Correspondence | Published:

Cognition: evolution does help to explain how minds work

Nature volume 459, page 506 (28 May 2009) | Download Citation

Subjects

Sir

In their Essay 'Can evolution explain how minds work?' (Nature 458, 832–833; 2009), Johan Bolhuis and Clive Wynne use Darwin's claim that there is “no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties” to explain how people have gone down the wrong path in studying cognition. But in homing in on examples of convergent evolution, in which humans and some distantly related species such as songbirds seem to have come up with similar solutions to the same problem, Bolhuis and Wynne neglect one key feature that distinguishes humans from all other animals.

The feature that is peculiar to humans is their understanding about the causal interactions between physical objects (see, for example, L. Wolpert Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast; Faber, 2006). For example, children realize from an early age that one moving object can make another move on impact. It is this primitive concept of mechanics that is a crucial feature of causal belief, and that conferred an advantage in tool-making and the use of tools — which, in turn, drove human evolution.

Animals, by contrast, have very limited causal beliefs, although they can learn to carry out complex tasks. According to Michael Tomasello (The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition; Harvard Univ. Press, 1999), only human primates understand the causal and intentional relations that hold among external entities. Tomasello illustrates this point for non-human primates with the claim that even though they might watch the wind shaking a branch until its fruit falls, they would never shake the branch themselves to obtain the fruit. Some primates are, nevertheless, at the edge of having causal understanding.

Once causal belief evolved in relation to tools and language, it was inevitable that people would want to understand the causes of all the events that might affect their lives — such as illness, changes in climate and death itself. Once there was a concept of cause and effect, ignorance was no longer bliss, and this could have led to the development of religious beliefs.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK  l.wolpert@ucl.ac.uk

    • Lewis Wolpert

Authors

  1. Search for Lewis Wolpert in:

About this article

Publication history

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/459506a

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Newsletter Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing