More Denton: A new book; language (Introduction)

by David Turell , Wednesday, March 16, 2016, 15:00 (3174 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: An internal rearrangement of primal structures presumably = innovations. As I see it, adaptations are part of the survival mechanism, while innovations result from the drive for improvement, Competition will still be a factor, but not the only one.-I'm just presenting Denton. You are correct, competition must arbitrate to some degree.-> 
> DAVID: Now I'm returning to Denton and language. [...] all very young children come with a language construction guide within their brains [...]
> dhw: Perhaps in the same way all weaverbirds come with a nest guide inherited from their forbears who invented the pattern, just as our forbears invented the language patterns we inherit… -You've neatly skipped over my whole presentation. The complexities of anatomic changes, coupled with basic reorganization of modules in the brain and the establishment of a basic language guide for babies strongly suggests saltation. Early humans, leaving Africa, were scattered all over. Language is thought to have developed in the past 200,000 years, after the scatter. Why are all humans exactly the same in language anatomy and speech itself and babies' language guide?-> 
> dhw: Sparrows, horses, ants and humans are all different in kind and have different languages. Humans have languages which are countless degrees more complex than those of other organisms. “Kind versus degree” is a dead end.-You keep misinterpreting "difference in kind." Degree =s itty-bitty; kind =s giant saltational leap. Adler's whole book point.-> 
> I'm juxtaposing comments now for the sake of clarity:-> dhw: Once the brain establishes a need for a wider variety of sounds, the intelligent cell communities respond by transforming the machinery that makes the sounds.-> DAVID: There is a chicken/egg problem here. How did the brain know there was a need to interpret sounds if the sounds could not yet be made?
> 
> dhw: You have missed the point. The need was not to interpret sounds but to MAKE sounds that would communicate the ever expanding range of subject-matter embraced by our enhanced consciousness. As with all communication among all species, there then has to be agreement that particular sounds and signals correspond to the subject-matter to be communicated (= interpretation).-I disagree. Making sounds and interpreting sounds are two separate things. They require simultaneous changes in brain and anatomy, Denton's point.
 
> dhw: Your own comment: The brain is under our control and command to adapt to our various needs for new areas of activity and new connections.
> 
> This ties in with my hypothesis that cell communities can change themselves (the brain is also a cell community) and cooperate throughout the organism to do so. It explains all the changes you have listed above. (NB: Humans have “extra flexibility”, so other organisms also have flexibility.)-I agree that epigenetics shows minor adaptations, but not the giant leaps required for language.
> 
> DAVID: And no one can find the genes to control this. Now you sound like Denton.-> 
> dhw: Why must we confine ourselves to genes? Language - like thought - is not a material object but a product and a manifestation of consciousness, whose source is unknown.-I just brought up another thought from Denton. Why no genes found for language? He feels this is a reason to consider rearrangement of structure rather than new mutations to do the job. -> dhw: Saltation, as we have agreed over and over again, is fundamental to evolution - an innovation must work or it will not survive. -> DAVID: Please look at the real definition of saltation which is an unexplained sudden advance.
> 
> dhw: I know what saltation is. I am the one who keeps quoting Darwin's “Natura non facit saltum” which we disagree with. My point is that if innovations did not work swiftly (= by jumps), they would not survive.-OK, but the major point is still major unexplained jump. Denton quotes it also. If they didn't survive we wouldn't know about them. -> 
> dhw: I don't know how Denton explains the "rearrangement of primal structures", but since he is an agnostic, I doubt if he would subscribe to your divine computer programme theory, for which there is also no evidence.-Quite correct. He offers no mechanism, but as an agnostic he won't entertain the supernatural.