More Denton: A new book; language (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, March 17, 2016, 15:14 (3173 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: As regards saltation, this remains controversial:
> 	Did Neandertals have language? | Max Planck Society www.mpg.de/7448453/Neandertals-language-Not controversial to me. McCrone describes speech probabilities in earlier ancestors before Neanderthal based on anatomy.-> dhw: We have no way of knowing how early language developed, but my proposal - that the need for expression gave rise to the anatomical changes and not the other way round - allows both for jumps and for a gradual accumulation.-You are forgetting that speech appeared only after the brain enlarged to allow for all the modules (Denton's word) necessary for language in all of its forms, written, spoken, heard. I agree that anatomic changes and language modules must develop together somehow, but remember each human ancestor appears without the tiny Darwin steps. Still looks directed to me.
> 
> DAVID: Why are all humans exactly the same in language anatomy and speech itself and babies' language guide?
> 
> dhw: What do you mean by “humans”?-We only really know sapiens. That is what I meant. -> dhw: Mine [point], once more, is that enhanced consciousness led to the need for wider expression, and that applies to all “humans”. Consequently the brain “retuned” itself together with the cell communities associated with expression (the anatomical changes). The fact that this is common to scattered communities is logical, since they would all have had the same needs (“convergent” evolution).-The exact coordination of anatomic and neural development requires planning. I see a directive force again. If syntax and grammar are invariant and human ancestor groups are isolated, why doesn't punctuated equilibrium apply resulting in several types of language arrangements. There is only one. Again I see direction.-> dhw:I still don't understand why anyone would expect language genes. Since Denton apparently offers no explanation for the restructuring, his observations - as you report them - don't seem to take us very far. But perhaps there is more to come.-No there isn't, but since everything else is run by information in genes, Denton's observation is a valid thought.
> 
> dhw: From all your previous references, I thought you and Adler were trying to tell us that the human mind was so totally different “in kind” from the animal mind that it was somehow proof of God's existence and we must have been specially made by God.-Exactly right. You are the one who was making confusing references to 'degree' and 'kind'. Of course we are different in kind from elephants, but that has never been the point, but one you keep raising.-> DAVID: I disagree. Making sounds and interpreting sounds are two separate things. They require simultaneous changes in brain and anatomy, Denton's point.
> 
> dhw: What do you disagree with? I have shown that they are separate, but the point of language is communication, and so the sounds and the interpretation must be linked. That is the reason why the changes in brain and anatomy must be simultaneous! -Full agreement!-> dhw: The same applies to all innovations: the cell communities must cooperate, whether programmed to do so by your God or making their own autonomous decisions.-Now you are telling me those 'cell communities' 'know' they must cooperate. Really? What instructs them?