Definition of Consciousness: 2nd Poll

[untermensche]

Language being a feature of consciousness enabled by the the evolution of the related neural architecture. No neural architecture dedicated to language equals no language ability, therefore brain and consequently consciousness without without the aptitude for language.

Basically you have said that the consciousness is like the leg. Something that arrived via evolution.

No kidding.

It doesn't mean we understand the first thing about it beyond our subjective experience of it.

And we don't. We don't have the slightest clue what it is objectively.

You claim to know. You hold to your claims in spite of all research, evidence and commentary of researchers to the contrary.....

I claim to know experience.

And it would take incredibly solid research, not the science of human guesses, to overturn the clear evidence of experience. Science would actually have to know what the consciousness is first.

I claim to know a tiny bit about rational progressions.

And there is nothing rational about something thinking it is moving the arm but isn't.

That situation makes ZERO sense. There would be no reason for it. No need for it. That thing falsely believing it is moving the arm would be completely superfluous.

Unless it were the case that the thing was actually moving the arm.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Ok, bluster some more it is.

whatever rewiring of the brain yielded the apparently unique properties of language, specifically recursive generation of hierarchically structured expressions, would therefore have taken place in an individual

You're just wrong.

That's oh so easy to say and yet so difficult to prove.

Which is why you did not address this clear unequivocal statement at all.

What this one?

I did not say that language as a completed system emerged in an individual in an instant. But I cannot think of a coherent alternative to the idea that mutations take place in individuals, not communities, so that whatever rewiring of the brain yielded the apparently unique properties of language, specifically recursive generation of hierarchically structured expressions, would therefore have taken place in an individual, and only later been used among individuals who had inherited this capacity.

I didn't need to, I merely pointed out his explicit statement at the start that he wasn't talking about language. That he's flat wrong is almost a distraction at this point, but the fact is that he's talking about precisely the same process as he was every other time and the implications of this don't change. I'm sorry that missing it out gave you a ray of hope. It as unfounded.

Chomsky is talking about the language capacity.

Perhaps it would be more interesting if you explained precisely why you think 'The language capacity' is, because most people would read that as the capacity for language.

I've presented it said in three ways. Three pieces of evidence to support my position.

You really are remarkably resistant to evidence. The only thing your three presentations have in common is you making the same unsustainable claim that isn't supported by the evidence you provide. I've pointed that out clearly enough, but I guess we'll have to do this the hard way.

How much more will it take?

Sorry, rhetorical questions like this really don't cut any ice with anyone.

You've presented nothing but misunderstanding and ZERO evidence. What you have presented makes it clear you have no idea what the difference is between Chomsky's ideas on the origin of the language capacity and the necessary components of observed language. You mistake the capacity for the "system". Two different things.

Nope, I just know what is needed for something to be called a capacity for language. I explained it earlier.

Just answer this to show you have a clue to what Chomsky believes.

What does Chomsky believe the language capacity first existed as? What did the first individual (the individual he talks about in the quote above) that had the language capacity do with it, according to Chomsky?

Chomsky doesn't believe anything about 'The language capacity'. That is your own hopelessly vague and loaded term. I'm fully aware that you have been trying to equivocate from this term to what Chomsky is talking about, but you have no legitimate grounds for doing so. Chomsky is talking about the closing of the merge workspace ring (as he calls it) which, over a comparatively short period of evolution unified with the two other systems Chomsky describes to become what he calls 'the basic property' only after this unification is there any possibility of both a LOT and language in general. I gave evidence that this was Chomsky's position earlier.

Given that Chomsky repeatedly doesn't talk about the closure of the fibre ring, the rewiring and so on as 'the language capacity', but does talk at length about all the other further steps and how long they would take to evolve, I'd say you have less than no grounds for claiming that what he is talking about and what you are talking about are the same thing.

So that's your job. I'm arguing that he's talking about one of many necessary, but not sufficient steps towards language. You are claiming that he's talking about the capacity for language. That's the nub of the argument. Make your case.

 

[untermensche]

Which is why you did not address this clear unequivocal statement at all.

What this one?

I did not say that language as a completed system emerged in an individual in an instant. But I cannot think of a coherent alternative to the idea that mutations take place in individuals, not communities, so that whatever rewiring of the brain yielded the apparently unique properties of language, specifically recursive generation of hierarchically structured expressions, would therefore have taken place in an individual, and only later been used among individuals who had inherited this capacity.

I didn't need to, I merely pointed out his explicit statement at the start that he wasn't talking about language. That he's flat wrong is almost a distraction at this point, but the fact is that he's talking about precisely the same process as he was every other time and the implications of this don't change.

You don't know the difference between the language capacity and language.

The capacity, according to Chomsky, likely arose in one individual with one mutation.

And it is the capacity that eventually leads to languages.

Chomsky doesn't believe anything about 'The language capacity'. That is your own hopelessly vague and loaded term.

Now I know for certain you are deluded.

The language capacity: architecture and evolution

Noam Chomsky

Evidently, we can study the evolution of some system only to the extent that we know what it is. In the present case, what has evolved is not languages, which do not evolve, in the technical sense of the term, any more than states of the visual system evolve. Rather, what has evolved is the capacity for language (LC), analogous to the genetic basis for a mammalian, not insect, visual system.1

https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-016-1078-6

 

[untermensche]

Let me get this straight, you are telling me that someone disagreeing with Chomsky is a good guide to what Chomsky believes?

I provided Chomsky explicitly saying it. Whether you understand him or not.

I provided a third party agreeing with me.

Sez isn't is. Gotta agree with Subsymbolic​.

Really?

So is the Language Capacity at the core of Chomsky's theories or is it my "own hopelessly vague and loaded term" as the one you admire says?

Which is it?

To not know about the Language Capacity and want to talk about Chomsky is the height of ignorance.

This person read one thing by Chomsky, didn't understand it, then spewed nonsense for pages.

 

[Subsymbolic]

I did not say that language as a completed system emerged in an individual in an instant. But I cannot think of a coherent alternative to the idea that mutations take place in individuals, not communities, so that whatever rewiring of the brain yielded the apparently unique properties of language, specifically recursive generation of hierarchically structured expressions, would therefore have taken place in an individual, and only later been used among individuals who had inherited this capacity.

I didn't need to, I merely pointed out his explicit statement at the start that he wasn't talking about language. That he's flat wrong is almost a distraction at this point, but the fact is that he's talking about precisely the same process as he was every other time and the implications of this don't change.

You don't know the difference between the language capacity and language.

The capacity, according to Chomsky, likely arose in one individual with one mutation.

And it is the capacity that eventually leads to languages.

Chomsky doesn't believe anything about 'The language capacity'. That is your own hopelessly vague and loaded term.

Now I know for certain you are deluded.

The language capacity: architecture and evolution

Noam Chomsky

Evidently, we can study the evolution of some system only to the extent that we know what it is. In the present case, what has evolved is not languages, which do not evolve, in the technical sense of the term, any more than states of the visual system evolve. Rather, what has evolved is the capacity for language (LC), analogous to the genetic basis for a mammalian, not insect, visual system.1

https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-016-1078-6

Yes, you are absolutely correct. That is indeed apparently Chomsky's own hopelessly vague and loaded term, not yours. So The Language Capacity isn't, in fact, a capacity for language, it's just what he calls merge, a precursor to the basic property and thus a universal grammar. What droll equivocation. However, right at the start of this row, you were also explicitly talking about language acquisition, not the capacity for recursion and you contradicted my claim that no one was claiming that language acquisition came about as the result of a single mutation. So we both knew exactly what we were talking about, as you yourself said:

You clearly have no idea what Noam Chomsky believes about language acquisition.

And this whole argument was premised on this being about language acquisition, about what had to be in place for language to happen. You've spent the entire argument equivocating between that and Chomsky's misleading term for a single step on the way to language acquisition.

So when I said:

Actually, the underlying process on which selection acts is almost inevitably sexual recombination. More to the point, evolution isn’t simply mutation or recombination. Mind you, think of all the things that have to be in place for language to happen, both physiologically and in terms of neural mechanism... A single mutation? I can’t think of anyone who suggests that, can you link to someone?

I was absolutely correct: as you yourself now admit that Chomsky wasn't talking about all the things that have to be in place for language to happen, he was talking about a distant precursor to language happening that he happened to give a misleading name.

I'm impressed, UM, reading back you have equivocated that distinction all the way through this argument. That takes a special level of intellectual dishonesty. You really should be ashamed of yourself. If you were a student of mine and pulled that stunt I'd fail you on the spot.

Mind you, it's the internet so You'll no doubt just Trump on and pretend it didn't happen.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Sez isn't is. Gotta agree with Subsymbolic​.

Really?

So is the Language Capacity at the core of Chomsky's theories or is it my "own hopelessly vague and loaded term" as the one you admire says?

Which is it?

To not know about the Language Capacity and want to talk about Chomsky is the height of ignorance.

This person read one thing by Chomsky, didn't understand it, then spewed nonsense for pages.

I wouldn't be too quick to be smug. You are quite right that I didn't remember that term or book and that's embarrassing for sure.

However, you have just equivocated for the entire argument. I know which is the worst sin. So, I return to my original claim at the top of the argument:

Mind you, think of all the things that have to be in place for language to happen, both physiologically and in terms of neural mechanism... A single mutation? I can’t think of anyone who suggests that, can you link to someone?

And indeed, Chomsky doesn't suggest that all the things that need to be in place for language to happen occurred as a result of a single mutation. He merely told a just so story in which a single mutation extended a fibre ring which he thinks might have allowed recursion in the brain. He's repeatedly explicitly clear that this isn't all the things that have to be in place for language to happen.

But you hung on to that misleading terminology just because you didn't want to be wrong.

Sadly for you, while I may have missed a recent book or two, I am very clear about Chomsky's theories of language acquisition. Which is why I knew for certain that you were wrong. However as you said you were talking about his theories of language acquisition rather than a particular step towards it. As you said:

You clearly have no idea what Noam Chomsky believes about language acquisition.

It's now clear you are not talking about language acquisition at all. As you just said:

The capacity, according to Chomsky, likely arose in one individual with one mutation. And it is the capacity that eventually leads to languages.

That's first rate equivocation. I tip my hat.

 

[untermensche]

Yes, you are absolutely correct. That is indeed apparently Chomsky's own hopelessly vague and loaded term...

Yeah. You learned about it five minutes ago and are now an expert.

Case closed.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Yes, you are absolutely correct. That is indeed apparently Chomsky's own hopelessly vague and loaded term...

Yeah. You learned about it five minutes ago and are now an expert.

Case closed.

You do realise how many times you have closed the case. As a rhetorical device it's starting to look silly.

All I learned is that Chomsky rather than you was using it as a term for a process I fully understand and explained in detail from his later book. And that was the point that I realised just how dishonest you had been. But I note you are ignoring that...

 

[untermensche]

Yes, you are absolutely correct. That is indeed apparently Chomsky's own hopelessly vague and loaded term...

Yeah. You learned about it five minutes ago and are now an expert.

Case closed.

You do realise how many times you have closed the case. As a rhetorical device it's starting to look silly.

All I learned is that Chomsky rather than you was using it as a term for a process I fully understand and explained in detail from his later book. And that was the point that I realised just how dishonest you had been. But I note you are ignoring that...

It was closed the first time I said it.

It just took a while for you to understand. Maybe you don't even understand yet.

But it is you with egg on their face backtracking with your ass on the ground lashing out at anything wildly.

The only thing I am is patient.

 

[ruby sparks]

The only thing I am is patient.

I wouldn't say that was the only thing you were. But hey, if I'm wrong and it IS the only thing you are, do you think it was a single genetic mutation that led to it?

By the way, you did mean 'patient' and not 'a patient'?

 

[untermensche]

The only thing I am is patient.

I wouldn't say that was the only thing you were. But hey, if I'm wrong and it IS the only thing you are, do you think it was a single genetic mutation that led to it?

By the way, you did mean 'patient' and not 'a patient'?

If you get anywhere near a rational argument about something I would consider it.

I teach people what Chomsky thinks about something and do not get any gratitude.

Rudeness at every turn.

And those who mistake being told a fact with rudeness.

 

[ruby sparks]

If you get anywhere near a rational argument about something I would consider it.

I teach people what Chomsky thinks about something and do not get any gratitude.

Rudeness at every turn.

And those who mistake being told a fact with rudeness.

You're right. I apologise. It's not entirely my fault. I was really polite last week and then I think there must have been a pesky genetic mutation at the weekend or something. You of all people will surely understand. The weird thing is though, I have no recollection of consciously willing a mutation last weekend. My memory is getting worse and worse these days.

 

[Subsymbolic]

You do realise how many times you have closed the case. As a rhetorical device it's starting to look silly.

All I learned is that Chomsky rather than you was using it as a term for a process I fully understand and explained in detail from his later book. And that was the point that I realised just how dishonest you had been. But I note you are ignoring that...

It was closed the first time I said it.

It just took a while for you to understand. Maybe you don't even understand yet.

But it is you with egg on their face backtracking with your ass on the ground lashing out at anything wildly.

The only thing I am is patient.

Actually no, it is me pointing out that you were wrong in the first place and that indeed, no one, not even Chomsky, thinks that language acquisition is the result of a single mutation.

But I notice that you have ignored me pointing that out. I have to admire your cheek.

However, I'm not fooled, quite clearly no one else is fooled and, from the efforts you have gone to, even you are not fooled.

 

[Subsymbolic]

If you get anywhere near a rational argument about something I would consider it.

I teach people what Chomsky thinks about something and do not get any gratitude.

Rudeness at every turn.

And those who mistake being told a fact with rudeness.

You're right. I apologise. It's not entirely my fault. I was really polite last week and then I think there must have been a pesky genetic mutation at the weekend or something. You of all people will surely understand. The weird thing is though, I have no recollection of consciously willing a mutation last weekend. My memory is getting worse and worse these days.

You should will a sexual recombination Ruby, much more satisfying, and infinitely more likely!

 

[Subsymbolic]

The only thing I am is patient.

I wouldn't say that was the only thing you were. But hey, if I'm wrong and it IS the only thing you are, do you think it was a single genetic mutation that led to it?

By the way, you did mean 'patient' and not 'a patient'?

If you get anywhere near a rational argument about something I would consider it.

I teach people what Chomsky thinks about something and do not get any gratitude.

Rudeness at every turn.

And those who mistake being told a fact with rudeness.

The one thing you haven't told anyone is what Chomsky thinks of language acquisition. which is what you told us we didn't know about. If we wanted to know about his desperate attempts to tell a just so story that kept his hypothesis afloat, we'd have asked.

 

[ruby sparks]

You should will a sexual recombination Ruby, much more satisfying, and infinitely more likely!

I would love to do that, but can't seem to find the time. I have this thing where if I don't blink regularly my eyes get dry and itchy and it's a 24/7 nuisance having to constantly instruct my eyelids. And then there's all the finger movements.

 

[untermensche]

If you get anywhere near a rational argument about something I would consider it.

I teach people what Chomsky thinks about something and do not get any gratitude.

Rudeness at every turn.

And those who mistake being told a fact with rudeness.

You're right. I apologise. It's not entirely my fault. I was really polite last week and then I think there must have been a pesky genetic mutation at the weekend or something. You of all people will surely understand. The weird thing is though, I have no recollection of consciously willing a mutation last weekend. My memory is getting worse and worse these days.

If you want to talk about Chomsky's work I will.

The core of his theories are the Language Capacity.

He compares it to the Visual Capacity of the brain.

Obviously the brain has a capacity to create the visual experience. The Visual Capacity.

It also has the capacity to learn a language. The Language Capacity.

Something Chomsky thinks is unlike the visual capacity in that it probably emerged in a single individual due to a single mutation. A rewiring of a very complex system yielded a capacity that did not exist before the rewiring.

 

[DBT]

You claim to know. You hold to your claims in spite of all research, evidence and commentary of researchers to the contrary.....

I claim to know experience.

And it has been pointed out that experience alone does not tell us about the underlying neural activity that's responsible for conscious experience, most of the production activity, sensory inputs, distribution, processing, etc, being unconscious.

Consciousness does not have access or a feed back loop to its means of production, hence the feeling of conscious agency. Which proves to be an illusion when the underlying mechanisms malfunction.

Then the illusion of conscious agency is exposed. You may will your arm to move, but your arm does not respond.

That is what you ignore.

The fact that we do not know how the brain forms the imagery and sensation of consciousness does not change the fact that the evidence shows that the brain is responsible for consciousness formation.

 

[DBT]

The only thing I am is patient.

I wouldn't say that was the only thing you were. But hey, if I'm wrong and it IS the only thing you are, do you think it was a single genetic mutation that led to it?

By the way, you did mean 'patient' and not 'a patient'?

If you get anywhere near a rational argument about something I would consider it.

I teach people what Chomsky thinks about something and do not get any gratitude.

Rudeness at every turn.

And those who mistake being told a fact with rudeness.

You don't consider research, the commentary of researchers, the evidence or what it supports. In your own words, you base your belief on experience, ignoring the means of your experience....which is not magically willed into existence, hence your so called facts are no such thing.

You are confusing/conflating the things that you happen to believe with fact.

 

[Kharakov]

If you get anywhere near a rational argument about something I would consider it.

I teach people what Chomsky thinks about something and do not get any gratitude.

Rudeness at every turn.

And those who mistake being told a fact with rudeness.

You're right. I apologise. It's not entirely my fault. I was really polite last week and then I think there must have been a pesky genetic mutation at the weekend or something. You of all people will surely understand. The weird thing is though, I have no recollection of consciously willing a mutation last weekend. My memory is getting worse and worse these days.

If you want to talk about Chomsky's work I will.

The core of his theories are the Language Capacity.

He compares it to the Visual Capacity of the brain.

Obviously the brain has a capacity to create the visual experience. The Visual Capacity.

It also has the capacity to learn a language. The Language Capacity.

Something Chomsky thinks is unlike the visual capacity in that it probably emerged in a single individual due to a single mutation. A rewiring of a very complex system yielded a capacity that did not exist before the rewiring.

Don't worry buddy, we're going to engineer a virus that will insert logic capacity into your brain.