More Denton: A new book; language (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, March 18, 2016, 17:00 (3172 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: As regards saltation, this remains controversial:-Did Neandertals have language? | Max Planck Society www.mpg.de/7448453/Neandertals-language
DAVID: Not controversial to me. McCrone describes speech probabilities in earlier ancestors before Neanderthal based on anatomy.-Controversy entails different opinions. The MP Society folk have different opinions from yours and McCrone's.-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.
DAVID: 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. -You seem to think that before homo sapiens came along, our ancestors could not communicate! Even different animal sounds are known to have different meanings. When did meaningful sounds turn into what you are calling “speech”, and how do you define the difference? The beginning of speech is complete speculation.-dhw: [My point 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).
DAVID: 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.-Hold on, hold on! Syntax and grammar are not invariant at all. Each language does have its own “arrangements”, even if there are similarities between some of them - often through common roots. (If you can tell me what grammatical structures Chomsky's so-called "Universal Grammar" consists of, you know more about language than I do.) Personally, I would suspect that when humans first began to “speak”, there was no syntax and no grammar. Language evolves, and there is no equilibrium to be punctuated. Each neologism is a “saltation”. Yes of course there is direction: we humans direct the evolution of our languages. As for exact coordination of anatomic and neural development, once again you emphasize planning because you are desperate to bring God into every evolutionary advancement. If (as good a hypothesis as any) your God gave organisms the means of making their own advancements, the cell communities themselves - including those of the brain - would have done the directing. -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.
DAVID: 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.-The confusion is entirely yours. You wrote that “degree =s itty-bitty; kind =s giant saltational leap. Adler's whole book point”. Clearly gradualism versus saltation was NOT Adler's whole point. In the context of all our discussions, degree = the level or amount of something; kind = the nature of something. If you disagree, please give me your definition of each term. You and Adler emphasize that our minds are different in nature from those of other animals. But all species (broad sense) have minds that are different in nature. You have agreed that at least some animals have a lesser degree of consciousness than our own. My argument is that our minds are different in kind because we have far greater levels of consciousness (degree), which enable us to explore far more fields (degree) than our fellow animals can explore. Our minds are different in kind (as are those of all species) AND degree, which makes kind versus degree a non-argument, unless you disagree with my definitions. It is our huge mental superiority that you think is proof of some kind of special creation, whereas I see it as a natural progression from the animal mind, precisely because of our greater degrees of consciousness. You actually believe God specially created ALL minds anyway, since you think he devised a 3.8-billion-year programme for every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder! 
 
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.

DAVID: Now you are telling me those 'cell communities' 'know' they must cooperate. Really? What instructs them?-I am telling you they DO cooperate. You tell me they cooperate because of your God's 3.8-billion-year computer programme for every single act of cooperation throughout the history of evolution. I am suggesting to you that they cooperate because they are intelligent enough to do so, and it may be that your God gave them their intelligence.