What's The Origin of The Human Language ?

  • 118 Replies
  • 20746 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #50 on: 27/10/2013 20:03:02 »
And yet another lump of irrelevant Sheldrake. Are you paying him a royalty? He'll be very upset if I tell him you aren't.
[/quote]

Try to prove him wrong ,just in relation to that introduction of his though , silly .

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #51 on: 27/10/2013 20:16:10 »
Quote
Here are the ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted.
To demonstrate the truth of any subsequent statement, you have to interview at least 50% of all scientists. Rupert hasn't been alive long enough to do so.

Quote
Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather
than living organisms with goals of their own.
Obvious nonsense. Has he never seen a dog? What on earth is his definition of "living"?

The essence of mechanism is mindless repetition. Like the sort of thing (it can hardly be a sentient being) that copies and pastes the same passage of nonsense regardless of the question. Vide Einstein on insanity.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #52 on: 27/10/2013 20:51:27 »
Quote
Here are the ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted.
To demonstrate the truth of any subsequent statement, you have to interview at least 50% of all scientists. Rupert hasn't been alive long enough to do so.

It is a fact that those and other materialist dogmatic belief  assumptions are taken for granted by most scientists , by the majority of them= the majority of scientists today are ...materialists .
Worse : the materialist dogmatic belief system has been dominating in all sciences and elsewhere , since the 19 th century at least .
Worst : the mainstream "scientific" dominating   world view in science is ...materialist .

Quote
Quote
Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather
than living organisms with goals of their own.
Obvious nonsense. Has he never seen a dog? What on earth is his definition of "living"?


haha
Obvious non-sense indeed : that happens to be the metarialist mechanistic world view in science , Sheldrake was talking about , a materialist mechanistic world view, he obviously ...rejects .

Quote
The essence of mechanism is mindless repetition. Like the sort of thing (it can hardly be a sentient being) that copies and pastes the same passage of nonsense regardless of the question. Vide Einstein on insanity.

Since that mechanistic materialist world view has been dominating in science (since the 19th century up to the present day ) , and gets sold to the people as science and as the "scientific " world view  , it's pretty logical to post these true words of Sheldrake in relation to every scientific issue for that matter ...= reality, life , the universe as a whole , nature thus ... are  not just physical material, as materialism wanna make the people believe they are .
« Last Edit: 27/10/2013 20:54:08 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1460
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #53 on: 28/10/2013 00:56:53 »
Are you sure about that David, that emotions are not another kind of thought or reasoning process?

100% sure. Emotions are just feelings: qualia. If these qualia are actually real, they are used in the process of driving behaviours. Love is a feeling that drives behaviour. Pain is a feeling that drives behaviour. Nasty tastes are feelings that drive behaviour. Boredom is a feeling/emotion which drives behaviour. They're all the same kind of thing.

So if these drivers serve a purpose, and have a function, and effects that are often very predictable, how are they not machine like?

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1460
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #54 on: 28/10/2013 01:25:34 »
But getting back to the origin of language, since I think that was what this thread was about, something I always wondered about with other animals and whatever sounds they make - what do they think when they hear their own calls, and do they ever mix it up with sounds another animal is making?
If an animal like a bird or lizard is operating only on automated instinct,  would it ever think the call that it just made, and heard, is the call of a rival male, the same way birds sometimes attack their own reflection in glass?
When did humans start "talking to themselves" instead of simply using vocalizations to signal others?

*

Offline grizelda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 740
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #55 on: 28/10/2013 07:35:15 »
So Tom turned you down, Don. What were you thinking? You turned a classic like "Goblins of the Gapes" into a porn flick. Is this what you get from reading Sheldrake? Glad I never looked at that crap. Is that what you smell? Oh, no, smell isn't made of odors, language isn't made of words, the universe isn't made of material, consciousness isn't made out of... Oh, wait, you're not clear. Better get tested. You need a certain amount of cred to understand this stuff, and of course, like they say, you're not even wrong.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #56 on: 28/10/2013 08:19:04 »
DQ:
Quote
It is a fact that those and other materialist dogmatic belief  assumptions are taken for granted by most scientists
Please provide a credible peer-reviewed source for this assertion, or confine your contributions to "new theories".
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #57 on: 28/10/2013 08:40:17 »
Meanwhile, back in the realms of sanity, it is interesting to listen to common bird songs slowed down to the point where the human ear can distinguish the inner content. It seems that the working vocabulary of a robin is similar in extent and complexity to that of an air traffic controller, which rather reinforces my original point that animals communicate to the extent required for survival.

Given the choice between "On a purely materialist basis my consciousness, with qualia expanded by a mechanistic radar device,  suggests there to be an existential threat to your presumed passage having the apparent form of an aircraft...." and "alfa charlie turn right twenty degrees to avoid converging traffic", I'd go for the latter every time. Apparently the birds agree with me.     
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #58 on: 28/10/2013 18:12:52 »
So if these drivers serve a purpose, and have a function, and effects that are often very predictable, how are they not machine like?

By being feelings/qualia. There's no problem creating a model which shows a drive process whereby the response is greater in proportion to the size of an input signal, but there are no feelings involved in that. You can try to add feelings to the model, but they are superfluous to the actual functionality and the feeling aspect of them should also be impossible for the system to detect (unless there's something exotic going on which science currently has no handle on). The most obvious problem for science is to identify something that actually suffers when pain is experienced, though the same problem actually applies to any other kind of feeling. Pain cannot be experienced without an experiencer/sufferer, and that sufferer can't be something so lacking in substance as a geometrical arrangement (with all the things of substance which are arranged by it being ruled out as sufferers). Even if you can identify a sufferer though, you still have to find a way to extract its direct knowledge of suffering from it (where that knowledge of suffering isn't knowledge in the form of data but as direct experience).

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #59 on: 28/10/2013 18:35:43 »
So Tom turned you down, Don. What were you thinking? You turned a classic like "Goblins of the Gapes" into a porn flick. Is this what you get from reading Sheldrake? Glad I never looked at that crap. Is that what you smell? Oh, no, smell isn't made of odors, language isn't made of words, the universe isn't made of material, consciousness isn't made out of... Oh, wait, you're not clear. Better get tested. You need a certain amount of cred to understand this stuff, and of course, like they say, you're not even wrong.

Try to prove Sheldrake wrong then, just regarding what he said in relation to materialism then .
Please try to be ontopic also , while you are at it .
Deal ?


P.S.: What do you think about the materialist version of the origin of human language   by the way ?  How come you all mix up those materialist beliefs in science with the latter ?
« Last Edit: 29/10/2013 00:05:29 by CliffordK »

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1460
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #60 on: 29/10/2013 00:28:26 »
So if these drivers serve a purpose, and have a function, and effects that are often very predictable, how are they not machine like?

By being feelings/qualia. There's no problem creating a model which shows a drive process whereby the response is greater in proportion to the size of an input signal, but there are no feelings involved in that.

Ok, that's good enough for me. The function of emotions seems enough to salvage them from the pure qualia of consciousness box and put them into the machine box.

Even reasoning and analytic thought processes are accompanied by some sensation or feeling. Curiosity? Confusion? The sense of certainty of a right answer? The nagging feeling of a tip-of-the-tongue experience when you know you know something but can't quite name it? Doubt? I don't know if there is a computational equivalent to doubt, in which one thinks one has the right answer based on all the available information but still thinks that it could be wrong. Does it stem from a more primitive feeling, as in "My predator acts like he doesn't know I'm here, but what if I'm wrong, should I run or stay put?"

One could argue that emotion is too broad a term. Some people sub divide it into things like physiological arousal, cognitive appraisal, the conscious experience or feeling of an emotion, action tendency, and expressive behavior. But I don't think dissecting emotion completely lets one off the hook as in "Okay feeling goes in the qualia box, but arousal or expression goes in the machine box." Fear  would be a good example of an emotion that is harder to dissect in that way, especially since a person can be afraid before one has had time to identify or figure out the cause, but can also fear things one has had a great deal of time to consider. And fear as a big effect on memory and aversion to things in the future, both rational and irrational.

If it sounds like I've contradicted myself along the way, I probably have. I'm not trying to formulate an argument, or convince anyone of anything, really just figure it out myself.
« Last Edit: 29/10/2013 00:30:01 by cheryl j »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #61 on: 29/10/2013 17:39:21 »
CliffordK:
Stop editing my posts , please : you have no right whatsoever to do just that .
Do not be an inquisitor either  .Stop your silly and biased censorship also .
Who gave you the "right " to mess with people's posts anyway ?

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #62 on: 29/10/2013 21:42:07 »
The function of emotions seems enough to salvage them from the pure qualia of consciousness box and put them into the machine box.

You have to separate out feelings from functions. Pain is not an emotion, but it is a feeling associated with a function which is to guide you away from damage. Emotions are also feelings which are associated with drives, such as with love where it guides you to care for things that are beneficial to your life. What actually distinguishes emotions from other feelings is simply that they are triggered by events in the brain rather than by external inputs. Colours, sounds, smells, pain, touch, heat sensors, balance sensors, etc. are things that result in qualia being experienced which are not labelled as emotions. Emotions may then be triggered in response to music, scenes or the sight of something disasterous befalling someone, but the cause of that is internal, coming from the results of processing inputs and not from the simple inputs themselves.

Quote
Even reasoning and analytic thought processes are accompanied by some sensation or feeling. Curiosity? Confusion? The sense of certainty of a right answer? The nagging feeling of a tip-of-the-tongue experience when you know you know something but can't quite name it? Doubt? I don't know if there is a computational equivalent to doubt, in which one thinks one has the right answer based on all the available information but still thinks that it could be wrong. Does it stem from a more primitive feeling, as in "My predator acts like he doesn't know I'm here, but what if I'm wrong, should I run or stay put?"

There appear to be feelings that go along with everything that goes through the main processor in the brain, such as a feeling of understanding whatever is the focus of attention at any point in time, or feeling confused about it if something doesn't appear to add up properly. A feeling of doubt about it would be there if it isn't clearly correct. These are all things that don't need to have feelings involved at all and the feeling aspect of them doesn't appear to fit in the model at all

Quote
One could argue that emotion is too broad a term. Some people sub divide it into things like physiological arousal, cognitive appraisal, the conscious experience or feeling of an emotion, action tendency, and expressive behavior. But I don't think dissecting emotion completely lets one off the hook as in "Okay feeling goes in the qualia box, but arousal or expression goes in the machine box." Fear  would be a good example of an emotion that is harder to dissect in that way, especially since a person can be afraid before one has had time to identify or figure out the cause, but can also fear things one has had a great deal of time to consider. And fear as a big effect on memory and aversion to things in the future, both rational and irrational.

You can make different sets of qualia and separate them on the basis that some are associated with vision, some with hearing, some with internal triggers, etc., but all of them are qualia/feelings/sensations. The different sets are merely dividing them on the basis of associated functionalities and say nothing about the qualia themselves. Fear is a danger warning where the actual feeling is tied to the amount of calculated danger. The feeling is simple, but the trigger is complex and can be affected heavily by different thoughts from moment to moment, some of which may be subconscious and it therefore may not be clear why you are afraid of something, but some background process has detected something that is suggestive of a threat.

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1460
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #63 on: 31/10/2013 20:06:25 »
The function of emotions seems enough to salvage them from the pure qualia of consciousness box and put them into the machine box.

You have to separate out feelings from functions. Pain is not an emotion, but it is a feeling associated with a function which is to guide you away from damage. Emotions are also feelings which are associated with drives, such as with love where it guides you to care for things that are beneficial to your life. What actually distinguishes emotions from other feelings is simply that they are triggered by events in the brain rather than by external inputs. Colours, sounds, smells, pain, touch, heat sensors, balance sensors, etc. are things that result in qualia being experienced which are not labelled as emotions. Emotions may then be triggered in response to music, scenes or the sight of something disasterous befalling someone, but the cause of that is internal, coming from the results of processing inputs and not from the simple inputs themselves.



An interesting aspect of function related to emotion is maintaining a response or state over time. Hormones like adrenalin and epinephrine duplicate and amplify the effects of sympathetic nerves. The explanation for this duplication in physiology books is that it sustains changes in state, like the fight or flight response - keeps it going longer. Some hormones function as neurotransmitters and but also have direct effects on target cells that have receptors for them. Nerves are quick, work point to point, but stop firing once the stimulus stops, and sometimes they fatigue or adapt and ignore a repetitive stimulation. Hormones take 30 minutes or longer to clear the system.

A person can and does cognitively assess a threat, and can even make plans for avoiding or dealing with it in the future. But once the threat is not apparent and the brain is focused on other cognitive tasks, the threat is almost forgotten, even though it may lurk around the next corner. Emotions like fear seem to sustain the response longer, and in extreme cases, like post traumatic stress disorder, hyper-vigilence and the unpleasant qualia that goes with it, is maintained for months or years. Fear and happiness are internally generated sensations of pain and pleasure when the stimulus is not present. After all, it's almost pointless to experience pain after the predator has sunk his teeth into you, since you are going to be dead soon anyway, and not likely to pass on your genes. But arguably, it gets one no closer to understanding qualia, if you see physical pain as qualia as well, not just a signal amplifier of some kind.

It's a fair request to say "Show me the links between neurons and consciousness, show me how you get from A to B," since that is what I presume you are expected to do in your work every day. On the other hand, it's difficult for me to believe that all the specific structures in the brain and the biochemistry associated with emotion are just bells and flashing lights that are set off as the pin ball of consciousness gets slammed around. They would seem to be responsible in some way, especially when interfering with those structures or chemistry, changes emotional response and experience, and often changes cognition and what is being attended to.

I do sometimes wonder, though, whether qualia are illusions. After all, the brain does convince itself that it is more conscious than it is. We fill in the blind spot in our visual field from the optic nerve. We ignore the nose on our own face, and believe we have a clear and colorful 180 degree view even though we can't distinguish colors in our peripheral vision. We assume factual knowledge we don't have (I saw an experiment in which a group of people were asked to draw a bicycle, and even though everyone was confident they knew how a bicycle worked,  only one of them drew anything that would actually function as a bicycle.) So if the brain can tell all these little lies, maybe consciousness is just one big fat lie.

But if it is an illusion, it's a stubborn one. As Stephen Hawking said, “I have noticed that even those who assert that everything is predestined and that we can change nothing about it still look both ways before they cross the street." It may be an illusion we are simply stuck with and can't make sense of the world without it. Yeah, I'm aware that statement is somehow a contradiction of itself. As was that one. And that one, too.
« Last Edit: 31/10/2013 20:23:21 by cheryl j »

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #64 on: 31/10/2013 20:24:08 »
The chemicals released in the brain are part of the network of causation that leads to the brain making decisions, different chemicals triggering different emotions at some point somewhere in the system (if feelings are real). I don't think we're going to get to the answers though until we can model the brain well enough to track back the claims that come out of it to see the evidence they were based on. My hope (why do I hope it though?) is that there is another system of processing that computer science does not yet understand, a system which depends on qualia and something of substance that experiences them for real (an I in the machine) and which is somehow able to make itself known to the information system that generates the data claiming that consciousness is real. I don't think this is something anyone's going to work out until we've actually seen it and discovered how it works.

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #65 on: 31/10/2013 20:25:33 »
By the way, I can draw a proper bicycle - I like to put one in my signature using the two "o"s as wheels.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #66 on: 31/10/2013 20:48:03 »
The chemicals released in the brain are part of the network of causation that leads to the brain making decisions, different chemicals triggering different emotions at some point somewhere in the system (if feelings are real). I don't think we're going to get to the answers though until we can model the brain well enough to track back the claims that come out of it to see the evidence they were based on. My hope (why do I hope it though?) is that there is another system of processing that computer science does not yet understand, a system which depends on qualia and something of substance that experiences them for real (an I in the machine) and which is somehow able to make itself known to the information system that generates the data claiming that consciousness is real. I don't think this is something anyone's going to work out until we've actually seen it and discovered how it works.
[/quote]

haha :  Pardon me for laughing , but i could not help just that , sorry , David :
Typical mechanistic materialism at work in science : unbelievable :
"The chemicals released in the brain are part of the network of causation that leads to the brain making decisions, different chemicals triggering different emotions at some point somewhere in the system (if feelings are real)..."  haha : listen to yourself saying this mechanistic materialist non-sense and more here above :
How can chemicals do just that via machine -like , computer -like computation or whatever = pure mechanistic materialist non-sense ,unbelievable .

Just know that reality as a whole is not just physical material , as materialism wanna make you believe it is = reality in that materialist sense that can be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry  alone  , how can the latter account for emotions , feelings , human love , let alone for consciousness in general, life in general , ...human reason ...?

Physics and chemistry alone can never account for such processes , not even in a trillion years to come , logically = you are just wasting your time on trying to 'figure out " how qualia or the feeling of pain , feelings , emotions , human reason , consciousness, life in general ...can 'rise from " physics and chemistry = that's not possible, obviously = physics and chemistry alone cannot "generate " sentient alive living organisms  that are no machines ,per definition, , by some sort of inexplicable magical materialist mechanistic belief assumptions in science haha
  Ludicrous .........
I could not help but hard laughing that that brought tears to my eyes haha
« Last Edit: 31/10/2013 20:54:39 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #67 on: 31/10/2013 21:08:40 »
Quote
How can chemicals do just that via machine -like , computer -like computation or whatever = pure mechanistic materialist non-sense ,unbelievable .

Instead of laughing at those who know better, how about telling us what you think goes on in the brain?

And don't just quote slabs of Sheldrake. I know what he thinks.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #68 on: 01/11/2013 16:43:12 »
...by some sort of inexplicable magical materialist mechanistic belief assumptions in science haha

You're the one trying to bring in bucketloads of magic. I'm trying to remove as much magic from the model as possible. Your solution is to explain things by replacing cause-and-effect mechanisms with magic, not only for the bits that I can't explain, but for a whole stack of things that I can explain. Unbelievable! You still don't get it!

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #69 on: 01/11/2013 17:18:38 »
...by some sort of inexplicable magical materialist mechanistic belief assumptions in science haha

You're the one trying to bring in bucketloads of magic. I'm trying to remove as much magic from the model as possible. Your solution is to explain things by replacing cause-and-effect mechanisms with magic, not only for the bits that I can't explain, but for a whole stack of things that I can explain. Unbelievable! You still don't get it!
[/quote]

Haha

You're the one trying to bring magic into life ,buddy,  life that's no machine or computer either : materialist magic in the form of some sort of elaborate neuronal computation , in the form of "specific neurons triggering  specific emotions ..." : simply ludicrous .
You're bringing magic into life ,and into the whole reality as a whole as such , by reducing life to just physics and chemistry ,as materialism does in fact , and as modern science nowadays does ,unfortunately enough ,  the latter thanks to materialism .
While science just tries to deal with the observable, the empirical ...

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #70 on: 02/11/2013 17:55:03 »
You materialists are stoopid - you believes that a calculator works by cause and effect mechanisms, but it doesn't. No one can explain how a calculator works. It actually works by non-materialistic science, but that isn't magic because I say so.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #71 on: 03/11/2013 17:20:47 »
You materialists are stoopid - you believes that a calculator works by cause and effect mechanisms, but it doesn't. No one can explain how a calculator works. It actually works by non-materialistic science, but that isn't magic because I say so.
[/quote]

Please , be serious , David :
Science has been pretending to know the whole nature of reality as such already , thanks to materialism , in the sense that the whole reality as such is just material physical = reducing everything to just physics and chemistry + to their materialist extension , while science should in fact confine itself only to the observable, empirical  ...once again .
Is that so difficult to get ? Amazing .

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #72 on: 03/11/2013 18:03:41 »
What is amazing is that you want to replace explanations based on cause-and-effect mechanisms which work with magical "explanations" which don't explain anything and then you deny that they are magical. You have more magic in your model than anyone else here.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #73 on: 03/11/2013 18:49:04 »
What is amazing is that you want to replace explanations based on cause-and-effect mechanisms which work with magical "explanations" which don't explain anything and then you deny that they are magical. You have more magic in your model than anyone else here.
[/quote]

My friend : you are the one introducing inexplicable , inconsistent , illogical, irrational , unscientific and incoherent materialist magic in science or in the computer-like ,machine -like  "information system "  materialist analogy regarding life in particular and regarding reality as a whole in general   ,by reducing everything to just mechanical physics and chemistry + to their materialist macroscopic extensions such as the alleged neuronal computational  mechanisms  regarding the nature , so-called emergence or origins evolution and function of human reason , idem ditto for feelings emotions , consciousness .... while science should be only confined to the observable , empirical ...part of reality .
I do not blame you for that in fact : science istelf has been reducing the whole reality as a whole as such to just material physical biological processes for centuries now , thanks to materialism , so = a materialist belief assumption regarding the nature of reality = not a scientific empirical fact or assumption .
Science has therefore been pretending to know the  nature of reality as a whole already (Wao haha ) , thanks to materialism thus , by reducing the whole reality as a whole as such to just material physical biological processes that can be thus explained only in terms of physics and chemistry , once again, while science in fact should limit itself only to the observable, empirical...part of reality = the rest of the potential reality out there is therefore both outside science's realm and outside of science's jurisdiction as well... .


*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #74 on: 03/11/2013 18:53:22 »
Quote
Science has therefore been pretending to know the  nature of reality as a whole already

Rubbish. Science is an inanimate activity. It cannot pretend.

"This above all: to thine own self be true." If you tell yourself untruths, you will end up believing them even if nobody else does. Believing things that are false is a big step on the road to insanity. Stop now.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2013 18:56:50 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #75 on: 03/11/2013 19:09:34 »
Quote
Science has therefore been pretending to know the  nature of reality as a whole already

Rubbish. Science is an inanimate activity. It cannot pretend.
[/quote]

Come on, do not be silly , be serious , please : i did respond to this non-sense of yours on many occasions : i talk about science "pretending , seeing , doing , saying ..." in the metaphorical sense , as a metaphorical (not literal ) figure of speech .

See that materialist meta-paradigm dominating in all science at least , once again , a materialist meta-paradigm that considers the whole reality as a whole as such as just being physical material = science has thus been "pretending " to know the nature of the whole reality as a whole as such  already , by considering it to be just material physical, as a result ...thanks to materialism .

Quote
"This above all: to thine own self be true." If you tell yourself untruths, you will end up believing them even if nobody else does. Believing things that are false is a big step on the road to insanity. Stop now.

Why should i stop ? Are you afraid of ...facts ? Are you afraid of the "truth ". whatever the latter might be , only dogmatic people are , as science is , as science has been dogmatic for so long now , thanks to materialism , science gotta be liberated from , in order for science to be delivered from its materialist dogmatic belief system ,the latter that gets taken for granted as ...science .

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #76 on: 04/11/2013 17:21:56 »
My friend : you are the one introducing inexplicable , inconsistent , illogical, irrational , unscientific and incoherent materialist magic in science or in the computer-like ,machine -like  "information system "  materialist analogy regarding life in particular and regarding reality as a whole in general   ,by reducing everything to just mechanical physics and chemistry + to their materialist macroscopic extensions such as the alleged neuronal computational  mechanisms  regarding the nature , so-called emergence or origins evolution and function of human reason , idem ditto for feelings emotions , consciousness .... while science should be only confined to the observable , empirical ...part of reality .

Why are you dragging emotions/consciousness into that? You know full well that I label that as the part science appears to be unable to handle. The rest of it needs no magical explanation, but you insist on giving it one while denying that your magical explanation is magical. That puts you in a ridiculous position.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #77 on: 04/11/2013 18:48:45 »
My friend : you are the one introducing inexplicable , inconsistent , illogical, irrational , unscientific and incoherent materialist magic in science or in the computer-like ,machine -like  "information system "  materialist analogy regarding life in particular and regarding reality as a whole in general   ,by reducing everything to just mechanical physics and chemistry + to their materialist macroscopic extensions such as the alleged neuronal computational  mechanisms  regarding the nature , so-called emergence or origins evolution and function of human reason , idem ditto for feelings emotions , consciousness .... while science should be only confined to the observable , empirical ...part of reality .

Why are you dragging emotions/consciousness into that? You know full well that I label that as the part science appears to be unable to handle. The rest of it needs no magical explanation, but you insist on giving it one while denying that your magical explanation is magical. That puts you in a ridiculous position.
[/quote]

Well, that's the core issue here :
 (By the way , you're the only one here who does realise the fact that science is unable to handle the nature of consciousness , feelings ,emotions ...I know that , that's 1 of the reasons why i do think highly of you , simply because you are intelligent and with integrity  enough to admit that, despite your "materialist promissory messianism " on the subject , in the sense that science will be able , some day , to explain all that, just via physics and chemistry ....or via some extensions of physics and chemistry , such as via some sort of still unknown -to-us neuronal computation....of some sort   . ) :
The core issue here  thus  is , as follows :
The materialist "scientific world view " cannot , per definition , explain consciousness , emotions , feelings , human intellect, memory  ...just via physics and chemistry alone , that's the main core issue here , but , you , David , cannot or do not want to realise that simple fact .
Worse : you have been trying to find a way to explain consciousness, human intellect , emotions ...just via physics and chemistry , via those materialist macroscopic computational extensions "mechanisms " = cannot be done , simply because living organisms are no machines or computers , and simply because life or reality as a whole are not just material physical , as materialism and therefore as science assumes them to be ...
Get that , Dave ?

I just want science to stick to its own unparalleled and effective method that's like no other , by confining itself just to what it can observe , test , verify , falsify , reproduce ...instead of reducing reality as a whole, life as a whole, consciousness, emotions, human intellect , memory  ...to just physics and chemistry biochemistry, thanks to materialism thus , materialism that's just a reductionist naturalist false conception of nature = a belief assumption  ....the rest is , obviously , outside of science's realm ,and outside of science's jurisdiction as well, including   thus the nature or origins of consciousness, emotions, human intellect, including the nature or origins of life , including the nature and origins of reality as a whole thus  ...

So, i am not introducing any magic in science , unlike what you try to do , i just  remind you of what science is actually , what it can and cannot do , that's all .
Thanks, appreciate indeed.
Cheers.
« Last Edit: 04/11/2013 18:56:45 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1460
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #78 on: 05/11/2013 00:39:46 »
What was the question again? Oh yeah, it was "What was the origin of human language." Sorry for getting so off topic. I don't know how that keeps happening.

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #79 on: 05/11/2013 17:52:36 »
Human intelect and memory can be accounted for by what we already know about mechanistic computation systems. Life can be accounted for as complex chemistry. I see no point in imagining magical solutions for those to use in place of perfectly good mechanistic models which already work perfectly. The only difficulty left is consciousness.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #80 on: 05/11/2013 18:43:53 »
What was the question again? Oh yeah, it was "What was the origin of human language." Sorry for getting so off topic. I don't know how that keeps happening.

Well, the origins of human language or rather the human language is a very essential element of explaining how humans have been capable of making sense of the intelligible reality , by trying to understand it and explain it via science mainly .
Without human language , knowledge in the broader sense , including the scientific one , would not have been  communicated or spread evolving...
But, when science assumes that reality is just physical material , as science has been doing for so long now, thanks to materialism , that means that science has been giving us just a distorted pic of reality as a result ,just a distorted knowledge of reality ,  just a distorted materialist version of the origins of human language ...

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #81 on: 05/11/2013 18:52:03 »
Human intelect and memory can be accounted for by what we already know about mechanistic computation systems. Life can be accounted for as complex chemistry. I see no point in imagining magical solutions for those to use in place of perfectly good mechanistic models which already work perfectly. The only difficulty left is consciousness.
[/quote]

The mechanistic deterministic materialist 'scientific world view " has been shattered and demolished by the maths of chaos :
If everything can be explained just in terms of mechanical cause and effect , just via physics and chemistry , just via the laws of physics , as the Newtonian science has been assuming reality as a whole to be just some sort of mechanic clock work mechanisms , then, we should , logically , empirically , expect to be able to predict everything as a result: the maths of chaos have been destroying that materialist determinist mechanical belief assumption ,as follows :

I thought that the maths of chaos , or the butterfly effect  theory  , and modern physics had  already kissed that outdated , superseded  , largely discredited and  largely refuted  Newtonian-Cartesian presumed absolute predictability goodbye , a long time ago , that physicists and mathematicians can only talk in terms of ...probability  nowadays  , as a result , not to mention that uncertainty principle .

Try to read the following and  try to watch this extremely enlightening and interesting top docu on the subject :

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/high-anxieties-the-mathematics-of-chaos/

High Anxieties: The Mathematics of Chaos


High Anxieties: The Mathematics of ChaosThe documentary looks at the modern advances in mathematics and how they affect our understanding of physics, economics, environmental issues and human psychology.

The film looks at how developments in 20th Century mathematics have affected our view of the world, and particularly how the financial economy and earth’s environment are now seen as inherently unpredictable.

The film looks at the influence the work of Henri Poincare and Alexander Lyapunov had on later developments in mathematics. It includes interviews with David Ruelle, about chaos theory and turbulence, the economist Paul Ormerod about the unpredictability of economic systems, and James Lovelock the founder of Gaia theory about climate change and tipping points in the environment.

As we approach tipping points in both the economy and the climate, the film examines the mathematics we have been reluctant to face up to and asks if, even now, we would rather bury our heads in the sand rather than face harsh truths.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4806
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #82 on: 05/11/2013 19:07:27 »
Quote
Come on, do not be silly , be serious , please : i did respond to this non-sense of yours on many occasions : i talk about science "pretending , seeing , doing , saying ..." in the metaphorical sense , as a metaphorical (not literal ) figure of speech .

Metaphor for what? Metaphors are not used in science. Why not say what you mean?

I suspect you have a wholly bizarre view of what science is, despite having been told many times by people who actually do it.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #83 on: 05/11/2013 21:34:15 »
Quote
Come on, do not be silly , be serious , please : i did respond to this non-sense of yours on many occasions : i talk about science "pretending , seeing , doing , saying ..." in the metaphorical sense , as a metaphorical (not literal ) figure of speech .

Metaphor for what? Metaphors are not used in science. Why not say what you mean?

You have no imagination , dude :
metaphors are used everywhere , even by that lunatic Dawkins in relation to his 'selfish genes " , in relation to his computer -like "human are machines robots driven or programmed by their DNA programmed software : we are just hardware programmed by software haha " metaphors , ....metaphors are used especially in art , literature and in science+everywhereelse for that matter in the "human kingdom at least haha "  .
metaphors such as the machine or computer metaphors in science , regarding life  and the whole reality  : mechanistic materialism in science = the universe allegedly behaves like a mechanical clock work machine ruled , so to speak, by the laws of physics , cause and effect ,,,,,,,,,,,,,= everything can be predicted = the maths of chaos just destroyed that myth .

Quote
I suspect you have a wholly bizarre view of what science is, despite having been told many times by people who actually do it

I do not suspect , i am absolutely certain, without a shadow of a doubt , that you are the one who has a wholly bizarre view of what science is, ironically enough , by confusing science with the mechanistic deterministic materialism ,obviously .
Congratulations, odd weird scientist .

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1460
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #84 on: 05/11/2013 23:02:22 »
What was the question again? Oh yeah, it was "What was the origin of human language." Sorry for getting so off topic. I don't know how that keeps happening.

Well, the origins of human language or rather the human language is a very essential element of explaining how humans have been capable of making sense of the intelligible reality , by trying to understand it and explain it via science mainly .
Without human language , knowledge in the broader sense , including the scientific one , would not have been  communicated or spread evolving...
But, when science assumes that reality is just physical material , as science has been doing for so long now, thanks to materialism , that means that science has been giving us just a distorted pic of reality as a result ,just a distorted knowledge of reality ,  just a distorted materialist version of the origins of human language ...

So what are your non-materialist explanations for the origin of language? How did we did get it, when, and why? I'm not being sarcastic. I am genuinely interested. But I am a little skeptical because your discussions about the non-material never progress beyond attacks on materialism.

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #85 on: 06/11/2013 16:02:22 »
Chaos would be deterministic if it was possible to know the exact starting conditions and if there's no such thing as true randomness. Machines simulate chaotic systems 100% deterministically.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #86 on: 06/11/2013 17:42:18 »
What was the question again? Oh yeah, it was "What was the origin of human language." Sorry for getting so off topic. I don't know how that keeps happening.

Well, the origins of human language or rather the human language is a very essential element of explaining how humans have been capable of making sense of the intelligible reality , by trying to understand it and explain it via science mainly .
Without human language , knowledge in the broader sense , including the scientific one , would not have been  communicated or spread evolving...
But, when science assumes that reality is just physical material , as science has been doing for so long now, thanks to materialism , that means that science has been giving us just a distorted pic of reality as a result ,just a distorted knowledge of reality ,  just a distorted materialist version of the origins of human language ...

So what are your non-materialist explanations for the origin of language? How did we did get it, when, and why? I'm not being sarcastic. I am genuinely interested. But I am a little skeptical because your discussions about the non-material never progress beyond attacks on materialism.

Human language is so unique that it cannot have evolved from any other species , human language without which there would have been no spreading or communication evolution of knowledge , let alone the scientific one , without human language , no progress would have been accomplished ...no civilization ....despite the fact that those sophisticated communications of malhearing people via hand and body gestures can be qualified as language(s) , relatively speaking .

See how the current information age , information technology , science , information economy are so dependent on language : the information age that's another faster level of human evolution .

Human language is also a question of consciousness, sub-consciousness, feelings , emotions , intellect , memory ......................one should try to explain "materialistically" those essential components of human language , before trying to pretend to be able to say anything about the origins of human language : one cannot islolate or sort out human language from its  mental side to just to be able to explain the origins of human language just via physics and chemistry , in the sense that human language allegedly did originate from chimps' gestures = makes no sense  = how one can make the mental conscious ...component of human language fit into this materialist version of the origins of human language then ?

So, the materialist version of the origin of the human language must be false , so, we need to develop better understandings of reality as a whole beyond just physics and chemistry , as Nagel here above explained : well, that's the challenge humanity gotta face at some point of history : i do not know how that should be done ...yet, if ever  .

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1460
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #87 on: 06/11/2013 20:11:17 »
I didn't ask where human language didn't come from or we did not obtain it, I asked how you think it originated, which was the title of your thread.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #88 on: 06/11/2013 21:42:47 »
I didn't ask where human language didn't come from or we did not obtain it, I asked how you think it originated, which was the title of your thread.

I dunno : all i know is that the materialist version of the origins of  the human language cannot be true , no way = absurd and false ,implausible ...you name it , simply because it does not take into account the necessary underlying macroscopic elements of man and therefore of human language+ of human language's origins evolution emergence , necessary underlying elements  that cannot be isolated from human language or from its biology environment nurture culture : consciousness, human intellect , feelings , emotions ...human sub-consciousness ...human memory ...without which there would be no human language = it is a whole package that cannot be reduced to just physics and chemistry in order to fit into the materialist "scientific world view " thus .

Human language that's so unique that only man has it ,so, all those materialist 'explanations " of consciousness, intellect , feelings , emotions ...cannot account for human language as a whole package, let alone for human consciousness, human intellect , human feelings , human memory , human emotions ....a whole package  in the above mentioned sense , that's unique to man thus , despite the fact that other living organisms or species are conscious , have some sort of relative degrees of intellect abstractions , feelings , emotions, memory  ............

It's not just why do we have it and other species  do not (human language , i am not talking about the specific kinds of communications-"languages "  other species do have : human language is unique thus  ) ,but also because human consciousness, sub-consciousness, human intellect , memory , feelings , emotions ....are unique to man = in the sense that they cannot be matched by those of other species, not even remotely close thus , despite the fact that some species might surpass us in memory , in the capacity of our senses ......and in other areas as well = the whole is not the sum of its parts .

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #89 on: 07/11/2013 18:34:31 »
Language is fairly simple once you understand the basic structures that hold it together. Your lack of knowledge of how it works is leading to you making a stack of claims which are plain wrong. Evolving a language should be easy once a species has sufficient intelligence to handle those structures, and a lot of it probably comes down to nothing more exciting than evolving sufficient working memory to hold the ideas long enough for them still to be there when the sentence has reached the point where they need to be inserted into it.

Ideas have a network form which has to be converted into a linear string before it can be communicated, and you have to do that convertion with care so as to avoid ending up with a jumbled mess. The actual structure though is very simple with groups of subject-verb-object connected up into a net. A preposition is really just a verb in a relative clause. E.g. "The book in the kitchen is mine" consists essentially of two SVO groups: I own book; kitchen contains book. [The idea of "containing" is itself a complex idea which can be represented by a string of deeper SVO groups, but there's no need to go into that here.] The verb in the first group is the central part of the idea that's being communicated, while the second group is simply there to help identify which book is being discussed, which is why it's a relative clause when the two groups are combined into a sentence. A conjunction is a verb in the opposite way to a relative clause, meaning that the verb is more central to the net. E.g. "I visited that castle before it fell down" essentially consists of three SVO groups: I visited castle; castle fell down; visited preceeds fell. The key idea in the three is the last group, so the other two groups are more like relative clauses, but with the link being to the middle item instead of one of the ends.

All a species needs to be able to develop a proper language is sufficient wit to be able to handle simple SVO constructions and to be able to equate an item in one group with an item in another so as to be able to represent more complex ideas. None of this requires anything supernatural - it's extremely simple, and the only complexity is that language is riddled with words built in ways which hide the components they're made of - we can break them down subconsciously with ease but only normally take in all the detail consciously when we first learn them and work out what they mean. We then stop monitoring the mechanisms and leave it to subconscious processes to do the work while we forget about it all, so we end up not understanding consciously what's going on under the surface. It then takes decades of work to go through all the words in language working out what the components of meaning within them are in order to build a mechanistic system out of them for use in an AGI system (which is what I've been doing, so I know what's involved).

So, stop talking bilge about the supernatural nature of language. It is nothing more than a simple mechanistic system of representation.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #90 on: 07/11/2013 19:07:33 »
Language is fairly simple once you understand the basic structures that hold it together. Your lack of knowledge of how it works is leading to you making a stack of claims which are plain wrong. Evolving a language should be easy once a species has sufficient intelligence to handle those structures, and a lot of it probably comes down to nothing more exciting than evolving sufficient working memory to hold the ideas long enough for them still to be there when the sentence has reached the point where they need to be inserted into it.

Ideas have a network form which has to be converted into a linear string before it can be communicated, and you have to do that convertion with care so as to avoid ending up with a jumbled mess. The actual structure though is very simple with groups of subject-verb-object connected up into a net. A preposition is really just a verb in a relative clause. E.g. "The book in the kitchen is mine" consists essentially of two SVO groups: I own book; kitchen contains book. [The idea of "containing" is itself a complex idea which can be represented by a string of deeper SVO groups, but there's no need to go into that here.] The verb in the first group is the central part of the idea that's being communicated, while the second group is simply there to help identify which book is being discussed, which is why it's a relative clause when the two groups are combined into a sentence. A conjunction is a verb in the opposite way to a relative clause, meaning that the verb is more central to the net. E.g. "I visited that castle before it fell down" essentially consists of three SVO groups: I visited castle; castle fell down; visited preceeds fell. The key idea in the three is the last group, so the other two groups are more like relative clauses, but with the link being to the middle item instead of one of the ends.

All a species needs to be able to develop a proper language is sufficient wit to be able to handle simple SVO constructions and to be able to equate an item in one group with an item in another so as to be able to represent more complex ideas. None of this requires anything supernatural - it's extremely simple, and the only complexity is that language is riddled with words built in ways which hide the components they're made of - we can break them down subconsciously with ease but only normally take in all the detail consciously when we first learn them and work out what they mean. We then stop monitoring the mechanisms and leave it to subconscious processes to do the work while we forget about it all, so we end up not understanding consciously what's going on under the surface. It then takes decades of work to go through all the words in language working out what the components of meaning within them are in order to build a mechanistic system out of them for use in an AGI system (which is what I've been doing, so I know what's involved).

So, stop talking bilge about the supernatural nature of language. It is nothing more than a simple mechanistic system of representation.
[/quote]

You just talked about the physical material biological "mechanical " side of human language you do take for the whole real thing .

Well, what is the 'supernatural " then ? just semantics :  everything that's outside of materialism is thus automatically mechanically  labeled as supernatural , the latter that's in fact natural normal = makes part of reality as a whole ,simply because reality as a whole is not just material or physical once again, as the mechanistic materialism wanna make you believe it is .
So, when you do assume that reality as a whole is just material or physical , thanks to materialism thus , when you do assume that's the 'scientific world view " , then , logically , you can only try to approach reality as a whole , including human language its origins and evolution emergence , the same goes for consciousness, memory , feelings , life as a whole and the rest , you can thus only approach them all materialistically mechanically as a result .
Now, let's assume that the mechanistic materialist "scientific world view " is false ,as it is in fact , then, logically , there is more to reality as a whole , to human language ,to its 's evolution emergence and evolution , the same goes again for the rest , than just physics and chemistry , than just mechanisms , than just the laws of physics : that changes the whole pic ...radically , and hence our whole approach of reality as such +our whole approach  regarding the  extensions of reality as a whole such as human language , consciousness and the rest , that changes radically even our own perception of what the scientific world view might be  as a result also ,logically thus  .

So, you cannot just isolate human language from its underlying elements such as human consciousness, human intellect , human memory , human feelngs emotions ....you cannot just  reduce   man or life for that matter as a whole package that's not the sum of its parts to just material mechanical physical biological processes , if you want to explain describe understand empirically life as a whole , reality as a whole , man as a whole, human language as a whole  ...or just the  parts of them all   science can deal with empirically .

Tell me now then : why is only man the one and only species that does have a language (s) that's unique to man in many ways ?
If you wanna answer this question via evolution , then, you have to include the missing part of reality as a whole materialism has been believing it does not exist = evolution is not only material biological physical .

Even if we assume that reality as a whole is just material or physical, and therefore that evolution is exclusively biological , even then , you cannot explain the origins of the human language within that context , simply because you have to try first to explain the origins and natures of human consciousness, human intellect , human feelings emotions, human memory, the origins , emergence and nature of life  .....first = the materialist  explanations of all the latter is obviously not true= all that cannot be explained just  in terms of physics and chemistry obviously ,despite your denials , except the fact that you do admit the fact that consciousness remains an unsolved hard problem  .

There you are again brought back to square zero where you have explained ...nothing , despite those materialist "explanations of everything " just in terms of the laws of physics ....
Congratulations .

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #91 on: 07/11/2013 19:51:22 »
You just talked about the physical material biological "mechanical " side of human language you do take for the whole real thing .

It is the whole thing. The next thing further in is thought itself, and it's just as mechanistic - a large chunk of it being applied reason.

Quote
Well, what is the 'supernatural " then ? just semantics :  everything that's outside of materialism is thus automatically mechanically  labeled as supernatural , the latter that's in fact natural normal = makes part of reality as a whole ,simply because reality as a whole is not just material or physical once again, as the mechanistic materialism wanna make you believe it is .

The supernatural is anything that doesn't fit in the mechanistic model. The whole idea of the supernatural is nonsense though, because it must be part of the natural if it exists, and any functionality tied up in it which depends on magic is non-mechanistic and shouldn't be capable of producing consistent results. There have to be mechanisms behind anything that doesn't just do random, and even with that there's probably an underlying mechanism.

Quote
So, when you do assume that reality as a whole is just material or physical , thanks to materialism thus , when you do assume that's the 'scientific world view " , then , logically , you can only try to approach reality as a whole , including human language its origins and evolution emergence , the same goes for consciousness, memory , feelings , life as a whole and the rest , you can thus only approach them all materialistically mechanically as a result .

Consciousness is the only interesting area as it's the one thing that we don't yet have a handle on there, but if it's a real phenomenon there will without doubt be a mechanism behind it too.

Quote
Now, let's assume that the mechanistic materialist "scientific world view " is false ,as it is in fact , then, logically...

...then logically you're doing away with logic and it isn't worth going any further because nothing you say can carry any weight.

Quote
... , there is more to reality as a whole , to human language ,to its 's evolution emergence and evolution , the same goes again for the rest , than just physics and chemistry , than just mechanisms , than just the laws of physics : that changes the whole pic ...radically , and hence our whole approach of reality as such +our whole approach  regarding the  extensions of reality as a whole such as human language , consciousness and the rest , that changes radically even our own perception of what the scientific world view might be  as a result also ,logically thus  .

That is just an attack on reductionism and the whole idea of understanding things by breaking them down into their components. You want everyone to keep everything lumped together in its most tangled form and to give up on trying to understand any of it. And you think you know what science is!

Quote
So, you cannot just isolate human language from its underlying elements such as human consciousness, human intellect , human memory , human feelngs emotions ....you cannot just  reduce   man or life for that matter as a whole package that's not the sum of its parts to just material mechanical physical biological processes , if you want to explain describe understand empirically life as a whole , reality as a whole , man as a whole, human language as a whole  ...or just the  parts of them all   science can deal with empirically .

Yes I can - I isolate language from all the other things and see that it is mechanistic and simple. I do the same with thought and discover that it too is mechanistic and simple. This is reductionism - we remove everything that we can understand and then turn our attention to what is left. There is very little left - just consciousness - but there's no hope in hell of understanding that if you wrap it up in everything else and declare that none of it can be understood even though most of it can be. You are doing anti-science.

Quote
Tell me now then : why is only man the one and only species that does have a language (s) that's unique to man in many ways ?

Because we got there first.

Quote
If you wanna answer this question via evolution , then, you have to include the missing part of reality as a whole materialism has been believing it does not exist = evolution is not only material biological physical .

Evolution is well understood. Things change by chance and the ones that work best are better at surviving. It can be simulated on computers and is used in design of things like aerodynamics.

Quote
Even if we assume that reality as a whole is just material or physical, and therefore that evolution is exclusively biological , even then , you cannot explain the origins of the human language within that context , simply because you have to try first to explain the origins and natures of human consciousness, human intellect , human feelings emotions, human memory, the origins , emergence and nature of life  .....first = the materialist  explanations of all the latter is obviously not true= all that cannot be explained just  in terms of physics and chemistry obviously ,despite your denials , except the fact that you do admit the fact that consciousness remains an unsolved hard problem  .

All those things can be tackled in their own right. Language is understood already and does not depend on understanding those other things. If I throw a ball at something and that thing is knocked by the ball and made to move in a particular way that can be predicted by the laws of physics, it doesn't matter a damn if we don't know what the thing is that the ball's hitting and causing to move. The physics of the interaction is already understood and isn't suddenly rendered a mystery on the basis that we don't know what the thing is that's being hit.

Quote
There you are again brought back to square zero where you have explained ...nothing , despite those materialist "explanations of everything " just in terms of the laws of physics ....
Congratulations .

You're the one who's stuck at square zero. Everything's a mystery to you because you're incapable of breaking anything down and analysing parts of it.
« Last Edit: 07/11/2013 20:06:16 by David Cooper »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #92 on: 07/11/2013 21:40:41 »
Talking to you, Dave , is like talking to a false believer who does confuse his own false belief with science proper , the latter i do love so much that i would love to see it , as it will be in fact: no doubt about that  , delivered from your false belief that's been sold to the people as the 'scientific world view " for so long now .
Ciao .

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #93 on: 08/11/2013 18:16:07 »
A lot of "science" is not done in accordance with reason, and that makes it faulty. What I call science is what science should be, and that depends on it applying reason 100% correctly rather than picking and choosing when to apply it and when not to in the manner of a religion. AGI systems will force us all to do science properly.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #94 on: 08/11/2013 19:57:11 »
A lot of "science" is not done in accordance with reason, and that makes it faulty. What I call science is what science should be, and that depends on it applying reason 100% correctly rather than picking and choosing when to apply it and when not to in the manner of a religion. AGI systems will force us all to do science properly.
[/quote]

Dave : i think you should try to read what i said on this same subject as a reply to these same statements of yours on the other thread concerning consciousness thus= the malaise in current science is much deeper than just what you were mentioning : goes way beyond just that  .
All physical sciences will have to undergo a revolutionary and radical change, no one yet can imagine , let alone predict yet ,  in order to try to deal with the actual factual reality as it is , not only with what materialism tells them what reality is , a materialist paradoxical absurd predicament all physical sciences must and will have to face at some point of history thus : that's something inevitable in this time and age where the end of materialism is nearer than ever .
Thanks, appreciate indeed.
Cheers .

(P.S.: My sincere apologies for being rude earlier ,sorry: i do still think higher of you ,despite everything : Good luck to you regarding  your own work, research ... or whatever you happen to be doing ,or will do ...Best wishes  .)

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #95 on: 08/11/2013 21:02:58 »
Dave : i think you should try to read what i said on this same subject as a reply to these same statements of yours on the other thread concerning consciousness thus= the malaise in current science is much deeper than just what you were mentioning : goes way beyond just that  .

I think most of it is fine, but there are a few places where scientists state things as facts which are demonstrably false and they simply refuse to recognise the proofs that they are wrong. You can take them a certain distance through an argument that shows the position they hold to be wrong and they often accept every part of it right up to the point where it shows they are wrong, at which point they suddenly see the mortal threat it poses to their treasured beliefs and they backtrack hard, raising all manner of ludicrous objections to all the points they had previously accepted along the way. They are ordinarily rational, but as soon as that conflicts with their holy cows, reason gets thrown out the window and baseless belief triumphs. However, most of science isn't affected by this because it doesn't conflict with anyone's treasured beliefs.

Quote
All physical sciences will have to undergo a revolutionary and radical change, no one yet can imagine , let alone predict yet ,  in order to try to deal with the actual factual reality as it is , not only with what materialism tells them what reality is , a materialist paradoxical absurd predicament all physical sciences must and will have to face at some point of history thus : that's something inevitable in this time and age where the end of materialism is nearer than ever .

The only change that's going to come is the one brought about by machines forcing science to be done correctly. Unfortunately though, the most interesting question of them all (consciousness) will be beyond the experience of the machines. The only road forward there will be to follow back the chains/networks of causation in the brain to find out where the evidence comes from that leads to the generation of claims about consciousness, and that's going to be a major technological challenge which could take decades.

Quote
(P.S.: My sincere apologies for being rude earlier ,sorry: i do still think higher of you ,despite everything : Good luck to you regarding  your own work, research ... or whatever you happen to be doing ,or will do ...Best wishes  .)

I don't mind rudeness and insults as they are either just banter or come out of frustration - you prove periodically that you're a nice person and that's all that counts. You are probably the most pleasant person I've ever had a big argument with on the Interweb.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #96 on: 09/11/2013 18:53:17 »
Dave : i think you should try to read what i said on this same subject as a reply to these same statements of yours on the other thread concerning consciousness thus= the malaise in current science is much deeper than just what you were mentioning : goes way beyond just that  .

I think most of it is fine, but there are a few places where scientists state things as facts which are demonstrably false and they simply refuse to recognise the proofs that they are wrong. You can take them a certain distance through an argument that shows the position they hold to be wrong and they often accept every part of it right up to the point where it shows they are wrong, at which point they suddenly see the mortal threat it poses to their treasured beliefs and they backtrack hard, raising all manner of ludicrous objections to all the points they had previously accepted along the way. They are ordinarily rational, but as soon as that conflicts with their holy cows, reason gets thrown out the window and baseless belief triumphs. However, most of science isn't affected by this because it doesn't conflict with anyone's treasured beliefs.

I do think that the malaise in science is way deeper than just that,once again, Dave  :
Reality is not just material or physical , and hence materialism is false = the 'scientific world view " is also false thus .
All physical sciences must change radically , in order to include the missing part of reality thus , once again .

Quote
Quote
All physical sciences will have to undergo a revolutionary and radical change, no one yet can imagine , let alone predict yet ,  in order to try to deal with the actual factual reality as it is , not only with what materialism tells them what reality is , a materialist paradoxical absurd predicament all physical sciences must and will have to face at some point of history thus : that's something inevitable in this time and age where the end of materialism is nearer than ever .

The only change that's going to come is the one brought about by machines forcing science to be done correctly. Unfortunately though, the most interesting question of them all (consciousness) will be beyond the experience of the machines. The only road forward there will be to follow back the chains/networks of causation in the brain to find out where the evidence comes from that leads to the generation of claims about consciousness, and that's going to be a major technological challenge which could take decades.

How can machines include the non-physical or non-material side of reality in science ? Absurd,sorry.

Quote
Quote
(P.S.: My sincere apologies for being rude earlier ,sorry: i do still think higher of you ,despite everything : Good luck to you regarding  your own work, research ... or whatever you happen to be doing ,or will do ...Best wishes  .)

I don't mind rudeness and insults as they are either just banter or come out of frustration - you prove periodically that you're a nice person and that's all that counts. You are probably the most pleasant person I've ever had a big argument with on the Interweb.

Indeed : rudeness and insults are just that .
Thanks , even though you might not have meant what you were saying about me  haha kidding .
You are indeed 1 of the most interesting ,intelligent and inspiring folks i have ever met this way via the net , so to speak , despite your paternalism and condescendence contempt arrogance sometimes : well, nobody is perfect indeed .
I do have many flaws also , no wonder .
Cheers.

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1460
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #97 on: 10/11/2013 06:43:21 »
A while back, I asked whether or not animals hear their own vocalizations and ever mistake it for, say, a rival male, the way a bird attacks attacks his own reflection in a window. Even if response to vocalizations is a simple stimulus response mechanism, the animal has to make the exception “unless it’s coming from me.” I suppose it’s also possible that the animal simply doesn’t have the machinery to do those things at once, make the sound and hear it and the same time.

 In that same post I also wondered at what point humans or prehumans started talking to themselves, and not just using vocalizations to warn  or provoke someone to do something. Maybe those were silly questions, but they still interest me. What I would really like to know about chimps and other animals that have rudimentary forms of language is whether they have internal language, non vocalized representations of vocalizations, or a mental representation of gestures that can exist without actually carrying out the action.

In my late 20s I had a weird episode lasting about six months where I found myself attaching the wrong endings to words when I spoke, resulting in a word that was either grammatically incorrect, (with an “ing”  ending instead of an “ed”) or resulting a word completely different in meaning, like “complicate” instead of “compliment”. Oddly, it was only verbs, never nouns, unless it was a gerund.  Everyone misspeaks once in a while, but it seemed to be happening with a worrisome frequency, and it’s just the weirdest feeling when something comes out of your mouth that you didn’t intend to say, not just odd, but surprising and startling, as if it wasn't "I" who had said, although clearly it had to be. The problem eventually went away.

I’m not sure how my odd experience relates to the questions above. We are conscious  of our internal monologue and sometimes planning carefully what we want to say before we say it, but on some lower, less conscious level, there also seems to be a process that compares output with intentions, and we aren’t aware of it until there’s a screw up. I don’t know if chimps have an internal monologue, but it’s not hard for me to imagine that they might at the very least have a system that compares output with intentions and makes corrections. There are lots of feedback loops like this - the cerebellum does this for physical movements, although not on a conscious level.

Without a working definition of consciousness, it's hard to say how self-awareness relates to consciousness. Some people see self-awareness and introspection as result of consciousness, but if consciousness evolved, it seems more likely that it developed from self-awareness, not the other way around, by turning those same thought processes that are applied to others on oneself, hearing and reacting to one's voice. At any rate, it's interesting that semantic capability and the degree of self-awareness correlate in great apes and babies and possibly other animals as well.
« Last Edit: 10/11/2013 07:10:28 by cheryl j »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #98 on: 10/11/2013 17:59:49 »
A while back, I asked whether or not animals hear their own vocalizations and ever mistake it for, say, a rival male, the way a bird attacks attacks his own reflection in a window. Even if response to vocalizations is a simple stimulus response mechanism, the animal has to make the exception “unless it’s coming from me.” I suppose it’s also possible that the animal simply doesn’t have the machinery to do those things at once, make the sound and hear it and the same time.

 In that same post I also wondered at what point humans or prehumans started talking to themselves, and not just using vocalizations to warn  or provoke someone to do something. Maybe those were silly questions, but they still interest me. What I would really like to know about chimps and other animals that have rudimentary forms of language is whether they have internal language, non vocalized representations of vocalizations, or a mental representation of gestures that can exist without actually carrying out the action.

In my late 20s I had a weird episode lasting about six months where I found myself attaching the wrong endings to words when I spoke, resulting in a word that was either grammatically incorrect, (with an “ing”  ending instead of an “ed”) or resulting a word completely different in meaning, like “complicate” instead of “compliment”. Oddly, it was only verbs, never nouns, unless it was a gerund.  Everyone misspeaks once in a while, but it seemed to be happening with a worrisome frequency, and it’s just the weirdest feeling when something comes out of your mouth that you didn’t intend to say, not just odd, but surprising and startling, as if it wasn't "I" who had said, although clearly it had to be. The problem eventually went away.

I’m not sure how my odd experience relates to the questions above. We are conscious  of our internal monologue and sometimes planning carefully what we want to say before we say it, but on some lower, less conscious level, there also seems to be a process that compares output with intentions, and we aren’t aware of it until there’s a screw up. I don’t know if chimps have an internal monologue, but it’s not hard for me to imagine that they might at the very least have a system that compares output with intentions and makes corrections. There are lots of feedback loops like this - the cerebellum does this for physical movements, although not on a conscious level.

Without a working definition of consciousness, it's hard to say how self-awareness relates to consciousness. Some people see self-awareness and introspection as result of consciousness, but if consciousness evolved, it seems more likely that it developed from self-awareness, not the other way around, by turning those same thought processes that are applied to others on oneself, hearing and reacting to one's voice. At any rate, it's interesting that semantic capability and the degree of self-awareness correlate in great apes and babies and possibly other animals as well.
[/quote]

It all comes down to the following , lady :
All the malaise at the very heart of science can be summarised by this lethal error that has been made in all sciences and elsewhere , thanks to materialism :
Reality as a whole is just material or physical .
As long as all sciences will continue looking at reality just through one eye , or rather through just the materialist key hole version of reality , as long as all sciences thus will continue to look at reality as a whole just via one eye , the materialist one , while assuming that the other eye is non-existent , then , all sciences will just give us a distortion of reality as a whole .
In short :
Reality as a whole is not just material or physical, as the false materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " has been assuming it to be for so long now .

So, when all sciences will start including the mental side of reality which they have been missing ,or which they have been reducing to just the physical or material , well, then and only then , all sciences might be able to reveal some more deeper and more fundamental forms of causation that might be underlying the laws of physics themselves , who knows ?

Then, all sciences will see reality as a whole , life in general , human language , consciousness ,evolution , and the rest from much wider angles, via science's both eyes , so to speak thus  :
Even evolution itself  cannot be just biological or physical material as a result , the same goes for the origins of life ,its evolution and emergence  ,the same goes for  the origins of human language....and the rest .
« Last Edit: 10/11/2013 18:03:28 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1460
    • View Profile
Re: What's The Origin of The Human Language ?
« Reply #99 on: 10/11/2013 18:49:37 »

It all comes down to the following , lady :
All the malaise at the very heart of science can be summarised by this lethal error that has been made in all sciences and elsewhere , thanks to materialism :
Reality as a whole is just material or physical .
As long as all sciences will continue looking at reality just through one eye , or rather through just the materialist key hole version of reality , as long as all sciences thus will continue to look at reality as a whole just via one eye , the materialist one , while assuming that the other eye is non-existent , then , all sciences will just give us a distortion of reality as a whole .
In short :
Reality as a whole is not just material or physical, as the false materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " has been assuming it to be for so long now .

So, when all sciences will start including the mental side of reality which they have been missing ,or which they have been reducing to just the physical or material , well, then and only then , all sciences might be able to reveal some more deeper and more fundamental forms of causation that might be underlying the laws of physics themselves , who knows ?

Then, all sciences will see reality as a whole , life in general , human language , consciousness ,evolution , and the rest from much wider angles, via science's both eyes , so to speak thus  :
Even evolution itself  cannot be just biological or physical material as a result , the same goes for the origins of life ,its evolution and emergence  ,the same goes for  the origins of human language....and the rest .

Other than the use of the word "evolved," there wasn't really anything especially materialistic my post. It was about the relationship between language and self-awareness in people and in animals. You keep saying you are genuinely interested in these topics that you post, like language or the origin of life or free will, but your discussion always leads back to the same anti-materialist complaint. (which is why you can even cross post the exact same response to multiple threads, regardless of their original topics.) I'm no longer interested in trying to explain to you why I don't agree with it.

Even though you say that once science is liberated from materialism, it will free scientists to explore exciting new vistas and consider all sorts of new and interesting ideas, I haven't seen any evidence of that from you.
« Last Edit: 10/11/2013 19:19:30 by cheryl j »