made easier if intermediate steps of the inference can be written down or if parts of it can be automated (e.g. using computational devices like sundials) (Schulz 2018(Schulz , 2020).…”

“…[EXCLUDABLE], [MEANS], [EXCHANGE], and they do not have a straightforward perceptual signature: many different states of the world can constitute A's owning something. Because of this, reliance on such concepts is highly time-, concentration-, and attention-consuming (Schulz 2018(Schulz , 2020. This is important, as it implies that, in the absence of tools that help relate these concepts to the actual conditions prevailing in the world, having and using such concepts is unlikely to even be possible (Schulz 2020).…”

“…Because of this, reliance on such concepts is highly time-, concentration-, and attention-consuming (Schulz 2018(Schulz , 2020. This is important, as it implies that, in the absence of tools that help relate these concepts to the actual conditions prevailing in the world, having and using such concepts is unlikely to even be possible (Schulz 2020). It is only though cognitive tools like quipus, petroglyphs, myths, songs, writing, or algebra that it becomes possible for humans to recognize highly abstract things as belonging to someone, and they can come to recognize the excludability of an owned entity as resting on abstract notions like [DESERT], [HISTORICAL CLAIMS], or [MIXING OF LABOR] (Scorolli et al 2018; see also Ofek 2001, pp.…”