Intelligent Design

by Delta20 234 Replies latest watchtower bible

seattleniceguy

Hi Craig,
Good to see you again, too! Did you get a chance to read the articles? It seemed from your response like perhaps you had only skimmed them.
I submit the opposite: Children are supplied with their grammar and language, dictated by the terms and conditions of their cultural environment (read especially parents), and are thus slaves to the thought processes imposed upon them from without, and without their awareness.
That would certainly be more intuitive. But I think the evidence indicates the contrary. This can be seen especially in the case of pidgins (not to be confused with the full-fledged language that is commonly called Pidgin English, from the Solomon Islands), Pidgins are "language salads" that do not contain grammatical constructs necessary for a precision of communication. They are formed when adults speaking many different languages are forced to live or work together. Children born into such language environments actually introduce new grammatical features where none existed before. The resulting language, which does contain a full-fledged grammar, is called a creole.
The most striking example of a language being born from thin air is the arisal in only 30 years of a fully-formed language among deaf children in Nicaragua. In this case, each successive generation of children compacted, stylized, and elaborated the language that they saw their slightly-older peers speaking (signing). It is now expressive enough to enable any type of communication a person might need to do, including descriptions of surreal scenes, poetry, histories, and so on. This indicates that language exists because the human mind is not content with imprecise expression mechanisms: if there are no satisfactory means to express something, a population will invent them.
Another example of grammar being invented out of necessity can be seen in the changes that occurred in English about 600 years ago. A pronunciation change occurred that resulted in significantly less information being conveyed in sound. Since it was no longer possible to discriminate parts of speech based solely on pronunciation, English evolved the unusual feature it has now of requiring a more-or-less set word order. My second link talks about that.
Pinker believes that grammar is invented again and again, generation after generation, by children. If existing constructs are sufficient, the grammar is changed only slightly as it is discovered and assimilated by children. However, if the existing constructs do not enable sufficient levels of precision, children supply new ones, as is seen when languages evolve from pidgins to creoles, often in one or two generations. Thus, the evidence is that if ever we were to raise a population of humans with no language whatsoever and drop them onto an isolated island, they would recover full human language in a few generations.
This is a gloss, but there is really good evidence for this stuff. If you enjoy the recaps on my blog, I think you'd really enjoy Pinker's book.
SNG
ellderwho

Alan F writes: ellderwho said:
: I did? Logic was brought up on pg. 4 or 5.
Yes, you certainly did bring up the subject. While funkyderek first mentioned "the laws of logic", you said in response:
: Pole, Derek how would you account for the laws of logic?

Derek: OK. We've been talking at cross-purposes then. It's certainly conceivable that there's a complex invisible creator outside our universe that is not detectable in any way nor subject to the laws of our own universe nor even laws of logic.

Page 5 17-Feb-05 11:43
DDog asks him this: derek
What are the laws of logic and where did they come from?

:My question to you obviously was to define "the laws of logic" that you think need to be accounted for.
:Again, define your terms. What do you think "universal standards of rationality" are? Give some examples.
The standards of opposites like, up and down, hot and cold.
: If you don't answer these simple questions, then I have no choice to conclude that you're not interested in a discussion, and I will cease talking to you.
Maybe Derek has a better explanation?
Pole

It's one of those egg-or-chicken dualisms. Does the language shape the cuture or does the culture shape the language? Well, that depends on the level of analysis. It seems to work both ways. To some extent both SNG and onacruse are right, although I'm not entirely sure what the disagreement is precisely.
SNG,
That would certainly be more intuitive. But I think the evidence indicates the contrary. This can be seen especially in the case of pidgins (not to be confused with the full-fledged language that is commonly called Pidgin English, from the Solomon Islands), Pidgins are "language salads" that do not contain grammatical constructs necessary for a precision of communication. They are formed when adults speaking many different languages are forced to live or work together. Children born into such language environments actually introduce new grammatical features where none existed before. The resulting language, which does contain a full-fledged grammar, is called a creole.
Good point, but actually, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "grammar"? And you shouldn't forget that the creol is considerably dependent on the pidgin that gave rise to it. So there is a lot of liguistic determinism involved even in those cases.
One of the theories which attempts to account for the duality in question at the neuro-linguistic level is the Language Acquistion Device theory (40+ years old now - it has lost much of its original appeal): each child is born with an inborn Universal Grammar which is generic enough to develop into any natural language system. But which natural language it will develop into depends on the culture the child is born into.
The most striking example of a language being born from thin air is the arisal in only 30 years of a fully-formed language among deaf children in Nicaragua.
Ahhh. Language is never born from thin air. There must be some stimulation and interaction before the clinically established "critical period" (between 6 and 12). In other words the hypothetical Language Acquistion Device always need an activating stimulus which in turn shapes the exact form of the language.
Pole
Narkissos

Pole,
In "hyperspace" I can count two live metaphors from the 3D world...

I'm not sure if I get it. Could you elaborate?

Well... "space" comes from our conceptualisation, i.e. mental analysis and reconstruction, of our experiential environment as 3D (length, width, height/depth).
And "hyper" is also a spatial metaphor, up or above, indicating surpassing or overcoming (in that case, the 3D).
"Hyperspace" is the multiplication of two metaphors coming from our description of reality; it projects us into a fictional, yet analogical universe. Not so different from the worlds of mythology or theology or Sci-Fi IMHO. I can invent and describe a virtual world and its rules, but I can't make it exist outside language (in the broadest sense of the term).
DDog,
As AlanF repeatedly pointed out, the "laws of logic" Ellderwho referred to have not been defined. What you describe I would not call logic, only reproduction of an observed phenomenon (which we would analyse as cause and effect). It doesn't take a homo sapiens to use a gun (not design and make it), a homo abilis could do it, or a monkey for that matter, provided he has seen it work a number of times. I wouldn't call that logic, but perhaps Ellderwho would (wait and see!).
Provisionally, by logic I understand the formalisation of "truth" (which implies some adequation of words with phenomena) in human language.
seattleniceguy

Hello Pole,
I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "grammar"?
I mean the underlying set of rules that allows speakers to parse, create, and understand sentences.
And you shouldn't forget that the creol is considerably dependent on the pidgin that gave rise to it. So there is a lot of liguistic determinism involved even in those cases.
It is, but the point is that creoles invariably contain grammatical constructs that are entirely absent from the parent pidgin. The constructs are created by children who grow up speaking the pidgin but who require more precise modes of communication than allowed by the current system. The new features ostensibly come from an inborn "universal grammar." Pinker notes that the types of mistakes children make when learning language are often very similar across linguistic boundaries, suggesting that children expect language to work a certain way and have to override those expections in some cases.
I'm familiar with the theory of the Language Acquisition Device. One of the strongest supports of this is that children seem to know things about language despite "poverty of input." As an example, Paul Kiparsky noticed an interesting rule in English: suffixes can be attached to an irregular plural noun, but not a regular plural noun. For example, we can say a house is "mice-infested" (plural mice), but never "rats-infested." In the case of the rat, we must say it is "rat-infested," even though, as Pinker notes, one rat does not make an infestation.
In an experiment to see if children were aware of this rule, linguists showed children pictures of a monster and gave a sentence like this: "Here is a monster who likes to eat mud. He is a...mud-eater." Then they went on to describe other diets to the children and ask the children to say what kind of monster it was. So the next question might be, "This monster likes to eat rats. He is a...." And the children would correctly answer "rat-eater," not "rats-eater." Even children who mistakenly used the plural "mouses" never called the monster a "mouses-eater." But the really interesting thing was when the linguists studied the language such children were exposed to and found that there was little, if any, examples that would lead a child to that rule. So this may be one aspect of the Universal Grammar that is part of a Language Acquisition Device. Once the right switches have been flipped, the child suddenly has a lot of knowledge about his or her language.
Ahhh. Language is never born from thin air. There must be some stimulation and interaction before the clinically established "critical period" (between 6 and 12).
Actually, in this case, it truly was language from nothing. Here's how it worked. In 1979 a new government was formed in Nicaragua and it set up schools for the deaf. Until that time, the deaf had lived isolated from one another so this was the first time that this particular group of children had ever gotten together with other deaf children. At the time, there was no sign language in Nicaragua, but on the playgrounds, the children began communicating with each other by using gestures and pantomimes. This gave rise to a sort of sign pigdin. However, the next generation that came in, aged around four, observed this pidgin and formed new grammatical devices that have become standardized. Pinker says:
Their signing is more fluid and compact, and the gestures are more stylized and less like a pantomime....[The language] has spontaneously standardized itself; all the young children sign it in the same way. The children have introduced many grammatical devices that were absent in LSN [the pidgin], and hence rely less on circumlocutions....[The language contains a device that is] formally identical to inflecting a verb for agreement in spoken languages.
Thus, the language came to exist because of the human desire for the ability to express oneself clearly and precisely, not the other way around. Humans will language into being. The existence of language does not allow us to think; the ability to think causes us to create the means of expression that adequately transmit those thoughts. I certainly agree that having language allows us to formalize and order our thoughts in a way we would have trouble doing without. But the point is that that very desire to order and transmit our thoughts precisely causes us to create language.
That's why I said that a group of language-less adults dropped onto an isolated island would regain language in a few generations. The adults would first form a roughshod pidgin among themselves. Then, their children would hone it into a standardized creole. The grandchildren would harden and flush it out ever more. Voila! New language.
SNG
ellderwho

DDog,
As AlanF repeatedly pointed out, the "laws of logic" Ellderwho referred to have not been defined.

Sure they have, its just not the definition Alan F. wants to tear down.
ellderwho

Alan F.::"Living one's life based on realities that can be observed and/or produce real, observable effects"
EW: Are'nt you relying on logic?
Alan F :I like to think I am.
EW : If so where does this logic come from?
Our brains, which evolved over several million years into the best social computers the world has ever seen, and into excellent survival machines that rely specifically on logically putting those "real, observable effects" into actions that result in survival.
AlanF.......... "freedom to choose God thread"
Whats your definition of logic?
onacruse

SNG:
Good to see you again, too!
Did you get a chance to read the articles? It seemed from your response like perhaps you had only skimmed them.
I read both of them, front to back. Too much to respond to in the context of this db, so I picked out just one particular. Very good info.
I submit the opposite: Children are supplied with their grammar and language, dictated by the terms and conditions of their cultural environment (read especially parents), and are thus slaves to the thought processes imposed upon them from without, and without their awareness.
That would certainly be more intuitive. But I think the evidence indicates the contrary. This can be seen especially in the case of pidgins (not to be confused with the full-fledged language that is commonly called Pidgin English, from the Solomon Islands), Pidgins are "language salads" that do not contain grammatical constructs necessary for a precision of communication. They are formed when adults speaking many different languages are forced to live or work together.
Children born into such language environments actually introduce new grammatical features where none existed before. The resulting language, which does contain a full-fledged grammar, is called a creole.
Therein lies the kicker: From whence do these children introduce "new" grammatical features? Are we talking about a unique feral development? Perhaps, shades of Lord of the Flies?
This indicates that language exists because the human mind is not content with imprecise expression mechanisms: if there are no satisfactory means to express something, a population will invent them.
The essence of "trickle-down." We think we are developing thought structures and correlated languages as a matter of neccesity; God (in terms of this "intelligent design" topic) supposedly did the same. As Pole remarks, it's a chicken-and-egg thing.
AlanF

I give up, ellderwho. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about and I won't waste any more bandwidth with you.
AlanF
Pole

Narkissos,
And "hyper" is also a spatial metaphor, up or above, indicating surpassing or overcoming (in that case, the 3D).
"Hyperspace" is the multiplication of two metaphors coming from our description of reality; it projects us into a fictional, yet analogical universe. Not so different from the worlds of mythology or theology or Sci-Fi IMHO. I can invent and describe a virtual world and its rules, but I can't make it exist outside language (in the broadest sense of the term).
I do realize the prefix "hyper" contains a spatial metaphor just as the whole concept of multidimensionality. I'm just not sure about the similarities between algebraic hyperspace and the world of mythology. Multidimensional hyperspaces are almost exhaustively and rigidly predictable in computational terms. An architect who makes up his geometry as he goes along designing a house won't stay long in the business. The opposite is true with religious thinkers. That the same brain may be used to deal with the two realities is fairly obvious. But only one of them is at least largely predictable a priori which may suggest a different ontological status.
SNG,
I mean the underlying set of rules that allows speakers to parse, create, and understand sentences.
I'm not sure about Pinker's background (he's more a pop-sci linguist, which does not invalidate some of his conclusions), but he may primarily mean syntax. This is a generativist perspective which ignores the huge impact of culture on language and language on culture. If our ability to speak was totally dependant on the LAD then we'd all be speaking more or less the same language - at least gramamtically speaking. To get a more balanced view on the question of what makes language work, I suggest you have a look at the cognitive linguistics approach. Chomsky ignores irony and metaphors and the basics of human conceptualization.
It is, but the point is that creoles invariably contain grammatical constructs that are entirely absent from the parent pidgin. The constructs are created by children who grow up speaking the pidgin but who require more precise modes of communication than allowed by the current system. The new features ostensibly come from an inborn "universal grammar." Pinker notes that the types of mistakes children make when learning language are often very similar across linguistic boundaries, suggesting that children expect language to work a certain way and have to override those expections in some cases.
Again, the "Universal grammar" is not the only game in town :-) - Pinker is basically echoing Noam Chomsky's early views . The creol thing is amazing, but it only happens when the culture you are born into doesn't provide you with with sufficient grammatical constructs to fulfill your communicative needs. Which is why French babies don't make up gramamtical constructs which are missing entirely from French - or at least they do not hold to them for too long :).
Actually, in this case, it truly was language from nothing. Here's how it worked. In 1979 a new government was formed in Nicaragua and it set up schools for the deaf. Until that time, the deaf had lived isolated from one another so this was the first time that this particular group of children had ever gotten together with other deaf children. At the time, there was no sign language in Nicaragua, but on the playgrounds, the children began communicating with each other by using gestures and pantomimes. This gave rise to a sort of sign pigdin. However, the next generation that came in, aged around four, observed this pidgin and formed new grammatical devices that have become standardized. Pinker says:
I think we agree. Perhaps I should have expressed my point clearer, but here is what I actually said:
Ahhh. Language is never born from thin air. There must be some stimulation and interaction before the clinically established "critical period" (between 6 and 12). In other words the hypothetical Language Acquistion Device always need an activating stimulus which in turn shapes the exact form of the language.
In the case you desctibed there was an activating stimulus: the children were brought together and allowed to interact. There are real examples of people who were held in isolation from birth to the age of 15 and more. They were never able to master any language after reaching the critical age. Just as you will never learn to speak Portugese like a native speaker, you old bastard (sorry that's Gumby's expression) .
That's why I said that a group of language-less adults dropped onto an isolated island would regain language in a few generations. The adults would first form a roughshod pidgin among themselves. Then, their children would hone it into a standardized creole. The grandchildren would harden and flush it out ever more. Voila! New language.
Yep. So we have the LAD, but we also have a group of interacting people set in particular circumstances. If it was a tropical island, would they ever develop the concept of snow? Or is there some determinism involved anyway?
Pole

Intelligent Design

Share this