How did human language originate?

[Bomb#20]

I'm not sure what a "synthetic" question is, but I know when people throw in unnecessary and meaningless jargon to try to dress up their bad ideas.

"Synthetic" is the opposite of "analytic". An analytic question is a question about math, logic, the relationships between concepts, the definitions of the words you're using, and so forth. A synthetic question is a question about what's going on out in the real world.

Like I said, unnecessary posturing. Worthlessness.

I told you what it meant because you said you didn't know. I let your implication -- that other people ought to read your mind, identify your comfort level, and then dumb down their vocabulary to it -- pass without comment, once, because I'm a polite person. But now you've implied it twice.

You can get a finite program from a simpler finite program by taking small steps.

How do two finite programs help us? Why even mention it?

And I'm not talking about a program. I'm talking about a natural process.

Whether it works like some "program" is unknown.

Do tell.

Then there is the process of human language. Really a "program" to create a language.​

Those are your words, dude. If you think we shouldn't mention programs, you shouldn't have mentioned them. If you think you're not talking about a program, know thyself. If you think whether it works like some program is unknown, don't assert things are the case that you think are unknown.

You have a theory that infinite different languages could arise. That's why you keep saying "in theory".

It's not a theory. It's a logical conclusion.

You are making a claim about the real world. You have not exhibited an observation of the real world that logically implies infinite different languages could arise.

Please tell me what (in your theory) would prevent it.

Your positive claim. Your burden of proof.

What observations imply human language is an infinite process?

Why would you even think it is not?

"Why would you even think it is not?" is not an observation of the real world that logically implies infinite different languages could arise.

Do you imagine you will pick up a book today and not be able to make sense of it?

Do you imagine that if it were possible to give you infinite books today somewhere along the line your ability to read would stop functioning?

And of course I'm not saying any one person can understand everything. But within their understanding infinite expressions could be understood. In theory infinite books could be read.

That is the human language capacity. An ability to deal with infinite bits of information.

To think it is some crude growth from animal communication is absurd.

You are now simply repeating yourself without troubling yourself to address counterarguments already made in the post you're responding to. And you are persisting in a misrepresentation of my position that I have already corrected you on. It appears further discussion is pointless, and that's 100% your fault. You are not living up to the basic requirements of substantive discussion. Go away.

 

[fromderinside]

You are now simply repeating yourself without troubling yourself to address counterarguments already made in the post you're responding to. And you are persisting in a misrepresentation of my position that I have already corrected you on. It appears further discussion is pointless, and that's 100% your fault. You are not living up to the basic requirements of substantive discussion. Go away.

I'll repeat my response following a similar discussion for unanimity or something.

When you, untermensche, 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.

 

[untermensche]

You are now simply repeating yourself without troubling yourself to address counterarguments already made in the post you're responding to. And you are persisting in a misrepresentation of my position that I have already corrected you on. It appears further discussion is pointless, and that's 100% your fault. You are not living up to the basic requirements of substantive discussion. Go away.

I'll repeat my response following a similar discussion for unanimity or something.

When you, untermensche, 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.

I've done it.

Presenting bad studies is not an argument.

What arguments do you derive from those studies?

They do not even take into account what human language actually is.

 

[untermensche]

Please tell me what (in your theory) would prevent it.

Your positive claim. Your burden of proof.

If there is nothing to prevent it then it is true.

What could possibly prevent it? What possible limit to the amount of sentences you could create or comprehend exists?

Your burden.

Why would you even think it is not?

"Why would you even think it is not?" is not an observation of the real world that logically implies infinite different languages could arise.

Again, if there is nothing to prevent it then it is true.

What possible limit to the number of human languages could exist?

You can run from your burden and pretend you have none, but your burden exists.

What could possibly limit the number of human languages?

You are now simply repeating yourself without troubling yourself to address counterarguments already made in the post you're responding to.

You're half right. I am repeating the facts. To you that is a problem. But nothing I have said has been countered in the least.

 

[lpetrich]

What possible limit to the amount of sentences you could create or comprehend exists?

Ignoring resource constraints, can you prove that the number is finite or infinite?

What possible limit to the number of human languages could exist?

Again ignoring resource constraints, can you prove that the number is either finite or infinite?

Also, about my Backus-Naur-Form grammar statements, did they go over everybody's heads?

I mean grammar in a rather generalized sense, as in  Formal language and  Formal grammar.

 

[fromderinside]

I've done it.

Presenting bad studies is not an argument.

What arguments do you derive from those studies?

They do not even take into account what human language actually is.

Yes, you've commented without example. So you've not read clipped and provided examples where these studies fail. So you've not done it.

Read the studies. I presented them in full for you to examine. If you have issues with my interpretations cite where in the studies I've failed or where the studies have failed supported with your own evidence. That is how scientific discussions work.

As for arguments I derive, I find evidence supporting a recent, maybe as recent as 70-=100k years ago, around the time of human bottleneck, where FOXP2 complex has been modified permitting recent recursive advances. That together with the longevity of a relatively consistent tool making capability before that suggests a preexisting stability in hominid language supported by relatively constant tool making practices for about 800 k years. They also hint at possibler jaw changes over that period which may have contributed (added drive) to recent genetic changes. So what I see is a continuous evolution of tool making and language paralleling they other. No miracle, sudden multiple gene change setting up modern language.

I have no real problem with rapid changes in phenotype when there are open niches such as seem to have occurred during the last ice age. That is a form of punctate evolution that does not depend on changing rates of mutation which are pretty well fixed

Why should they since they are providing evidence of physical antecedents and pathways to language. If language is observed and one communicates with language then one should be permitted to write of experiments on the conditions that lead up to that language given they have set foundations for what they are doing.

Obviously you don't get it. You provide nothing but chants. In scientific argument evidence is the key. I'll not repeat myself further.

Now I've done more than enough. You now need to defend variable mutation rates as implied by Gould which are not just genetic release of more phenotype permitted by conditions. You also need to show, where you've thus far failed, to show that modern spoken language didn't evolve from sign and attitude communication as seen in humans and other species and extend to modern human language. Best evidence in terms of brain size are that cerebellum and cortex in proto-man grew together without separate explosion in any area associated with language. Apparently tool making was the basis for both with language coming along for the ride.

 

[fromderinside]

Your positive claim. Your burden of proof.

If there is nothing to prevent it then it is true.

What could possibly prevent it? What possible limit to the amount of sentences you could create or comprehend exists?

Your burden.

No your burden. lack of evidence is not evidence, whether positive or negative.

As for your whys for's why don't you present evidence? As an observer I have no burden for finding answers to your speculations.

 

[untermensche]

If there is nothing to prevent it then it is true.

What could possibly prevent it? What possible limit to the amount of sentences you could create or comprehend exists?

Your burden.

No your burden. lack of evidence is not evidence, whether positive or negative.

As for your whys for's why don't you present evidence? As an observer I have no burden for finding answers to your speculations.

The objection is idiotic.

What evidence do we need to say the ability of the visual system is infinite?

Or do you also think that the ability of the visual system to make sense of new stimulation is finite?

 

[untermensche]

Yes, you've commented without example. So you've not read clipped and provided examples where these studies fail. So you've not done it.

Go ahead and prove me wrong.

Just tell me how these studies define "language".

They are not talking about human language.

They are talking about a bad conception that has nothing to do with language.

Human language has a hierarchical structure that is universal.

How do these studies account for this?

 

[fromderinside]

Perhaps evidence of the range of stimuli to which the visual system responds .... then whether the systems responds to it in a linear way .... or perhaps why we see red cars as blue under sodium light or .....

Of course.

What is this thing you keep spouting 'idiotic'?

 

[Juma]

How do you define "language is infinite" vs "language is finite"?

 

[untermensche]

Perhaps evidence of the range of stimuli to which the visual system responds .... then whether the systems responds to it in a linear way .... or perhaps why we see red cars as blue under sodium light or .....

Of course.

What is this thing you keep spouting 'idiotic'?

Off course there are many things to look at.

But to say the visual system could have a limit to the ability to create a representation from new stimulation would require some LOGICAL objection.

What about the system could possibly prevent it?

It is a reactive system that will react when stimulated.

What possible limit to the reaction logically exists?

One can look for evidence but cannot abandon logic in the search.

 

[untermensche]

How do you define "language is infinite" vs "language is finite"?

It has infinite properties, like vision.

A spoken sentence is just stimulation to a brain in a certain configuration.

But the brain turns it into something that can be comprehended.

The total number of unique configurations of stimulation that a brain could turn into something you understand is infinite.

To say otherwise requires some logical objection. Some way the ability to comprehend new sentences could be limited.

Is it possible for you to suddenly stop comprehending sentences you have never heard before?

Beyond of course the effects of damage to the brain.

 

[fromderinside]

untermensche just inevitably muttered "Human language has a hierarchical structure that is universal"

Well gee whiz. You've just discovered something we've all known about nervous systems since the late 1900s. The brain tends to repeat itself in many systems. What do you think you'd get from a system that makes use of lateral inhibition to preserve information it receives, organize analysis into subgroups or, more accurately, group addition as it evolves. You're thinking that the way the brain processes acoustic information should change just because it comes in man? You need a refresher course in basic sensory and cognitive evolutionary principles. Of course it is built up over changes and adaptations within a process. Why shouldn't it be thus? I'm almost tempted to say 'self evident', but no. I'll not tempt you to jump back on a rational track now that we've got you here on an empirical track.

What you just said in that statement is language proves the most common brain organizing product over time in species.

Gee, gosh ...-nm untermensche just found the evolving brain tends to reuse successful products as it evolves As student of cognition you've just qualified for an AA.

 

[untermensche]

untermensche just inevitably muttered "Human language has a hierarchical structure that is universal"

Well gee whiz. You've just discovered something we've all known about nervous systems since the late 1900s. The brain tends to repeat itself in many systems. What do you think you'd get from a system that makes use of lateral inhibition to preserve information it receives, organize analysis into subgroups or, more accurately, group addition as it evolves. You're thinking that the way the brain processes acoustic information should change just because it comes in man? You need a refresher course in basic sensory and cognitive evolutionary principles. Of course it is built up over changes and adaptations within a process. Why shouldn't it be thus? I'm almost tempted to say 'self evident', but no. I'll not tempt you to jump back on a rational track now that we've got you here on an empirical track.

What you just said in that statement is language proves the most common brain organizing product over time in species.

Gee, gosh ...-nm untermensche just found the evolving brain tends to reuse successful products as it evolves As student of cognition you've just qualified for an AA.

Stop making this about me.

You don't even know what it means.

 

[fromderinside]

Perhaps evidence of the range of stimuli to which the visual system responds .... then whether the systems responds to it in a linear way .... or perhaps why we see red cars as blue under sodium light or .....

Of course.

Off course there are many things to look at.

But to say the visual system could have a limit to the ability to create a representation from new stimulation would require some LOGICAL objection.

What about the system could possibly prevent it?

It is a reactive system that will react when stimulated.

What possible limit to the reaction logically exists?

One can look for evidence but cannot abandon logic in the search.

What you say is ho hum and completely logically wrong.

What logic permits react to mean anything beyond the attributes the system possesses? Many systems do not react when stimulated. It may be the design of the reactive system to filter that to which it reacts.

Take a very simple example. Light flickers and the visual system subcortically can follow that flicker to Y items per second. Yet at the cortex and at decision making centers only signals up to Y/2 are evident. Obviously the reactive system filters information. In this case there is a trade between continuous and separate where continuous prevails above Y/2 to permit continuous representations on a larger scale. The conscious observer is only aware of flicker up to Y/2 so when one says the system reacts we are faced with a choice. Do we report its physical capability Y or do we report the cognitive value Y/2. Y is not the answer.

I've just presented one very fundamental example of a logical limit to reaction. What is the case is that most all things that react have limits for the reacting system at all stages of reaction. It is logical, consistent, and a real reason why one should move past logic when one discusses the science of phenomena. That little machine you conjure as handling signal processing into recognized speech has limitations associate with capacity, age, language, familiarity, context, etc, etc, etc. So it is not infinite nor even close to large.

Whether you say logical as a folk notion or a formal notion reaction nor speech are logically infinite.

 

[untermensche]

You take something simple and complicate it beyond use.

If I show you a picture of a human face, and then another.

And so on.

When does your vision stop functioning and you no longer comprehend you are seeing a face?

Minus of course the need for sleep or the effects of aging or damage.

The visual system is infinite.

I could present it with infinite faces and it would keep making sense of all of them.

There is no limit to the ability.

 

[fromderinside]

What you just wrote is that the visual system is consistent. You need to know your limitations.

 

[Bomb#20]

Your positive claim. Your burden of proof.

If there is nothing to prevent it then it is true.

What could possibly prevent it? What possible limit to the amount of sentences you could create or comprehend exists?

Your burden.

"What could possibly prevent it?" and "What possible limit to the amount of sentences you could create or comprehend exists?" are not observations of the real world that logically imply infinite different languages could arise. They are questions. The only fact you are presenting here is the fact that you don't know of anything that could prevent it or limit the amount of sentences you could create or comprehend. That you do not know of something does not imply that it doesn't exist. Challenging me to produce an example is not a substitute for you presenting an observation. That's because my not knowing of something is no more evidence for its nonexistence than your not knowing of it is. Duh!

Your "reasoning" here is identical to the "reasoning" of a Christian who says "If there is no natural way for nonliving chemicals to reorganize themselves into a bacterium then it must be true that God created life. How could chemicals possibly do that? What possible path from non-life to life exists? Your burden." If a Christian said that to you, you would not agree that you had burden of proof that abiogenesis has occurred. You would not be able to explain the origin of life; even so, you would not regard your inability to explain how it happened as evidence that it didn't happen. You would not call God "a logical conclusion".

Your positive claim. Your burden of proof. Deal with it.

That said, see post #61. I already told you what possible limit to the amount of sentences you could comprehend exists. Stop pretending people didn't make the arguments they made. Address their counterarguments -- either admit they're good arguments or point out where they are in error -- or go away.

Why would you even think it is not?

"Why would you even think it is not?" is not an observation of the real world that logically implies infinite different languages could arise.

Again, if there is nothing to prevent it then it is true.

What possible limit to the number of human languages could exist?

What observation of the real world logically implies "there is nothing to prevent it"? Your assertion that there is nothing to prevent it is not evidence that there is nothing to prevent it. Your question "What possible limit to the number of human languages could exist?" is not evidence that there is nothing to prevent it. My not knowing what would prevent it is not evidence that there is nothing to prevent it, any more than my not knowing how to get from ammonia to ribosomes is evidence that there is no way to do so without God.

You can run from your burden and pretend you have none, but your burden exists.

That is an asinine assertion.

What could possibly limit the number of human languages?

The reason it's asinine for you to claim I have the burden of proof to show there's a limit to the number of possible human languages is that I didn't claim there is one. I haven't expressed an opinion one way or another as to how many possible human languages there are. All I did was ask you to back up your own claim. People do not have the burden to prove other people's claims.

You are now simply repeating yourself without troubling yourself to address counterarguments already made in the post you're responding to.

You're half right. I am repeating the facts.

No. You are repeating factless arguments that have already been rebutted. "Do you imagine you will pick up a book today and not be able to make sense of it?" is not a fact. You have no possible basis for imagining that it's a fact. It is nothing but a groundless insinuation that I said something implying I will pick up a book today and not be able to make sense of it. It's a misrepresentation of my arguments.

To you that is a problem. But nothing I have said has been countered in the least.

Of course it has. Your assertion that nothing you said has been countered is a pale substitute for actually pointing out errors in the counterarguments that have been made -- counterarguments that you have refused to even address. You are not debating. You are preaching. Stop it. Come to grips with the counterarguments, or go away.

 

[untermensche]

What you just wrote is that the visual system is consistent. You need to know your limitations.

It is not consistent.

Consistency would mean it creates the same thing over and over.

It is constantly creating something new in response to new stimulation.

And this ability is infinite. It does not run out.

Unlike the very limited "vocabulary" of animals that rely on animal communication and do not have human language.