How did human language originate?

[lpetrich]

One reason language is believed to have arisen in one event is because of the infinite nature of language. It is a computational system capable of dealing with infinite expressions. ...

A computational system capable of dealing with infinite expressions does not arise step by step.

You don't go from understanding 10 expressions, to 100, to 10,000 ......and so on to infinite.

That's the old creationist "half an eye" argument. More reason to call that argument quasi-creationist. Not the "quasi" part. I use "quasi" because this is not poofing organisms into existence, but instead poofing modifications of existing organisms into existence.

What you do instead is to invent recursion -- define a linguistic construct that can include constructs like itself. untermensche, earlier in this thread, I tried to explain how recursion can generate infinities, but you don't seem to have bothered to comment on that.

 

[DrZoidberg]

We're talking about areas in Europe and eastern Asia where Neanderthal are living primitively without encroachment.

Places where Cro-Magnons (humans) could have survived if they could have eliminated the Neanderthals.

But Cro-Magnons did not encroach for tens of thousands of years.

Nothing stopped them except their primitive tools and behaviors, which suddenly changed.

Then within about 7,500 years humans ruled all of Europe.

Much simpler hypothesis and rationalization than sudden genetic mutation which, as I explained earlier, is more readily explained by rapid climate variations over the glacial period driving fitness toward robust climate variation survival. Existing theory suggests more gradual change from to analysis brain from vision brain over period from four million years bme in agreement with genetic marker analyses.

Simpler? Than a single mutation within a very complex system that already has codes for specialized subsystems? You joke?

Humans don't need to wait for temperature drops. They make coats.

Brain size changes via punctuated equilibrium, not gradually.

View attachment 10212

Large jumps. Big jump from habilis to erectus.

Big jump from ercetus to Neanderthal and us.

The first study is about the rates of autism spectrum disorder. The second study again is just describing what possible harms could befall the rare individual, nothing about the language capacity changing over time.

The language capacity relies on attention and memory and for most hearing and vision.

If any of these other "systems" are not functioning properly the language capacity may have difficulty. But it is not a change to the language capacity anymore than the rare individual born with abnormal neuro-muscular function changes the walking capacity over time.

The link between brain size and intelligence is weak. The problem is lack of intelligent species. We have very few data points from which to draw all the conclusions. We have no idea what anything in that graph proves or doesn't prove.

Neanderthals had bigger brains than us. But we're pretty low on evidence that they were smarter than us. I'm not saying they weren't. We just don't know enough to draw any conclusions. Based on brain size birds should be a hell of a lot smarter than they are. But birds use 75% of their brains to process visual information. So dumb as bricks. Cockroaches have no brains. The brain size theory should mean they are unable to do anything. Yet they're very capable creatures.

 

[untermensche]

One reason language is believed to have arisen in one event is because of the infinite nature of language. It is a computational system capable of dealing with infinite expressions. ...

A computational system capable of dealing with infinite expressions does not arise step by step.

You don't go from understanding 10 expressions, to 100, to 10,000 ......and so on to infinite.

That's the old creationist "half an eye" argument. More reason to call that argument quasi-creationist. Not the "quasi" part. I use "quasi" because this is not poofing organisms into existence, but instead poofing modifications of existing organisms into existence.

What you do instead is to invent recursion -- define a linguistic construct that can include constructs like itself. untermensche, earlier in this thread, I tried to explain how recursion can generate infinities, but you don't seem to have bothered to comment on that.

Modifications of existing structures "poof" into existence all the time. They are called mutations.

But I'll address this despite your complete lack of logical argument.

A communication system that is able to make sense of a few distinct sounds cannot grow in small steps to be able to make sense of infinite expressions.

If you think it is possible make an argument showing how.

You need a different kind of computational system to produce infinite capabilities.

 

[untermensche]

The link between brain size and intelligence is weak. The problem is lack of intelligent species. We have very few data points from which to draw all the conclusions. We have no idea what anything in that graph proves or doesn't prove.

Neanderthals had bigger brains than us. But we're pretty low on evidence that they were smarter than us. I'm not saying they weren't. We just don't know enough to draw any conclusions. Based on brain size birds should be a hell of a lot smarter than they are. But birds use 75% of their brains to process visual information. So dumb as bricks. Cockroaches have no brains. The brain size theory should mean they are unable to do anything. Yet they're very capable creatures.

Are you addressing me with this? You are addressing no points I have made.

There is evidence Neanderthals did not have the human language capacity. Basically a lack of evidence of any ability to advance intellectually.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Are you addressing me with this? You are addressing no points I have made.

There is evidence Neanderthals did not have the human language capacity. Basically a lack of evidence of any ability to advance intellectually.

I've seen the complete opposite. I've even seen (heard) attempts at recreating Neanderthal speech based on the anatomy of the voice box.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0082261

Whether or not Neanderthals could speak is anyone's guess. But they certainly had the same range of vocalisation as humans, albeit an octave higher on average. Why would they need it if not to talk to one another? We're not birds. We're not sexually attracted to mates with skills in sound mimicry.

 

[untermensche]

Are you addressing me with this? You are addressing no points I have made.

There is evidence Neanderthals did not have the human language capacity. Basically a lack of evidence of any ability to advance intellectually.

I've seen the complete opposite. I've even seen (heard) attempts at recreating Neanderthal speech based on the anatomy of the voice box.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0082261

Whether or not Neanderthals could speak is anyone's guess. But they certainly had the same range of vocalisation as humans, albeit an octave higher on average. Why would they need it if not to talk to one another? We're not birds. We're not sexually attracted to mates with skills in sound mimicry.

Neanderthals almost definitely made sounds.

Making sounds is not having anything close to human language.

You don't go from making sounds to designate a few objects in the world to having a system that can generate and understand infinite expressions in small little steps.

They are two entirely different kinds of systems.

 

[lpetrich]

Modifications of existing structures "poof" into existence all the time. They are called mutations.

Mutations don't poof complex, well-adapted structures into existence all at once.

Also, untermensche, I notice that you have not addressed my argument that "infinite expressions" are simpler and easier than what you seem to think.

 

[fromderinside]

Believe it or not I did not create that graphic.

But erectus is almost twice habilis.

With Neanderthal and us about twice erectus.

Not gradual change.

Punctuation.

The place from which you clipped it is not very reliable is it.

What ever happened to 'good enough'? Mutations go on but advantage stays put for a while. Then conditions change and wallah. I'm pretty sure that the saying "most mutations are deleterious" is true.

But, hey Jim*, drink the Koolaid.

*^{_{allusion to Jim Jones of San Francisco fame.}}

 

[untermensche]

Modifications of existing structures "poof" into existence all the time. They are called mutations.

Mutations don't poof complex, well-adapted structures into existence all at once.

Also, untermensche, I notice that you have not addressed my argument that "infinite expressions" are simpler and easier than what you seem to think.

Mutations can make changes to existing structures.

And if the structure is complex, a simple change can have a complex effect.

That it is useful is not an argument against it.

Your argument about how easy it is to create a system of infinite understanding using recursive processes is definitely something I missed.

 

[untermensche]

Believe it or not I did not create that graphic.

But erectus is almost twice habilis.

With Neanderthal and us about twice erectus.

Not gradual change.

Punctuation.

The place from which you clipped it is not very reliable is it.

What ever happened to 'good enough'? Mutations go on but advantage stays put for a while. Then conditions change and wallah. I'm pretty sure that the saying "most mutations are deleterious" is true.

But, hey Jim*, drink the Koolaid.

*^{_{allusion to Jim Jones of San Francisco fame.}}

It is not meant to show anything except the clear punctuated growth of brain size. If you have something that shows a nice gradual increase in size go ahead and show it.

Obviously some mutations must be advantageous or there would no phenotypical function.

No legs to walk, no wings to fly without many many advantageous mutations.

The KoolAid is the idea that all change must be nice and gradual and smooth. That is something that arises out of the imagination, not the fossil record.

 

[fromderinside]

The KoolAid is the idea that all change must be nice and gradual and smooth. That is something that arises out of the imagination, not the fossil record.

That's wrong. The idea is that mutation rates are more or less constant. Change depends on both mutation rate and gene driving conditions. So if you are holding that everybody else is wrong based on your assertion you are shouting into space a straw man.

 

[untermensche]

The KoolAid is the idea that all change must be nice and gradual and smooth. That is something that arises out of the imagination, not the fossil record.

That's wrong. The idea is that mutation rates are more or less constant. Change depends on both mutation rate and gene driving conditions. So if you are holding that everybody else is wrong based on your assertion you are shouting into space a straw man.

Mutation rates may be constant but effect of mutation is a punctuated process.

Sometimes a mutation does nothing.

Sometimes it produces a small effect.

Sometimes it produces a large effect.

Constant mutation rates do not yield constant rates of change.

Then if you combine this with a rapidly changing environment you increase the punctuated nature of the process.

 

[lpetrich]

Your argument about how easy it is to create a system of infinite understanding using recursive processes is definitely something I missed.

I had posted on that earlier in this thread. Should I hunt down some of my posts on that subject?

 

[fromderinside]

No need for punctuated since environment does a pretty good job of altering importance, disasters (freeing up niches) , rapid changes (increased adaptive value), etc, and keeping pressure on to change or to go away. There are sooooooooooooooooo many mutations per phenotype per individual per generation per species it makes keeping up a bit more probable.

If you bother to take a look at just the gross structure of the brain it becomes obvious it's been changing along a analytical processing capability lines for a very long time among becoming human species line. Just notice the boundary between analytical and vision areas. Its obvious.

 

[untermensche]

Your argument about how easy it is to create a system of infinite understanding using recursive processes is definitely something I missed.

I had posted on that earlier in this thread. Should I hunt down some of my posts on that subject?

If you want to.

If it is easy using a recursive process to create a system of understanding that allows for infinite expression and comprehension then a single mutation could perhaps do it.

- - - Updated - - -

No need for punctuated since environment does a pretty good job of altering importance, disasters (freeing up niches) , rapid changes (increased adaptive value), etc, and keeping pressure on to change or to go away. There are sooooooooooooooooo many mutations per phenotype per individual per generation per species it makes keeping up a bit more probable.

If you bother to take a look at just the gross structure of the brain it becomes obvious it's been changing along a analytical processing capability lines for a very long time among becoming human species line. Just notice the boundary between analytical and vision areas. Its obvious.

Punctuated change is still change.

 

[fromderinside]

The point, dear one, is that punctuated evolution hypothesis isn't necessary since wcwerything is easily explained by interaction between species and environment over generations. No need of hypothesizing something that is beyond current explanation just because one has blank slate belief.

 

[untermensche]

The point, dear one, is that punctuated evolution hypothesis isn't necessary since wcwerything is easily explained by interaction between species and environment over generations. No need of hypothesizing something that is beyond current explanation just because one has blank slate belief.

The theory arose from studying the fossil record.

The record is not clean and smooth and perfect as you would like.

It is bumpy and chaotic with big changes occurring periodically.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I've seen the complete opposite. I've even seen (heard) attempts at recreating Neanderthal speech based on the anatomy of the voice box.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0082261

Whether or not Neanderthals could speak is anyone's guess. But they certainly had the same range of vocalisation as humans, albeit an octave higher on average. Why would they need it if not to talk to one another? We're not birds. We're not sexually attracted to mates with skills in sound mimicry.

Neanderthals almost definitely made sounds.

Making sounds is not having anything close to human language.

You don't go from making sounds to designate a few objects in the world to having a system that can generate and understand infinite expressions in small little steps.

They are two entirely different kinds of systems.

Humans and Neanderthals both have vocal cords that allow for advanced vocal gymnastics. Other primates don't.

I think they could speak to each other like we do.

I belong to the camp that thinks that the way we conquered the Neanderthals was by being better at starving. Neanderthals used more energy than we do. We're also capable of eating a wider range of foods. Neanderthals were very specialised to hunting.

 

[untermensche]

Neanderthals almost definitely made sounds.

Making sounds is not having anything close to human language.

You don't go from making sounds to designate a few objects in the world to having a system that can generate and understand infinite expressions in small little steps.

They are two entirely different kinds of systems.

Humans and Neanderthals both have vocal cords that allow for advanced vocal gymnastics. Other primates don't.

I think they could speak to each other like we do.

I belong to the camp that thinks that the way we conquered the Neanderthals was by being better at starving. Neanderthals used more energy than we do. We're also capable of eating a wider range of foods. Neanderthals were very specialised to hunting.

They could make noises.

That is not human language, as I have said several times.

Human language has an underlying hierarchical structure, an innate "grammar" that controls behind the scenes, below the surface, that the user of human language doesn't even know exists.

We do not see the innovativeness in Neanderthal to suggest it had more than a measure of communication with sound. No language. No capacity to understand human language. No underlying hierarchical processes to make sense of human language.

 

[fromderinside]

The point, dear one, is that punctuated evolution hypothesis isn't necessary since wcwerything is easily explained by interaction between species and environment over generations. No need of hypothesizing something that is beyond current explanation just because one has blank slate belief.

The theory arose from studying the fossil record.

The record is not clean and smooth and perfect as you would like.

It is bumpy and chaotic with big changes occurring periodically.

So because substrates may, or, may not harbor fossils Gould concludes evolution is punctuate. What a mind, communist mind, he had. I suspect he would have gotten on famously with The Donald.

The news isn't that fossils appear irregularly in nature because evolution is punctuate it is that fossils appear irregularly because subsequent substrates aren't all supportive of fossil creation.

I'm sure paleontologists would welcome punctuate fossil lying down rather than have to find suitable substrates for recovering fossils. All they would have to do is date the substrate, discover patterns, and dig accordingly. No bothering with finding rivers, bodies of water, special material, and the like. Just build theory, count and dig anywhere. Wow, what a concept.