Neurofilosofía y Pensamiento Actual Neurophilosophy and Contemporary Thought: symbolism

Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta symbolism. Mostrar todas las entradas

viernes, 14 de agosto de 2026

The Three Revolutions of the Mind: Our Species' Cognitive Journey According to Merlin Donald

Bernabé Mallo

Doctor en Filosofía por la Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU)
Investigador en neurofilosofía, evolución humana y origen del arte. / PhD in Philosophy – University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU)
Researcher in neurophilosophy, human evolution, and the origins of art.

A review of Merlin Donald's book (1991): Origins of the Modern Mind: Three Stages in the Evolution of Culture and Cognition

Introduction: the definitive question

How did the human mind acquire its incomparable power? This question, which Merlin Donald considers the "definitive question" of the life sciences, runs through his work Origins of the Modern Mind: Three Stages in the Evolution of Culture and Cognition, published in 1991 . Donald, professor of psychology and cognitive neuroscience at Queen's University (Canada) and later at Case Western Reserve University, proposes in this book an original theory of the evolution of human cognition that has profoundly influenced neuroanthropology and evolutionary psychology.

Donald's central thesis is that the human mind is not the product of a single evolutionary leap, but of three radical cognitive transitions that have taken place over the last two million years . Each of these transitions has endowed our species with a new system for representing reality and a new form of culture. The result is a hybrid mental architecture, composed of vestiges of earlier biological stages and new external symbolic devices that have radically altered its organisation.

Donald's proposal sits at the intersection of palaeontology, linguistics, anthropology, cognitive science, and, most relevantly, neuropsychology. His approach emphasises cognition as the mediator between brain and culture, in an iterative loop in which changes at one level reverberate through the others. This perspective connects directly with the interests of our research, which seeks to understand art as an emergent phenomenon of the interaction between biology, cognition, and social environment.

The first transition: mimetic culture

The first great cognitive transition, according to Donald, took place with the appearance of Homo erectus, approximately two million years ago . At this time, our ancestors acquired mimetic skill: the capacity to represent knowledge through voluntary motor acts, deliberately and systematically.

Mimesis is, in Donald's words, the "key adaptation" that initiated the human journey . It is not the simple imitation that we also find in other primates, but a much more sophisticated capacity: that of rehearsing and refining body movements, remembering those rehearsals, and reproducing them on demand . This ability allowed early hominins to create pre-linguistic representations of reality through gestures, rituals, dances, and crafts.

Evidence for this capacity is found in the very existence of very ancient stone tools, which cannot be manufactured without the capacity for systematic rehearsal and without the ability to imagine an idealised execution. As Donald notes, Palaeolithic toolmakers learned their skills in the same way modern humans do: by imagining their executions in a social context and representing them as dramatic scenarios.

Mimetic culture has several crucial consequences. First, it profoundly modifies the primate mind, giving rise to what Donald calls "mimetic imagination": the capacity to imagine and modify one's own actions . Second, it transforms culture, creating a shared performance space where roles can be enacted and rehearsed . This culture of performance and stagecraft remains alive today in sport, ritual, and the performing arts.

The second transition: mythic culture

The second cognitive transition coincides with the development of spoken language, probably in the early populations of Homo sapiens . Mimetic capacity served as a preadaptation for this development, providing the foundation for symbolic communication.

With language, humans acquired the capacity to represent reality through words, to construct narratives, to transmit complex knowledge from generation to generation. This transition gave rise to "mythic" culture, characterised by storytelling, the creation of myths, and the construction of shared cosmologies. Mythic culture enabled our species to develop complex pre-literate societies, which still survive in many parts of the world.

The importance of language in this process cannot be overstated. As Donald notes, the properties of brain, culture, and cognition have co-evolved in a "tight iterative loop", where the main event of human evolution has occurred at the cognitive level, mediating change at the anatomical and cultural levels. Language, by enabling the transmission of symbolic information, accelerated this co-evolutionary process.

The third transition: symbolic and technological culture

The third and final transition, which Donald places at the development of writing and external symbolic systems (cuneiform, hieroglyphics, alphabets, mathematics), represented an even more radical change than the previous ones . With the invention of these systems, human biological memory became an inadequate vehicle for storing and processing collective knowledge.

This is the moment when our species began to externalise its memory. External symbols —engraved in stone, written on papyri, printed in books— became a new type of "storage device" that exponentially expanded the mind's capacity to retain and manipulate information . Symbolic literacy, according to Donald, consists of the complex set of skills necessary to interact with this external memory system.

The most profound consequence of this transition is that the architecture of human memory has been altered. We no longer need to store all information in our biological memory; we can delegate part of that load to the external system. This has changed the way the human brain deploys its resources and, with it, the shape of modern culture.

Donald notes that this transition is far from complete. Computer technology intensifies the changes initiated by writing, offering even more extensive capacities for external storage and retrieval of information . His observation, formulated in 1991, is even more relevant in the age of artificial intelligence and virtual reality.

The hybrid mind: vestiges and new devices

One of Donald's most original contributions is his conception of the modern mind as a hybrid structure. We have not abandoned the capacities of earlier stages; we have integrated them. The modern mind contains vestiges of mimetic cognition (in dance, ritual, sport), of linguistic cognition (in language and narrative), and of external symbolic cognition (in reading, writing, and mathematical thinking).

This hybrid architecture is revealed, according to Donald, in the way the mind breaks down after brain injury. The independence of the three representational systems —mimetic, linguistic, and external symbolic— suggests that they are supported by distinct, though interconnected, neural mechanisms.

Furthermore, Donald notes that humans are "symbol-using creatures", but that the symbol is not a fixed mental module. It is the product of an inventive capacity that unfolds in the social sphere . Each of the three systems is based on an inventive capacity, and the products of those capacities —languages, symbols, gestures, rituals, images— continue to be invented and evaluated on the social stage.

Parallels with the S/Y/C model: an integrative reading

Donald's theory and the S/Y/C model of neuronal functioning that forms the core of our research (Mallo, 2023, 2025, 2026a, 2026b) converge on several fundamental points, despite starting from different disciplines and levels of analysis. While Donald traces cognitive evolution through cultural transitions, our proposal focuses on the single function of the nervous system. This convergence is not coincidental: both perspectives point to the same reality, that of a species that has been weaving its mind over time, integrating successive layers of capacities.

The S (Survival) dimension finds its evolutionary correlate in Donald's mimetic culture. The capacity to rehearse and refine actions, to imagine idealised executions, is a tool of adaptation that improves the ability of human groups to obtain resources, process food, make tools, and ultimately survive. Mimetic culture, as Donald notes, is the platform on which all complex performance, including language, has been built . Palaeolithic stone tools, which cannot be manufactured without the capacity for systematic rehearsal, are a testament to this adaptation . The neuronal function we call S is not an abstraction: it is the biological basis that made possible the development of mimetic capacity.

The Y (Symbolon) dimension is illuminated by the second transition, that of language and mythic culture. Language is symbolon par excellence: a system of shared codes that enables mutual recognition, the transmission of meaning, and the construction of symbolic worlds. Mythic culture, with its stories and cosmologies, is a manifestation of the human capacity to create symbols that transcend immediate experience. Palaeolithic cave art, which Donald situates within the context of mythic culture, is an expression of this symbolic capacity. Y is not, therefore, a cultural add-on, but the manifestation of a neuronal function that is activated and developed within the context of culture.

The C (Wholeness) dimension manifests in the third transition, that of external symbolic systems. Writing, mathematics, and external storage systems are tools for closing forms, for creating coherent totalities from fragments of information. The drive toward wholeness, which in art manifests as the need to create finished works, extends here to the entire domain of knowledge. External symbolic systems allow us to construct cognitive totalities that transcend the capacities of individual biological memory. C is, in this sense, the impulse that leads us to complete and close circuits of meaning, whether in a work of art or in a system of knowledge.

Donald does not use our language, but his description of the three cognitive transitions points in the same direction. What he describes as the emergence of new capacities for representation —mimetic, linguistic, and external symbolic— is the manifestation, at the level of culture, of a single neuronal function that unfolds in three concatenated dimensions. The hybrid mind that Donald describes is the result of this concatenation, in which each new layer does not replace the previous one, but integrates and transforms it. This is precisely the principle that underlies the Law of Biological Coherence S/Y/C.

Final considerations: the continuing evolution of the mind

Merlin Donald's book reminds us that the evolution of the human mind is not a concluded process. As he notes in his 1993 Précis, "cognitive evolution is not yet complete: the externalisation of memory has altered the actual architecture of memory within which humans think" . We are in the midst of a third transition that has not yet revealed all its consequences.

The question Donald poses at the end of his work —and which we can make our own— is how this externalisation of memory is changing the way humans think and, with it, the shape of our culture. Digital technology, artificial intelligence, and external storage devices are the direct heirs of the earliest symbolic systems. The modern mind, hybrid and constantly evolving, remains an open project.

As Donald notes, when we study literate adults living in technologically advanced societies, we are observing a subtype that is no more typical of the entire human species than, for example, members of a hunter-gatherer group . Our science, our philosophy, and our art would be shaped differently if they had been based on a different type of culture. Understanding this cognitive diversity, and how it has been shaped over the three great transitions, is essential for understanding who we are and where we are going.

References

Donald, M. (1991). Origins of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition. Harvard University Press.

Donald, M. (1993). Précis of Origins of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16(4), 737–748. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00032647

Mallo, B. (2023). La construcción neuro-simbólica. Una aproximación al funcionamiento del cerebro desde una perspectiva multidisciplinar [Doctoral thesis, University of the Basque Country - Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea]. ADDI Repository. http://hdl.handle.net/10810/62701

Mallo, B. (2025). Arte y biología: Una aproximación neurofilosófica al origen de la experiencia estética. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0E8Y5WZMK

Mallo, B. (2025). Art and biology: A neurophilosophical approach to the origin of aesthetic experience. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0E8Y6C2XN

Mallo, B. (2026a). De la filosofía quirúrgica a la ley de coherencia biológica S/Y/C: Hacia una investigación sobre el origen del arte en la especie Homo. https://isbn.bibna.gub.uy/catalogo.php?mode=detalle&nt=57196

Mallo, B. (2026a). De la filosofía quirúrgica a la ley de coherencia biológica S/Y/C: Hacia una investigación sobre el origen del arte en la especie Homo [Kindle edition]. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GYGTJD5C

Mallo, B. (2026b). From surgical philosophy to the law of biological coherence S/Y/C: Toward a study of the origin of art in the Homo lineage. https://isbn.bibna.gub.uy/catalogo.php?mode=detalle&nt=57197

Autor / Author

Bernabé Mallo
Doctor en Filosofía – Universidad del País Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU)
Investigador independiente en neurofilosofía, evolución humana y origen del arte.

Bernabé Mallo
PhD in Philosophy – University of the Basque Country / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU)
Independent researcher in neurophilosophy, human evolution, and the origin of art.

Enlaces / Links

Página de autor Amazon / Amazon Author Page: https://www.amazon.com/author/bernabemallo
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9002-9728
Plataforma EHUenRed / Link EHUenRed: https://www.ehu.eus/es/web/masterrak-eta-graduondokoak/red-latinoamericana-de-posgrados
Canal YouTube / Channel YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@neuroideas815
Canal YouTube / Channel YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBsf6OZ482NjST6QA-hvYtQ
Publicaciones y proyectos en desarrollo / Publications and projects:
https://www.amazon.com/author/bernabemallo
https://ehuenred.theglocal.network/ideas/el-origen-del-arte-en-el-cerebro-de-makapansgat-al-moma-del-primate-al-sapiens

viernes, 7 de agosto de 2026

The Human Journey: From the Makapansgat Pebble to the Far Reaches of the Cosmos

Bernabé Mallo

A reflection on the origin of art and the continuity of the species through the lens of Clottes, Menninghaus, and Henshilwood

Introduction: a simple and complex question

What connects an australopithecine who collected a pebble shaped like a face, a Palaeolithic artist who ventured into the depths of a cave to paint a bison, an Egyptian educator who protected young people with amulets and teachings, and a contemporary astronaut who gazes at Earth from space? The answer, perhaps, is simpler than it seems: they are all children of the same species, bearers of the same symbolic heritage, driven by the same urge toward survival, meaning, and wholeness.

Let us begin with a lived experience. The Guaraní peoples of Paraguay, like so many other indigenous cultures, demonstrate an extraordinary knowledge of their natural environment and its possibilities for survival. They know the plants, the animals, the cycles, the dangers. They know how to move, how to protect themselves, how to obtain resources. This knowledge is not an exception: it is the norm in every human culture that has depended directly on its environment. The educational systems of ancient Egypt, for their part, show us another aspect of this same capacity: childhood was protected through advanced teachings and amulets that safeguarded children from environmental threats . Survival was not only physical, but also symbolic.

If knowledge of the environment generates confidence, and confidence drives exploration, then the history of our species is the history of a continuous expansion. We know our environment, we feel safe, and we venture to investigate other lands, other cultures, other worlds. Thus it was in the past, and thus it continues today. The question we pose is, therefore, a question about the continuity of the human: what happened that led an australopithecine to carry a stone like the Makapansgat pebble to its home? What happened that led the artists of Altamira or Lascaux to paint animals in difficult-to-access areas, almost hidden? What happened that led the Egyptians to develop such advanced educational systems? And what is happening today with space travellers?

The enigma of Makapansgat: the first symbolic gesture

The Makapansgat pebble, a reddish jasper stone weighing about 260 grams, was found in 1925 in a cave in South Africa, several kilometres from its nearest natural source . Its natural marks and wear give it a striking resemblance to a human face. It was neither carved nor modified by human hands. It was collected and transported. Why?

The answer, though uncertain, is fascinating. Someone —an australopithecine, perhaps, or some other early hominin— saw in that stone something more than a stone. They saw a face. And they did not only see it: they valued it enough to carry it with them, to make it part of their home, to keep it in an inhabited space .

This seemingly trivial gesture is the earliest evidence of a capacity that defines us as a species: the capacity to recognise symbols, to see beyond immediate reality, to attribute meaning to objects that have no practical utility. The Makapansgat pebble was not used for cutting, striking, or protecting. It served to be looked at. And in looking at it, the one who found it saw themselves reflected in it.

The discoveries at Blombos Cave, with their engraved ochre pieces over 70,000 years old, confirm that this symbolic capacity was not an isolated accident . The abstract geometric patterns engraved on these pieces are not representations of animals or people. They are symbols: arbitrary conventions created to express shared concepts, whose meaning has been lost but whose symbolic intention is indisputable . As Christopher Henshilwood notes, "these finds demonstrate that ochre use in the MSA was not exclusively utilitarian and, arguably, the transmission and sharing of the meaning of the engravings relied on fully syntactical language" .

Cave art: why hide beauty?

If the Blombos engravings show us the capacity to create symbols, the paintings of Altamira and Lascaux show us the capacity to hide them. The animals represented in these caves are not at the entrances, nor in the illuminated areas. They are in the depths, in narrow galleries, in difficult-to-access places . Why?

Jean Clottes, in his article on the interpretation of prehistoric art, reviews the main theories that have attempted to answer this question . The theory of "art for art's sake", which saw in these works mere entertainment or ornamentation, was abandoned precisely because it could not explain why they were produced in such remote and dark places. The theory of sympathetic magic, which interpreted them as rituals to ensure hunting success, also failed to account for all the evidence: the animals represented were not always the most hunted, and wounded or pierced figures are surprisingly rare .

The most recent hypothesis, defended by Clottes together with David Lewis-Williams, is that of Palaeolithic shamanism . According to this interpretation, the deep caves were perceived as the realm of spirits, as gateways to the supernatural world. Entering them was therefore a form of shamanic journey, a search for contact with the forces that governed the world. The paintings and engravings would be the materialisation of the visions obtained during trance, and the natural reliefs of the walls —which could evoke animal forms— would be deliberately used to "free" the spirits from the rock .

This hypothesis offers an answer to the questions we posed. The animals represented were not the most consumed because they were not hunting objects, but auxiliary spirits: beings encountered by the shaman in their visions, whose power they sought to channel. The representation in difficult-to-access areas was not a whim, but a necessity: the journey to the underground world was a metaphor for the journey to the spirit world, and the difficulty of access was part of the ritual. The caves were not hiding places, but sanctuaries: places where the community could enter into contact with the sacred.

The restless traveller: from Altamira to outer space

If Palaeolithic art was a form of spiritual journey, our species has never ceased to travel. The hominins who collected the Makapansgat pebble, the artists who painted in the depths of the caves, the educators who protected the children of ancient Egypt, and the astronauts who today explore space share a common characteristic: dissatisfaction with the present, the need to go further, to explore, to know, to transcend.

This travelling drive is not a cultural accident. It is a consequence of our symbolic capacity, of our capacity to symbolise what is not present and to desire what does not yet exist. The space traveller is no different from the Palaeolithic hunter who ventured into a dark cave, nor the Polynesian navigator who crossed the Pacific in canoes, nor the explorer who mapped unknown continents. They are all bearers of the same heritage: the capacity to imagine a beyond and to act to reach it.

The technology that enables these journeys —from the Blombos bone tools to space rockets— is also a manifestation of the same symbolic capacity . The Blombos bone tools, about 70,000 years old, are not merely useful objects. They are products of a sequence of deliberate technical choices, requiring planning, knowledge, and transmission of skills . They are, in this sense, the Palaeolithic equivalent of a spacecraft: the result of a mind that thinks long-term, anticipates needs, and designs solutions for future problems.

Towards a synthesis: art as testimony to human continuity

Winfried Menninghaus, in his book Aesthetics after Darwin, proposes a "cooptation" model to explain the multiple origins of the human arts . According to this model, art emerged when three ancient and largely independent adaptations —sensory biases linked to sexual selection, play behaviour, and technology— came together and were transformed by human capacities for symbolic cognition and language . Art, from this perspective, is not a specific adaptation for a concrete function, but a new behavioural variant that emerged from the confluence of several evolutionary factors .

This model fits perfectly with the continuity we have traced from Makapansgat to space exploration. The capacity to recognise a face in a stone (sensory bias), the curiosity to explore the unknown (play behaviour), and the ability to make tools that allow us to reach further (technology) combined with symbolic capacity to create art, to travel, to educate, to transcend.

The question we posed at the beginning —what connects the australopithecine, the Palaeolithic artist, the Egyptian educator, and the astronaut— thus finds an answer: they are all manifestations of the same unique neuronal function, which we have called S/Y/C:

S (Survival): the need to know the environment, to protect oneself, to ensure the continuity of life. The Guaraní who knows the jungle, the Egyptian who protects their children, the astronaut who keeps their spacecraft functioning: they are all attending to survival.
Y (Symbolon): the capacity to create and share symbols, to attribute meaning to objects and actions. The australopithecine who sees a face in a stone, the artist who paints a bison in a cave, the Egyptian who makes an amulet, the astronaut who plants a flag on the Moon: they are all creating symbolon.
C (Wholeness): the drive toward totality, the need to close a cycle, to achieve a goal. The traveller who enters the cave, the explorer who crosses the ocean, the astronaut who reaches space: they are all seeking wholeness, the sensation of having arrived somewhere.

Final considerations: the species that never stops travelling

The history of our species is the history of a continuous journey. It began with a faltering step out of Africa, continued with the exploration of all continents, and today takes us to the far reaches of the solar system. But the journey is not only physical. It is also spiritual, symbolic, interior. Art, religion, philosophy, science, and technology are the different forms this journey has taken.

The Makapansgat pebble, the paintings of Altamira, the Blombos bone tools, the Egyptian amulets, and today's spacecraft are all milestones on the same path: the path of a species that is not satisfied with what it has, that always wants to go further, that never stops asking what lies on the other side.

And on this path, what we carry with us is always the same: our capacity to symbolise, to create meaning, to seek wholeness. That is what makes us human. And that is what, probably, will continue to accompany us as the journey continues.

References

Clottes, J. (2003). De « l'art pour l'art » au chamanisme : l'interprétation de l'art préhistorique. La revue pour l'histoire du CNRS, (8). https://doi.org/10.4000/histoire-cnrs.553

Henshilwood, C. S., d'Errico, F., Marean, C. W., Milo, R. G., & Yates, R. (2001). An early bone tool industry from the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South Africa: Implications for the origins of modern human behaviour, symbolism and language. Journal of Human Evolution, 41(6), 631–678. https://doi.org/10.1006/jhev.2001.0515

Henshilwood, C. S., d'Errico, F., Yates, R., Jacobs, Z., Tribolo, C., Duller, G. A. T., Mercier, N., Sealy, J. C., Valladas, H., Watts, I., & Wintle, A. G. (2002). Emergence of modern human behavior: Middle Stone Age engravings from South Africa. Science, 295(5558), 1278–1280. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1067575

Henshilwood, C. S., d'Errico, F., & Watts, I. (2009). Engraved ochres from the Middle Stone Age levels at Blombos Cave, South Africa. Journal of Human Evolution, 57(1), 27–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2009.02.006

Mallo, B. (2025). Arte y biología: Una aproximación neurofilosófica al origen de la experiencia estética. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0E8Y5WZMK

Mallo, B. (2025). Art and biology: A neurophilosophical approach to the origin of aesthetic experience. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0E8Y6C2XN

Menninghaus, W. (2019). Aesthetics after Darwin: The multiple origins and functions of the arts (A. Berlina, Trans.). Academic Studies Press. (Original work published 2011)

Autor / Author

Bernabé Mallo
Doctor en Filosofía – Universidad del País Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU)
Investigador independiente en neurofilosofía, evolución humana y origen del arte.

Bernabé Mallo
PhD in Philosophy – University of the Basque Country / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU)
Independent researcher in neurophilosophy, human evolution, and the origin of art.

Enlaces / Links

viernes, 24 de julio de 2026

Bones That Speak: The World's Oldest Bone Tool Industry and the Origin of Modern Behavior

Bernabé Mallo

A review of the discovery by Henshilwood and colleagues (2001): An early bone tool industry from the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South Africa: implications for the origins of modern human behaviour, symbolism and language

Introduction: when bone becomes technology

What distinguishes a modern human from their more archaic ancestors? Not only anatomy —the rounded skull, the less prominent jaw— but something more difficult to trace in the fossil record: the capacity to plan, to execute complex technical sequences, to create tools that do not imitate the shape of stone but exploit the properties of other materials. For decades, archaeologists have considered the manufacture of bone tools to be a key marker of modern behavior. And for decades, it was thought that this behavior had emerged in Europe about 40,000 years ago, as part of the "symbolic explosion" of the Upper Paleolithic (Henshilwood et al., 2001).

A discovery published in 2001 in the Journal of Human Evolution by Christopher Henshilwood and an international team of researchers radically changed this narrative (Henshilwood et al., 2001). In Blombos Cave, on the southern coast of South Africa, they recovered 28 bone tools from Middle Stone Age (MSA) levels dating to about 70,000 years ago. This is the largest collection of formal bone tools found at a single African MSA site, and its existence demonstrates that sophisticated bone technology is not a European invention, but a much earlier African innovation (Henshilwood et al., 2001).

These tools, which include awls and projectile points, were manufactured following a sequence of deliberate technical choices: blank selection, shaping using various techniques, and final finishing (Henshilwood et al., 2001). Their presence, together with other finds at the same site —engraved ochre, bifacial stone points, and a diversified subsistence economy— is "turning the tide in favour of models positing behavioural modernity in Africa at a time far earlier than previously accepted" (Henshilwood et al., 2001, p. 631).

The Blombos discovery: 28 tools that rewrite history

Between 1992 and 2000, excavations at Blombos Cave —a rock shelter overlooking the Indian Ocean on the Western Cape of South Africa— brought to light 28 bone tools, recovered in situ from MSA levels dating to about 70,000 years ago (Henshilwood et al., 2001). This is the largest collection of formal bone tools found at a single African MSA site, and its detailed study has revealed a degree of technical sophistication that contradicts traditional models of the origin of modern behavior.

Microscopic and morphometric analyses show that these tools were not manufactured casually or improvisationally. They follow a structured production sequence that includes: (1) the production of a rough blank; (2) the application of various shaping methods; and (3) the final finishing of the artifact to produce awls and projectile points (Henshilwood et al., 2001). The manufacturing techniques are comparable to those described for "formal" bone tools from other contexts, and their planning and execution are consistent with those of the late Holocene, indicating a continuity in cognitive and technical capacity over tens of thousands of years (Henshilwood et al., 2001).

The assemblage includes tools that were probably used for working hides (the awls) and others that may have served as hunting weapons (the projectile points). The presence of these tools in the MSA is particularly notable because, as the authors note, "bone tools are rarely found in African Middle or Later Stone Age sites before ca. 25 ka" (Henshilwood et al., 2001, p. 631). Their scarcity had been cited as evidence of a lack of modern technological or cognitive capacities before ca. 50 ka. The Blombos discovery demonstrates that this scarcity is not due to an incapacity, but probably to preservation biases and limited archaeological research in Africa (Henshilwood et al., 2001).

The context: more than tools, symbolic behavior

The Blombos bone tools do not appear in isolation. They are part of a body of evidence pointing to fully modern behavior in the African MSA. Alongside the bone tools, researchers have documented:

Deliberate engravings on ochre, with abstract geometric patterns, demonstrating the capacity to create and share symbols (Henshilwood et al., 2002).
Bifacial stone points crafted with great skill, suggesting a high degree of planning and technical expertise.
Sophisticated subsistence strategies, including the hunting of terrestrial and marine animals, fishing, and shellfish collection, indicating a diversified exploitation of the environment and a deep knowledge of available resources.

This combination of evidence —advanced bone technology, symbolism, complex lithic artifacts, and an adaptive economy— is exactly the kind of "package" of behaviors that archaeologists have traditionally used to identify "modernity" in the archaeological record. And at Blombos, it appears 35,000 years earlier than it is documented in Europe (Henshilwood et al., 2001).

As Henshilwood himself noted in an interview at the time, "the real implications are that there was modern human behavior in Africa about 35,000 years before Europe" . Or, as another team member, Curtis Marean, put it: "Once again, in terms of human evolution, we're seeing that Africa was precocious: bipedal hominids evolved in Africa; the first real increase in brain size happened in Africa; and now, we're beginning to see that the last great advance, the development of modern behavior, also happened in Africa" .

Why are these tools important?

The importance of the Blombos discovery transcends the antiquity of the tools. Its significance lies in what it reveals about the human mind and the origin of technical and symbolic capacity.

1. They dismantle the myth of the European "symbolic explosion"

For a long time, archaeologists argued that modern behavior emerged suddenly and explosively in Europe about 40,000 years ago, in what was called the "symbolic explosion" of the Upper Paleolithic (Henshilwood et al., 2001). The Blombos bone tools, together with the ochre engravings and other finds, demonstrate that this narrative is wrong. Advanced bone technology and symbolic behavior did not suddenly emerge in Eurasia; they have much deeper roots in Africa, where anatomically modern humans had existed for tens of thousands of years.

2. They evidence the presence of syntactic language

The manufacture of formal bone tools —which require a sequence of technical decisions, long-term planning, and the transmission of knowledge— is indirect evidence for the existence of fully syntactic language (Henshilwood et al., 2001). To transmit manufacturing techniques from one generation to the next, and to coordinate hunting and resource processing activities, MSA human groups needed a complex communication system, comparable to our own.

3. They demonstrate a cultural tradition

The presence of 28 bone tools at the same site, manufactured following the same technical sequences and for the same purposes, suggests that we are not dealing with isolated acts, but with an established cultural tradition. Technical knowledge was transmitted and refined over generations. This cultural continuity, together with the evidence of symbolism, indicates that MSA groups already possessed a social and cognitive complexity comparable to that of modern populations.

4. They broaden our understanding of the origin of art and technology

The Blombos bone tools are not "art" in the sense of a painting or a sculpture. But they are a manifestation of the same technical and symbolic capacity that would later give rise to figurative art. The manufacture of specialized tools from materials other than stone requires an understanding of material properties, forward planning, and precise hand control. These same capacities would, later, allow humans to engrave symbols on ochre or paint figures on cave walls.

Connection with research on the origin of art (S/Y/C)

The Blombos discovery resonates deeply with the research we have been developing on the S/Y/C model of neuronal functioning and the Law of Biological Coherence (Mallo, 2023, 2025, 2026a, 2026b). These tools, made by anatomically modern humans 70,000 years ago, are an early manifestation of the technical and symbolic capacity that defines our species, and can be understood in light of our three dimensions.

The S (Survival) dimension manifests in the practical function of these tools: awls for working hides, projectile points for hunting. Bone technology is not a disinterested luxury; it is a tool of adaptation that improves the ability of human groups to obtain resources, process food, make clothing, and ultimately survive. The planning and execution of these tools reflects an investment of time and effort that only makes sense within a long-term survival strategy.

The Y (Symbolon) dimension emerges in the context of these tools. They are not merely useful objects; their manufacture following standardized sequences, their transmission as cultural knowledge, and their association with other symbolic artifacts (such as the ochre engravings) indicate that they were part of a system of shared meanings. Symbolon —the act of recognition through shared codes— is not limited to language or art; it also manifests in technology, in the transmission of technical knowledge, in the group identity constructed around shared practices.

The C (Wholeness) dimension manifests in the very structure of the tools: they are finished objects, which have passed through a complete production sequence to reach their final form. This drive toward totality —the need to complete a process, to achieve a result— is the same that guides the artist when finishing a work. Technology and art share, in this sense, a common root: the need to close forms, to give coherence to matter.

Surgical Philosophy invites us to make a precise analytical cut in these findings. It is not about seeing Blombos as the "origin" of modern technology and stopping there. It is about understanding that these tools are part of a continuous process that extends to the present day. What we see at Blombos is the emergence of a capacity —the technical and symbolic capacity— that will later develop, diversify, and become more complex over tens of thousands of years.

Implications for future research

The discovery by Henshilwood and colleagues, together with other discoveries at Blombos and at other African sites (such as the bone tools from Katanda, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or the bone points from Sibudu, in South Africa), has transformed our understanding of the origin of modern behavior. But it also opens new questions:

What other technological and symbolic innovations existed in the MSA? The presence of formal bone tools at Blombos suggests that MSA human groups already possessed a much wider technical repertoire than previously thought. What other materials did they use? What other techniques had they developed?
Why are bone tools so rare in the MSA record? If MSA humans already had the capacity to manufacture them, why do they appear in so few sites? Is it due to preservation biases (bone preserves less well than stone), to lower intensity of use, or to cultural factors?
What is the relationship between bone technology and art? The bone tools and ochre engravings appear at the same site and in the same levels. Did they share the same creators? Were they part of the same "package" of innovations? Are technical capacity and symbolic capacity related, or are they independent?
What role did these innovations play in the expansion of modern humans out of Africa? The accumulation of technological and symbolic innovations in the African MSA may have provided modern humans with an adaptive advantage that allowed them to successfully expand to other continents. But when exactly did this expansion occur, and what role did these innovations play?

Final considerations: bone as testimony to the modern mind

The discovery of the Blombos bone tools is much more than an archaeological news item. It is a window into the minds of our ancestors. It shows that, 70,000 years ago, in a cave by the sea, groups of anatomically modern humans already possessed the capacity to plan, to execute complex technical sequences, to transmit knowledge over generations, and to create artifacts that went beyond immediate need.

These tools are the testimony of a modern mind, a mind that could already think abstractly, that could already coordinate complex actions, that could already transform the world through technology. And that capacity, which is still alive today in every technology, in every work of art, in every tool we make, was not born in the caves of Eurasia 40,000 years ago. It was born in Africa, much earlier, and has been with us ever since.

As Henshilwood's team wrote in their 2001 article, the Blombos evidence, "taken together with recent finds from Klasies River, Katanda and other African Middle Stone Age sites [...] is turning the tide in favour of models positing behavioural modernity in Africa at a time far earlier than previously accepted" (Henshilwood et al., 2001, p. 631). Today we can add: and that modernity, which already existed 70,000 years ago, continues to define who we are.

References

Mallo, B. (2025). Arte y biología: Una aproximación neurofilosófica al origen de la experiencia estética. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0E8Y5WZMK

Mallo, B. (2025). Art and biology: A neurophilosophical approach to the origin of aesthetic experience. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0E8Y6C2XN

Autor / Author

Bernabé Mallo
Doctor en Filosofía – Universidad del País Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU)
Investigador independiente en neurofilosofía, evolución humana y origen del arte.

Bernabé Mallo
PhD in Philosophy – University of the Basque Country / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU)
Independent researcher in neurophilosophy, human evolution, and the origin of art.

Enlaces / Links

domingo, 19 de julio de 2026

The World's Oldest Art: When Symbolism Was Born in Africa

Bernabé Mallo

A review of the discovery by Henshilwood and colleagues (2002): Emergence of modern human behavior: Middle Stone Age engravings from South Africa

Introduction: the enigma of the modern mind

When did humans begin to behave like humans? I do not mean anatomy —walking upright or having large brains— but something more elusive: the capacity to create symbols, to communicate abstract meanings, to express something beyond immediate need. For decades, the answer seemed clear: modern behavior, including art, emerged in Eurasia some 40,000 years ago, with the splendor of the Upper Paleolithic and the paintings of Chauvet or Lascaux.

But a discovery published in the journal Science in 2002 by Christopher Henshilwood and an international team of researchers radically changed this narrative (Henshilwood et al., 2002). In Blombos Cave, on the southern coast of South Africa, they found two pieces of red ochre engraved with abstract geometric patterns. Their age: 77,000 years. That is 35,000 years before the groups of Homo sapiens that had migrated to Eurasia began to paint their caves, and 40,000 years before what many researchers considered the beginning of human art (Henshilwood et al., 2002).

The discovery, reinforced by subsequent finds —including a 73,000-year-old drawing in the same cave and engravings over 100,000 years old— forces us to rethink where and when the symbolic mind emerged. For our research on the origin of art in the Homo species, it offers crucial evidence: the artistic capacity is not a late invention of Eurasian populations, but a trait deeply rooted in our biology and cognition, already present in Africa long before modern humans dispersed to other continents.

The Blombos discovery: two engraved ochre pieces

In 1999 and 2000, excavations at Blombos Cave, a rock shelter overlooking the Indian Ocean on the Western Cape of South Africa, brought to light two pieces of red ochre that would change archaeology (Henshilwood et al., 2002).

The first piece (SAM-AA 8937), about 53 millimeters long, features a series of cross-hatched lines, with a lozenge or diagonal design, crossed by a horizontal line. The second (SAM-AA 8938), about 76 millimeters long, shows a more complex motif: a row of lozenges, bounded by parallel lines at the top and bottom, and divided by a central line that turns the lozenges into triangles (Henshilwood et al., 2002).

What makes these engravings extraordinary is not only their age, but their intentionality. Microscopic analysis revealed that the surfaces of the pieces were prepared by scraping and polishing before being engraved. The lines are not accidental marks, but deliberate incisions, made with a sharp stone tool and with precise hand control (Henshilwood et al., 2002). Moreover, the patterns are not disconnected scribbles: they show a complex geometric structure, with lines crossing at specific angles, overlapping in an orderly manner, and forming a coherent visual unit.

The study authors, led by Christopher Henshilwood (then at the South African Museum in Cape Town), argued that these motifs "suggest arbitrary conventions unrelated to reality-based cognition" (Henshilwood et al., 2002, p. 1279). That is, they do not represent animals, people, or landscapes; they are abstract symbols, whose meaning is lost to us, but which undoubtedly had meaning for those who created them.

Dating: 77,000 years of antiquity

One of the most robust aspects of the Henshilwood study is the rigorous dating of the engravings. To determine their age, the team applied two luminescence dating methods, which measure the last time minerals were exposed to heat or light (Henshilwood et al., 2002).

Thermoluminescence (TL) applied to five burnt stone pieces from the layers where the ochres were found gave a mean age of 77,000 ± 6,000 years. To confirm stratigraphic integrity, optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) was applied to quartz grains from an aeolian dune covering the site, yielding an age of 69,000 to 70,000 years (Henshilwood et al., 2002). The fact that both techniques produced consistent ages, and that the upper dune was clearly younger than the layers with the engravings, confirmed the antiquity of the pieces and ruled out the possibility of contamination by more recent materials.

These dates placed the Blombos engravings in the Middle Stone Age (MSA), a period of African prehistory spanning from about 250,000 to about 40,000 years ago. Until then, evidence of symbolic behavior in the MSA had been scarce and often ambiguous (Henshilwood et al., 2002). The Henshilwood discovery demonstrated that, at least in southern Africa, modern humans were already behaving as such 77,000 years ago.

Why are these engravings important?

The importance of the Blombos engravings transcends their antiquity. Their significance lies in what they reveal about the human mind and the origin of symbolic capacity, a capacity that, as we have seen in other reviews on this blog, is the foundation of art and culture.

1. They dismantle the "Big Bang" myth

For a long time, archaeology held that modern behavior emerged suddenly and explosively in Eurasia about 40,000 years ago, in what was called the "Upper Paleolithic revolution" (Henshilwood et al., 2002). The Blombos engravings, along with subsequent finds at the same site —including a 73,000-year-old drawing and engravings over 100,000 years old— prove this narrative wrong. Symbolic capacity did not suddenly emerge in Eurasia; it has much deeper roots in Africa, where anatomically modern humans had existed for tens of thousands of years.

2. They evidence the presence of syntactic language

One of the most powerful arguments of Henshilwood and his colleagues is that the transmission and shared meaning of these engravings "required fully syntactic language" (Henshilwood et al., 2002, p. 1280). That is, for an abstract symbol such as a geometric pattern to be understood by other members of a group, a communication system is needed that allows conventions to be agreed upon and transmitted. The Blombos engravings are therefore indirect proof that their creators possessed language as complex as our own.

3. They demonstrate a cultural tradition

The presence of multiple engraved pieces at Blombos —two in 2002, thirteen more in 2009, and a drawing in 2018— suggests that we are not dealing with isolated acts, but with a cultural tradition that extended over at least 25,000 years (Henshilwood et al., 2009). The engraving techniques, geometric patterns, and surface preparation are repeated over time, indicating that knowledge was transmitted from generation to generation.

4. They broaden our understanding of the origin of art

The Blombos engravings are not "art" in the sense of figurative painting or sculpture. But they are the oldest evidence of intentional abstract representation found to date. They represent a crucial moment in the evolution of the human mind: the moment when a useful object —ochre, perhaps used for dyeing or protection— also became a support for the symbol. A moment when someone decided to engrave a pattern that did not represent anything in the real world, but which undoubtedly meant something to them or their community.

Connection with research on the origin of art (S/Y/C)

The Blombos discovery resonates deeply with the research we have been developing on the S/Y/C model of neuronal functioning and the Law of Biological Coherence (Mallo, 2023, 2025, 2026a, 2026b). These engravings, made by anatomically modern humans, are an early manifestation of the symbolic capacity that defines our species, and can be understood in light of our three dimensions.

The S (Survival) dimension reminds us that ochre, the support for these engravings, likely had a practical function: skin protection, hide preservation, adhesive ingredient (Henshilwood et al., 2002). But the engravings go beyond that utility. They are an extension of the homeostatic function: they not only helped to survive, but allowed people to process and share experiences, regulate emotions, build group identity. Art, from its origins, was a technology of survival not only physical, but also psychological and social.

The Y (Symbolon) dimension is the one that emerges most clearly at Blombos. The geometric patterns are not representations of reality, but symbols: acts of recognition through shared codes. Whoever engraved those lines was not copying nature, but creating a new language, a new form of communication. Symbolon is the bridge between the internal world and the social world, and Blombos is one of the earliest pieces of evidence of that bridge.

The C (Wholeness) dimension manifests in the structure of the engravings themselves. They are not scattered lines, but organized patterns, with symmetry and repetition. They reflect a drive toward totality: the need to close a form, to create a coherent unit from individual lines. This drive is the same that guides the artist when composing a painting or sculpting a statue. Art, from its beginnings, has been a response to the need for order, coherence, and wholeness.

Surgical Philosophy invites us to make a precise analytical cut in these findings. It is not about seeing Blombos as the "first art" and stopping there. It is about understanding that these engravings are part of a continuous process that extends to the present day. What we see at Blombos is the emergence of a function —the symbolic function— that will later develop, diversify, and become more complex over tens of thousands of years.

Implications for future research

The Henshilwood discovery, together with subsequent discoveries at Blombos and other African sites (such as the ostrich eggshell engravings at Diepkloof, over 55,000 years old), has transformed our understanding of the origin of art and symbolic behavior. But it also opens new questions:

What exactly did these patterns mean? Henshilwood and his colleagues acknowledge that we will probably never know (Henshilwood et al., 2002). But their existence demonstrates that MSA humans already had the capacity to create and share abstract symbols.
Was there a broader tradition? The presence of similar engravings at different sites suggests that these patterns were part of a shared symbolic repertoire in southern Africa. How far did this tradition extend? Did it reach other regions?
What is the relationship between these engravings and later figurative art? The Blombos engravings are abstract. Figurative art —the representation of animals and people— does not appear in Africa until much later. Why that leap? What happened in between?
What role did these symbols play in cognition and social evolution? The creation of shared symbols not only allows communication, but also coordination of actions, formation of larger groups, and development of more complex social structures. The Blombos engravings could be one of the first tools of this social transformation.

Final considerations: the echo of an ancient mind

The discovery of the Blombos engravings is much more than an archaeological news item. It is a window into the minds of our ancestors. It shows that, 77,000 years ago, in a cave by the sea, someone took a piece of ochre and, with a stone tool, traced lines that did not represent anything in the outside world, but meant something in their inner world.

Those lines are the echo of a symbolic mind, a mind that could already think abstractly, that could already create shared meanings, that could already express something beyond immediate need. And that capacity, which is still alive today in every work of art, every poem, every song, was not born in the caves of Eurasia 40,000 years ago. It was born in Africa, much earlier, and has been with us ever since.

As Henshilwood's team wrote in their 2002 article, "in the light of this evidence, it seems that, at least in southern Africa, Homo sapiens was behaviorally modern about 77,000 years ago" (Henshilwood et al., 2002, p. 1280). Today we can add: and it still is.

References

Mallo, B. (2025). Arte y biología: Una aproximación neurofilosófica al origen de la experiencia estética. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0E8Y5WZMK

Mallo, B. (2025). Art and biology: A neurophilosophical approach to the origin of aesthetic experience. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0E8Y6C2XN

Autor / Author

Bernabé Mallo
Doctor en Filosofía – Universidad del País Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU)
Investigador independiente en neurofilosofía, evolución humana y origen del arte.

Bernabé Mallo
PhD in Philosophy – University of the Basque Country / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU)
Independent researcher in neurophilosophy, human evolution, and the origin of art.

Enlaces / Links

sábado, 6 de junio de 2026

AI Art: A New Harmonisation or a Silent Rupture?

Bernabé Mallo

A review of Tao Feng's article (2022): A New Harmonisation of Art and Technology: Philosophic Interpretations of Artificial Intelligence Art

Introduction: when the machine becomes an artistic "agent"

Is art generated by artificial intelligence a legitimate form of aesthetic creation or, on the contrary, a rupture with the millenary tradition that has defined the human? This question, which only a decade ago might have seemed speculative, has become a central debate in contemporary philosophy of art. Generative algorithms produce works that win painting competitions, are auctioned at renowned houses, and are exhibited in modern art museums. The public, meanwhile, oscillates between fascination and perplexity.

The Chinese philosopher Tao Feng, in an article published in 2022 in the journal Critical Arts, addresses this question with an original and nuanced approach . His central thesis is that AI art cannot be reduced either to a simple extension of human art or to a mere technological curiosity. Rather, it is a special form situated "between natural beauty and human art" , occupying an unprecedented territory that demands new interpretative categories.

Feng proposes a "new harmonisation" between art and technology —a balance that neither ignores the fundamental differences (AI lacks intentionality and consciousness) nor dismisses the creative possibilities it opens. From the perspective of our research on the S/Y/C model and Surgical Philosophy, Feng's work offers valuable conceptual tools for understanding what is at stake when a machine "creates" art.

Two methods, three levels: the architecture of AI art

Feng distinguishes, first of all, two major technical approaches in the generation of art by artificial intelligence: symbolism and connectionism .

Symbolism is based on the explicit manipulation of rules and symbolic representations. This is the classical tradition of AI, the one that attempts to codify human knowledge into formal systems. In the artistic domain, it translates into algorithms that follow predefined aesthetic rules —harmonic compositions, chromatic schemes, metric structures— to generate works.

Connectionism, on the other hand, uses artificial neural networks that learn patterns from large datasets. They are not programmed with explicit rules; they are shown thousands or millions of examples, and they themselves extract statistical regularities. This approach, which has given rise to models such as DALL-E or Midjourney, produces surprisingly creative results because it does not limit itself to applying fixed rules but can generate unprecedented combinations of styles and forms.

But beyond technique, Feng proposes an analysis at three levels of the human-machine system:

Human using machine: AI is a tool at the service of the human artist, like the brush or the camera. Control and intentionality reside entirely in the human.
Human guiding machine: there is a closer collaboration. The human defines parameters, selects training data, guides the process, but the machine generates results that the human has not foreseen in detail. It is a dialogue, not a one-way instruction.
Human-machine separation: AI operates autonomously, without direct human intervention. It generates works by itself, based on its own learned criteria. This is the most controversial level, because it raises the question of whether we can still speak of "art" without a human artist behind it.

This triple distinction is useful because it allows us to avoid excessive generalisations. It is not the same to say that an artist uses an AI filter in Photoshop as it is to claim that an autonomous algorithm produces paintings without supervision. The philosophical problems raised by each level are different.

AI art as an intermediate form: between nature and artifice

One of the most original aspects of Feng's analysis is his characterisation of AI art as a special form that does not fit neatly into traditional aesthetic categories .

On the one hand, AI art is not a natural aesthetic object. It is not a sunset or a rock formation sculpted by erosion. It is an artefact, a product of technique. This implies that its appreciation is mixed with interests —technological, commercial, cultural— and does not respond to the pure disinterested contemplation that Kant attributed to aesthetic judgment.

On the other hand, AI art is not equivalent to traditional human art. Feng states it clearly: AI has neither intentionality nor consciousness . There is no subject behind the work who wanted to say something, who poured their emotion into it, who seeks to communicate with the viewer. The AI-generated work is, in this sense, orphaned: it has no interiority to express.

However —and here lies the originality of the thesis— AI art is not a mere empty imitation either. Feng proposes that its artistic generation is a kind of "purposiveness without purpose" , a reformulation of the Kantian concept. The work seems to have purpose, seems to have been made for something, but that purpose does not reside in the mind of a conscious creator, but rather in the structure of the algorithm and in the statistical patterns it has learned.

This ambiguity —neither nature nor human art; neither chance nor full intentionality— places AI art in a conceptually unprecedented territory, demanding new philosophical tools to be understood.

The "actor network": rethinking authorship in the age of AI

Feng introduces a particularly fruitful concept to overcome the authorship dilemma: the "actor network" . Inspired by Bruno Latour's actor-network theory, this concept proposes that artistic creation is not the work of a single subject —the romantic genius, the individual artist— but the result of the interaction of multiple actors: humans, technologies, institutions, algorithms.

In this framework, artificial intelligence can be considered as an "agent" in the generation of art —not as a fully conscious subject, but also not as a passive tool. It participates in the construction of artistic logic, breaks traditional boundaries, and opens up possibilities that no human would have imagined alone.

The notion of "actor network" allows us, according to Feng, to avoid two equally impoverishing extremes: on the one hand, the radical anthropocentrism that refuses to recognise any novelty in AI art; on the other, the naive technocentrism that attributes to machines a creativity comparable to the human.

Art, from this perspective, is always a collective construction. And artificial intelligence is a new participant in this construction —not to replace the human artist, but to become part of a more complex creative ecology.

The problem of truth and falsehood in AI art

A fascinating aspect that Feng addresses is the question of authenticity . In AI art, the processes of generation, identification, and appreciation necessarily include a judgment about the true and the false. Is what the machine has made really art? Or is it a simulation, an imposture, a forgery?

This question is not merely academic. It has practical implications in the world of the art market, copyright, conservation, and criticism. Feng notes that AI art reflects a forced integration of intelligent technology into the artistic domain, an attempt to eliminate contingency, dialectics, and negativity which, for certain aesthetic traditions, are consubstantial with true art .

Human art, Feng reminds us, has traditionally been linked to risk, to uncertainty, to struggle with material, to the possibility of failure. AI, on the contrary, always produces within the margins of what it has learned, without true capacity for transgression. Its "creativity" is, at bottom, a statistical variation within a pre-defined space of possibilities.

What we need, Feng concludes, is not a substitution of human art by machine art, but a true harmonisation between art and technology . People should use aesthetic reason to guide AI technology, not passively submit to its logic nor idealise it uncritically.

Connection with research on the origin of art (S/Y/C)

Tao Feng's analysis resonates deeply with the research we have been developing on the S/Y/C model of neuronal functioning and the Law of Biological Coherence. His three levels of the human-machine system and his concept of the "actor network" can be reinterpreted in the light of our categories.

The S (Survival) dimension reminds us that human art is not a luxury but a tool for homeostatic regulation. AI, lacking a body and vital needs, cannot generate art in this full sense. It can produce formal objects, but it does not respond to the survival drive that, in humans, impels creation.

The Y (Symbolon) dimension is central to understanding the difference between the inhabited symbol and the manipulated symbol. AI can manipulate symbols efficiently, but it does not inhabit the symbol. There is no one inside who recognises or is recognised. AI art is, in this sense, an empty symbolon: it has the form, but not the lived experience.

The C (Wholeness) dimension points to the human need to close forms, to integrate parts into a coherent whole. AI can generate formally closed objects, but it does not experience the drive toward wholeness. There is no subject who feels relief when the pattern closes, nor anguish when it fragments, nor longing when a totality is intuited but not yet reached.

Surgical Philosophy, for its part, invites us to make a precise analytical cut in this debate. It is not about rejecting AI or accepting it without more. It is about distinguishing levels, excising categorial confusions —such as confusing product with process, or simulation with lived experience— and suturing a conceptual framework that integrates the new without losing sight of the essential: that art, in its origin and in its function, is a phenomenon of the living.

Feng offers, with his concept of the "actor network", a middle path that respects this complexity. AI can be one more actor in the creative ecology, without occupying the place of the human artist, but also without being reduced to a mere tool. It is an agent, yes, but of a special kind: devoid of intentionality, of consciousness, of a body. An agent that amplifies, that surprises, that proposes, but that does not feel.

Final considerations: toward a new harmonisation

Tao Feng's article reminds us that art is not an immutable essence, but a living practice that is transformed by technology. Artificial intelligence is not the first innovation to challenge our aesthetic categories —photography, cinema, conceptual art have already done so— but it may be the most radical, because it questions the very role of the creative subject.

Feng does not offer definitive answers, and that is a virtue. Instead, he proposes an attitude: that of harmonisation, not submission or rejection. To use aesthetic reason —that human capacity to judge beauty with sensitivity and reflection— to guide technology, not to be guided by it.

From our perspective, this implies remembering that art, in its Palaeolithic origin, was a biological technology in the service of survival, symbol, and wholeness. Artificial intelligence may be a new technology in this long journey, but it must not make us forget that art is, above all, an encounter between embodied subjectivities. An encounter that, for now, only living beings can protagonise.

References

Feng, T. (2022). A new harmonisation of art and technology: Philosophic interpretations of artificial intelligence art. Critical Arts, 36(1-2), 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/02560046.2022.2111454

López Mallo, J. B. (2023). La construcción neuro-simbólica. Una aproximación al funcionamiento del cerebro desde una perspectiva multidisciplinar [Doctoral thesis, University of the Basque Country - Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea]. ADDI Repository. http://hdl.handle.net/10810/62701

https://catalogo.sanchoelsabio.eus

López Mallo, J. B. (2026a). De la filosofía quirúrgica a la ley de coherencia biológica S/Y/C: Hacia una investigación sobre el origen del arte en la especie Homo. Lopez Mallo, Javier Bernabé. https://isbn.bibna.gub.uy/catalogo.php?mode=detalle&nt=57196

López Mallo, J. B. (2026a). De la filosofía quirúrgica a la ley de coherencia biológica S/Y/C: Hacia una investigación sobre el origen del arte en la especie Homo [Kindle edition]. Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GYGTJD5C

López Mallo, J. B. (2026b). From surgical philosophy to the law of biological coherence S/Y/C: Toward a study of the origin of art in the Homo lineage. Lopez Mallo, Javier Bernabé. https://isbn.bibna.gub.uy/catalogo.php?mode=detalle&nt=57197

López Mallo, J. B. (2026b). From surgical philosophy to the law of biological coherence S/Y/C: Toward a study of the origin of art in the Homo lineage [Kindle edition]. Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GY89SZS1

Autor / Author

Bernabé Mallo
Doctor en Filosofía – Universidad del País Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU)
Investigador independiente en neurofilosofía, evolución humana y origen del arte.

Bernabé Mallo
PhD in Philosophy – University of the Basque Country / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea (UPV/EHU)
Independent researcher in neurophilosophy, human evolution, and the origin of art.

viernes, 14 de agosto de 2026

The Three Revolutions of the Mind: Our Species' Cognitive Journey According to Merlin Donald

Bernabé Mallo

A review of Merlin Donald's book (1991): Origins of the Modern Mind: Three Stages in the Evolution of Culture and Cognition

Introduction: the definitive question

The first transition: mimetic culture

The second transition: mythic culture

The third transition: symbolic and technological culture

The hybrid mind: vestiges and new devices

Parallels with the S/Y/C model: an integrative reading

Final considerations: the continuing evolution of the mind

References

Enlaces / Links

viernes, 7 de agosto de 2026

The Human Journey: From the Makapansgat Pebble to the Far Reaches of the Cosmos

Bernabé Mallo

A reflection on the origin of art and the continuity of the species through the lens of Clottes, Menninghaus, and Henshilwood

Introduction: a simple and complex question

The enigma of Makapansgat: the first symbolic gesture

Cave art: why hide beauty?

The restless traveller: from Altamira to outer space

Towards a synthesis: art as testimony to human continuity

Final considerations: the species that never stops travelling

References

Enlaces / Links

viernes, 24 de julio de 2026

Bones That Speak: The World's Oldest Bone Tool Industry and the Origin of Modern Behavior

Bernabé Mallo

A review of the discovery by Henshilwood and colleagues (2001): An early bone tool industry from the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South Africa: implications for the origins of modern human behaviour, symbolism and language

Introduction: when bone becomes technology

The Blombos discovery: 28 tools that rewrite history

The context: more than tools, symbolic behavior

Why are these tools important?

1. They dismantle the myth of the European "symbolic explosion"

2. They evidence the presence of syntactic language

3. They demonstrate a cultural tradition

4. They broaden our understanding of the origin of art and technology

Connection with research on the origin of art (S/Y/C)

Implications for future research

Final considerations: bone as testimony to the modern mind

References

Enlaces / Links

domingo, 19 de julio de 2026

The World's Oldest Art: When Symbolism Was Born in Africa

Bernabé Mallo

A review of the discovery by Henshilwood and colleagues (2002): Emergence of modern human behavior: Middle Stone Age engravings from South Africa

Introduction: the enigma of the modern mind

The Blombos discovery: two engraved ochre pieces

Dating: 77,000 years of antiquity

Why are these engravings important?

1. They dismantle the "Big Bang" myth

2. They evidence the presence of syntactic language

3. They demonstrate a cultural tradition

4. They broaden our understanding of the origin of art

Connection with research on the origin of art (S/Y/C)

Implications for future research

Final considerations: the echo of an ancient mind

References

Enlaces / Links

sábado, 6 de junio de 2026

AI Art: A New Harmonisation or a Silent Rupture?

Bernabé Mallo

A review of Tao Feng's article (2022): A New Harmonisation of Art and Technology: Philosophic Interpretations of Artificial Intelligence Art

Introduction: when the machine becomes an artistic "agent"

Two methods, three levels: the architecture of AI art

AI art as an intermediate form: between nature and artifice

The "actor network": rethinking authorship in the age of AI

The problem of truth and falsehood in AI art

Connection with research on the origin of art (S/Y/C)

Final considerations: toward a new harmonisation

References

Autor / Author

Enlaces / Links

Vistas de página la semana pasada