Definition of Consciousness: 2nd Poll

[untermensche]

The Language Capacity is that which gives the human the capacity for language.

Without it the human would be like the chimp or the dog.

Only able to use a few labels but not language.

Which was probably the state of humans until most likely.

You don't give up do you.

Let me ask you a simple question:

Immediately after the Language Capacity arose in one individual with one mutation, does Chomsky think that individual had the capacity for language?

A simple yes or no will do.

Most definitely that individual was born with the capacity to understand and use language. But since there was no language for that person to be exposed to that capacity would not lead to a developed language skill in that individual, much like like the kittens with covered eyes will not develop proper sight.

Much like humans today who when not exposed to a language at critical times will not develop a language skill.

The capacity has not changed since that first mutation in that first individual.

 

[Subsymbolic]

The Language Capacity is that which gives the human the capacity for language.

Without it the human would be like the chimp or the dog.

Only able to use a few labels but not language.

Which was probably the state of humans until most likely.

You don't give up do you.

Let me ask you a simple question:

Immediately after the Language Capacity arose in one individual with one mutation, does Chomsky think that individual had the capacity for language?

A simple yes or no will do.

Most definitely that individual was born with the capacity to understand and use language. But since there was no language for that person to be exposed to that capacity would not lead to a developed language skill in that individual, much like like the kittens with covered eyes will not develop proper sight.

Much like humans today who when not exposed to a language at critical times will not develop a language skill.

The capacity has not changed since that first mutation in that first individual.

Splendid.

Most definitely that individual was born with the capacity to understand and use language.

Now allow me to remind you what Chomsky has to say about that from the very first video you posted:

Whatever is going on in our heads is pre linguistic...

(2:57)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KCtausMHv0

He's explicitly talking about this 'first mutation' as you put it.

What do you think Chomsky means by prelinguistic?

He then goes on to say:

Speculatively, along with the human developmental evidence, this suggests that a fully wired word-like atom to Merge workspace "ring" is necessary to enable the Basic Property. What is the evolutionary point? It's very nearly a literal "Missing Link" While we cannot be certain, if it is indeed the case that human syntax requires a fully wired "ring" then the notion that some "small rewiring of the brain " resulted in a fully fully working syntactic system with Merge might not be so far off the mark. A small genomic change in a growth factor for one of the fibres , along with proper fibre tract guidance, might suffice, and there's certainly enough time for it. This also fits in well with Ramus and Fisher's point(2009) point that a small neural change of this type could lead to large phenotypic consequences - without much evolution required, and not all that much time. (WOU P164) my bold

Why do you think that he says that there isn't 'much evolution required, and not all that much time' if this was already the capacity to understand and use language?

There are plenty of other examples of Chomsky being quite clear that this putative mutation does not allow the recipient to understand and use language.

 

[untermensche]

What do you think Chomsky means by prelinguistic?

You tell me. I know what he means.

What did Chomsky think the first person and his or her offspring do with the language capacity?

 

[Copernicus]

What do you think Chomsky means by prelinguistic?

You tell me. I know what he means.

What did Chomsky think the first person and his or her offspring do with the language capacity?

Regrettably, I have been on an Asian cruise without much internet for the past couple of weeks and haven't been able to weigh in. As a linguist, I might have been able to help a little, but subsymbolic has been largely on the right track when it comes to understanding Chomsky's vague, meandering thoughts on the subject of language capacity and language acquisition. Still, he changes his opinions often enough that there is something there for anyone who has an appetite for oracular pronouncements. Suffice it to point out that Chomsky is not a biologist and has a somewhat limited knowledge of language acquisition as studied by specialists in the subject. He has never been successful at explaining the observed behaviors of infants during first language acquisition.

 

[Subsymbolic]

What do you think Chomsky means by prelinguistic?

You tell me. I know what he means.

What did Chomsky think the first person and his or her offspring do with the language capacity?

Regrettably, I have been on an Asian cruise without much internet for the past couple of weeks and haven't been able to weigh in. As a linguist, I might have been able to help a little, but subsymbolic has been largely on the right track when it comes to understanding Chomsky's vague, meandering thoughts on the subject of language capacity and language acquisition. Still, he changes his opinions often enough that there is something there for anyone who has an appetite for oracular pronouncements. Suffice it to point out that Chomsky is not a biologist and has a somewhat limited knowledge of language acquisition as studied by specialists in the subject. He has never been successful at explaining the observed behaviors of infants during first language acquisition.

Don't think I didn't catch the ambiguous pronoun there!

Sadly the argument isn't merely about Chomsky's legacy, rather it's about whether he claimed that the capacity for language was the result of a single mutation. If it was just about Chomsky, I'd simply point out that anyone who proposes mutation as the only possible cause of an advantageous change in the neural structures of a creature that uses meiosis to 'shuffle the deck' is clearly not competent to have an opinion on the matter.

Mind you, as you know, Maggie Boden was my supervisor, so it's not as if I'm neutral here.

 

[untermensche]

You two are full of it.

And I notice neither one of you answered the questions.

Your ignorance of Chomsky's position that hasn't changed for a long time is clear.

You condemn Strawmen and are satisfied somehow.

 

[beero1000]

You two are full of it.

And I notice neither one of you answered the questions.

Your ignorance of Chomsky's position that hasn't changed for a long time is clear.

You condemn Strawmen and are satisfied somehow.

There goes another one.

 

[ruby sparks]

2 mutations. Any advance on two mutations? Do I have a bidder?

 

[Subsymbolic]

You two are full of it.

And I notice neither one of you answered the questions.

Your ignorance of Chomsky's position that hasn't changed for a long time is clear.

You condemn Strawmen and are satisfied somehow.

I didn't answer the question because I rather thought that having Chomsky himself state that the results of the putative mutation would be 'prelinguistic' really was an end to to a debate as to whether he thought that the mutation left us with a capacity to use language.

So at this point, I'd like to know precisely what your definition of 'prelinguistic' is, or at least the prefix 'pre'.

I'm also curious as to precisely where you feel your position has been misrepresented for the purpose of condemnation rather than merely soundly rebutted.

But to answer your question:

What did Chomsky think the first person and his or her offspring do with the language capacity?

In the first generation of a mutation that allowed for recursive thought in a prelinguistic environment? All the evidence from language deprived neonates suggests sweet FA for many, many generations. Chomsky suggests five to six thousand before we obtained the capacity for language, rather than his unfortunate euphemism for The Basic Property AKA UG AKA Universal Grammar which we now all know is The Language Capacity. Thus if one thing is established, that is that 'The Language Capacity is not the capacity for language, merely a capacity, according, again, to Chomsky himself for recursive processing.

You were wrong. You may be patient, but you are wrong.

 

[untermensche]

You tell me. I know exactly what Chomsky's words mean.

You have not shown me you have the same ability.

In the first generation of a mutation that allowed for recursive thought in a prelinguistic environment?

No. The system is recursive, not thoughts.

 

[Subsymbolic]

You tell me. I know exactly what Chomsky's words mean.

You have not shown me you have the same ability.

In the first generation of a mutation that allowed for recursive thought in a prelinguistic environment?

No. The system is recursive, not thoughts.

Excellent, then I’m sure your authoritative grasp of Chomsky will allow you to explain how a brain can both be prelinguistic and have a capacity for language at the same time.

 

[untermensche]

The language capacity is what allowed language to develop after time. It is what allows a very young child to understand language even with very limited exposure or much practice.

But when this capacity arose in an individual probably due to a single mutation there were no languages.

It arose in a pre- linguistic environment.

But it had to grant a survival advantage to remain and spread.

Chomsky speculates that the evolutionary advantage it first supplied was better thinking, more organized thinking.

 

[Copernicus]

The language capacity is what allowed language to develop after time. It is what allows a very young child to understand language even with very limited exposure or much practice.

But when this capacity arose in an individual probably due to a single mutation there were no languages.

It arose in a pre- linguistic environment.

But it had to grant a survival advantage to remain and spread.

Chomsky speculates that the evolutionary advantage it first supplied was better thinking, more organized thinking.

Untermensche, you have an extremely superficial grasp of what Chomsky's theory of Generative Grammar is all about, so seizing on quotes made in passing (which Chomsky can be quite cavalier about) and using them as the basis for a conclusion about his views on innateness is a singularly bad idea. You need to really understand what generativism tries to explain in terms of linguistic structure before his pronouncements begin to make sense. And when they do, they come off as a lot less profound than they initially sound. You need to know a lot more about matters such as phrase structure, intuitions of well-formedness, and linguistic universals to get a sense of how solid his thinking has been.

This argument over whether he believes that there is some kind of language "gene" is just the kind of nonsense that naive readers such as yourself can easily get hung up on. It would be utterly absurd to claim that he really believes that, but he has such a terrible tendency to toss around glib remarks (which I suspect he got from his erstwhile mentor, Zellig Harris) that I am not surprised you would come away with such an impression. If you actually confronted him with such a claim (and he deigned to take you seriously enough to respond to), I'm quite certain that he would simply deny he ever said such a thing. I've seen him do that even when confronted with his own published words. He knows that such a claim would be absurd.

 

[Subsymbolic]

The language capacity is what allowed language to develop after time.

Really, so when you stated earlier that:

Most definitely that individual was born with the capacity to understand and use language.

You were simply wrong? Or are you back to trying to equivocate?

Remember, according to Chomsky, once it was integrated into both the sensory and motor nervous system and had developed into both a language of thought and a generative grammar. His estimate of 'After Time' was 5-6,000 generations.

It is what allows a very young child to understand language even with very limited exposure or much practice.

I think you are confusing that with a LAD.

But when this capacity arose in an individual probably due to a single mutation there were no languages.

It arose in a pre- linguistic environment.

Nice try at further equivocation, but Chomsky specified, in the first video you linked to:

Whatever is going on in our heads is pre linguistic...

But it had to grant a survival advantage to remain and spread.

Chomsky speculates that the evolutionary advantage it first supplied was better thinking, more organized thinking.

But not the capacity to learn and understand language. In other words, you were wrong.

I'm sure Copernicus will be able to fill in the details for you.

Incidentally, I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim to be better qualified to talk about this sort of stuff. Cop will be delighted, he rarely gets to row with people with a D.litt.

 

[Copernicus]

What originally inspired Chomsky to propose an innateness hypothesis was the observation of many post-Bloomfield linguists that language patterns, both syntactic and phonolgical, could not vary randomly. There are actually some rather stunningly unexpected skews in those patterns, so Chomsky was speculating that the universal patterns we were seeing had to have resulted from some kind of genetic predisposition in the species, albeit not necessarily all attributable to just a single mutation. A more likely scenario would be a long series of gradual mutations that ultimately produced a rather dedicated "language organ" integrated with other more general cognitive functions.

Nobody with expertise in the field really believes anymore that our linguistic abilities are all attributable to rote learning. Chomsky popularized the "language instinct" hypothesis, but he was far from the only academic to have noticed skewed linguistic patterns and tied them to innate predispositions. There were many precursors to that idea. What he did was produce some rather amazing insights into just how intricate linguistic patterns could be. But he had no way to explain the connection between such patterns and biology. The question was never over whether language was an instinctive behavior in our species, but over what was actually transmitted by nature and what by nurture. This debate goes back at least to Plato's Cratylus. So Chomsky is just a modern popularizer of an old philosophical debate, where the meat of the debate has moved on to a much more sophisticated understanding of how language works. Chomsky himself has no real idea of how language evolved. He just makes it sound like he has some special insight into such matters. He really isn't taken as much of a player in the debate these days, but he still retains a magic aura in public discussions in internet forums.

 

[untermensche]

The language capacity is what allowed language to develop after time.

Really, so when you stated earlier that:

Most definitely that individual was born with the capacity to understand and use language.

You were simply wrong? Or are you back to trying to equivocate?

You are so lost I tire trying to find you.

The individual who had the first mutation had a capacity to learn language.

But to learn a language you need exposure to one at very critical times of brain development.

This first individual had the capacity but no exposure. Therefore no language.

But over time when more and more people with this language capacity arrived languages started to develop.

And slowly young children were exposed to a more and more complex language until language became incredibly complex.

The capacity first.

Language next.

Whatever is going on in our heads is pre linguistic...

The capacity is what is in our heads.

And it was here before language was here.

 

[Copernicus]

Untermensche, nobody has proposed such a simplistic view of how language evolved, and especially not Chomsky. You are trying to make sense of what you think he must have meant, but it is hopelessly befuddled. What environmental conditions could possibly have favored the development of a useless "language faculty", given that none of the people with this faculty could use it to analyze and acquire an existing language pattern? Your description of the process bears no similarity to what Chomsky has actually said about language acquisition. He may not be a specialist in Darwinian evolution, but he isn't that clueless.

 

[untermensche]

Untermensche, nobody has proposed such a simplistic view of how language evolved, and especially not Chomsky. You are trying to make sense of what you think he must have meant, but it is hopelessly befuddled. What environmental conditions could possibly have favored the development of a useless "language faculty", given that none of the people with this faculty could use it to analyze and acquire an existing language pattern? Your description of the process bears no similarity to what Chomsky has actually said about language acquisition. He may not be a specialist in Darwinian evolution, but he isn't that clueless.

You don't know Chomsky's ideas.

Obviously the language capacity has to give the pre-linguistic individual without a language a very strong survival advantage in itself for this capacity to become universal.

Chomsky proposes that the capacity in itself without exposure to language helps the individual with it to better organize their thoughts and better plan.

If the advantage is great enough and the person with it has offspring the genetic trait would soon dominate as those with it wound better adapt and survive.

Then by chance the same capacity would lead to the development of a complex language.

Which could be a verbal language, or a sign language for the deaf, or even a tactile language for the blind.

 

[Copernicus]

Untermensche, I thought that I had explained my background to you before. I earned my PhD in linguistics back in 1973 and have been professionally employed as such until retirement in 2012, although I still do some work part time. Quite a few of my teachers were first generation students of Chomsky's, and I am more or less acquainted with most of their peers and colleagues. I have taught courses on language acquisition to both graduate and undergraduate students. My understanding of your background is that you have never taken a single course in linguistics. So I think that your assessment of what I know about Chomsky and his theories may be just a tad off. Worse yet, your assessment of what you understand of Chomsky is much more than a tad off.

 

[Subsymbolic]

And while waiting for you to tell us about your fantastic qualifications, I'm a little more of a generalist as my first degree was joint honours in Philosophy and Cognitive Science, (which included courses in linguistics and computational linguistics under Gerald Gazdar and Larry Trask). My first Masters is in Philosophy of Cognitive Science under Andy Clark. I undertook my Doctorate, specialising in consciousness and intentionality, under Margaret Boden and studied under her for five years without ultimately completing. However, during that time, I taught undergraduate courses in both Cognitive science and Philosophy. I have been teaching ever since and have since added a Masters in Education and another undergraduate degree in comparative religion just for the fun of it.

So that's us, how about you. I understand that you undertook diploma in pharmacy. Did you pass?