Laws of Nature

[Juma]

How do vocabulary arise? I think social interaction and communication between individuals is necessary for a vocabulary to take shape.

For a shared vocabulary, yes.

But an individual idiosyncratic internal vocabulary could exist without communication with language.

Then why doesnt it? Because we are social beings.

 

[fromderinside]

For a shared vocabulary, yes.

But an individual idiosyncratic internal vocabulary could exist without communication with language.

Then why doesnt it? Because we are social beings.

He seems to argue one is not relevant to the other. He's ignoring the simple notion a being is a combination of adaptations that are together most relevant to whatever is required to survive. He, like Gould, is suggesting extant humans most important capability, developed independently from other parallel adaptations, is, after the fact, driving our direction of for surviving.

The tough part to swallow is that independent, spandrel, thing. Swallowing that requires that while humans evolve gesture from other primates that evolved it from other mammalic lines, as evidenced by communication genes in rats and song birds, that results in vocalizations coordinated with gesture that we, uniquely, evolved an internal language to communicate. Yes humans evolved a unique way to communicate other things demonstrated just as strongly in those other species line that became our means for getting from 'mind' to behavior which is so similar to theirs.

I say fuck off. The science says otherwise.

No amount of Chomsky hand waving (check out his revisions, abandoning, etc) or Gould Spandrel and punctate suggesting (check out environment versus species population parameters suggest mutation rates remain constant while rates of mutation survival vary depending on ecological openings) gets there.

 

[untermensche]

For a shared vocabulary, yes.

But an individual idiosyncratic internal vocabulary could exist without communication with language.

Then why doesnt it? Because we are social beings.

A shared vocabulary has a huge survival advantage.

Those that had this trait would soon dominate.

 

[untermensche]

He, like Gould, is suggesting extant humans most important capability, developed independently from other parallel adaptations, is, after the fact, driving our direction of for surviving.

The thinking did not develop independently of anything. The better one thought the better one survived, overall.

But thinking did not develop independently from vision and memory and movement. It probably is something that flows out when all reach a certain complexity.

A spandrel.

....evolved an internal language to communicate....

An internal language for thinking. Not communicating. Communication with language is a secondary feature that slowly develops over time.

 

[Juma]

The thinking did not develop independently of anything. The better one thought the better one survived, overall.

But thinking did not develop independently from vision and memory and movement. It probably is something that flows out when all reach a certain complexity.

A spandrel.

....evolved an internal language to communicate....

An internal language for thinking. Not communicating. Communication with language is a secondary feature that slowly develops over time.

Yes uou say so. But where are you arguments?

 

[untermensche]

The thinking did not develop independently of anything. The better one thought the better one survived, overall.

But thinking did not develop independently from vision and memory and movement. It probably is something that flows out when all reach a certain complexity.

A spandrel.



An internal language for thinking. Not communicating. Communication with language is a secondary feature that slowly develops over time.

Yes uou say so. But where are you arguments?

The arguments are really Chomsky's.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEmpRtj34xg[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Juma]

Yes uou say so. But where are you arguments?

The arguments are really Chomsky's.

So you have none. Ok. Then STFU.

 

[untermensche]

The arguments are really Chomsky's.

So you have none. Ok. Then STFU.

What?

How about you watch a 4 minute video and learn something.

Dick.

 

[Juma]

So you have none. Ok. Then STFU.

What?

How about you watch a 4 minute video and learn something.

Dick.

I watched and wasted 4 minutes on a totally uninforming video. He mumbles something about how "specific biology design of language" is proritized over efficient communication but gives no examples what this means or references to where to look.

So present some real arguments or STFU.

 

[fromderinside]

An internal language for thinking. Not communicating. Communication with language is a secondary feature that slowly develops over time.

Call a thing this and when I talk to it I'm communicating. Call a thing that when I talk to it I'm thinking. When I call this that it changes?

Read what I wrote:

Chemicals in the cell wall communicate conditions external to the wall that are relevant to ones metabolic needs which are represented by other communicators that relay back signals to 'go after that which is available' which, in turn, communicate to outer wall receptors to permit those metabolic products to pass the wall. All of these taken independently are different communications while the overall communication that of satisfying one's hunger. Note that none would exist if not both, relevant to, most effective at, meeting survival demands.

Which of the processes in that scenario do you call "I'm thinking".

 

[untermensche]

What?

How about you watch a 4 minute video and learn something.

Dick.

I watched and wasted 4 minutes on a totally uninforming video. He mumbles something about how "specific biology design of language" is proritized over efficient communication but gives no examples what this means or references to where to look.

So present some real arguments or STFU.

It is a waste to throw pearls before swine.

Nobody can make the arguments more plain than Chomsky makes them. They are somewhat technical but not beyond comprehension to anybody with an average intelligence.

 

[untermensche]

Chemicals in the cell wall communicate conditions external to the wall that are relevant to ones metabolic needs

You can call it communication if you want to.

Just like I can call a submarine moving through the water, swimming.

 

[Juma]

I watched and wasted 4 minutes on a totally uninforming video. He mumbles something about how "specific biology design of language" is proritized over efficient communication but gives no examples what this means or references to where to look.

So present some real arguments or STFU.

It is a waste to throw pearls before swine.

Nobody can make the arguments more plain than Chomsky makes them. They are somewhat technical but not beyond comprehension to anybody with an average intelligence.

Sigh. I have problem with techical language. But i have a severe issue with dickheads pretenting they know and comprehend stuff way beyond their heads.

So, now in your own words, describe the glorious argument you suggest he made in the video.

 

[untermensche]

It is a waste to throw pearls before swine.

Nobody can make the arguments more plain than Chomsky makes them. They are somewhat technical but not beyond comprehension to anybody with an average intelligence.

Sigh. I have problem with techical language. But i have a severe issue with dickheads pretenting they know and comprehend stuff way beyond their heads.

So, now in your own words, describe the glorious argument you suggest he made in the video.

Look swine. I could cast my pearls.

But you don't have the ability to recognize their value.

 

[Juma]

Sigh. I have problem with techical language. But i have a severe issue with dickheads pretenting they know and comprehend stuff way beyond their heads.

So, now in your own words, describe the glorious argument you suggest he made in the video.

Look swine. I could cast my pearls.

But you don't have the ability to recognize their value.

You are only filled with hot air.

 

[untermensche]

Look swine. I could cast my pearls.

But you don't have the ability to recognize their value.

You are only filled with hot air.

Oh for fucks sake!!

I'll watch the little video later and try to translate it for you since you don't seem to be able to understand plain English very well.

But one aspect Chomsky is talking about is the concept of "communicative efficiency".

If language evolved as a means of communication why are there all these inefficiencies in terms of using it for communication?

 

[fromderinside]

Chemicals in the cell wall communicate conditions external to the wall that are relevant to ones metabolic needs

You can call it communication if you want to.

Just like I can call a submarine moving through the water, swimming.

Yeah. Just like. Its as if each method of propulsion has its own story which, because it is a story, doesn't relate to other stories of propulsion. Communication covers thinking brings it under a common process makes a commonality among things like thinking, talking, integrated chemical activity - you know brings a suite of things into the discussion of common principles where we notice regularities, er, laws of nature - to the point where one set of principles, rather than millions, account for regularities in nature, where dualism is subsumed under determinism and life gets better.

 

[fromderinside]

If language evolved as a means of communication why are there all these inefficiencies in terms of using it for communication?

Evolution is not process of best it is a process of good enough. In this case human communication involves at least two goals, that of developing it in neonates and that of using it for getting on. If developing and getting on were in the same dimension language would be mush less complicated and jumpy.

Consider hearing the pitch or meaning of a sound and computing the direction of a sound. Two very essential capabilities of one system requiring different aspects being emphasized. The auditory system evolved serving both these needs so it can't identify direction as well as it should given its capacities and it can't resolve identity as well as it could biven its capacities. It does both well enough to get by.

Just so, the language system with limited resources serves to get the neonate to recognize and use the architecture of of language then it serves to get the human or bird or rat or monkey through the day as a social breeding thing and as a potential meal for another being. It should have starts and stops and it should reflect arbitrary advances and changes in it realization. Language evolves like every thing else evolves, haphazardly, by chance changes.

The mistake many make is that something should, if it is the best around, be an ideal. That's bullshit in an evolving thing. The very diversity of evolved things should belie such notions. Still, there may be an ideal that can or cannot be reached since there are ideals out there that biophysical systems sometimes do approach over great extents of time. For instance, I'm very impressed with how well humans appreciate the fidelity of pitch in a violin, finding the best woods and other materials, developing a shape and structure, developing an instrument that reproduces angelic sounds not yet matched in electronic instruments.

 

[Juma]

You are only filled with hot air.

Oh for fucks sake!!

I'll watch the little video later and try to translate it for you since you don't seem to be able to understand plain English very well.

I understand english perfectly well.

But one aspect Chomsky is talking about is the concept of "communicative efficiency".

If language evolved as a means of communication why are there all these inefficiencies in terms of using it for communication?

Why wouldnt there?

The human body is full of inefficienciens and bad solutions. There is no reason to expect perfection.

 

[untermensche]

You can call it communication if you want to.

Just like I can call a submarine moving through the water, swimming.

Yeah. Just like. Its as if each method of propulsion has its own story which, because it is a story, doesn't relate to other stories of propulsion. Communication covers thinking brings it under a common process makes a commonality among things like thinking, talking, integrated chemical activity - you know brings a suite of things into the discussion of common principles where we notice regularities, er, laws of nature - to the point where one set of principles, rather than millions, account for regularities in nature, where dualism is subsumed under determinism and life gets better.

What I'm talking about is the abstract nature of language.

Abstraction makes communication less efficient.

But it is a very good thing for thought.