If you’re trying to help StreetlightX derail your own thread you’ve pretty much succeeded. Kind of sad, but such is the nature of online forums. — I like sushi
And when the specifics amount to "it was probs for navigation or something", that's not science, that's beer room speculation over a bong. — StreetlightX
I’m very interested in how we distinguish between general communication and language. — I like sushi
Thank you. Hardly a "war," though. (For it to be a war, you need an opponent of some kind. StreetlightX is still stuck in intellectual adolescence -- the type that'll call Aristotle an "idiot" for such-and-such a reason. I don't take that seriously.)
But I'm glad my responses prove interesting to the others who are reading this thread -- that was my hope. — Xtrix
Premises:
1) Language is not communication.
2) Only human beings have a capacity for language.
Implication: human beings dominate Earth.
Does the implication sound familiar?
Is anyone triggered by it?
Is anyone surprised that it generates controversy?
Who holds the majority opinion regarding soundness?
Does it boil down to belief? — Galuchat
To be fair, I don't think StreetlightX is an intellectual adolescent — Galuchat
It seems Chomsky was trying to connect the idea that the FLN may have been an exaptation that allowed for a number of "mental" capabilities that carried over to language abilities. The implication is that tying the FLN to an origin just in communication would be an error and to "take the bait" of mistaking the consequence for its cause. — schopenhauer1
Well the cause might be something like a FLN and the reason for the FLN might be factors such as tool-making and more complex social awareness. — schopenhauer1
Whatever happened, it had to be useful enough to spread in the community. That's a given, otherwise we wouldn't be here -- whatever the story. As to what selective advantage this had, yes those are all good suggestions. — Xtrix
I find that to be a very poor basis to work from. I’m not denying that recursion is important but surely there is more. — I like sushi
Personally I find the idea of an innate faculty of language to be a useful distinction for investigation. Both sides of the argument have weight, butI cannot see either as being exclusively ‘true’ unless it is framed in a very specific manner. — I like sushi
The most fascinating cases I have seen in this area is still ‘The Man with no Language’, feral children and Piraha. — I like sushi
There's no one serious out there that believes the faculty of language in humans isn't innate. No one. It's like arguing the visual system isn't innate. Of course there's a genetic component to language, unless we're angels. There isn't "both sides" to this argument any more than there's two sides to the whether the earth is spherical. — Xtrix
In what area? — Xtrix
I meant it may not be a faculty that is ‘language specific’. Meaning that ‘language’ may just be a spin-off of other systems. — I like sushi
Linguistics. What else? — I like sushi
That "it" may not be a faculty that is language specific: what's the "it" refer to? There's no question other systems are involved in language. — Xtrix
If this is what's most fascinating to you, I'd recommend first learning something more about linguistics. It doesn't fascinate you that language is structure-dependent? It's not fascinating how quickly children acquire language? That we're the only species that can acquire language? That it's been attempted to teach primates sign language (remember Nim Chimpsky)? — Xtrix
The point was that ‘language’ may not be the primary function. Chomsky himself practically admits this when he talks about Music or some other capacity. The neural basis maybe due to another primary faculty with ‘language’ piggybacking. — I like sushi
The case of the man with no language holds no interest for you? Not willing to speculate? — I like sushi
It wasn’t a scientific study it was one woman ignoring (not knowing) that it was apparently ‘impossible’ to teach someone a language after adolescence - according to linguists. If the story isn’t fabricated then it backs up Chomsky’s position perhaps? — I like sushi
There have been plenty of studies into Piraha so to claim there is no science there is plain bloody-minded. Linguistics is a very young ‘science’. There is no conclusive evidence for a lack of ‘recursion’ within that language to date - that is the point of being scientific rather than dismissive. — I like sushi
I side with the view that language is at least mostly an innate faculty, but I’m not entirely convinced that language is really worth looking at as some ‘separate’ function of human cognition. — I like sushi
The function of language has always been thought to be for communication, as you know. I just think that's completely wrong, which is where this thread started. — Xtrix
I may have missed it (I’ve realised my reading of posts is a bit dodgy at times) but if it’s not communication then what is it? — Brett
It seems to have different uses: enquiring, confirming, emoting. — Brett
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.