New book - Dangerous Mind - on the Origin of Pseudo Species

It seems I was taking this site a bit too seriously; I refrained from mentioning this book on the grounds of etiquette in respect of the nature of the site. However, it seems too important if the key objective is to generate objective discussion. Hence...My own position is that there are most likely two kinds of 'evolution' to consider: one is the process of Natural Selection (the Darwinian kind - applicable to animals other than man) and the second is human evolution, 'leveraged' by the emergence of consciousness. This mental phenomena, unique to humans, has recall as its precursor, recall being (the Author believes ) the causa principalis of all human thought processes and hence the single most important determining factor in human evolution .The recall function itself probably originated as a result of a mutation to the human brain (perhaps the affecting the corpus callosum) possibly by means of a beta radiation strike. Through recall humans are able to adapt their environment in a way no other creature can, scrolling back and forth through a new experience - the 'flow' of time - to organise novel concepts and, more importantly, produce artefacts (tools) enabling us to leap-frog other animals in a greatly accelerated evolutionary process. Other occupants of Earth, meanwhile, universally follow the time-dependent route of Natural Selection in which slow change in physical attributes (also via mutation) adapts a species to enable increasingly effective exploitation of a niche.The manufacture of tools applies only to humans; I make the distinction here between extemporized tools, those used by animals following an environmental cue (stimulus), and human tools, whereby adapted or modified stone, skins and other materials through a conscious mental process (tentatively termed ‘exterpolation’ in the hypothesis) mimic the teeth/claws/hide of far larger predators. It was perhaps in this way that humans were able to invade and occupy the specialised niches of other species that had taken millions of years to slowly evolve through Natural Selection.Above everything else, it is the niche and its characteristics that define the type of animal that evolves. Mutation leads to physical changes in the nature of the species that make it more suitable to 'fit' the niche. This is what Darwin carefully described and defined as 'Natural Selection'. His careful definition of the term 'fit' derives from this original concept, not, as the definition has been subsequently misunderstood and promulgated, to mean ‘healthy’, ‘strong’, or ‘more fitting’.Yet Darwin did not mention that a key differentiator in human/animal evolution might lie in a mutation affecting the human brain. And neither did he describe how mental evolution might cause humans to be develop along a completely different evolutionary trajectory, nor consider mutation to the brain as offering a possible explanation for the astonishing and obvious difference between humans and primates, our closet relatives in the animal kingdom. Meanwhile, modern genetic research continues to emphasise the genetic proximity to humans of chimpanzees, while in behaviour and niche exploitation, primates and humans diverge at an ever-increasing rate.'Dangerous Mind on The Origin of Pseudo Species' (the book) sets out a compelling hypothesis that encompasses all these factors that leads the author to believe humans should be designated as a ‘Pseudo Species’, that is, one that falls outside the normal evolutionary pathways in a way that effects no other living creature. The hypothesis also describes the crucial activity of tool making, which seems to rely on the human ability, possibly unique in animals, to visualize more than one event at a time, thereby demonstrating the essential role that recall plays in ‘overlaying’ multiple ideas in the development of abstract and conceptual thinking, independently from environmental clues.Terms of reference include the published work of many of the world’s leading scientific investigators, from Charles Darwin, to S.J.Gould, M. Leaky, S.Rose, R. Dawkins, L.Standing, V.S.Ramachandran and many others.The implications of the hypothesis are stark; it may well be the case that intelligence, especially of a scientific nature, may be of no evolutionary benefit. Many animals clearly lack intelligence as we define it, yet survive very successfully over hundreds of millions of year. Mankind, on the other hand, having existed in his present form for a mere 7 million years, is already approaching the point where having appropriated for himself virtually all habitable niches, the entire Earth may, paradoxically, become inhabitable for all life forms.For supporting evidence for the ambiguous nature of humans ‘Dangerous Mind - On the Origin of Pseudo Species' ranges widely across all forms of our endeavour; from world wars to high art, from the beginnings of language to the latest scientific discoveries.The following links provides full details, including a review, sample pages and author profile: http://www.createspace.com/3345456 or: amazon.com/books

---

Tofol

How are you defining consciousness such that it's unique to humans? Some other animals appear to have memories (The Ecology and Evolution of Spatial
Memory in Corvids of the Southwestern
USA); to be aware of themselves as individuals (Mirror-Induced Behavior in the Magpie (Pica pica): Evidence of Self-Recognition); and to be able to use reasoning to solve problems (Do New Caledonian crows solve physical problems through causal reasoning?).Contrary what you write above, some of them also use tools. I'm sticking with corvids, because that's what all my other examples are, and I think it's revealing that this sort of intelligence is found in distantly related birds, not only in our closest relatives. Not only do crows make hooks from twigs in the wild, but they've even been observed to do so with novel materials (wire) when faced with a novel situation in a laboratory (getting buckets of food out of tube). I don't see how solving a problem by altering materials to fulfill a specific function differs from basic tool-making in humans.Edited by caffeine, : made a mess

Do I smell SPAM?

I appreciate your interesting comments, especially concerning corvidae. I notice that Scrub Jays, in particular, have been intensively studied for their 'humanlike' feats involving memory, such as recognising where hidden food is located in a variety of trials to elicit an idea of the extent and scope of memory function. Other species also seem to fascinate humans when they - forgive the pun -'ape' human behaviour. What is more interesting and perhaps more revealing is why we study them so avidly; from my perspective, recall as a prime-mover of consciousness begets or engenders anthropocentricity. But does 'corvidaecentricity' elicit a similar desire in corvidae? It may be that such scrutiny says more about humans than it does about corvidae. It is no surprise to find Scrub Jays, for example, being extremely clever at being Scrub Jays, which is about all such studies can ever say. That some animals respond well to human coaching is also no real surprise. We find the things they're good at (in fitting their niche so neatly), then refine those tests that reaffirm those results we regard as favourable.
This is not to denigrate the research, but to point out that if, using the same laboratory protocols, we take humans as the subject species, we find a yawning gap that makes the abillities of the Scrub Jay pale into insignificance. Taking a closer relative of humans, our cousins the chimpanzees, current genetic science provides us with and almost identical match of almost forensic significance (say, around 99%). Thus we have to ask the question - why haven't other species evolved to negotiated a car through the centre of a city while using a mobile 'phone? What kind of mechanism has been at work since departure from our last common ancestor?
The hypothesis suggests that recall is the key differentiator between human and other species - we can find memory in a computer, but that doesn't make it human. Recall seems to be unique to humans, in the sense that we can consciousy scroll though visualized events and by 'overlaying' recalled images construct a novel outcome ( I call this process 'exterpolation'). This is like a corvidae member arranging some conveniently located feathers to enable it to carry a twig or piece of wire in the event it might need one.
It is possible that, wary of conceding that humans might belong to a separate order ( I call them/us a 'pseudo species') scientists dislike the idea of retreating from the cherished view of the world conjured up by Darwin and Natural Selection; they want humans to fit into this highly rational schema. Only this can explain why no one has tackled the serious flaw in the argument (let's call it the mobile phone phenomena), i.e., that while Natural Selection defines how mutation to the physical structure of a species drives it towards a more successful 'fit' to a niche, a mutation affecting mental ability provides just the kind of degree of leverage required to accelerate human development. We have all the evidence for this; the tools and artifacts crated by early humans that mimic the physical attributes of lager predators to whom, under conditions of Darwinian Natural Selection, we humans (and other primates) would have been 'easy meat'.
Thus, I conclude, something is very wrong with the accepted rationale expressed by Darwinian Theory; it fits beautifully with all living organism. Its description of our physical ancestry fits perfectly with the latest DNA sequencing that describes our proximity to other primates. But it ends there. Mental evolution and the possible causative factors have not been been recognised.We need ( to go further) to pin down the seat of recall ( I've offered myself as the guinea pig - providing V.S.Ramachandran does the experiment - and bet 1,000 guineas that a parallel function or mental modifier is not present

---

Tofol

As a SPAM aficionado, then, you recognise of course that this can only be read as a 'plug' for my book. Unfortunately, the book is also the hypothesis. Perhaps you might recognise that the recall hypothesis is of direct relevance to the current discussion, fundamental to modern opinion, belief, etc., and, as it has a bearing on such profound topics as 'Who are we?' 'Where do we come from?', you might care to take your spam with a pinch of salt?

---

Tofol

So I do smell SPAM.But no salt, please. I'm trying to lower my sodium intake.

Junior Fag?This wasn't a personal thing. The board got hacked again last night and there is carpola everywhere. I assure you, we have never seen Percy (owner - Admin) act so foolishly. I suggest you not see this as any hint or plot against you.By the way. I have no objection to someone referencing their own research/publication in a message. This may be, as you say, important and significant work. Congratulations on that.However, it would be best to use some other page in the attribution than your sales page. In this internet world this has the appearance, if not the reality, of being an attempt at SPAM.

Darwin didn't use the word "mutation" as such, this being a concept in modern genetics, but obviously he thought that the mental differences between ourselves and the other apes were the result of random heritable variations which were favored by natural selection --- what else could he have thought? Now that the human and chimp genomes have both been sequenced, there is every expectation that we shall find out just what the mutations were.

From my perspecitive, Darwin (as with all accepted views of evolutionary science) misses the point; where are other creatures on earth with "intellectual and moral faculties"? if Natrual Selection plays its role indescriminately among all species. Again, " if they were formerly of high importance" what is the reasoning between behind 'high importance' for one species but not for any other? This flavour of the teleological instincts of the human mind, even in Darwin, re-inforces, in my view, the Recall Hypothesis. Surely one could argue these attributes of 'high importance' would be of high importance to all species, equally?
I understand that it is extremely difficult for modern man to step back and view himself (and in particular his mental abilities) as stemming from a mutation. Also, that this mutastion may be detremental, not just to our species, but to all species. Yet the evidence is overwhelming; sharks ( for example) have remained unchanged for around 650,000,000 years (in 'stasis'). Humans have existed (post recall) for between 1.5 to 5 million. An eye-blink of evolutionary time. Yet all the current evidence points to a world decimated by human activity with a burgeoning population that is (quite literally) out of control.
The evidence was there for Darwin: a huge population, massive consumption and exploitation, etc. What he lacked was the startling confirmation that close primate relatives share 98% of DNA. So physical close proximity should suggest similar highly developed niches (in the broadest sense) and similar (highly developed) abilities. Clearly the effect of mental 'leverage' derived from recall provides mankind (only mankind) with
exterpolative (see the book - sorry!) abilites the origins of which can only be the result of mutation. There is no other mechanism.
The equally startling fact is that only humans are affected. This I take to be because the chances of a similar species being affected are extremely remote: you need a planet close - but not too close - to an average-size sun; a quantity of water; a thin
but palpable atmosphere; a degree of reasonable mass for the planet as a whole; you need 'primitive' microbial then bacterial life (4.5 000,000,000 years and still going strong); you need few meteor impacts and disruptive interplanetory influences; you need stable surface environments for species to evolve via Natural Selection; you need advanced species like a mamal with good physical adaptability - a primate would be good; then you need a tiny chunk of beta radiation ( the earth is showered in it) to hit a tiny component in a region of the brain that deals with basic memory function; then you need that single individual to survive and pass on that modified bit of mental leverage to subsequent members of the species; then you need that pseudo species (see book) to survive - a lot of species have died out after hundreds of millions of years of evolution, so mankind is, to
put it mildly, pushing his luck.
I hope this helps and isn't too depressing