On The Evolutionary Origin of Symbolic Communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emergence of symbolic communication is often cited as a critical step in the evolution of Homo sapiens, language, and human-level cognition. It is a widely held assumption that humans are the only species that possess natural symbolic communication schemes, although a variety of other species can be taught to use symbols. The origin of symbolic communication remains a controversial open problem, obfuscated by the lack of a fossil record. Here we demonstrate an unbroken evolutionary pathway from a population of initially noncommunicating robots to the spontaneous emergence of symbolic communication. Robots evolve in a simulated world and are supplied with only a single channel of communication. When their ability to reproduce is motivated by the need to find a mate, robots evolve indexical communication schemes from initially noncommunicating populations in 99% of all experiments. Furthermore, 9% of the populations evolve a symbolic communication scheme allowing pairs of robots to exchange information about two independent spatial dimensions over a one-dimensional channel, thereby increasing their chance of reproduction. These results suggest that the ability for symbolic communication could have emerged spontaneously under natural selection, without requiring cognitive preadaptations or preexisting iconic communication schemes as previously conjectured.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".