After reading Mirror Neurons by V.S. Ramachandran i have a few things to point out about his conclusions. While I feel that he is correct in stating that the discovery of mirror neurons in the frontal lobes of monkeys is a very relevant and interesting discovery and that it does have ramifications in terms of thinking about human brain evolution, I feel that in his rush to establish their importance in explaining the "big bang" of the human cultural revolution he has ignored several important points. Firstly, I think he is correct in stating that environmental factors played a huge part in the explosion of technological change that brought about the beginning of language, tool use, art and music. However, I feel that, while he does state that mirror neurons and the ability to learn, absorb and imitate things more quickly cannot fully explain the beginning of this phenomenon, he is remiss in stating that cultural aspects of communication such as art, music or dance do not have evolutionary benefits to the species. It is quite a well accepted fact in athropological circles that the human capacity to express and share ideas through artistic means is beneficial to the ultimate survial of any given group of people. If you study the earliest forms of cave art in African tribal peoples, they are mostly about hunting, gathering and collecting food and the general physical survival of the tribe. Music and dance can also be seen as ways to communicate apects of emotional survival, as in their earliest forms they were used as a way to connect and have trancendental experiences with the dead. It is therefor likely that these forms of communication were as important if not more so to earlier cultures then language itself as they provided a means to communicate ideas with large groups of people.

I understand that this was not really his main point and that he was mostly stating that the rise of such cultural advances were transmitted so quickly because of these mirror neurons. I'm sure that this is partly true. However, in discussing this point he completely ignores the topic of how any particular advancement actually began and why other animals such as Chimpanzees who obviously have the same brain capacity do not exhibit the same cultural advances in the same explosive way as humans.

He goes further to state that the industrial revolution of the 19th century in comparison to the development of uniquely human traits 40,000 years ago was much larger and would appear if studied side by side to be of much greater evolutionary importance. On a certain level I agree, but I also think that while the advancements made in recent history are truly amazing, they cannot possibly be equated to the beginning of human cultural intelligence simply because one would not have occured without the major changes in human society of the other. I agree that the industrial revolution proves that certain environmental factors precipitate such an explosion but I also think it proves that there are evolutionary benefits and immediate needs for such advancement to occur and be transmitted throughout a population rather then it simply occuring because of a particular ability of the brain to immitate seen behavior.

In conclusion, I think that his discussion of the actual outcomes of the studies of this particular neuron behavior are the most interesting fact stated in this essay rather then his attempted correlation between such a discovery and the evolution of human culture. I definitely think that it plays a part but I am not convinced that its as relevant in that aspect as he tries to make it seem.