Originally posted by druidravi
Well what is thinking without language.It is a set of mental images or pictures which are combined to make coherence.Thinking without language does indeed indeed improve your imaginative and visualization capacity.But memory proves a problem, how do you remember numberical quantities.Numerical quantities do play a crucial role in the life. Let us suppose you have five apples.To remember it you must always visualize 5 apples lying next to each other.Now you gain an extra apple.How do you combine them.You do not say 5+1=6 you have to have the mental image of 5 apples then you visualize 1 more apple added to them and now store the updated image in your head.This becomes tougher with bigger lets say 25apples or more complex 5apples,2bananas,3 orangesetc. Visualizing places and distances is also tough.I suppose t0 visualize it man used to have some reference points.A is longer then B which is longer than c than d etc.So whatever distance is to be conveyed it is placed between these reference points.
X lies between b and c ,y is greater than a ,z is less than d.So all distances fall into n+1 categories if you are using n reference points.
You cant say distance is 2a or 3a it is just greater then a.
Public languages shorten these processes because instead of referring to complex visual images you can refer to simple figures and words to convey your feeling,meaning or whatever else.But your imaginative and visualizational poweresses would be sacrificed for the sake of better comprehension.
I suppose man when language was not yet developed fully had the talent to produce exceptional level poetry seeing as his thoughts are literally full of images and sounds instead of dull words.This might also explain how such masterpeices of painting were produced when considering that he had limited equipment available and he drew on stones in the caves instead of our paper nowadays.But on the other hand his comprehension of the world was less as many things he could not understand as he had no way of expressing them.Knowledge would also be less as communication with fellow beings limited to gestures each man would be an island of knowledge.
Interesting point, so what would have caused language in the
first place, if say evolution were true? I guess for that matter
comprehension seems to be quite a leap as well. Did not want
to take away from the other thread, but I don't believe I have
ever seen these discussed anywhere. Maybe someone has either
a theory they would like to share or knows of some they tend
to agree with.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayHey Kelly,
Interesting point, so what would have caused language in the
first place, if say evolution were true? I guess for that matter
comprehension seems to be quite a leap as well. Did not want
to take away from the other thread, but I don't believe I have
ever seen these discussed anywhere. Maybe someone has either
a theory they would like to share or knows of some they tend
to agree with.
Kelly[/b]
It think this is an area where we can rempantly speculate as to cause. For the simple reason that our beginnings are still quite close to our surface. As much as we might like to intellectualize and abstract our origins "Noble Or Savage", the truth is that the same things we need language and communication for today are what caused us to do it as we "began". Or it makes sense to me at least. I think we have maybe "come a long way", but not stepped from the trail too often. Too dangerous.
So why do we use language today? To argue and choose up sides at recess. To argue and choose up sides as nations. To argue and choose up sides in divorce settlements. To argue and choose up sides in sports of all kinds. To argue and choose up sides in scientific debates. To argue and choose up sides over religion. To argue and choose up sides over... everything.
I am seeing a pattern. I'm going out on a limb here and say that we needed to argue and choose up sides. For to do so spread the children from the parents. So that inbreeding wouldn't kill us. Genetic diversity was enhanced a thousand fold by our ability to argue, hate, have a fight and separate "once and for all".
Maybe.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyNeeds really don't have much to do with evolution as I understand
Hey Kelly,
It think this is an area where we can rempantly speculate as to cause. For the simple reason that our beginnings are still quite close to our surface. As much as we might like to intellectualize and abstract our origins "Noble Or Savage", the truth is that the same things we need language and communication for today are what caused us to ...[text shortened]... nd fold by our ability to argue, hate, have a fight and separate "once and for all".
Maybe.
it. It is more of using advantages after the mutations, not what is
required before mutations. So things like communication or language
would have to be after the fact of the necessary mutations giving the
abilities as well as the intellect to know of the need.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWell argued.
Needs really don't have much to do with evolution as I understand
it. It is more of using advantages after the mutations, not what is
required before mutations. So things like communication or language
would have to be after the fact of the necessary mutations giving the
abilities as well as the intellect to know of the need.
Kelly
Lets try the notion then that by learning to yell rudimentary warnings we improved the chance of our offspring to escape into the burrow or the tree... whichever was the case. We are way,way back in time now.
Secondarily would be the "Bee" dance argument. By using gestures and dance or movement we can direct the group to the "resource". Salt. Water. Food. Warmth?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyAll of those presuppose intellect correct? For me that is the
Well argued.
Lets try the notion then that by learning to yell rudimentary warnings we improved the chance of our offspring to escape into the burrow or the tree... whichever was the case. We are way,way back in time now.
Secondarily would be the "Bee" dance argument. By using gestures and dance or movement we can direct the group to the "resource". Salt. Water. Food. Warmth?
highest of the hurtles than signing signals like, "food there"
or the "HEY, something is eating all our kind over here." Since
we are theorizing that our origins began with the all the knowledge
of a cell early on in our time line of existence. Being aware and
feeling the need to share that awareness is a grand leap!
Look at where it is said we started, our humble beginnings of dead
dirt to cellular life, to life with the knowledge required to know it
needs to communicate, to the ability to communicate with one’s
community, and the ability to receive the attempts when they were
first expressed.
Kelly
All of those presuppose intellect correct?
No. StarValley called it a "Bee" dance for a reason. Honeybees do it. All animals communicate to some extent.
Even seeing an animal start running really fast communicates danger, and the direction of the danger - some other direction than where the animal is running.
As the associations between actions, sounds, etc and things in the environment became more specific, communication became more refined, until it became language.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou got my point exactly!
[b]All of those presuppose intellect correct?
No. StarValley called it a "Bee" dance for a reason. Honeybees do it. All animals communicate to some extent.
Even seeing an animal start running really fast communicates danger, and the direction of the danger - some other direction than where the animal is running.
As the associations b ...[text shortened]... e environment became more specific, communication became more refined, until it became language.[/b]
It is just that if this model is at all appropriate we must assume a very long and dreary process. What the heck. I'll just come out and say it. Evolution calls for both the hardwiring of instinct and the development and exploitation of our surroundings. Else there seems to be no mechanism to explain our current "pre-abilities" that we are born with. We are born with an ability to learn language. We are not born with the ability to learn and do math. Some are. Most are not. Why is that? Less time on the tree of evolution for the need? Or less universal expression of the advantage of "mathness"?
In any/either case, we must begin somewhere in the assumption that language is so engrained as to be "in our genes". There is no way to explain that the same region of the brain is used in verbal language as with sign language. Language is a reserved part of the evolved brain.
Although there is a good deal of evidence that a great deal of our linguisitic ability is "hardwired" into our brains, i.e., we are evolved in such a way that language is wired in, there is also a good deal of evidence that less-developed linguistic abilities are present in other animals. The name "Steven Pinker" is an obvious place to start looking for some of the evidence.
Another very interesting, informative and even entertaining book that I'd like to recommend is How Monkeys see the World by Dorothy Cheney and Robert Seyfarth. This one is a discussion of a good deal of evidence for both self-awareness and (limited) linguistic ability in vervet monkeys with some side discussions of contrasting abilities in other primates. The book discusses uses of specific "words" by the vervet monkeys in ways that could not be merely instinctive or even "learned" in any simplistic way.
Briefly, the Cheney and Seyfarth book is evidence for the theory of primate intelligence particularly as a social intelligence. That is monkeys and apes display a lot more "intelligence" about their peers than about the rest of the world in general. While we will doubtless never know all the requisite details, data like this is, IMHO, strongly indicative of the general trends that are likely to have produced the linguisitc abilities of Homo sapiens.
Best Regards,
Paul
Originally posted by prnThis again has Monkeys knowing something, it has them being
Although there is a good deal of evidence that a great deal of our linguisitic ability is "hardwired" into our brains, i.e., we are evolved in such a way that language is wired in, there is also a good deal of evidence that less-developed lin ...[text shortened]... guisitc abilities of Homo sapiens.
Best Regards,
Paul
self-aware, it has them taking in some input, and dishing out an
output of sorts with the expressed purpose of getting an idea
across.
If life were simply starting out as chemical reactions, when would
any of this aquiring knowledge, expressing knowledge, with the
intent of accomplishing a purpose start? It really does not matter
if it is the level of intelligence of a human or ape. Even bee's
supposedly have some form of communcation.
Think about your Perl programming, you open files, you close them,
you build hashes and arrays and so on all with a task in mind. You
know that simply seeing information isn't the same thing as being
able to input into a useful form, than you have to deal with the
information as well.
If you were to simply think of chemical reactions in the evolutionary
methods of mutations, what would possibly cause something like this
to first occur. Much like seeing, simply having light available does not
in any fashion automatically mean something without the ability to
take in light and process it correctly will aquire all of those abilities
and do so in a manner that makes light useful.
Kelly
If life were simply starting out as chemical reactions, when would
any of this aquiring knowledge, expressing knowledge, with the
intent of accomplishing a purpose start?
I think it probably happened like this:
As soon as the first nucleic acid polymers formed the acquiring of "information" began. This information was in the same form as it is in our DNA today - sequences of nucleotides in the nucleic acid polymer. They could reproduce by attracting nucleotides (via simplified versions of the same electrostatic interactions that happen when our DNA reproduces today) and positioning them so that they will spontaneously esterify and polymerize into new RNA molecules.
As the RNA molecules mutated by various events, like chemicals or radiation, some sequences of nucleic acids that were more sturdy or could attract mononucleotides more efficiently started to show up. These single molecules began to outreproduce other RNA molecules. Natural selection began. RNA is just a polymer that forms from a simple esterification of simple chemicals, yet it can reproduce, mutate, and undergo natural selection. This is an experiment a scientist could do, with enough time. Put nucleotide triphosphates together and watch them polymerize. Give them time...a LOT of time...more time than is feasible unless you want to spend millenia maybe, or more...and you'd see these RNA evolve.
As time went on, RNA molecules began to appear that could catalyze chemical reactions. Some became able to form a phospholipid bylayer around them, which allowed them to break off pieces of themselves and keep those pieces nearby. RNA enzymes came into being this way. Now we have a very simple protocell made up of a phospholipid membrane, an RNA template and RNA enzymes, all of which exist because they help the RNA template reproduce.
Etc. etc. etc...
As time went on, animals came into being, and one of the characteristics that developed at some point that helped those animals reproduce was the ability to have a sense of purpose. What is this sense of purpose? Why is it tied to chemistry? I don't know. This is far less of a leap than to say there's a God that you can't explain though. Where did God come from? How does he exist without having to obey the laws of reality that everything else obeys? Where is he? Etc. These are far harder to swallow than the idea that there's a sense of purpose that's somehow tied to chemistry. I mean we know that the mind and chemistry are intimately connected. For example, consider recreational drugs.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHold on now, information was stored in the same way as DNA today?
[b]If life were simply starting out as chemical reactions, when would
any of this aquiring knowledge, expressing knowledge, with the
intent of accomplishing a purpose start?
I think it probably happened like this:
As soon as the first nucleic acid polymers formed the acquiring of "information" began. This information was in the same fo ...[text shortened]... that the mind and chemistry are intimately connected. For example, consider recreational drugs.[/b]
Where was this done, the brain? Simply storing information and
processing information are two completely different things as well.
Having a database and using that database are two completely
different things. So is entering information within a data base, and
so we need to discuss storage, how information was entered to be
stored, how information was processed, how this process was used
to advantage, how expressing the knowledge was done, how it was
received and so on.
You seem to want jump into animals with full systems intact. Sort of
like stacking a deck of cards to get what you want to see out of it isn’t
it? You must keep in mind that with evolution nothing was designed,
everything that supposedly became useful could only happen after it
had mutated into being. So the ability to store information could only
happen after mutation put together a system that would do so like a
brain or something else. The same would have to be true with
entering information within that storage system, so would the system
used to process information, so with the system to do absolutely
everything else in living systems. Moreover, with living systems there
are finite resources, so energy that are used to do anything must be
balanced with all the necessary processes going on keeping the life
functioning.
Again, you bring up millennia maybe, or more... is there anything
you can point to that would avoid millennia so we can study changes
like this outside of someone's imagination?
Kelly