Definition of Consciousness: 2nd Poll

[Subsymbolic]

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.

Tell me about it, I have to leave myself notes.

 

[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.

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.

And there 's that equivocation again. You fooled me once, and once is all you'll get.

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

What Chomsky calls 'the language capacity' and claims occurred due to a single mutation is definitely not the capacity to learn a language.

You are equivocating between two definitions of 'The Language Capacity' - one is a completion of a neural ring in the brain that Chomsky claims allows recursion in the brain. The other is the capacity to learn language. They are not the same thing. Chomsky doesn't think they are the same thing (although his choice of the term is rather misleading). The two definitions are not interchangeable.

You equivocated between those two definitions throughout our argument and then you got caught. I pointed this out, and pointed out how intellectually dishonest it is and yet here you are doing it again.

Or perhaps you just don't realise what equivocation is, so here you go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Now stop doing it.

 

[bilby]

You equivocated between those two definitions throughout our argument and then you got caught. I pointed this out, and pointed out how intellectually dishonest it is and yet here you are doing it again.

Or perhaps you just don't realise what equivocation is, so here you go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Now stop doing it.

I STRONGLY advise against holding your breath.

 

[Subsymbolic]

You equivocated between those two definitions throughout our argument and then you got caught. I pointed this out, and pointed out how intellectually dishonest it is and yet here you are doing it again.

Or perhaps you just don't realise what equivocation is, so here you go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Now stop doing it.

I STRONGLY advise against holding your breath.

That's a relief, I was starting to go purple. Mind you, I think I have got the picture. What a waste.

 

[untermensche]

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.

And there 's that equivocation again. You fooled me once, and once is all you'll get.

First you said I made up the idea of a Language Capacity. Can you remember back to yesterday?

You learned about this for the first time yesterday. You never heard of the Language Capacity before yesterday.

I am the one that actually knows something here.

You have near complete ignorance of this subject matter. All you know is what I have generously taught you.

I gave you a reference where Chomsky describes what he means by the Language Capacity.

Read it. You clearly haven't.

 

[Kharakov]

You equivocated between those two definitions throughout our argument and then you got caught. I pointed this out, and pointed out how intellectually dishonest it is and yet here you are doing it again.

Or perhaps you just don't realise what equivocation is, so here you go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Now stop doing it.

I STRONGLY advise against holding your breath.

That's a relief, I was starting to go purple. Mind you, I think I have got the picture. What a waste.

Don't bite him if you have fillings.

The local AI is sort of fucked up,.

 

[untermensche]

Don't bite him if you have fillings.

The local AI is sort of fucked up,.

You are just mad that I can understand that this imaginary absurdity "no beginning" is about as helpful and as provable as the absurdity called "god".

 

[Subsymbolic]

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.

And there 's that equivocation again. You fooled me once, and once is all you'll get.

First you said I made up the idea of a Language Capacity. Can you remember back to yesterday?

Indeed. I remember doing something you clearly don't know how to do and admitting that I screwed up.

You learned about this for the first time yesterday. You never heard of the Language Capacity before yesterday.

No, I learned that that was what Chomsky called his desperate search for a credible precursor to a universal grammar in his 2005 book.

I am the one that actually knows something here.

Yes, how to dishonestly equivocate and then pretend that nothing has happened. Sadly now that the Donald has made that particular trick his own, it's even less credible than it ever was.

You have near complete ignorance of this subject matter. All you know is what I have generously taught you.

I'm afraid that, as an academic, I know far too much about intellectual dishonesty by poorly informed incompetents already. As a result, your masterclass in equivocation was largely wasted on me.

I gave you a reference where Chomsky describes what he means by the Language Capacity.

Read it. You clearly haven't.

Well you tell me, is the language capacity, as you put it:

... the capacity to learn a language. The Language Capacity.

Because that is what I said was impossible:

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?

So all you have to do, is demonstrate that Chomsky believes that the language capacity is the capacity to learn a language and that the capacity to learn a language was the result of single mutation.

So far you have equivocated between the capacity to learn a language and a distant precursor of that which Chomsky asserts occurred as a single mutation. Can you improve on that?

It is transparent to absolutely everyone reading this that you are simply ignoring the accusation of equivocation. The only place this is going well for you is your imagination, If that is good enough for you then fair enough.

 

[untermensche]

I gave you a reference to Chomsky's thoughts on the Language Capacity.

You clearly still have not read it.

If you need me to explain it to you just tell me what part you cannot understand and I will help you some more.

 

[Subsymbolic]

I gave you a reference to Chomsky's thoughts on the Language Capacity.

You clearly still have not read it.

If you need me to explain it to you just tell me what part you cannot understand and I will help you some more.

That would be very helpful. Now that you have kindly made it absolutely clear that 'the language capacity is the capacity for language', and Chomsky makes it abundantly clear that:

Each language, an instantiation of LC, consists of a generative procedure that yields a discrete infinity of hierarchically structured expressions with semantic interpretations, hence a kind of “language of thought” (LOT), along with an operation of externalization (EXT) to some sensory-motor system, typically sound.

and he makes it quite clear that:

LC is thus based on a generative computational system (GEN)

and indeed that:

UG itself is based on the simplest computational operation, call it Merge,

So Chomsky is clear that

1) the language capacity requires an operation of externalisation.

2) the language capacity is based on GEN

3) the universal grammar is based on Merge. (You can read Chomsky as saying that the UG is LC or is necessary for LC, I don't mind.)

It follows then that anything that doesn't have an operation of externalisation is not the language capacity, that Gen isn't the language capacity and that Merge isn't the language capacity.

And it is absolutely clear from the sources quoted earlier that the 'single mutation' gave rise to Merge, which gave rise to Gen which then had to connect with a system for externalisation.

As he put it:

there is no reason to think it was externalised at all, whatever is going on in our heads is prelinguistic.

In other words, the mutation certainly was not the capacity for language and it certainly wasn't the language capacity as Chomsky defines it.

So we are back to your own equivocated position held by no one but you. I'll say it again, equivocation is dishonest.


Now you can hurl abuse and you can ignore what is said, but everyone can see that is what you are doing.

 

[untermensche]

Each language, an instantiation of LC, consists of a generative procedure that yields a discrete infinity of hierarchically structured expressions with semantic interpretations, hence a kind of “language of thought” (LOT), along with an operation of externalization (EXT) to some sensory-motor system, typically sound.

Here Chomsky draws a distinction between the Language Capacity (some capacity of the brain which enables humans and no other species to have the ability to learn and use a human language) and human language itself.

He is also saying that the language capacity is somehow integrated into the systems that create thoughts since we think in language.

And it is integrated into the sensory motor system which allows us to make the sounds associated with language. It also has to be integrated into the auditory system since we can understand the language we hear. And the visual system since deaf humans can understand the language they see.

The LC is what a single mutation in a single individual caused. The integration could have taken time and be varied between individuals. We already know that some people have better memory systems than others.

The integration can be altered, especially the ability to coordinate the mouth and tongue to make distinctive but arbitrary sounds. This can improve in time.

But the Language Capacity has not changed in tens of thousands of years.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Each language, an instantiation of LC, consists of a generative procedure that yields a discrete infinity of hierarchically structured expressions with semantic interpretations, hence a kind of “language of thought” (LOT), along with an operation of externalization (EXT) to some sensory-motor system, typically sound.

Here Chomsky draws a distinction between the Language Capacity (some capacity of the brain which enables humans and no other species to have the ability to learn and use a human language) and human language itself.

He is also saying that the language capacity is somehow integrated into the systems that create thoughts since we think in language.

And it is integrated into the sensory motor system which allows us to make the sounds associated with language. It also has to be integrated into the auditory system since we can understand the language we hear. And the visual system since deaf humans can understand the language they see.

The LC is what a single mutation in a single individual caused. The integration could have taken time and be varied between individuals. We already know that some people have better memory systems than others.

The integration can be altered, especially the ability to coordinate the mouth and tongue to make distinctive but arbitrary sounds. This can improve in time.

But the Language Capacity has not changed in tens of thousands of years.

Sorry UM, you can't pull that equivocation crap twice.

Either the LC is the capacity to use language, in which case it cannot be 'prelinguistic' or 'entirely internal' Or LC is a single 'prelinguistic' mutation that is 'entirely internal' and it can't be the capacity to use language.

You can have one or you can have the other, but you can't have both. Throughout this argument you have covertly tried to have both. You got caught.

 

[skepticalbip]

Here Chomsky draws a distinction between the Language Capacity (some capacity of the brain which enables humans and no other species to have the ability to learn and use a human language) and human language itself.
.

Really? Then it seems that Koko the gorilla is either a human or the idea that non-human species don't have the capacity to learn and use human language is incorrect. Koko has a vocabulary of over a thousand words. The capacity to learn is obviously there only not the ability to mimic human sounds so communication is through sign language. Certainly, no one would say that deaf mutes don't have the capacity to learn and use human language would they?

 

[untermensche]

Here Chomsky draws a distinction between the Language Capacity (some capacity of the brain which enables humans and no other species to have the ability to learn and use a human language) and human language itself.
.

Really? Then it seems that Koko the gorilla is either a human or the idea that non-human species don't have the capacity to learn and use human language is incorrect. Koko has a vocabulary of over a thousand words. The capacity to learn is obviously there only not the ability to mimic human sounds so communication is through sign language. Certainly, no one would say that deaf mutes don't have the capacity to learn and use human language would they?

Chomsky has spoken about this.

Dogs can learn some labels too. But a few, even dozens, of labels is not language.

Neither dogs nor gorillas can understand or work with human language.

Only humans can do that.

Because they were born with a Language Capacity.

 

[untermensche]

Each language, an instantiation of LC, consists of a generative procedure that yields a discrete infinity of hierarchically structured expressions with semantic interpretations, hence a kind of “language of thought” (LOT), along with an operation of externalization (EXT) to some sensory-motor system, typically sound.

Here Chomsky draws a distinction between the Language Capacity (some capacity of the brain which enables humans and no other species to have the ability to learn and use a human language) and human language itself.

He is also saying that the language capacity is somehow integrated into the systems that create thoughts since we think in language.

And it is integrated into the sensory motor system which allows us to make the sounds associated with language. It also has to be integrated into the auditory system since we can understand the language we hear. And the visual system since deaf humans can understand the language they see.

The LC is what a single mutation in a single individual caused. The integration could have taken time and be varied between individuals. We already know that some people have better memory systems than others.

The integration can be altered, especially the ability to coordinate the mouth and tongue to make distinctive but arbitrary sounds. This can improve in time.

But the Language Capacity has not changed in tens of thousands of years.

Sorry UM, you can't pull that equivocation crap twice.

Either the LC is the capacity to use language, in which case it cannot be 'prelinguistic' or 'entirely internal' Or LC is a single 'prelinguistic' mutation that is 'entirely internal' and it can't be the capacity to use language.

You can have one or you can have the other, but you can't have both. Throughout this argument you have covertly tried to have both. You got caught.

You can't even make sense of things when they are right before your eyes. You learned about this stuff two days ago and now you are giving lectures on it. Too funny.

The Language Capacity is the result of a functional system of the brain which has a "generative procedure that yields a discrete infinity of hierarchically structured expressions with semantic interpretations".

Just like the Visual Capacity is the result of a functional system of the brain that creates the visual experience.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Sorry UM, you can't pull that equivocation crap twice.

Either the LC is the capacity to use language, in which case it cannot be 'prelinguistic' or 'entirely internal' Or LC is a single 'prelinguistic' mutation that is 'entirely internal' and it can't be the capacity to use language.

You can have one or you can have the other, but you can't have both. Throughout this argument you have covertly tried to have both. You got caught.

You can't even make sense of things when they are right before your eyes. You learned about this stuff two days ago and now you are giving lectures on it. Too funny.

Nope, I learned that Chomsky had renamed his Universal Grammar that as he slowly stripped it down to naff all in the face of the fact that Language Of Thought accounts of cognition are dramatically outperformed by biologically credible connectionist ones. By the time he got to 'Why Us?' he'd once again renamed it The Basic Property.

So while you are completely correct that LC was a new term on me, as he wasn't using it when I first studied him and wasn't using it again when I read his latest missive, I was completely familiar with the project he's been trying to defend with ever decreasing success since the sixties, just unfamiliar with one of his many renamings of the same moribund dross.

The Language Capacity is the result of a functional system of the brain which has a "generative procedure that yields a discrete infinity of hierarchically structured expressions with semantic interpretations".

Cool, so is that the capacity for language then? You know, once you have that capacity, and nothing else, could you learn a natural language? I'll answer that one for you. It isn't. Chomsky repeatedly says it isn't and frankly, your ongoing attempts to pull off this equivocation are making me wonder if you actually understand what you are being accused of.


I'll say it again:

Either the LC is the capacity to use language, in which case it cannot be 'prelinguistic' or 'entirely internal' Or LC is a single 'prelinguistic' mutation that is 'entirely internal' and it can't be the capacity to use language.

so:

The Language Capacity is the result of a functional system of the brain which has a "generative procedure that yields a discrete infinity of hierarchically structured expressions with semantic interpretations".

Is, according to Chomsky, the result of a single mutation but not the capacity to use language. Do I need to quote him saying that again?

You can't have both.

 

[untermensche]

The Language Capacity needs exposure to learn the labels of things. Just like the Visual Capacity needs exposure to create the visual field. Put blinders on young kittens during critical stages of growth and they will never see properly.

But the LC produces basically the same kind of language with a few minor variations with any labels.

The labels are arbitrary.

But the structures are the same because of the LC. The way the labels are used are the same because of the LC.

 

[Subsymbolic]

The Language Capacity needs exposure to learn the labels of things. Just like the Visual Capacity needs exposure to create the visual field. Put blinders on young kittens during critical stages of growth and they will never see properly.

But the LC produces basically the same kind of language with a few minor variations with any labels.

The labels are arbitrary.

But the structures are the same because of the LC. The way the labels are used are the same because of the LC.

Nice try.

However, Chomsky is explicit the language capacity (as opposed to the capacity for language) is prelinguistic and occurs well before any integration with the motor nervous system. He says this repeatedly.


You are still trying to equivocate. I'm still rubbing your nose in that simple, obvious fact.

 

[untermensche]

The Language Capacity needs exposure to learn the labels of things. Just like the Visual Capacity needs exposure to create the visual field. Put blinders on young kittens during critical stages of growth and they will never see properly.

But the LC produces basically the same kind of language with a few minor variations with any labels.

The labels are arbitrary.

But the structures are the same because of the LC. The way the labels are used are the same because of the LC.

Nice try.

However, Chomsky is explicit the language capacity (as opposed to the capacity for language) is prelinguistic and occurs well before any integration with the motor nervous system. He says this repeatedly.


You are still trying to equivocate. I'm still rubbing your nose in that simple, obvious fact.

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 the LC arose in one individual with one mutation, most likely.

 

[Subsymbolic]

The Language Capacity needs exposure to learn the labels of things. Just like the Visual Capacity needs exposure to create the visual field. Put blinders on young kittens during critical stages of growth and they will never see properly.

But the LC produces basically the same kind of language with a few minor variations with any labels.

The labels are arbitrary.

But the structures are the same because of the LC. The way the labels are used are the same because of the LC.

Nice try.

However, Chomsky is explicit the language capacity (as opposed to the capacity for language) is prelinguistic and occurs well before any integration with the motor nervous system. He says this repeatedly.


You are still trying to equivocate. I'm still rubbing your nose in that simple, obvious fact.

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 the LC arose in one individual with one mutation, 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.