How did human language originate?

[untermensche]

Have you ever had a dog?

It takes no more than interacting with animals to clearly see their limitations.

But I could (in theory) write infinite statements. In reality I would die and have to stop.

And you could make sense of infinite statements.

This is not a small thing. A process of infinite production and comprehension.

But something for you to think about.

Not something for me to try to shove down your throat.

So your 'evidence' is that you have faith that if I think about it for long enough, I will reach the same conclusion you have reached, as handed down from your chosen authority.

Thanks, but if I was going to employ that epistemology, I would have become a theist.

Oh, and I currently have three dogs, and it is clear to me from their interactions with each other and with humans that there are no fundamental differences between them and us. The differences I observe are differences in degree, not differences in character.

I see how deeply you are able to think on things.

It is not gibberish. It can be demonstrated.

The ability of a dog to assign meaning to distinct sound has been carefully studied.

Examine the research if you like.

Then examine the concept of infinite comprehension compared to that.

You may get nothing.

Infinite compared to extremely finite may not move any of your gears.

But it is not because there is nothing there.

To me it is as clear as day. A clear distinction of significance.

To you it seems it is nothing.

But it is clearly not nothing. Infinite generation and comprehension are not nothing because you can't see the significance.

 

[bilby]

So your 'evidence' is that you have faith that if I think about it for long enough, I will reach the same conclusion you have reached, as handed down from your chosen authority.

Thanks, but if I was going to employ that epistemology, I would have become a theist.

Oh, and I currently have three dogs, and it is clear to me from their interactions with each other and with humans that there are no fundamental differences between them and us. The differences I observe are differences in degree, not differences in character.

I see how deeply you are able to think on things.

It is not gibberish. It can be demonstrated.

The ability of a dog to assign meaning to distinct sound has been carefully studied.

Examine the research if you like.

Then examine the concept of infinite comprehension compared to that.

You may get nothing.

Infinite compared to extremely finite may not move any of your gears.

But it is not because there is nothing there.

To me it is as clear as day. A clear distinction of significance.

To you it seems it is nothing.

But it is clearly not nothing. Infinite generation and comprehension are not nothing because you can't see the significance.

There is no way in which canine comprehension is finite that does not also limit human comprehension.

Your assertion that human comprehension is infinite is laughable. You can't even comprehend this, and it is nowhere near infinite.

 

[fromderinside]

Wouldn't it be more useful to the discussion to discuss how scientists other than Gould currently think language evolved. In case you hadn't noticed Gould died in 2002. Open topic about whither and how punctate evolution can be. What seems to work best is tying genes to anthropology and human advances. In the current situation we're talking about stuff involving FOXP2 and changes there about and the coming and going of competing species.

.... from somebody like Pinker.

Wow. Perhaps you need to read the two references I cited. Nothing at all to do with Chomsky either. Just in case you forgot here is a link fromderinside wrote http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...uage-originate&p=350177&viewfull=1#post350177

I think bibly was asking for reference citations in the past so many years less than, say 10 or 15, just as I provided in the post to which I refer you now.

 

[beero1000]

Oh no, not again. No no no no....

*triggered*

 

[untermensche]

.... from somebody like Pinker.

Wow. Perhaps you need to read the two references I cited. Nothing at all to do with Chomsky either. Just in case you forgot here is a link fromderinside wrote http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...uage-originate&p=350177&viewfull=1#post350177

I think bibly was asking for reference citations in the past so many years less than, say 10 or 15, just as I provided in the post to which I refer you now.

I've commented on that before.

It is nonsense to claim that shape of the hand has anything to do with language.

Pure speculation and not logical.

The hand changes shape in a lifetime, dependent on what it does.

 

[fromderinside]

Wow. Perhaps you need to read the two references I cited. Nothing at all to do with Chomsky either. Just in case you forgot here is a link fromderinside wrote http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...uage-originate&p=350177&viewfull=1#post350177

I think bibly was asking for reference citations in the past so many years less than, say 10 or 15, just as I provided in the post to which I refer you now.

I've commented on that before.

It is nonsense to claim that shape of the hand has anything to do with language.

Pure speculation and not logical.

The hand changes shape in a lifetime, dependent on what it does.

Your nonsense is a discipline's standard. What should one take from that? I take from that that you don't have any evidence you can cite to support your contention. Without such, you are not engaging in a scientific discussion.

 

[untermensche]

I've commented on that before.

It is nonsense to claim that shape of the hand has anything to do with language.

Pure speculation and not logical.

The hand changes shape in a lifetime, dependent on what it does.

Your nonsense is a discipline's standard. What should one take from that? I take from that that you don't have any evidence you can cite to support your contention. Without such, you are not engaging in a scientific discussion.

Give me a break.

You present third rate speculations as facts.

What is one to do with it?

 

[untermensche]

I see how deeply you are able to think on things.

It is not gibberish. It can be demonstrated.

The ability of a dog to assign meaning to distinct sound has been carefully studied.

Examine the research if you like.

Then examine the concept of infinite comprehension compared to that.

You may get nothing.

Infinite compared to extremely finite may not move any of your gears.

But it is not because there is nothing there.

To me it is as clear as day. A clear distinction of significance.

To you it seems it is nothing.

But it is clearly not nothing. Infinite generation and comprehension are not nothing because you can't see the significance.

There is no way in which canine comprehension is finite that does not also limit human comprehension.

Your assertion that human comprehension is infinite is laughable. You can't even comprehend this, and it is nowhere near infinite.

You cannot possibly be this ignorant.

Saying a human can produce and comprehend infinite statements, which is a fact, (a theoretical fact, but of course the human life span creates a limit) is not saying that any human comprehends all statements made.

 

[bilby]

Oh great. This is just yet another 'untermenche doesn't grasp the concept of infinity' thread in disguise.

No thanks.

 

[untermensche]

Oh great. This is just yet another 'untermenche doesn't grasp the concept of infinity' thread in disguise.

No thanks.

Oh great.

More ignorance and avoiding the topic at hand at all costs.

When exactly does your ability to comprehend new sentences end, if it is not infinite?

What magic configuration of words makes your ability to comprehend another sentence end?

 

[fromderinside]

You present third rate speculations as facts.

Experimental Evidence for the Co-Evolution of Hominin Tool-Making Teaching and Language http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...uage-originate&p=350177&viewfull=1#post350177

What you try to dismiss as third rate speculation is a refereed experimental article in a reputable publication with 41 references to other published data in the area. the authors do a good job of presenting their hypotheses, method, results, Finally they present a well substantiated set of links between their data and other current research.

A Recent Evolutionary Change Affects a Regulatory Element in the Human FOXP2 Gene http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/4/844.long

The other article is also from a well reputed journal also reporting experiments, this time on genetic changes related to FOXP2 which may have taken place right after the human bottleneck. It has 44 references. It makes a good case for the relation between gene and human behavior change as reported by others.

So here we have two articles by two teams of authors published in two reputable journals conducting what appear to be good experiments both suggesting recent changes in homo sapiens sapiens altered how language was produced and apparently used in hunting, planning, and communication.

Yes there is speculation. Third rate? You are gong to have to go some to make that point. Nothing less than competing experiments will suffice. Try to discuss as would a scientist if possible.

Your hand waving reminds of Trump more than of one familiar with science. (yeah that's a shot. However if that's all of which to you can respond it will become apparent)

 

[untermensche]

You present third rate speculations as facts.

Experimental Evidence for the Co-Evolution of Hominin Tool-Making Teaching and Language http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...uage-originate&p=350177&viewfull=1#post350177

What you try to dismiss as third rate speculation is a refereed experimental article in a reputable publication with 41 references to other published data in the area. the authors do a good job of presenting their hypotheses, method, results, Finally they present a well substantiated set of links between their data and other current research.

A Recent Evolutionary Change Affects a Regulatory Element in the Human FOXP2 Gene http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/4/844.long

The other article is also from a well reputed journal also reporting experiments, this time on genetic changes related to FOXP2 which may have taken place right after the human bottleneck. It has 44 references. It makes a good case for the relation between gene and human behavior change as reported by others.

So here we have two articles by two teams of authors published in two reputable journals conducting what appear to be good experiments both suggesting recent changes in homo sapiens sapiens altered how language was produced and apparently used in hunting, planning, and communication.

Yes there is speculation. Third rate? You are gong to have to go some to make that point. Nothing less than competing experiments will suffice. Try to discuss as would a scientist if possible.

Your hand waving reminds of Trump more than of one familiar with science. (yeah that's a shot. However if that's all of which to you can respond it will become apparent)

Why are you not able to present and argue the salient facts from these so-called scientific studies?

I've read them. They are garbage.

Prove me wrong.

 

[Malintent]

[
like a gradual change from a closed call system to an open call system

What's closed call vs. open call? I searched for those phrases online, and I couldn't find anything that was relevant.

Closed call linguistic systems are those that have a set of sounds that directly relate to a specific thing. The vast majority (if not all) other animal languages are closed call... a "whoot" of a particular frequency means "there's a snake over there!!!", etc... It is a static list of sounds.

Open call linguistic systems have grammar and rules used to construct patterns that convey new and meaningful ideas, using existing language structures... it is dynamic.

 

[untermensche]

What's closed call vs. open call? I searched for those phrases online, and I couldn't find anything that was relevant.

Closed call linguistic systems are those that have a set of sounds that directly relate to a specific thing. The vast majority (if not all) other animal languages are closed call... a "whoot" of a particular frequency means "there's a snake over there!!!", etc... It is a static list of sounds.

Open call linguistic systems have grammar and rules used to construct patterns that convey new and meaningful ideas, using existing language structures... it is dynamic.

You can call what other animals do "language" but it is not the same thing humans are doing.

 

[Malintent]

These are not my terms... they are terms I learned in a Linguistics class I took about 20 years ago. Linguistics refers to the study of language... so you are arguing against an entire body of scientific knowledge, using... what, now?... good luck with that.

Just like the half-an-eye argument... "those light receptors are not eyes!"

I guess a cute little strategy (what to call this fallacy, "cherry picking"?) is to deny the various developmental stages of a thing, only allowing the thing in its modern form to count, and then declare it poofed into existence (by a creator god, no doubt).

Charming.

 

[untermensche]

These are not my terms... they are terms I learned in a Linguistics class I took about 20 years ago. Linguistics refers to the study of language... so you are arguing against an entire body of scientific knowledge, using... what, now?... good luck with that.

Just like the half-an-eye argument... "those light receptors are not eyes!"

I guess a cute little strategy (what to call this fallacy, "cherry picking"?) is to deny the various developmental stages of a thing, only allowing the thing in its modern form to count, and then declare it poofed into existence (by a creator god, no doubt).

Charming.

Animal communication is not a precursor of human language.

Human language is infinite.

It is something else entirely.

A computational system unique to human brains.

And if your position is that nothing new can arise then that would mean evolution never would have moved anywhere.

 

[bilby]

These are not my terms... they are terms I learned in a Linguistics class I took about 20 years ago. Linguistics refers to the study of language... so you are arguing against an entire body of scientific knowledge, using... what, now?... good luck with that.

Just like the half-an-eye argument... "those light receptors are not eyes!"

I guess a cute little strategy (what to call this fallacy, "cherry picking"?) is to deny the various developmental stages of a thing, only allowing the thing in its modern form to count, and then declare it poofed into existence (by a creator god, no doubt).

Charming.

Animal communication is not a precursor of human language.

Says you.

Human language is infinite.

Says the person who has repeatedly demonstrated that he has no idea what 'infinite' even means.

It is something else entirely.

No, it isn't.

A computational system unique to human brains.

There is no such thing.

And if your position is that nothing new can arise then that would mean evolution never would have moved anywhere.

Nobody is taking that position.

 

[untermensche]

Animal communication is not a precursor of human language.

Says you.

No.

Says clear logic.

A finite process can not slowly grow into an infinite process.

And if your position is that nothing new can arise then that would mean evolution never would have moved anywhere.

Nobody is taking that position.

Those that claim it is impossible, some evolutionary impossibility, for human language to be something entirely different from animal communication are.

 

[Malintent]

These are not my terms... they are terms I learned in a Linguistics class I took about 20 years ago. Linguistics refers to the study of language... so you are arguing against an entire body of scientific knowledge, using... what, now?... good luck with that.

Just like the half-an-eye argument... "those light receptors are not eyes!"

I guess a cute little strategy (what to call this fallacy, "cherry picking"?) is to deny the various developmental stages of a thing, only allowing the thing in its modern form to count, and then declare it poofed into existence (by a creator god, no doubt).

Charming.

Animal communication is not a precursor of human language.

human language IS animal communication. The grunts and other closed call sounds that other animals make are, without question, the precursor to human language.
If not, then what is the precursor for human language? Are you suggesting all the world's language poofed into existence all at once... Italian poofed suddenly into existence at the same time as Latin? This is historically documented as not even close to the case.

Human language is infinite.

It is an open system.. I'll buy "infinite".. sure. close enough.

It is something else entirely.
A computational system unique to human brains.

That is not known to be true... it may be so, but that is not known. That it is "different" does not exclude it from having the same origin.. Obviously.

And if your position is that nothing new can arise then that would mean evolution never would have moved anywhere.

That is not my, nor any other knowledgeable person's, "position".

Look. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. you are completely out of your depth. You should probably go read something (that was written in this decade) on the topic if you are really interested. Otherwise your opinions and feelings on how things should be, or how you would like them to be, has no value.

 

[fromderinside]

Experimental Evidence for the Co-Evolution of Hominin Tool-Making Teaching and Language http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...uage-originate&p=350177&viewfull=1#post350177

What you try to dismiss as third rate speculation is a refereed experimental article in a reputable publication with 41 references to other published data in the area. the authors do a good job of presenting their hypotheses, method, results, Finally they present a well substantiated set of links between their data and other current research.

A Recent Evolutionary Change Affects a Regulatory Element in the Human FOXP2 Gene http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/4/844.long

Prove me wrong.

When you actually show me (taking examples from the studies) how they are garbage then I'll have enough information about what you see in the articles to defend against your slander.

If not, my part as the only information contributing person in this discussion is over.