|
quinn
some kinda love


Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
|
|
Quote:
"...speech, language, is not something that had evolved in Homo sapiens, the way the breed's unique small-motor-skilled hands had...or its next-to-hairless body. Speech is man-made. It is an artifact...and it explains man's power over all other creatures in a way Evolution all by itself can't begin to."
i do not think this is quite correct. Noam Chomsky who is highly respected in mainstream linguistics made the breakthrough discovery of universal grammar, that is that underlying the superficial differences between languages are more fundamental common rules and structures, implying our capacity for language is wired into the brain.
Stephen Pinker popularizes this idea and links it to evolutionary theory in his book 'the language instinct', which argues language is not like other human inventions such as railroads, but innate and common to all cultures.
along this line of reasoning language is not some artifact that humans one day just made up
-------------------- dripping with fantasy
Edited by quinn (09/06/16 05:23 PM)
|
nuentoter
conduit



Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
|
Re: Evolution [Re: quinn] 1
#23619121 - 09/06/16 05:56 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I think the terminology we are using muddies up the conversation. Intricate verbal communication is the "instinct" where as language is the man made flavors of this communication. Out physical ability to create complex sounds and manipulate their inflections, and the obvious avatar of distance with auditory communication are things that lean on us heavily.
Language goes far far beyond this. Poetry, novels, music and so much more have added to the enigma of language.
--------------------
The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know. - @entheolove "I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for" - Georgia O'Keefe I think the word is vagina
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: Evolution [Re: quinn] 1
#23619238 - 09/06/16 06:32 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
quinn said:
Quote:
"...speech, language, is not something that had evolved in Homo sapiens, the way the breed's unique small-motor-skilled hands had...or its next-to-hairless body. Speech is man-made. It is an artifact...and it explains man's power over all other creatures in a way Evolution all by itself can't begin to."
i do not think this is quite correct. Noam Chomsky who is highly respected in mainstream linguistics made the breakthrough discovery of universal grammar, that is that underlying the superficial differences between languages are more fundamental common rules and structures, implying our capacity for language is wired into the brain.
Stephen Pinker popularizes this idea and links it to evolutionary theory in his book 'the language instinct', which argues language is not like other human inventions such as railroads, but innate and common to all cultures.
along this line of reasoning language is not some artifact that humans one day just made up
Yes, well this is heartily addressed and the author rejects both Chomsky and Pinker due to lack of compelling evidence. I personally agree with Wolfe on Chomsky and am underwhelmed by and ambivalent about Pinker, both of whom I have read on this subject. Chomsky's biggest breakthrough was with recursion, the folding of phrases and clauses into each other that creates meanings in language. It so happens that certain linguistic anthropologists, namely Daniel L. Everett, and others, found Amazonian hunter-gatherer tribes that use languages that have no recursion. This is a very major blow to the whole Chomsky paradigm, and incidentally I have never myself thought Chomsky to be correct in his linguistic theories. He's no kook, but no visionary, either.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
|
what if poetry were the beginning - not an adjunct rhythm rhyme onomatopoeia.
we are descended from poetry apes
--------------------
_ đź§ _
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Quote:
onomatopoeia.
The need to constantly have to urinate?
--------------------
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
|
some one wants to pee on ya
--------------------
_ đź§ _
|
BrendanFlock
Stranger


Registered: 06/01/13
Posts: 4,216
Last seen: 1 day, 7 hours
|
|
Hmm the power of evolution has to be plane in that we can see and understand it..in the coming time Causm..we may have a choice to decentralize our selfs and identities...putting them into wave format..which in quantum mechanics can be called certainty..like uploading consciousness on the internet..and then remainding..there liek a remainder..for a certain amount of time..the lucid understanding of knowledge and intelligence..is likely at helm of Evolution..indeed it is a rite in Freemasonry to know what exactly evolution is..?
22nd degree - Knight Royal Axe, Prince of Libanus: This degree teaches, "if a job is worth doing its worth doing well". By doing good work we improve character and become better citizens. The apron is white, bordered in purple, and contains a three-headed serpent and a table with instruments and plans on it. The jewel is an axe and handle of gold. On the top of the handle are the initials of Noah and Solomon. In the middle of the handle are the initials of Libanus and Tsidun. On the blade are the initials of Adoniram, Cyrus, Darius, Zerubbabel, Nehemiah, Ezra (on one side), and Shem, Kham, Yapheth, Moses, Ahaliab, Betselal (on the other).
This shows the rites we have passed down through the ages..which is a story in Human Evolution..and indeed how we interact with nature grows and develops into more and more complicated things..like technology and buildings and art for example..
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: Yes, well this is heartily addressed and the author rejects both Chomsky and Pinker due to lack of compelling evidence. I personally agree with Wolfe on Chomsky and am underwhelmed by and ambivalent about Pinker, both of whom I have read on this subject. Chomsky's biggest breakthrough was with recursion, the folding of phrases and clauses into each other that creates meanings in language. It so happens that certain linguistic anthropologists, namely Daniel L. Everett, and others, found Amazonian hunter-gatherer tribes that use languages that have no recursion. This is a very major blow to the whole Chomsky paradigm, and incidentally I have never myself thought Chomsky to be correct in his linguistic theories. He's no kook, but no visionary, either.
If Amazonian tribes people use language that isn't recursive then it seems only rational that body language, gesturing and hunting communications arose before the development of sophisticated, recursive language.
Simply it indicates there was 'pre-language' communication.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Hippocampus



Registered: 04/01/15
Posts: 753
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: Evolution [Re: sudly] 1
#23620540 - 09/07/16 01:15 AM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I think the first post by redgreenvines sums up the evolution thing from my perspective.
Fucking fruit flies, man. Anyone can observe evolution if they can stand those buzzy little insects. Or just read about the thousands of others who have witnessed it.
Falsifiability? That's basically the null hypothesis of any science experiment. So.. if fruit flies don't evolve in your experiment, then evolution is false. Just one example. There's a null hypothesis for every decent experiment.
Sometimes Tom Wolfe writes some real crap. Don't get me wrong. I can totally respect that. There is some collateral damage when artistic license is taken in social satire. A genre which I love. Biting witticism, sharp commentary, and black humor are great, but not always valid.
A bit tangential. But how does the new book you read stack up to his others? I liked The Electric Koolaid Acid Test. Vanities was ok but not really my style. Never read Right Stuff. Does he return to brilliant satire, or has he made the complete transformation to old rambling philosopreacher? I'm more about criticizing the establishment than offering up my own half-baked solutions that are just as bad or worse. And I'm happy to lampoon the lampooner too. heheheh, pooner.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
Hippocampus said: I think the first post by redgreenvines sums up the evolution thing from my perspective.
Fucking fruit flies, man. Anyone can observe evolution if they can stand those buzzy little insects. Or just read about the thousands of others who have witnessed it.
Falsifiability? That's basically the null hypothesis of any science experiment. So.. if fruit flies don't evolve in your experiment, then evolution is false. Just one example. There's a null hypothesis for every decent experiment.
Sometimes Tom Wolfe writes some real crap. Don't get me wrong. I can totally respect that. There is some collateral damage when artistic license is taken in social satire. A genre which I love. Biting witticism, sharp commentary, and black humor are great, but not always valid.
A bit tangential. But how does the new book you read stack up to his others? I liked The Electric Koolaid Acid Test. Vanities was ok but not really my style. Never read Right Stuff. Does he return to brilliant satire, or has he made the complete transformation to old rambling philosopreacher? I'm more about criticizing the establishment than offering up my own half-baked solutions that are just as bad or worse. And I'm happy to lampoon the lampooner too. heheheh, pooner. 
More like old rambling philosopreacher. It's an okay read, but it's nothing like his bigger books.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
|
This is a such a ridiculous collection of silly replies to evolutionary theory that come from people who don't understand it that I feel like it has to be a parody.
Quote:
"There were five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Had anyone observed the phenomenon -- in this case, Evolution -- as it occurred and recorded it?
People observe evolution all the time, as others have pointed out. Not witnessing one supposed 'kind' of animal transform into another doesn't invalidate evolution because that's not even really what happens and evolutionary processes take long periods of time. We can all witness water eroding rock in our lifetimes, but no one can witness water forming the Grand Canyon. Does that mean water erosion isn't real? No.
Quote:
Could other scientists replicate it?
This is just plain silly. What is it he expects scientists to replicate? The entire history of life on the planet? Evolutionary biology is a field unto itself. Many replicable experiments are done within this field every day. Once again, we don't have to replicate the formation of the Grand Canyon to know water erosion was the culprit.
Quote:
Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper's "falsifiability" test)?
Creationists are constantly coming out with things that were they facts would invalidate evolution. Sadly for them, they are not facts.
Quote:
Could scientists make predictions based on it?
He's obviously never heard of population genetics.
Quote:
Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science?
Come on, this must be a joke. It's just too absurd. You can't get anywhere near biology without evolution slapping you in the face. I'd seriously like to ask Wolfe just what the fuck he was thinking when he put pen to paper to immortalize this nonsense.
Quote:
In the case of Evolution...well...no...no...no...no...and no."
Sorry Wolfe, it's actually yes...yes...yes...yes...and yes; maybe next time you are going to spout off about something, do a little research.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
I appreciate your understanding that it was Wolfe and not I making those claims. 
I just wanted to get some commentary on it, and I have. Thanks everyone for your insights.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
zzripz
Stranger


Registered: 12/23/08
Posts: 8,292
Loc: Manchester, UK
Last seen: 4 years, 7 months
|
|
One thing I know, most people who believe in the theory of evolution believe that evolution happens by random chance. They do not accept that nature and/or matter-energy is conscious, aware, intelligence/intelligent. They will rather scapegoat or red herring---the biblical myth of a creator 'God',and absurd theories that Earth is just a few thousand years old etc etc
IE instead of exploring the possibility of nature being intelligent, they slag off a creator-god myth which is their 'Creationist' antagonist
Another thing I know is that the Darwinian theory of evolution suits the power elite to a T, because they believe that certain groups of people -especially themselves- are more highly EVOLVED than other groups of people! And in their grander delusions they literally believe they are gods. This is the myth of apotheosis. So see how the theory of evolution suits their belief system and action. it is a myth:
Quote:
…”Although racism of course did not begin with Charles Darwin, he did more than any other person to popularize it. After he “proved” that all humans descended from apes, it was natural to conclude that some races had descended further than others.
In his opinion, some races (namely the white ones) left the others far behind, while other races hardly matured at all.”
And the same you hear from the leading founders and figures of Theosophy and the New Age Movment like Helena Blavatsky, and Alice Baily who had very racist views, and even claimed they 'channeled' 'ascended masters' (ie the 'evolved' theme again) telling them this is 'the truth'.
So I am really warning about seeing through dangerous myths.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
Re: Evolution [Re: zzripz] 1
#23622770 - 09/07/16 05:15 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
anybody believe that a power elite is a different species? i.e. unable to mate with the rest of us and bear viable fertile offspring?
if so
then they are not more evolved.
zzripz, I am astonished how the facts of evolution so completely elude you, allowing instead a crackpot conspiracy theory.
Power elites certainly exist as they ever have, but not by being more evolved, only by dominating and keeping their status. This is not done through scientific theory, instead, a subtle combination of Law and Money and Real Estate suffices to ensure entitlements.
--------------------
_ đź§ _
|
clock_of_omens
razzle them dazzle them


Registered: 04/10/14
Posts: 4,097
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Evolution [Re: zzripz]
#23622817 - 09/07/16 05:25 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zzripz said: They do not accept that nature and/or matter-energy is conscious, aware, intelligence/intelligent.
How about you design an experiment and prove this. The acceptance will follow.
Quote:
Another thing I know is that the Darwinian theory of evolution suits the power elite to a T, because they believe that certain groups of people -especially themselves- are more highly EVOLVED than other groups of people! And in their grander delusions they literally believe they are gods. This is the myth of apotheosis. So see how the theory of evolution suits their belief system and action. it is a myth:
So I am really warning about seeing through dangerous myths.
What exactly does that have to do with the theory itself? Bogus interpretations of a theory do not invalidate that theory.
|
Crumist
Stranger


Registered: 11/02/13
Posts: 781
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
Re: Evolution [Re: zzripz]
#23622861 - 09/07/16 05:35 PM (7 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zzripz said:Another thing I know is that the Darwinian theory of evolution suits the power elite to a T, because they believe that certain groups of people -especially themselves- are more highly EVOLVED than other groups of people! And in their grander delusions they literally believe they are gods. This is the myth of apotheosis. So see how the theory of evolution suits their belief system and action. it is a myth:
Social Darwinism is a load of horseshit that came into vogue many years after Darwins death. Don't you remember Darwins last words were "All I know is, I am not a Darwinist!"
-------------------- 'I am all for resources being allocated to the widowed single mother of 3, lost husband over seas fighting for our country. I am for vets getting mental health access and resources following war. I am not for free money cause a woman can't close her legs or some chump with low testosterone no going to work cause "i'm sad."' -finalexplosion Nice knowin ya'll! https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/23904704/vc/1#23904704
Edited by Crumist (09/07/16 05:36 PM)
|
blingbling
what you chicken stew?

Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
|
After over 100 years of trying, we still don't have a Darwinian explanation for language.
This statement is painfully wrong. Think of all the advantages that language gives us. Think about how hard your life would be if you couldn't communicate. The development of language among ancient hominids would have clearly produced benefits that natural selection would favour.
As for this statement: Speech is man-made
This is in some sense true, but I think this guy is confusing biology with culture. Its a tricky subject because the two can't really be separated, but it doesn't follow that because we speak, have different languages etc. that there is no evolutionary mechanism involved. There are particular regions in the brain that are necessary for language development, so language clearly has a biological basis that is shaped by culture.
-------------------- Kupo said: let's fuel the robots with psilocybin. cez said: everyone should smoke dmt for religion. dustinthewind13 said: euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building. White Beard said: if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
You're right, clearly, but I think the criticism comes in where we have all these people, biologists, anthropologists, linguists, and after over a hundred years of very intense study, they still don't know how language formed. We know the why (obvious survival benefit), but not the how.
And you say there are circuits in the brain devoted to language, yes, but are they special? Is there a set of pathways that you could call a language "organ"? Some people think so, but as yet there is no firm science to show us one way or the other.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Crumist
Stranger


Registered: 11/02/13
Posts: 781
Last seen: 7 years, 1 month
|
|
There are regions of the brain, like Broccas area, that have been identified as key to language. The human brain may well be the most complex entity we are aware of, there are philosophical questions as to whether any system can understand our comprehend anything as complex as itself.
There are theories that consciousness is a emergent property of language. If this is so, I'd cut the linguists a break as the field isn't truly that big or that old and I don't think humanity is quite ready to crack the secrets of consciousness
-------------------- 'I am all for resources being allocated to the widowed single mother of 3, lost husband over seas fighting for our country. I am for vets getting mental health access and resources following war. I am not for free money cause a woman can't close her legs or some chump with low testosterone no going to work cause "i'm sad."' -finalexplosion Nice knowin ya'll! https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/23904704/vc/1#23904704
|
nuentoter
conduit



Registered: 09/17/08
Posts: 2,721
Last seen: 7 years, 21 days
|
|
How language is formed is seen every day with infants. We agree upon a sound and a thing. We repeat and reinforce the association of this sound with this thing. Go forward from there, after you "name" the things, you describe them and their actions. My personal curiosity lies in the inherent need for language to be so verbose. The art of language, and what certain phrases and tones and meters do to the brain.
"Anatomists today would be hard put to identify the brain of a visual artist, a writer or a mathematician - but they would recognize the brain of a professional musician without moment's "
"Given her deafness, the auditory part of the brain, deprived of its usual input, had started to generate a spontaneous activist of its own, and this took the form of musical hallucinations, mostly musical memories from her earlier life. The brain needed to stay incessantly active, and if it was not getting its usual stimulation..., it would create its own stimulation in the form of hallucinations"
-Oliver Sachs
--------------------
The geometry of us is no chance. We are antennae, we are tuning forks, we are receiver and transmitters of all energy. We are more than we know. - @entheolove "I found I could say things with color and shapes that I couldn't say any other way - things I had no words for" - Georgia O'Keefe I think the word is vagina
|
|