• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

racial height differences poll

What is the primary cause of the average height difference between whites and Asians in the USA?

  • Genetic differences are the cause

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • Environmental cause, i.e. Asians eat too much rice and it makes them short, or they study too much m

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • I have no idea. It is anyone's guess which race is taller than another on average. Maybe Asians are

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • Other (explain).

    Votes: 5 50.0%

  • Total voters
    10
As has been explained to you ad-nauseum, general intelligence is NOT "the cognitive system" but rather one of countless byproducts of that system. As is generally true of complex dynamic system, tiny changes to one part of the system can greatly alter a particular outcome, and often a given difference in outcome can be produced by changes to any one of countless parts of the system.

First of all you are in no position to explain anything to me about language.

Here is a video of Chomsky mocking your notion that language is just some byproduct of other systems.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Omg4lUwOZII[/YOUTUBE]

The name of the video is "Noam Chomsky: What is Special About Language?"

I don't know why the YouTube video won't open.

Using your hand analogy, intelligence is not the complex system of the hand, but more analogous to the mass of the hand...

The mass of the hand is merely a reflection of the overall size of the animal.

And the mass of the human has nothing to do with "intelligence".

Next you'll be telling me about the bumps on the head and their relation to "intelligence".
 
Here is a video of Chomsky mocking your notion that language is just some byproduct of other systems.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Omg4lUwOZII[/YOUTUBE]

The name of the video is "Noam Chomsky: What is Special About Language?"

I don't know why the YouTube video won't open.

Don't use the YouTube button. Put the URL in the "Insert Video" icon.

 
Don't use the YouTube button. Put the URL in the "Insert Video" icon.

Thanks.

This is Chomsky on a roll if people are able to deal with his slow pace.

He strongly refutes the notions that language is just an end result of other "mental" capacities and that language is primarily a system of communication.
 
He strongly refutes the notions that language is just an end result of other "mental" capacities and that language is primarily a system of communication.

Well, that is debatable. (Obviously.) That the capacity for language slowly evolved, and that language (even proto-language) confers a selective advantage on social animals, is certainly plausible. After all, it is thought that extant human populations, e.g., Neanderthals and possibly Denisovans, could speak, too. Suggesting that the capacity for spoken language reaches far back to a common homo ancestor. Yet, written language is most certainly a byproduct of other human intelligence. And, if you're offering this in furtherance of the idea that "systems" are "resistant to change," I'd point out - much like the eye - that some capacity for spoken language is better than no capacity. Humans are not the only animals that use verbal cues to communicate.
 
He strongly refutes the notions that language is just an end result of other "mental" capacities and that language is primarily a system of communication.

Well, that is debatable. (Obviously.) That the capacity for language slowly evolved, and that language (even proto-language) confers a selective advantage on social animals, is certainly plausible. After all, it is thought that extant human populations, e.g., Neanderthals and possibly Denisovans, could speak, too. Suggesting that the capacity for spoken language reaches far back to a common homo ancestor. Yet, written language is most certainly a byproduct of other human intelligence. And, if you're offering this in furtherance of the idea that "systems" are "resistant to change," I'd point out - much like the eye - that some capacity for spoken language is better than no capacity. Humans are not the only animals that use verbal cues to communicate.

There is no evidence of a "proto-language".

There is the clear distinction between human language and almost all animal communication. A few birds and some whales seem to demonstrate similarities to human language.

The communication of a chimpanzee for example is finite. It has a finite number of sounds and a specific correlation to each sound.

Human language is infinite. There is no limit to the number of words that could exist or sensible phrases that could be expressed and understood.

You can't go from finite to infinite in small steps.

There was probably some kind of communication in pre-human ancestors but there was not language. At least no evidence of the things language brings with it. Culture. And language possibly arose with modern humans or soon after humans arose.
 
The ability to recognize sounds and ascribe concrete meaning to them is a component of language and that ability is present among many non-human animals. Grammar, though (not language), is the thing that might be uniquely human. Whether parrots, dolphins, whales, elephants have capacity for grammar might be unknown. On the other hand, grammar itself might not really be a monolithic leap in human evolution. It may also have components that evolved. Example:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nguistic-rule-thought-to-be-unique-to-humans/
 
The ability to recognize sounds and ascribe concrete meaning to them is a component of language and that ability is present among many non-human animals....

It doesn't have to be sound.

Helen Keller developed normal language through touch. The deaf develop normal language through signs, vision.

Language is something that grows in the developing human when exposed to language in a number of modalities.

The early human brain is a language developing device. It is "pre-programmed" to develop a language, or two or more, when exposed to language, in several possible modalities, at a certain age.

And even when we are using language with another person we use both auditory and visual signals to produce the experience of sound.

The McGurk Effect:

 
First of all you are in no position to explain anything to me about language.

I am sure I could tell you countless things you are ignorant of in every area of cognitive science and just rational thought in general.

Here is a video of Chomsky mocking your notion that language is just some byproduct of other systems.
I said nothing about language, because intelligence and language are completely different things.

Using your hand analogy, intelligence is not the complex system of the hand, but more analogous to the mass of the hand...

The mass of the hand is merely a reflection of the overall size of the animal.

And the mass of the human has nothing to do with "intelligence".

Next you'll be telling me about the bumps on the head and their relation to "intelligence".

No, next will be telling you that your capacity for analogical reasoning and understanding analogies is woefully low. Nothing I said implies the literal causal relation between hand size and intelligence that your blathering presumes.
 
I said nothing about language, because intelligence and language are completely different things.

Yet the way you seem "intelligence" can be measured is with instruments that mainly use language or a byproduct of the language system, mathematics.

I don't know what you think we would be left with if you subtracted the language system from the cognitive system.

You would reduce the ability of humans to learn and communicate incredibly.

Humans would be like most other animals without the language system. Able to associate a few sounds or signs with a few things or events in the world, but no ability to express ideas or even think them.

Language is intimately tied to human "intelligence" and the cognitive system.

"Intelligence" and language are far from completely different. You don't have human "intelligence" without also human language.

You seem good for nothing but insults.
 
When you praise a dog, it's listening not just to the words you say but also how you say them.

That might not be huge news to dog owners. But now scientists have explored this phenomenon by using an imaging machine to peek inside the brains of 13 dogs as they listened to their trainer's voice.

The reward pathway in the dogs' brains lit up when they heard both praising words and an approving intonation — but not when they heard random words spoken in a praising tone or praise words spoken in a flat tone, according to a report in the journal Science.

"Dogs process both what we say and how we say it in a way which is amazingly similar to how human brains do," says Attila Andics, a neuroscientist at Eotvos Lorand University in Hungary.

How Dogs Understand What We Say
SHOTS - HEALTH NEWS
How Dogs Understand What We Say
When dogs hear speech, he explains, they seem to separate the meaning of words from the intonation, and each aspect of speech is analyzed independently. The left hemisphere of the brain processes meaning, while intonation is analyzed in the right hemisphere.

All the dogs in the study were willing volunteers and were trained to lie still in the scanner using a training method developed by Marta Gacsi. The dogs could get up and leave the machine whenever they wanted. But it was clear to the dogs that their human companions loved it when they did this very easy task.

"They are really happy to participate," says Andics. "The difficult aspect of the training was to convince dogs that 'motionless' means really motionless. They can't move more than 3 millimeters in any direction, otherwise we have to throw out all of the data."

Enlarge this image
Dogs were trained to lie motionless inside a scanner and listen carefully to human speech.
Borbala Ferenczy/Science
He says most dog owners have experimented with trying to "trick" their dogs by saying nonsense words in a cheerful, happy tone of voice. "I think the big difference here is that they only heard us, they didn't see us," says Andics, because the dogs were inside the machine. "Here, the only information they had was the speech signal. What we saw is that for praise to be processed as a reward, when there is no other supporting information, both word meaning and intonation have to fit."

And while this study reveals something about dogs, he believes it also says something important about what it means to be human.

"Humans seem to be the only species which uses words and intonation for communicating emotions, feelings, inner states," he says. "To find that dogs have a very similar neural mechanism to tell apart meaningful words from meaningless sound sequences is, I think, really amazing."

For decades, scientists have believed that a big shift occurred in human evolution that made our brain's left hemisphere dominant in processing communication, and that this is what led to the evolution of our unique language abilities, says Brian Hare, a cognitive neuroscientist at the Duke Institute for Brain Sciences in Durham, N.C.

"This really challenges that, because dogs also have a left hemispheric bias for processing words with meaning," Hare says. "That's a surprise."

He says people have been studying great apes and fossils to try to figure out exactly when that left hemispheric shift occurred. "It seems the story is really that there is a general mammalian bias to process words or meaning in communication in the left hemisphere and it became exaggerated in humans," says Hare. "It's not something completely new to our species."
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-...ces-dogs-understand-tone-and-meaning-of-words
 
These dogs have learned to associate specific human sounds with specific objects or activities.

That is well known animal communication.

It is not language. Not close.

These researchers don't seem to know what human language is.

Language involves abstract concepts and is infinite.

A person that has acquired a language can understand and form infinite sentences.

And you can't go from the few words a dog can understand to infinite through slow stages.

It had to be a major change that enabled humans to have the language capacity.
 
The ability to associate sighting/sound/touch/ with a concrete thing is the most fundamental part of language. No one said that languages do not also have building blocks and grammar. However, having a large brain like we humans do can enable one to use such associations as building blocks to form infinite spaces.
 
The ability to associate sighting/sound/touch/ with a concrete thing is the most fundamental part of language. No one said that languages do not also have building blocks and grammar. However, having a large brain like we humans do can enable one to use such associations as building blocks to form infinite spaces.

That's not true at all for human language.

Words are not associated with specific objects in the world. They are associated with conceptions in the mind. Loose conceptions that can change over time and exposure.

That's why we can see a cartoon drawing of a "rabbit" and associate it with something that looks nothing like the cartoon.

Classic_bugsbunny.png

rabbit.jpg
 
Probably a combination of environment and genes. Likely it's more a case of environment (traditional diet) than genes. New generations of Asians appear to be getting taller.

Not just taller. Bustier too. My female friends from overseas have the stereotypical small chests of Asian women, but my female friends who grew up here in Canada have huge boobs.
 
Back
Top Bottom