Laws of Nature

[untermensche]

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.

Not true at all. Evolution must use what is available, and what is available is available by chance, but it is a process which takes what is available and makes it efficient at something.

The eyes are incredibly efficient. The legs are incredibly efficient.

But as communication, language is not.

 

[untermensche]

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.

Then why can't you understand Noam Chomsky. He speaks as plainly as any human alive.

He has been a linguist since the 1950's. He still reads the current research. He has not lost sight of anything. He knows all the arguments.

Why won't you listen to his arguments?

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.

If something has a purpose, like the legs and walking, evolution will work to perfect that thing. As long as the fulfillment of that purpose gives the animal a survival advantage.

If language arose as a fulfillment of the purpose of communication and not thought, evolution would have worked to perfect it for that purpose and make it more and more efficient.

 

[Juma]

I understand english perfectly well.

Then why can't you understand Noam Chomsky. He speaks as plainly as any human alive.

He has been a linguist since the 1950's. He still reads the current research. He has not lost sight of anything. He knows all the arguments.

Why won't you listen to his arguments?

Then present them. The video contains nothing of value.

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.

If something has a purpose, like the legs and walking, evolution will work to perfect that thing. As long as the fulfillment of that purpose gives the animal a survival advantage.

If language arose as a fulfillment of the purpose of communication and not thought, evolution would have worked to perfect it for that purpose and make it more and more efficient.

This is crazy talk. Evolution is not about perfection .

You realize that eyes and legs are much much older than language and thus have had much much more time to get "perfected".

 

[untermensche]

If something has a purpose, like the legs and walking, evolution will work to perfect that thing. As long as the fulfillment of that purpose gives the animal a survival advantage.

If language arose as a fulfillment of the purpose of communication and not thought, evolution would have worked to perfect it for that purpose and make it more and more efficient.

This is crazy talk. Evolution is not about perfection .

You realize that eyes and legs are much much older than language and thus have had much much more time to get "perfected".

It is the truth.

And your comment proves you didn't comprehend it.

The language capacity hasn't changed. It doesn't change. Languages don't evolve as they would if they represented some external device, like communication.

And again, the greatest use of language is not in external communication.

Why would something evolve for external communication and be used mainly for internal "self talk" that some poets abstractly call "communication"?

People can go a long time without communicating with others with language, even if they are around them. Language is a convenience as communication, but not the purpose.

And when you realize language is primarily a method of thinking you can appreciate the human more. An animal that thinks.

That is what separates us from the rest, not that we have communication.

 

[fromderinside]

Evolution is not process of best it is a process of good enough.

Not true at all. Evolution must use what is available, and what is available is available by chance, but it is a process which takes what is available and makes it efficient at something.

The eyes are incredibly efficient. The legs are incredibly efficient.

But as communication, language is not.

The eye of the fish is much more efficient than is the human eye and that of the eagle sees four times better than does that of the human so there is much variation there. The some goes for the the leg which has adapted from operating in coordination with upper legs (arms) about 30 million years ago and then again when hominids became bipedal about 15 million years ago. We are extremely fragile in the ankle, knee, and hip areas as pro football injuries give testimony and our leg vascular systems there are extremely fragile as I can give testimony.

You have no case whatever.

 

[fromderinside]

This is crazy talk. Evolution is not about perfection .

You realize that eyes and legs are much much older than language and thus have had much much more time to get "perfected".

It is the truth.

And your comment proves you didn't comprehend it.

The language capacity hasn't changed. It doesn't change. Languages don't evolve as they would if they represented some external device, like communication.

And again, the greatest use of language is not in external communication.

Why would something evolve for external communication and be used mainly for internal "self talk" that some poets abstractly call "communication"?

People can go a long time without communicating with others with language, even if they are around them. Language is a convenience as communication, but not the purpose.

And when you realize language is primarily a method of thinking you can appreciate the human more. An animal that thinks.

That is what separates us from the rest, not that we have communication.

BS. Take at least one comparative behavior class before you goo off and make an arse of yourself. Think sign, gesture, physical attitude, facial expression, social movement, approach and withdrawal or seek and avoid whichever floats your boat, before you say language and communication separates us form those four legged, or even gilled things.

 

[untermensche]

The eye of the fish is much more efficient than is the human eye...

Where and for what?

The human eye is a variation of the modern fish eye, both come from a common ancestor, you know that, right?

- - - Updated - - -

It is the truth.

And your comment proves you didn't comprehend it.

The language capacity hasn't changed. It doesn't change. Languages don't evolve as they would if they represented some external device, like communication.

And again, the greatest use of language is not in external communication.

Why would something evolve for external communication and be used mainly for internal "self talk" that some poets abstractly call "communication"?

People can go a long time without communicating with others with language, even if they are around them. Language is a convenience as communication, but not the purpose.

And when you realize language is primarily a method of thinking you can appreciate the human more. An animal that thinks.

That is what separates us from the rest, not that we have communication.

BS. Take at least one comparative behavior class before you goo off and make an arse of yourself. Think sign, gesture, physical attitude, facial expression, social movement, approach and withdrawal or seek and avoid whichever floats your boat, before you say language and communication separates us form those four legged, or even gilled things.

This isn't an argument of any kind. It is mad hand waving.

I thought you should know that.

And thinking with the language capacity IS what separates humans from the rest.

 

[fromderinside]

Re fish eye. You know mammals are not immersed in water don't you? As a base notion matching systems tend to work better than trans-systems. Fewer photons are required to produce response in fish than are required in land animals even eagles. Less loss in matched systems has been validated .

Now for wither evolution through communication systems than evolution within communication systems. It always in the past turned out connections between communication systems have always been shown right down to the genetic antecedents. I provide summary. You take the courses took or ones similar and you'll get to the same place. In other words what you call hand waving happens to be accumulated understanding. I suggested you get the prerequisites before you make proclamations.

 

[untermensche]

Re fish eye. You know mammals are not immersed in water don't you? As a base notion matching systems tend to work better than trans-systems. Fewer photons are required to produce response in fish than are required in land animals even eagles. Less loss in matched systems has been validated .

Now for wither evolution through communication systems than evolution within communication systems. It always in the past turned out connections between communication systems have always been shown right down to the genetic antecedents. I provide summary. You take the courses took or ones similar and you'll get to the same place. In other words what you call hand waving happens to be accumulated understanding. I suggested you get the prerequisites before you make proclamations.

Prerequisites? You know a little about cells, nothing else.

A bat can use their wings to walk around very clumsily.

A human can use language to communicate very clumsily.

 

[fromderinside]

Prerequisites? You know a little about cells, nothing else.

A bat can use their wings to walk around very clumsily.




Re: bat walking

Vampire bats walk, er, run, fairly well http://www.livescience.com/6908-yikes-vampire-bats-run.html

Vampire bats must have regained the ability to run, says Cornell University researcher Daniel Riskin, who led the new experiments. The skill might have been useful for chasing down small, swift animals that wouldn't sit still for a feeding event, Riskin toldLiveScience.
Thing is, the common vampire bat rarely chases small animals anymore. Instead, it feeds mostly on dosing cattle that have been introduced into the bats' range -- mostly from northern Mexico down to Argentina and Chile -- over the past few hundred years, Riskin said. In labs, a vampire bat will feed on anything -- even a snake -- but in the wild they prefer cows, whose blood they drink mostly at night while the livestock sleep.

A human can use language to communicate very clumsily.

re: clumsy language

The Neurological and Environmental Basis for Differing Intelligences: A Comparison of Primate and Cetacean Mentality https://www.msu.edu/~marablek/whal-int.htm

Flesh does not block sonar nearly as much as it does light. Cetaceans are able to use sonar to actually see the internal workings of other animals (Sutphen 1974). It is the same process as ultrasound that is used prevalently in medicine. Not only are they capable of this, but it has been proven that they do commonly use this to read emotion and states of health. This type of direct knowledge of another beings internal states would greatly benefit personal interaction and the possibility of a society.Another factor of cetacean auditory abilities of interest is the vast amount of information conveyed (Lilly 1975). They are able to produce sounds commonly up to 200 kilocycles/second, 5 a range 2 1/4 times what our own hearing can comprehend. Cetaceans also have approximately 2 1/4 times the number of neurons receiving the input. Add that onto the fact that they have several sound production organs,6 and it is apparent that cetaceans can convey and receive 20 times the amount of information as we can with our hearing. This even surpasses the amount of information we receive visually, but not by a great deal.

With the simultaneous complexity of cetacean auditory perceptions, the analogy to primate vision in clear (Bunnel 1974). Our vision is spatially-oriented with poor time discrimination. We perceive information simultaneously. Our auditory is the opposite. It has poor space perception, but good time discrimination. Human languages are composed of simple sounds strung into elaborate sequences.
Cetacean auditory perception is like our visual, spatially-oriented and not temporally-oriented. They perceive sounds as complex wholes, rather than a series of noises. Them trying to follow our language would be equivalent to us trying to follow individual frames in a movie running at normal speed. The perceptions would be blurred together into something they could understand. They seem to show a preference over human music than human language, and this distinction explains that.

I just know cells indeed. ..... Given your reply its obvious you don't know behavior, language, communication, or argument.

You really shouldn't have picked topics that are in my wheelhouse.

 

[untermensche]

Prerequisites? You know a little about cells, nothing else.

A bat can use their wings to walk around very clumsily.

Re: bat walking

Thanks for the article that supports my arguments.

A human can use language to communicate very clumsily.

I just know cells indeed. ..... Given your reply its obvious you don't know behavior, language, communication, or argument.

You really shouldn't have picked topics that are in my wheelhouse.

Case in point.

The present study of human behavior is pre-scientific.

Which language do you think I don't know?

Clumsy communication is all around us.

And you make no arguments so why do I need that?

 

[fromderinside]

Re: bat walking

Thanks for the article that supports my arguments.

A human can use language to communicate very clumsily.

I just know cells indeed. ..... Given your reply its obvious you don't know behavior, language, communication, or argument.

You really shouldn't have picked topics that are in my wheelhouse.

Case in point.

The present study of human behavior is pre-scientific.

Which language do you think I don't know?

Clumsy communication is all around us.

And you make no arguments so why do I need that?

I'm impressed. You'd face a bat with teeth like that who can cover 6 feet a second without flying? I'm sure you'd expect him to fly. Boy would you be surprised when he races over to you and takes a chunk from your calf. Don't make such assumptions. It could kill you.

So a state of science article is pre-scientific? With that view we might as well forget about relativity then.

 

[untermensche]

Thanks for the article that supports my arguments.

A human can use language to communicate very clumsily.

I just know cells indeed. ..... Given your reply its obvious you don't know behavior, language, communication, or argument.

You really shouldn't have picked topics that are in my wheelhouse.

Case in point.

The present study of human behavior is pre-scientific.

Which language do you think I don't know?

Clumsy communication is all around us.

And you make no arguments so why do I need that?

I'm impressed. You'd face a bat with teeth like that who can cover 6 feet a second without flying? I'm sure you'd expect him to fly. Boy would you be surprised when he races over to you and takes a chunk from your calf. Don't make such assumptions. It could kill you.

So a state of science article is pre-scientific? With that view we might as well forget about relativity then.

The little thing risks getting stepped on. Or swatted with a broom.

Better to fly and land on the backs of cows.

You said the study of human behavior, or I took it that way, not the behavior of time and space.

 

[untermensche]

A bat can use it's wings to clumsily walk.

This is used as an analogy. Many bats are incredibly clumsy when they use their wings to "walk".

You don't harm it by saying there is one kind of bat that can use it's wings to run like a gazelle.

Your boy is as big as a tree.

Another analogy.

You don't harm it by saying; "Actually there are some trees much smaller than a boy".

It is a ridiculous practice.

 

[fromderinside]

You do it. Does that mean its a law of nature?

 

[untermensche]

You do it. Does that mean its a law of nature?

I don't attack analogies with obscure exceptions like Don Quixote fighting windmills.

What, he fought more than windmills, then the analogy is no good.

Are the laws of nature what we observe or our models?

Is mathematics found in nature?

Or is mathematics so flexible it can be used to describe many kinds of moving system?

 

[fromderinside]

.... so flexible it can be used to describe many kinds of moving system?

I don't think you're flexible enough to do a Ben Franklin. I know I'm not. Its not a law of nature either.

 

[untermensche]

.... so flexible it can be used to describe many kinds of moving system?

I don't think you're flexible enough to do a Ben Franklin. I know I'm not. Its not a law of nature either.

Are you talking about this?

The Ben Franklin effect is a proposed psychological phenomenon: A person who has performed a favor for someone is more likely to do another favor for that person than they would be if they had received a favor from that person. Similarly, one who harms another is more willing to harm them again than the victim is to retaliate.

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

 

[fast]

I don't think you're flexible enough to do a Ben Franklin. I know I'm not. Its not a law of nature either.

Are you talking about this?

The Ben Franklin effect is a proposed psychological phenomenon: A person who has performed a favor for someone is more likely to do another favor for that person than they would be if they had received a favor from that person. Similarly, one who harms another is more willing to harm them again than the victim is to retaliate.

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

I cannot believe I've never heard of that before.

 

[fromderinside]

I don't think you're flexible enough to do a Ben Franklin. I know I'm not. Its not a law of nature either.

Are you talking about this?

The Ben Franklin effect is a proposed psychological phenomenon: A person who has performed a favor for someone is more likely to do another favor for that person than they would be if they had received a favor from that person. Similarly, one who harms another is more willing to harm them again than the victim is to retaliate.

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

No.

It's this:

BEN FRANKLIN is actually one of the oldest sex acts in the United States. In fact, it was invented by Ben Franklin 10 minutes after his famous "kite" experiment. He used it on 96 of the 100 women he impregnated. Wait until your girlfriend is on the rag. While she is giving you a blowjob, tie a skeleton key on the string of her tampon and rub an inflated balloon on her head. The gay version differs. While you are receiving a blow job, you tie a skeleton key on a string, stick the key up your partner's ass, and rub an inflated balloon on his head.

fast, as for untermenche's quote, its a derivative of passing it forward which doesn't fit the characterization required for a reply by me to him at all. He fails in situational awareness.