« The Lamps Are Going Out All Over Our Town... | Main | Soccer: Italy, Ha, Ha, Ha »

11/12/2017

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

TheBigHenry

"I'm not going to get into that because I've already gone on too long already."

Not to mention repetition :)

Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

What you report here is similar to what I am reading in Daniel C. Dennett's "From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds", which also mentions both Chomsky and Searle, a thinker who "insists that there can be no genuine comprehension without consciousness." Dennett's book is an extended argument involving evolutionary theory. I hope I can follow the argument with just a 140-character attention span.

Charles N.Steele

Are you familiar with Julian Jaynes book "Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind?" It's all highly speculative, but one thing he refers to is "aptic structure." It's a an inherent capability or potential one has, but it must be developed by learning. Humans have sufficient brain development (are smart enough) to understand language and humans have vocal organs suitable for language -- those are aptic structures. But language itself is an accretion of knowledge developed and passed on over generations. Language involves the development of concepts, symbols for concepts, and rules or patterns for organizing those symbols to generate new concepts.

Humans have this. I'll not try to prove it, but other species can handle at least some human language, but haven't the aptic structure for vocalizing our language. If so, this refutes Chomsky's "mutation" theory.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/animal-minds/virginia-morell-text

The hard thing about all this is conceptualization, not language. Can an individual, human or not human, grasp a concept? IMO, there's spectrum of ability to handle abstractions, and non-humans exhibit varying degrees of being able to grasp human concepts, with some members of some species proving more adept than one might presuppose. They have the brains for it, to one extent or another (that particular aptic structure).

But for concept formation, language provides a tool for forming more concepts, and more complicated concepts, and passing them on. I don't mean anything like the Whorf hypothesis, where language defines the limits to one's ability to form concepts, but language is an accelerant for concept formation. Other species don't have the aptic structure -- our ability to vocalize, and later, to write -- for that.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

November 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    
Blog powered by Typepad

My Books