Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter presents the hypothesis that working memory and language evolved in tandem. It reviews the evolutionary origins of each of the components of Baddeley's working memory model and their role in the evolution of language. The chapter reviews the gradualist position that language did evolve slowly from aurally directed early primate calls and notes that the primary purpose of language has always been communication. The chapter also presents the novel idea that the pragmatics of speech (the purposes of speech) also evolved in tandem with the evolution of working memory. The chapter also reviews the saltationist idea that something happened to language more recent than 100,000 years ago, and that is the release of the fifth pragmatic of speech, the subjunctive mood, which expresses wishes and ideas contrary to fact. The subjunctive mood required fully modern working memory capacity, sufficient phonological storage capacity, and an enhanced visuospatial sketchpad, which are also critically involved in episodic memory recall and simulation. The phenotypic result of this genotype meant that thought experiments could be conducted in a recursive manner. We propose that the fruits of Homo sapiens's cultural explosion, cave art, creative figurines, and highly ritualized burials, were the direct result of the wishes and imaginings that arise from subjunctive thinking and subjunctive language.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".