| Can
there be no doubt that a frustrated organism will generate
novel responses as a means to overcome that frustration?
Furthermore, can not one of the responses be vocal in nature?
Suppose a primate frustrated with the actions of another
in the troop emits a sound of frustration towards that primate.
Further suppose, that the response by the other primate
then was to modify their behaviour, in such a way, that
the frustration of the vocal primate is reduced. Ah, but
we need a process of natural selection, we need to Darwinify
the argument.
What
we need are primates within a troop that 'realizes' their
verbalizations, are recognized as frustration, by the other
primates (1). This group would yield significant power over
the other primates because they would be able to recognize
other brain states and capitalize by manipulating such states.
Adaptive value would be the acumen of other's brain states
and the ability to influence these brain states via demonstrable
behaviour (I.e. verbal utterances).
Could
this mean that language finds its genesis in frustration.
What is frustration but mental perturbation, I suppose it
should be no surprise that the priest created language.
How else would he generate frustration as a means to control?
Finally
Christians have an argument God's existence: Some entity
necessarily must exist to give life to Darwin so that he
could give adaptive value to the ecclesiastic baboon. |
