Different in degree or kind: Egnor's take (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, October 02, 2016, 16:47 (2761 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The changes we are discussing are to lips, tongue, larynx, respiration - i.e. to organs that already existed and which would have worked together cooperatively to create the system enabling new sounds. According to your hypothesis, God dipped in and made precisely those changes, and then for some reason humans waited tens of thousands of years before finding out what to do with them.-DAVID: Not true and I've said so. McCrone's book discusses how H. habilis spoke. Of course they used a new anatomy right at the beginning and learned how to use it to the best advantage.-Originally you wrote: “the anatomic changes…were present 200,000 years in H. sapiens before language is thought to have appeared 50,000 years ago. The evidence is strong that anatomy preceded language suggesting pre-planning in evolution by God.” I pointed out the illogicality of such thinking and you then changed your tune: “Of course it was used 200,000 years ago and gradually organized language and its rules developed.” That was and is MY argument! Where is the "strong" evidence of pre-planning if there is no such time lag? But I say the changes resulted from and did not cause the need, just like fins turning into legs:-dhw: QUOTE: " 'Until this discovery, we weren't able to see the changes by which the pelvic fins of the fish became much larger and more robust, and gradually turned into the tetrapod hind limb.' " (My bold)-DAVID: Again, blithely skipping the gaps in phenotype in human fossils which include the vocal tracts. One can only speak with what is provided. Habilis speach not the same as Erectus speech.-Again blithely skipping the evidence that new conditions lead to organisms' developing new structures, as beautifully illustrated in the fin example. Why are you now talking about habilis and erectus? The oldest known sapiens fossils are about 200,000 years old, in keeping with your first post. It may well be that other human species spoke differently. So what? How does that prove that their efforts to talk did not change the vocal tracts, just as fishy efforts to walk changed fins to legs?-DAVID: The big brain arrived as a tabula rasa and then was developed to its current state by humans learning to use it. Speech is the same. Anatomy first!-dhw: For a dualist like yourself, this is a complete contradiction. The receiver would have to develop to meet the demands of the transmitter - enhanced consciousness. And enhanced consciousness requires enhanced expression: thought first, speech organs second.
DAVID: Did you forget brain plasticity. Just like having to tune a radio to a station, humans had to develop the ability in their new-sized brain to receive consciousness. Both habilis and erectus did part of the job. And vocal tract changes developed along with the larger brain changes.-Yes indeed, if your dualism is correct: The new-sized brain did not give rise to consciousness or to consciousness's need to express itself. Consciousness gave rise to the new brain and the new tracts. The need changes the anatomy; the changed anatomy does not create the need.