Dr David McGrath

Spine Physician

MB BS (Hons) FAFOM, RACP, FAFMM
Master of Pain Medicine

Disturbance Environment (Part 2)

In part 1, we concluded, that disturbance control could be further improved from partitioned convergence by being part of a cooperative social group. Initially this cooperation, was probably, simple divergence, improving the detection and avoidence of predators, much like any herding animal, with a spread of alarm through the group. The logic was:
1. I detect, we act
2. You detect, we act

A big step, was the conversion to a more precise logic
1. I detect, you act. (I am the eye, you are the arm)
2. You detect, I act. (you are the eye, I am the arm)

Interestingly, we are swapping the motor and sensory systems, a situation not possible in individuals, which does not allow the functional interchange of arms and eyes. This behaviour, probably developed, with increasing interchange of objects, and some specialisation within the group. Depending on the activity,members would be more suited for detecting or acting. (eg males more suited for defensive action, females child rearing )
This specialised behaviour could be efficient, reducing the overall energy expenditure of the group.

The most fascinating development, was the next step,in social disturbance control. Disturbances could reflect, back to their social source, as a modulation on the detection step. A kind of "are you correct" question.
1. I detect, you respond,I act
2. You detect, I respond, you act

This phenomena is Language (ref Maturana). In a less abstract example.
1. "Lion", "are you sure?", "yes" ,both flee. OR
2. "lion", "yes I agree", both flee
The question is a modulating input, recursively clarifying the perception of a lion. This would have survival advantage while reducing the number of false positives. (fleeing when no lion was present)

Perceived Threat Truth	Lion Present	Lion Absent
Lion "Confirmed" by Language	99	1
Lion Detected Only	50	50

Cell "a" is the number of confirmed sightings, which are true.
Cell "c" are unconfirmed sightings which are true
Cell "b" are confirmed sightings, which are incorrect
Cell "d" are unconfirmed sightings, which are incorrect
With a 50% confirmation rate. (200 sightings)
The improved odds, indicate the false alarms have reduced by 50%. Depending on the survival rate, on non-detecting a lion and survival rate on detecting a lion, there is an improved survival advantage as well.This is a double plus, for confirmation, via the linguistic recursion.
Of course, language has moved on from this simple example, but its root origin, lies in improved survival rate and less energy expenditure. Language has been a universally accepted disturbance mechanism for all mankind.

The big question,science is trying to answer, is the necessity or otherwise of language, for reflectiveness and the private phenomenon of mind.