Definition of Consciousness: 2nd Poll

[untermensche]

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.

I have followed Chomsky since around 1985. I have read almost everything he has written on language and politics.

I have watched just about every recorded lecture he has made since the mid 80's.

You do not understand his ideas.

 

[beero1000]

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

 Dunning-Kruger effect

 

[Subsymbolic]

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.

I have followed Chomsky since around 1985. I have read almost everything he has written on language and politics.

I have watched just about every recorded lecture he has made since the mid 80's.

You do not understand his ideas.

Oddly, being someone’s biggest fan just isn’t enough.

Now about your qualifications...

 

[untermensche]

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.

I have followed Chomsky since around 1985. I have read almost everything he has written on language and politics.

I have watched just about every recorded lecture he has made since the mid 80's.

You do not understand his ideas.

Oddly, being someone’s biggest fan just isn’t enough.

Now about your qualifications...

What magic spell do you think is necessary?

I know the man's work. I have been reading it for over 30 years.

You seem like you heard about him for the first time last week. You do not understand his ideas.

 

[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.

I have followed Chomsky since around 1985. I have read almost everything he has written on language and politics.

I have watched just about every recorded lecture he has made since the mid 80's.

You do not understand his ideas.

First of all, Chomsky's political essays require no special technical knowledge to understand and are totally irrelevant to this discussion of his linguistic theory. What is important is the technical background needed to understand what he has been saying about language, so you need to understand the context in which he developed his theory. You have certainly not read seminal works such as Syntactic Structures and Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, which were foundational works that led to his current revisionist versions of generative theory. Chomsky was a brilliant theoretician who revolutionized his field in the 1960s and 1970s, but he did his best work when not surrounded by star-struck sycophants. Unfortunately, you know so little about linguistics, that you don't even know how ignorant you are on this subject. Chomsky does not believe some of the ideas that you have attributed to him, but it is not unusual for people to read a lot into some of his more off-the-cuff claims in the popular literature. Chomsky has something of a reputation for sweeping claims that lead him to backtrack and revise when he comes under fire. Unfortunately, his celebrity has allowed him to isolate and insulate himself more and more from his critics as time has passed.

The important point in this rather superficial discussion on the subject of genetic evolution is that even Chomsky, for all of his lack of expertise in biological evolution and even the literature on language acquisition, is not so naive as to believe that a single genetic mutation led to what he and others have vaguely referred to as the "linguistic faculty". In fact, if you look at how that term has been used and abused for well over a century, you would know that it can mean several very different things, depending on the context in which it is used.

 

[Subsymbolic]

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



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



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.

I think you just need to go and watch that first video you posted again, because Chomsky, not me, Chomsky, explicitly states that this capacity isn’t even connected to motor systems.

Either way, this has become dull. I note that since my comment about disinhibition, you have scaled back on the insults, which is telling. The fact that you are now describing academic qualifications as ‘magic’ while refusing to admit yours is equally telling. Now, ask yourself. If you were sat opposite Cop or I, how would you be behaving?

Because the elephant in the room here is that every thread I have seen that you are involved in stops being about what it was and becomes all about you. Have you considered why that might be? This isn’t about Cop or I, this is about the same trajectory every time regardless of interlocutor. Once your heels are dug in, even direct quotation demonstrating direct contradiction isn’t good enough to change your mind. I’m actually impressed, despite myself, at the ingenuity that you have brought to denying the patently obvious. The problem is that such ingenuity strongly suggests that you actually got the problem but are simply unprepared to admit it, and that’s perverse.

What I don’t get is what is in it for you. I get the disinhibition thing and your dislike of expertise is palpable, but why are you bothering?

Perhaps more importantly, why are we.

 

[untermensche]

I think you just need to go and watch that first video you posted again, because Chomsky, not me, Chomsky, explicitly states that this capacity isn’t even connected to motor systems.

He says OVER and OVER the capacity MUST be somehow integrated into the sensory-motor system for a person to speak.

Either way, this has become dull.

You pretending you know his work and me showing you your errors is very dull work for me too.

I find many people who claim to have some knowledge of Linguistics and claim to understand Chomsky's work, they all think he is wrong about something. They are all more clever than Chomsky.

I rarely find anyone who actually understands his work however.

Because the elephant in the room here is that every thread I have seen that you are involved in stops being about what it was and becomes all about you.

I am talking only about Chomsky's ideas. Not me.

I would like to discuss ideas.

That becomes very difficult with some. Many want to just pontificate and pontificate all day and discuss nothing. Paragraph after dense paragraph as if it is manna from heaven.

 

[beero1000]

I think you just need to go and watch that first video you posted again, because Chomsky, not me, Chomsky, explicitly states that this capacity isn’t even connected to motor systems.

Either way, this has become dull. I note that since my comment about disinhibition, you have scaled back on the insults, which is telling. The fact that you are now describing academic qualifications as ‘magic’ while refusing to admit yours is equally telling. Now, ask yourself. If you were sat opposite Cop or I, how would you be behaving?


Because the elephant in the room here is that every thread I have seen that you are involved in stops being about what it was and becomes all about you. Have you considered why that might be? This isn’t about Cop or I, this is about the same trajectory every time regardless of interlocutor. Once your heels are dug in, even direct quotation demonstrating direct contradiction isn’t good enough to change your mind. I’m actually impressed, despite myself, at the ingenuity that you have brought to denying the patently obvious. The problem is that such ingenuity strongly suggests that you actually got the problem but are simply unprepared to admit it, and that’s perverse.


What I don’t get is what is in it for you. I get the disinhibition thing and your dislike of expertise is palpable, but why are you bothering?


Perhaps more importantly, why are we.

You can't say we didn't warn you.

 

[Copernicus]

Well, let's not pick too much on untermensche. His posts speak for themselves. If you only approach the subject of linguistics from the perspective of an outsider, then there are very few of us who merit anything like the celebrity status that Chomsky had accumulated. Like Subsymbolic, I am not exactly in Chomsky's "camp" when it comes to linguistic theory, but that doesn't mean that I lack respect for his genius or his contributions to our understanding of the nature of linguistic systems. I can hardly fault untermensche for lacking an education in an arcane subject such as linguistics, but I am not about to let him get away with spouting nonsense about Chomsky's theory of linguistics, much as I may disagree with some fundamentals of Chomsky's theory on a professional level.

 

[Subsymbolic]

I think you just need to go and watch that first video you posted again, because Chomsky, not me, Chomsky, explicitly states that this capacity isn’t even connected to motor systems.

He says OVER and OVER the capacity MUST be somehow integrated into the sensory-motor system for a person to speak.

You are quite right yes he does. So, to be absolutely clear, if you can't speak (or express yourself in some other form of behaviour) you do not have the capacity for language. Because he also says, as I said he did, that:

Externalisation is a very tough process, there's this internal thing in the head ... you have this thing in the head and then you have the external sensory motor system which has been around for hundreds of thousands of years and has nothing to do with it, and you have to match them up and that's a complicated process. In fact that's where, practically, as far as we know, that's where all, almost all, the complexity of language is.

This is still in that first video you posted, 3:29 to 4:10, and makes it quite clear that when this putative mutation first occurs it isn't unified with either the afferent or efferent pathways. You just stated that "the capacity MUST be somehow integrated into the sensory-motor system for a person to speak". Chomsky just stated that it isn't.

So a single mutation didn't lead to the capacity to use language.

You pretending you know his work and me showing you your errors is very dull work for me too.


I find many people who claim to have some knowledge of Linguistics and claim to understand Chomsky's work, they all think he is wrong about something. They are all more clever than Chomsky.

I rarely find anyone who actually understands his work however.

One doesn't have to be cleverer that Chomsky to know that the trajectory of Cognitive sciences has pretty well left the poor guy behind. If you want the full skinny, Maggie Boden quite literally wrote the book on it.

Because the elephant in the room here is that every thread I have seen that you are involved in stops being about what it was and becomes all about you.

I am talking only about Chomsky's ideas. Not me.

I would like to discuss ideas.

That becomes very difficult with some. Many want to just pontificate and pontificate all day and discuss nothing. Paragraph after dense paragraph as if it is manna from heaven.

I didn't say you were talking about you. I said it was all about you. You show me a single example, since I have arrived here of you giving an inch to anyone you disagreed with at the start. Whatever you are doing it is not about discussing ideas. Let me demonstrate:

And do it over and over like an ape throwing it's feces against the glass.

That is not even an idea.

It is less.

It is a little turd left by a little mind.

IMO all you are doing here is masturbating in public.

Good little boy.

Don't post any ideas.

You have been shown to be a fool too many times when you do that.

Just stick your tongue out and drool.

That's just the cream of the last 48 hours. You get into an argument with someone, and to be clear none of the above were said to me afaik, you ignore what they say and you just hurl abuse. The effect of someone who never budges and just hurls abuse when challenged is positively toxic.

I'll ask again. Do you behave like this in public? I doubt it, because you are in retail and people who behave like this in retail lose their jobs almost immediately. So why exactly do you think it's ok to behave like this on the internet. I know all about disinhibition, but face it this isn't private at all, it's a panopticon and every word you say it here for ever. If you can't do it IRL you really should feel more inhibited here.

 

[untermensche]

Fuck no.

Collect all the things I responded to first before you start ignorantly taking everything I say out of context.

You are engaging in dishonesty.

 

[Subsymbolic]

No, I’m not.

What I have done is bind you in a dilemma of your own making. Your position on Chomsky is one he explicitly rejects in a source you provided.

Either you can’t see that or you can and are blustering.

And let’s face it, if you are going to accuse me of dishonesty then you need to provide evidence, you know by demonstrating equivocation or by quoting you doing the things you deny you do. That’s proving dishonesty beyond denial. I don’t have to give the context because it’s the ad Homs you denied. I just have to show you did it, not why.

Simply throwing back the things you are accused of is a technique children grow out of.

 

[AdamWho]

I find this poll incomprehensible.

 

[untermensche]

No, I’m not.

What I have done is bind you in a dilemma of your own making. Your position on Chomsky is one he explicitly rejects in a source you provided.

Either you can’t see that or you can and are blustering.

And let’s face it, if you are going to accuse me of dishonesty then you need to provide evidence, you know by demonstrating equivocation or by quoting you doing the things you deny you do. That’s proving dishonesty beyond denial. I don’t have to give the context because it’s the ad Homs you denied. I just have to show you did it, not why.

Simply throwing back the things you are accused of is a technique children grow out of.

Presenting words removed from all context is dishonesty.

Despicable.

 

[Subsymbolic]

No, I’m not.

What I have done is bind you in a dilemma of your own making. Your position on Chomsky is one he explicitly rejects in a source you provided.

Either you can’t see that or you can and are blustering.

And let’s face it, if you are going to accuse me of dishonesty then you need to provide evidence, you know by demonstrating equivocation or by quoting you doing the things you deny you do. That’s proving dishonesty beyond denial. I don’t have to give the context because it’s the ad Homs you denied. I just have to show you did it, not why.

Simply throwing back the things you are accused of is a technique children grow out of.

Presenting words removed from all context is dishonesty.

Despicable.

Or will there just be more twisting?

I ask again, do you ever behave like this in real life?

 

[untermensche]

After you place my comments in context you might understand.

Until then you are a despicable liar. A waste of time.

 

[Subsymbolic]

After you place my comments in context you might understand.

Until then you are a despicable liar. A waste of time.

Oh I understand the context just fine: you slag people down all the time. You deny you do it and don't like seeing the evidence that you do laid out quite so clearly. Did I miss anything?

Still, you want the full glory of each one, I'm here for you:

You made no point about me.

I do not post a link to some meaningless Wikipedia article and nothing else.

And do it over and over like an ape throwing it's feces against the glass.

Yup, that's content free abuse.

That is not even an idea.

It is less.

It is a little turd left by a little mind.

And you find it worth doing.

(meant for the post two posts above)

and again, just context free abuse.

They are your words, if you don't like them then stop posting them. I'll ask again. Do you behave like this in public?

If not, why do you behave like it here?

 

[untermensche]

You don't see shit if you don't see what was the cause of those remarks.

That you post things out of context makes you a despicable liar.

 

[Subsymbolic]

You don't see shit if you don't see what was the cause of those remarks.

That you post things out of context makes you a despicable liar.

I just posted the entire post for those two. More to the point, You've been hurling abuse at me constantly since I dared to point out that you were wrong.

You are still wrong:

He says OVER and OVER the capacity MUST be somehow integrated into the sensory-motor system for a person to speak.

You are quite right yes he does. So, to be absolutely clear, if you can't speak (or express yourself in some other form of behaviour) you do not have the capacity for language. Because he also says, as I said he did, that:

Externalisation is a very tough process, there's this internal thing in the head ... you have this thing in the head and then you have the external sensory motor system which has been around for hundreds of thousands of years and has nothing to do with it, and you have to match them up and that's a complicated process. In fact that's where, practically, as far as we know, that's where all, almost all, the complexity of language is.

This is still in that first video you posted, 3:29 to 4:10, and makes it quite clear that when this putative mutation first occurs it isn't unified with either the afferent or efferent pathways. You just stated that "the capacity MUST be somehow integrated into the sensory-motor system for a person to speak". Chomsky just stated that it isn't.

So a single mutation didn't lead to the capacity to use language.

QED.

 

[untermensche]

I just posted the entire post for those two. More to the point, You've been hurling abuse at me constantly since I dared to point out that you were wrong.

If you do not want abuse do not post my words free of context.

It is despicable.

When you finally see the context things happen in you might get some more lessons on Chomsky.