Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, 34:47 | Cite as

The evolution of languages of thought

  • Ronald J. PlanerEmail author
Article
  • 198 Downloads

Abstract

The idea that cognition makes use of one or more “languages of thought” remains central to much cognitive-scientific and philosophical theorizing. And yet, virtually no attention has been paid to the question of how a language of thought might evolve in the first place. In this article, I take some steps towards addressing this issue. With the aid of the so-called Sender–Receiver framework, I elucidate a family of distinctions and processes which enable us to see how languages of thought might evolve via a series of small, incremental changes. While much work doubtlessly remains to be done in this area, I hope to at least show that there need be nothing mysterious about the existence of languages of thought on evolutionary grounds.

Keywords

Sender–Receiver framework Combinatorial signs Encoding signs Compositional syntax and semantics Languages of thought Compact procedures 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the referees for this journal whose comments significantly improved this manuscript. I would also like to thank Peter Godfrey-Smith and Kim Sterelny for comments on earlier drafts.

References

  1. Alexander JM, Skyrms B, Zabell SL (2012) Inventing new signals. Dyn Games Appl 2(1):129–145Google Scholar
  2. Aydede M (2015) The language of thought hypothesis. In: Edward NZ (ed) The Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy, Fall 2015 edn. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/language-thought/
  3. Barrett HC (2008) Evolved cognitive mechanisms and human behavior. In: Foundations of evolutionary psychology, pp 173–189Google Scholar
  4. Barrett JA (2009) The evolution of coding in signaling games. Theory Decis 67(2):223–237Google Scholar
  5. Barrett JA, Skyrms B (2017) Self-assembling games. Br J Philos Sci 68(2):329–353Google Scholar
  6. Berwick RC, Chomsky N (2016) Why only us: language and evolution. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Calcott B (2014) The creation and reuse of information in gene regulatory networks. Philos Sci 81(5):879–890Google Scholar
  8. Cao R (2012) A teleosemantic approach to information in the brain. Biol Philos 27(1):49–71Google Scholar
  9. Clayton NS, Dickinson A (1998) Episodic-like memory during cache recovery by scrub jays. Nature 395(6699):272–274Google Scholar
  10. Clayton NS, Krebs JR (1995) Memory in food-storing birds: from behaviour to brain. Curr Opin Neurobiol 5(2):149–154Google Scholar
  11. Clayton NS, Yu KS, Dickinson A (2001) Scrub jays (Aphelocoma coerulescens) form integrated memories of the multiple features of caching episodes. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 27(1):17Google Scholar
  12. Cover TM, Thomas JA (2012) Elements of information theory. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  13. Dennett DC (1991) Consciousness explained. Little, Brown and Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
  14. Fodor JA (1995) The elm and the expert: mentalese and its semantics. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Fodor JA, Pylyshyn ZW (1988) Connectionism and cognitive architecture: a critical analysis. Cognition 28(1):3–71Google Scholar
  16. Franke M (2014) Creative compositionality from reinforcement learning in signaling games. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference (EVOLANG10) on evolution of language, pp 82–89Google Scholar
  17. Gallistel CR (1990) The organization of learning. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Gallistel CR (2008) Learning and representation. In: Menzel R (ed) Learning and memory: a comprehensive reference. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Gallistel CR, King AP (2011) Memory and the computational brain: why cognitive science will transform neuroscience, vol 6. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Gallistel CR, Matzel LD (2013) The neuroscience of learning: beyond the Hebbian synapse”. Annu Rev Psychol 64:169–200Google Scholar
  21. Godfrey-Smith P (2014a) Sender–receiver systems within and between organisms. Philos Sci 81(5):866–878Google Scholar
  22. Godfrey-Smith P (2014b) Signs and symbolic behavior. Biol Theory 9(1):78–88Google Scholar
  23. Godfrey-Smith P (2017) Primates, cephalopods, and the evolution of communication. Origin of language and communication. A collection about Dorothy Cheney and Robert Seyfarth’s recent work. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  24. Godfrey-Smith P, Martínez M (2013) Communication and common interest. PLoS Comput Biol 9(11):e1003282Google Scholar
  25. Harms WF (2004) Primitive content, translation, and the emergence of meaning in animal communication. Evol Commun Syst Comp Approach 2004:31–48Google Scholar
  26. Hockett CD (1960) The origin of speech. Freeman, DallasGoogle Scholar
  27. Hopkins E (2002) Two competing models of how people learn in games. Econometrica 70(6):2141–2166Google Scholar
  28. Huttegger SM (2007) Robustness in signaling games. Philos Sci 74(5):839–847Google Scholar
  29. Lachmann M, Szamado S, Bergstrom CT (2001) Cost and conflict in animal signals and human language. Proc Natl Acad Sci 98(23):13189–13194Google Scholar
  30. Lewis D (1969) Convention: a philosophical study. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Martínez M, Godfrey-Smith P (2016) Common interest and signaling games: a dynamic analysis. Philos Sci 83(3):371–392Google Scholar
  32. Millikan RG (1984) Language, thought, and other biological categories: new foundations for realism. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Nowak MA, Plotkin JB, Jansen VAA (2000) The evolution of syntactic communication. Nature 404(6777):495Google Scholar
  34. O’Connor C (2014) Evolving perceptual categories. Philos Sci 81(5):840–851Google Scholar
  35. Orilia F, Swoyer C (2017) Properties. In: Edward NZ (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Winter 2017 edn. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/properties/
  36. Panzeri S et al (2015) Neural population coding: combining insights from microscopic and mass signals. Trends Cognit Sci 19(3):162–172Google Scholar
  37. Planer RJ, Godfrey-Smith P (forthcoming) Communication and representation understood as sender–receiver coordination. Mind LangGoogle Scholar
  38. Resnik DB (1991) How-possibly explanations in biology. Acta Biotheor 39(2):141–149Google Scholar
  39. Scott-Phillips TC, Blythe RA (2013) Why is combinatorial communication rare in the natural world, and why is language an exception to this trend? J R Soc Interface 10(88):20130520Google Scholar
  40. Shea N (2013) Millikan’s isomorphism requirement. In: Millikan and her critics, pp 63–86Google Scholar
  41. Shea N (2014) VI—exploitable isomorphism and structural representation. In: Proceedings of the aristotelian society, vol 114, no 2_pt_2, Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  42. Skyrms B (1995) Evolution of the social contract. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Skyrms B (2004) The stag hunt and the evolution of social structure. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Skyrms B (2010) Signals: evolution, learning, and information. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Smead R (2014) Deception and the evolution of plasticity. Philos Sci 81(5):852–865Google Scholar
  46. Sterelny K (2012) Language, gesture, skill: the co-evolutionary foundations of language. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 367(1599):2141–2151Google Scholar
  47. Sterling P, Laughlin S (2015) Principles of neural design. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  48. Striedter GF (2005) Principles of brain evolution. Sinauer, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  49. Watson RA, Szathmáry E (2016) How can evolution learn? Trends Ecol Evol 31(2):147–157Google Scholar
  50. Zollman KJS (2011) Separating directives and assertions using simple signaling games. J Philos 108(3):158–169Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PhilosophyThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations