General Symbol Machines: The First Stage in the Evolution of Symbolic Communication

Humans uniquely form stimulus equivalence (SE) classes of abstract and unrelated stimuli, i.e. if taught to match A with B and B with C, they will spontaneously match B with A, and C with B, (the relation of symmetry), and A with C (transitivity). Other species do not do this. The SE ability is poss...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Thomas E. Dickins
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SAGE Publishing 2003-01-01
Series:Evolutionary Psychology
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490300100116
id doaj-6c69112ca2774b648f0c79644008c8f2
record_format Article
spelling doaj-6c69112ca2774b648f0c79644008c8f22020-11-25T03:02:47ZengSAGE PublishingEvolutionary Psychology1474-70492003-01-01110.1177/14747049030010011610.1177_147470490300100116General Symbol Machines: The First Stage in the Evolution of Symbolic CommunicationThomas E. DickinsHumans uniquely form stimulus equivalence (SE) classes of abstract and unrelated stimuli, i.e. if taught to match A with B and B with C, they will spontaneously match B with A, and C with B, (the relation of symmetry), and A with C (transitivity). Other species do not do this. The SE ability is possibly the consequence of a specific selection event in the Homo lineage. SE is of interest because it appears to demonstrate a facility that is core to symbolic behavior. Linguistic symbols, for example, are arbitrarily and symmetrically related to their referent such that the term banana has no resemblance to bananas but when processed can be used to discriminate bananas. Equally when bananas are perceived the term banana is readily produced. This relation is arguably the defining mark of symbolic representation. In this paper I shall detail the SE phenomenon and argue that it is evidence for a cognitive device that I term a General Symbol Machine (GSM). The GSM not only sets the background condition for subsequent linguistic evolution but also for other symbolic behaviors such as mathematical reasoning. In so doing the GSM is not particularly domain-specific. The apparent domain-specificity of, for example, natural language is a consequence of other computational developments. This introduces complexity to evolutionary arguments about cognitive architecture.https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490300100116
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Thomas E. Dickins
spellingShingle Thomas E. Dickins
General Symbol Machines: The First Stage in the Evolution of Symbolic Communication
Evolutionary Psychology
author_facet Thomas E. Dickins
author_sort Thomas E. Dickins
title General Symbol Machines: The First Stage in the Evolution of Symbolic Communication
title_short General Symbol Machines: The First Stage in the Evolution of Symbolic Communication
title_full General Symbol Machines: The First Stage in the Evolution of Symbolic Communication
title_fullStr General Symbol Machines: The First Stage in the Evolution of Symbolic Communication
title_full_unstemmed General Symbol Machines: The First Stage in the Evolution of Symbolic Communication
title_sort general symbol machines: the first stage in the evolution of symbolic communication
publisher SAGE Publishing
series Evolutionary Psychology
issn 1474-7049
publishDate 2003-01-01
description Humans uniquely form stimulus equivalence (SE) classes of abstract and unrelated stimuli, i.e. if taught to match A with B and B with C, they will spontaneously match B with A, and C with B, (the relation of symmetry), and A with C (transitivity). Other species do not do this. The SE ability is possibly the consequence of a specific selection event in the Homo lineage. SE is of interest because it appears to demonstrate a facility that is core to symbolic behavior. Linguistic symbols, for example, are arbitrarily and symmetrically related to their referent such that the term banana has no resemblance to bananas but when processed can be used to discriminate bananas. Equally when bananas are perceived the term banana is readily produced. This relation is arguably the defining mark of symbolic representation. In this paper I shall detail the SE phenomenon and argue that it is evidence for a cognitive device that I term a General Symbol Machine (GSM). The GSM not only sets the background condition for subsequent linguistic evolution but also for other symbolic behaviors such as mathematical reasoning. In so doing the GSM is not particularly domain-specific. The apparent domain-specificity of, for example, natural language is a consequence of other computational developments. This introduces complexity to evolutionary arguments about cognitive architecture.
url https://doi.org/10.1177/147470490300100116
work_keys_str_mv AT thomasedickins generalsymbolmachinesthefirststageintheevolutionofsymboliccommunication
_version_ 1724688424881881088