Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?
- Thread starter Flunklesnarkin_sl
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 47,359
- 80,745
Lunis
Blackwing Lair Raider
- 2,284
- 1,517
You nerds ready for a wall of text?
What's the difference between us and all other species that have ever lived? Language seems to be the unanimous answer, or rather the underlying computational operation that allows us to use language. I first learned about this from a few cognitive science courses I took in college, and it's sort of been a pet project of mine to keep up with the technical literature even to this day.
The parts of the brain responsible for language is almost certainly what separates us from the great apes , and if you go back roughly 60,000 years, other hominids. Language is also not for communication, and did not evolve by natural selection. It's sounds very counter-intuitive but it seems to be the case. At least according to one theory of how the mind works that has gained traction by a few notable people. This idea that language is not for communication goes all the back to Aristotle. He argued it was simply an externalization of thought and the fact we communicate our thoughts is a secondary process. Decartes said more or less in the 17th century and Noam Chomsky in the modern period. Interestingly enough, in today's version language is not even the externalization of thought, but rather a thought process in and of itself. Which would mean externalization (speaking) is the secondary process and communication a tertiary process. The evidence, at least from what I've read, seems to point in this direction.
We know homo-sapiens have been around for roughly 200,000 years plus or minus. And according to the archaeological evidence there was no improvement in our making of stone tools, weapons, and cultural artifacts from about 200,000 years ago up until about 60,000 years ago. (You can read about this in work by Ian Tattersall) Then something very special seems to have happened to our species around ~60,000 years ago. There's an explosion of new artifacts, tools, symbolic representations, and various cave drawings - this radical increase is sometimes called The Great Leap Forward by paleontologists. This is also the same window of time when other similar species, like Neanderthal's, went extinct. Which means we lived along side them for at least 140,000 years then either wiped them all out or out-competed them for resources within ~10,000 years after getting this new property. So what was this amazing new property that allowed us to do all of this? Recursion. Or rather the operation that makes use of recursive thinking, called Merge. Merge is the ability to take two concepts already constructed in the mind, combine them to create a third concept, and to be able to keep doing this potentially infinitely. Those of you who took computer science courses probably remember recursive routines and how they work. You can read about it in this very influential paper from 2002 authored by Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky: http://psych.colorado.edu/~kimlab/hauser.chomsky.fitch.science2002.pdf
Merge in a nutshell:
This is the example that Chomsky famously uses. If you have the sentence: Instinctively eagles that fly swim. We instantly all know we asking whether they can swim, not if they can fly. But it's not obvious why that is from a computational perspective, since fly is the closest verb. The reason is that it is the closest verb when you construct the sentence using the Merge operation. Merge gives you a hierarchical structure where each concept can branch off another. And this branching process is potentially infinite because it is generated recursively. Which is why our brains, which are not infinitely large of course, can produce an infinite number of possible sentences.
But notice there was not a gradual increase in symbolic artifacts, it all seems to have happened instantaneously from a evolutionary point of view. Which means that this merge function cannot be the result of natural selection. The only other plausible explanation is that it is the result of some natural law that is not currently known. In the same way a crystal or snowflake forms, they both have very intricate and complex structures but didn't evolve. They are simply the result of natural laws interacting with each other. So at the level of brain circuitry there ought to be a snowflake in there somewhere that resulted from some biological or computational law of nature.
I could keep on going but I'll stop there.
What's the difference between us and all other species that have ever lived? Language seems to be the unanimous answer, or rather the underlying computational operation that allows us to use language. I first learned about this from a few cognitive science courses I took in college, and it's sort of been a pet project of mine to keep up with the technical literature even to this day.
The parts of the brain responsible for language is almost certainly what separates us from the great apes , and if you go back roughly 60,000 years, other hominids. Language is also not for communication, and did not evolve by natural selection. It's sounds very counter-intuitive but it seems to be the case. At least according to one theory of how the mind works that has gained traction by a few notable people. This idea that language is not for communication goes all the back to Aristotle. He argued it was simply an externalization of thought and the fact we communicate our thoughts is a secondary process. Decartes said more or less in the 17th century and Noam Chomsky in the modern period. Interestingly enough, in today's version language is not even the externalization of thought, but rather a thought process in and of itself. Which would mean externalization (speaking) is the secondary process and communication a tertiary process. The evidence, at least from what I've read, seems to point in this direction.
We know homo-sapiens have been around for roughly 200,000 years plus or minus. And according to the archaeological evidence there was no improvement in our making of stone tools, weapons, and cultural artifacts from about 200,000 years ago up until about 60,000 years ago. (You can read about this in work by Ian Tattersall) Then something very special seems to have happened to our species around ~60,000 years ago. There's an explosion of new artifacts, tools, symbolic representations, and various cave drawings - this radical increase is sometimes called The Great Leap Forward by paleontologists. This is also the same window of time when other similar species, like Neanderthal's, went extinct. Which means we lived along side them for at least 140,000 years then either wiped them all out or out-competed them for resources within ~10,000 years after getting this new property. So what was this amazing new property that allowed us to do all of this? Recursion. Or rather the operation that makes use of recursive thinking, called Merge. Merge is the ability to take two concepts already constructed in the mind, combine them to create a third concept, and to be able to keep doing this potentially infinitely. Those of you who took computer science courses probably remember recursive routines and how they work. You can read about it in this very influential paper from 2002 authored by Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky: http://psych.colorado.edu/~kimlab/hauser.chomsky.fitch.science2002.pdf
Merge in a nutshell:
This is the example that Chomsky famously uses. If you have the sentence: Instinctively eagles that fly swim. We instantly all know we asking whether they can swim, not if they can fly. But it's not obvious why that is from a computational perspective, since fly is the closest verb. The reason is that it is the closest verb when you construct the sentence using the Merge operation. Merge gives you a hierarchical structure where each concept can branch off another. And this branching process is potentially infinite because it is generated recursively. Which is why our brains, which are not infinitely large of course, can produce an infinite number of possible sentences.
But notice there was not a gradual increase in symbolic artifacts, it all seems to have happened instantaneously from a evolutionary point of view. Which means that this merge function cannot be the result of natural selection. The only other plausible explanation is that it is the result of some natural law that is not currently known. In the same way a crystal or snowflake forms, they both have very intricate and complex structures but didn't evolve. They are simply the result of natural laws interacting with each other. So at the level of brain circuitry there ought to be a snowflake in there somewhere that resulted from some biological or computational law of nature.
I could keep on going but I'll stop there.
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
reavor
I'm With HER ♀
- 5,153
- 17,832
If you're going to discuss natural selection and brain then there's no point in citing natural philosophers and linguists, it's all biology (or if you want to get serious, chemistry and physics). Everything a human does is a result of natural selection. Every part of your brain that pertains to language and everything else is the result of evolution and natural selection. Language is 100% a result of natural selection working on communication, and the misdirection of communication (lying) and figuring out those misdirections. Externalizing thoughts through vocalization would be pointless unless they were for others to hear.
- 2
Elminage
N00b
- 55
- 21
ZyyzYzzy
RIP USA
- 25,295
- 48,789
Dumbest fucking thing ever posted here.You nerds ready for a wall of text?
What's the difference between us and all other species that have ever lived? Language seems to be the unanimous answer, or rather the underlying computational operation that allows us to use language. I first learned about this from a few cognitive science courses I took in college, and it's sort of been a pet project of mine to keep up with the technical literature even to this day.
The parts of the brain responsible for language is almost certainly what separates us from the great apes , and if you go back roughly 60,000 years, other hominids. Language is also not for communication, and did not evolve by natural selection. It's sounds very counter-intuitive but it seems to be the case. At least according to one theory of how the mind works that has gained traction by a few notable people. This idea that language is not for communication goes all the back to Aristotle. He argued it was simply an externalization of thought and the fact we communicate our thoughts is a secondary process. Decartes said more or less in the 17th century and Noam Chomsky in the modern period. Interestingly enough, in today's version language is not even the externalization of thought, but rather a thought process in and of itself. Which would mean externalization (speaking) is the secondary process and communication a tertiary process. The evidence, at least from what I've read, seems to point in this direction.
We know homo-sapiens have been around for roughly 200,000 years plus or minus. And according to the archaeological evidence there was no improvement in our making of stone tools, weapons, and cultural artifacts from about 200,000 years ago up until about 60,000 years ago. (You can read about this in work by Ian Tattersall) Then something very special seems to have happened to our species around ~60,000 years ago. There's an explosion of new artifacts, tools, symbolic representations, and various cave drawings - this radical increase is sometimes called The Great Leap Forward by paleontologists. This is also the same window of time when other similar species, like Neanderthal's, went extinct. Which means we lived along side them for at least 140,000 years then either wiped them all out or out-competed them for resources within ~10,000 years after getting this new property. So what was this amazing new property that allowed us to do all of this? Recursion. Or rather the operation that makes use of recursive thinking, called Merge. Merge is the ability to take two concepts already constructed in the mind, combine them to create a third concept, and to be able to keep doing this potentially infinitely. Those of you who took computer science courses probably remember recursive routines and how they work. You can read about it in this very influential paper from 2002 authored by Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky: http://psych.colorado.edu/~kimlab/hauser.chomsky.fitch.science2002.pdf
Merge in a nutshell:
This is the example that Chomsky famously uses. If you have the sentence: Instinctively eagles that fly swim. We instantly all know we asking whether they can swim, not if they can fly. But it's not obvious why that is from a computational perspective, since fly is the closest verb. The reason is that it is the closest verb when you construct the sentence using the Merge operation. Merge gives you a hierarchical structure where each concept can branch off another. And this branching process is potentially infinite because it is generated recursively. Which is why our brains, which are not infinitely large of course, can produce an infinite number of possible sentences.
But notice there was not a gradual increase in symbolic artifacts, it all seems to have happened instantaneously from a evolutionary point of view. Which means that this merge function cannot be the result of natural selection. The only other plausible explanation is that it is the result of some natural law that is not currently known. In the same way a crystal or snowflake forms, they both have very intricate and complex structures but didn't evolve. They are simply the result of natural laws interacting with each other. So at the level of brain circuitry there ought to be a snowflake in there somewhere that resulted from some biological or computational law of nature.
I could keep on going but I'll stop there.
Congratulations
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 47,359
- 80,745
I can't tell which sentence is more fucked up, or if Chomsky and Lunis think I'm a chimp because I don't know why eagles are swimming around.
Sorry Lunis, good post but I'm no good at combining linguistics, anthropology and philosophy.
- 1
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 47,359
- 80,745
ZyyzYzzy
RIP USA
- 25,295
- 48,789
khorum
Murder Apologist
- 24,338
- 81,363
You nerds ready for a wall of text?
What's the difference between us and all other species that have ever lived? Language seems to be the unanimous answer, or rather the underlying computational operation that allows us to use language. I first learned about this from a few cognitive science courses I took in college, and it's sort of been a pet project of mine to keep up with the technical literature even to this day.
The parts of the brain responsible for language is almost certainly what separates us from the great apes , and if you go back roughly 60,000 years, other hominids. Language is also not for communication, and did not evolve by natural selection. It's sounds very counter-intuitive but it seems to be the case. At least according to one theory of how the mind works that has gained traction by a few notable people. This idea that language is not for communication goes all the back to Aristotle. He argued it was simply an externalization of thought and the fact we communicate our thoughts is a secondary process. Decartes said more or less in the 17th century and Noam Chomsky in the modern period. Interestingly enough, in today's version language is not even the externalization of thought, but rather a thought process in and of itself. Which would mean externalization (speaking) is the secondary process and communication a tertiary process. The evidence, at least from what I've read, seems to point in this direction.
We know homo-sapiens have been around for roughly 200,000 years plus or minus. And according to the archaeological evidence there was no improvement in our making of stone tools, weapons, and cultural artifacts from about 200,000 years ago up until about 60,000 years ago. (You can read about this in work by Ian Tattersall) Then something very special seems to have happened to our species around ~60,000 years ago. There's an explosion of new artifacts, tools, symbolic representations, and various cave drawings - this radical increase is sometimes called The Great Leap Forward by paleontologists. This is also the same window of time when other similar species, like Neanderthal's, went extinct. Which means we lived along side them for at least 140,000 years then either wiped them all out or out-competed them for resources within ~10,000 years after getting this new property. So what was this amazing new property that allowed us to do all of this? Recursion. Or rather the operation that makes use of recursive thinking, called Merge. Merge is the ability to take two concepts already constructed in the mind, combine them to create a third concept, and to be able to keep doing this potentially infinitely. Those of you who took computer science courses probably remember recursive routines and how they work. You can read about it in this very influential paper from 2002 authored by Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky: http://psych.colorado.edu/~kimlab/hauser.chomsky.fitch.science2002.pdf
Merge in a nutshell:
This is the example that Chomsky famously uses. If you have the sentence: Instinctively eagles that fly swim. We instantly all know we asking whether they can swim, not if they can fly. But it's not obvious why that is from a computational perspective, since fly is the closest verb. The reason is that it is the closest verb when you construct the sentence using the Merge operation. Merge gives you a hierarchical structure where each concept can branch off another. And this branching process is potentially infinite because it is generated recursively. Which is why our brains, which are not infinitely large of course, can produce an infinite number of possible sentences.
But notice there was not a gradual increase in symbolic artifacts, it all seems to have happened instantaneously from a evolutionary point of view. Which means that this merge function cannot be the result of natural selection. The only other plausible explanation is that it is the result of some natural law that is not currently known. In the same way a crystal or snowflake forms, they both have very intricate and complex structures but didn't evolve. They are simply the result of natural laws interacting with each other. So at the level of brain circuitry there ought to be a snowflake in there somewhere that resulted from some biological or computational law of nature.
I could keep on going but I'll stop there.
See that stuff is why I preferred the Rick and Morty version...
- 2
Lunis
Blackwing Lair Raider
- 2,284
- 1,517
A very well thought out refutation of what I wrote.
This is incorrect. Not everything is the result of natural selection in the evolutionary process; there is sexual selection, exaptation, genetic drift, and plenty more. And like I said, the archaeological evidence points to a sudden shift in human cognition and not a gradual change. I cited the work of Ian Tattersall who is one of the most well known paleontologists in the field. And many evolutionary biologists have argued there is much more going on in the evolutionary process than natural selection, like Stephen Jay Gould.
If you actually read about it instead of pontificating you'll find that our sensory-motor system has pretty much been the same for hundreds of thousands of years. Which means the problem of externalization had already been solved before the language faculty first appeared. In fact, speaking isn't even necessary, any sensory modality seems to work except maybe smell. Touch and sign use the same linguistic abilities as speech; in fact in sign can you use many things in parallel where speech has to use linear order.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
ZyyzYzzy
RIP USA
- 25,295
- 48,789
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 47,359
- 80,745
ZyyzYzzy
RIP USA
- 25,295
- 48,789
The fact that he listed that seperate from natural selection further illustrates he has no idea what the hell he is talking about.
- 2
Sentagur
Low and to the left
- 3,825
- 7,937
Are you saying that "sexual selection, exaptation, genetic drift, and plenty more" are NOT part of natural evolutionary process?
- 1
Sentagur
Low and to the left
- 3,825
- 7,937
Mea Culpa, carry on good ser!
Lunis
Blackwing Lair Raider
- 2,284
- 1,517
I think ZyyzYzzy didn't even complete a biology course in high school.
Natural selection, sexual selection, exaptations, etc. are distinct from one another. Open any advanced textbook in biology. And yes they are all apart of the 'natural' evolutionary process. No one argues every single trait of every species is the result of natural selection; not even Steven Pinker. You are simply very confused about what the evolutionary process actually is.
Natural selection, sexual selection, exaptations, etc. are distinct from one another. Open any advanced textbook in biology. And yes they are all apart of the 'natural' evolutionary process. No one argues every single trait of every species is the result of natural selection; not even Steven Pinker. You are simply very confused about what the evolutionary process actually is.
- 1