Intelligent Design

by Delta20 234 Replies latest watchtower bible

Pole

SNG,
Yes, I understand that critical acquisition period. But the first part of your quote above almost seems almost silly. I take it as a given that 99.9999% of humans live in contact with other humans. So interaction is a given. The children were certainly not exposed to language - the point is that each generation created what did not exist before. But I think we are in agreement here. A single person in isolation would not create language. Again, to me this seems like a silly point, except for the fact that the poor guy would be deprived of a great tool for organizing and ordering his own thoughts.
Leolaia has already questioned the supposed novelty of the Nicaraguan case. I don't know much about it, but I know Pinker has a generativist agenda (well every inguist has one) so I'd follow Leolaia's advice in this regard. I guess I'd have to study the case to say anything more, so I acknowledge the info you've given and I'll try to look into it and see if it has any bearing on my current views. Thanks. As for my point about some cases where there is no interaction - I think statistically speaking it's just about as significant as the case of "creating languages from scratch". And it brings some insights which are relevant to langauge acquisition and the critical period hypothesis. In other words this point is as "silly" or as anegdotal as teh case of Nicaraguan children. (99.9999% if any langauages are not created out of thin air) I'll try to find a description of such a case and paste it here to clarify my point.
If it was a tropical island, would they ever develop the concept of snow? Or is there some determinism involved anyway?
I really don't think this is a function of language. Let's say this tropical tribe has no word for snow, since they've never seen it and never spoken to anyone else who has seen it. Does this lack of vocabulary constrain their ability to think of snowy scenes? Or is it the mere fact that they haven't seen snow that constrains them? If one unusual day a tropical snowstorm dumps a meter of snow on the island, will the islanders somehow be disadvantaged in their ability to comprehend it? Or will they not rather invent new words for the new phenomena at that moment?
That's one of the biggest misconceptions of early Chomskian linguistics. No, the literal meanings may not be such a problem, but if you look at any language you'll see that any abstract meaning is based on some culture specific metaphor. It's a ubiquitous phenomenon. It renders the apparent formal equivalence between the grammars of any two languages useless.
The fallacy involved is best illustrated when you make an attempt to translate a piece of text such as the Bible into the language of, say, the Eskimo Indians. If Jesus if the Lamb of God in a MIddle Eastern culture, what will he become in the Eskimo culture? The "Seal of God"? Will such a translation really have the same connotative meaning?
I consider vocabulary to be fairly divorced from the low-level engine that enables language. Words are just snap-in data components. Obviously, the more real-world knowledge you have, the more easily you will be able to create metaphor to describe other concepts.
Contrary to what first Bloomfield and then Chomsky made one of their basic premises, the lexicon (vocabulary) is not just a repository of arbitrary irregularities and idosyncracies. It is extremely systematic, but it's systematicity reflects human cognition, and that's why generative armchair linguists tend to discredit it altogether. I totally disagree with this view of the lexicon. It's out of keeping with all the emiprircal research in language I've done so far. (Not that I have some emotional investment here )
But this is a function of human ability to compare, anthopomorphize, etc, rather than being a magical power bestowed by possessing a set of words.
As I said it probably works both ways. In order to separate the "ability to compare, anthopomorphize, etc," from language you have to conclude that language is more or less contained in syntax. This is a very risky assumption to make especially when it comes to dealing with real language data e.g. in translation.
Language is my thing. Up till now I've examined it only by study of specific languages. Now I'm looking at it from a more abstract view, and it is fascinating.
In the cognitive paradigm I suggest Lakoff and Johnson to begin with some criticism of Chomsky. Then, for a more empirical apporoach to the lexicon and grammar you may want to look at Corpus Linguistics. I specialize in Computational/Corpus Linguistics - in case you are interested in my agenda.
Maybe we should move this to a new thread?
I;m enjoying our exchange and that's fine by me if you dont' think it's not too late to move the discussion to another thread.
Cheers,
Pole
funkyderek

I've been out of this debate for a few pages due to the weekend. Most of the points I would probably have made have been made for me (often better than I could have) by AlanF, Pole, Abaddon and others so there's no point in rehashing them.
I had trouble figuring out what ellderwho was getting at throughout this thread. It seemed like he was missing the most obvious points and avoiding the questions he was asked. Usually, when someone is doing this, they're either not intelligent enough to be in such a debate or they have some sort of agenda and are trying to trick their opponents into something. It seems from the following that ellderwho is in the latter category (although the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive):
Because I have a "christian world view" I account for the laws of logic as a reflection of God.
I'm not sure how this accounts for the "laws of logic". Ellderwho obviously believes everything comes from God, and is simply declaring a specific case of this belief. But it doesn't explain anything, it just reiterates his preference for belief in a deity. His next sentence is more revealing:
How does the atheist account for the laws of logic. He cannot. He has to borrow from the christian world view to argue successfully with logic.
This is almost sublime in terms of unintentional hilarity. Atheists have to borrow logic from Christians? The "Christian world view", whatever else it may be, is hardly logical. Ellderwho has dismissed out of hand all attempts at explaining logic to him, because they don't fit his one criterion of coming from God.
Ellderwho's increasingly baffling point of view now seems to be that logic is universal and the use of logic leads us to the existence of a creator, whose existence is the only possible explanation of the existence of logic, but who is not himself subject to logic. But, of course, he's not making any real point. He's simply standing his ground as a believer. Unfortunately the rest of his post is complete nonsense and he continues to fail to grasp the simplest of concepts. Here's one final attempt anyway:
Logic is simply a movement from the general to the specific. It certainly doesn't require a god. A universe full of rocks would still be subject to logic. (e.g. All rocks are hard. AG4325 is a rock. Therefore, AG4325 is hard.) There is no conceivable universe in which a valid syllogism consisting of only true premises can lead to a false conclusion, in the same way that there is no conceivable universe in which 1 + 1 is not equal to two. Just as mathematics is used to quantify things and can be applied in some form to any universe, even imaginary ones, so logic is used to take the information we have and generate "new" information. (The information will be new to us but contained in the original data.)
ellderwho

Funky Derek says,
:I'm not sure how this accounts for the "laws of logic". Ellderwho obviously believes everything comes from God, and is simply declaring a specific case of this belief. But it doesn't explain anything, it just reiterates his preference for belief in a deity.
God is absolute, and the standard of truth.Therefore, the absolute laws of logic exist because they reflect the nature of an absolute God.
:Ellderwho has dismissed out of hand all attempts at explaining logic to him, because they don't fit his one criterion of coming from God.
No, I have a hard time understanding how in a atheist world of chance, absolute, conceptual abstract laws be derived from universe of matter, energy and motion.
And has yet to be explained
:Ellderwho's increasingly baffling point of view now seems to be that logic is universal
How is is not universal?
:Logic is simply a movement from the general to the specific. ................ A universe full of rocks would still be subject to logic.
Is the above a universal truth?
:and the use of logic leads us to the existence of a creator, whose existence is the only possible explanation of the existence of logic,
As I stated above.
: but who is not himself subject to logic.
No, I believe God cannot contradict himself.
seattleniceguy

Leolaia,
Thanks for the info. Obviously I need to expand my base of sources. But I'm just getting into this. :-) I'd be interested in reading your book when it's done!
Pole,
No, the literal meanings may not be such a problem, but if you look at any language you'll see that any abstract meaning is based on some culture specific metaphor. It's a ubiquitous phenomenon.
Agreed, finding culturally appropriate and connotatively equivalent expressions can be very difficult, if not impossible. My experience is with Japanese, which uses a vastly different set of metaphors to describe many day-to-day things. I guess my problem is with the concept that the language constrains your ability to understand or convey concepts. I think we all have the experience of creating new words on the fly because the metaphor suits what we are trying to express. Are you aware of any studies that would suggest that comprehension is hindered or facilitated by possession of a specific language?
It's out of keeping with all the emiprircal research in language I've done so far.
Do you have any of such research in a form I could see?
Also, I will look at the sources you recommend. Thanks for the info!
SNG
funkyderek

God is absolute, and the standard of truth.Therefore, the absolute laws of logic exist because they reflect the nature of an absolute God.

You've declared this already. Repeating it doesn't make it any truer. It's not even a valid syllogism and your premises are completely unfounded.
No, I have a hard time understanding how in a atheist world of chance, absolute, conceptual abstract laws be derived from universe of matter, energy and motion.
Why? Any form of anything in any universe must behave according to its nature, whatever that nature may be. That is all that logic requires.
How is is not universal?
It may be universal but it seems to have passed you by.
:Logic is simply a movement from the general to the specific. ................ A universe full of rocks would still be subject to logic.
Is the above a universal truth?
It is what it is. I think the problem here is that you have decided logic is a "universal truth" without really understanding what any of the words mean.
:and the use of logic leads us to the existence of a creator, whose existence is the only possible explanation of the existence of logic,
As I stated above.
I wrote that sentence as a self-evidently absurd description of your position. Clearly, one of us is doing something very wrong here.
: but who is not himself subject to logic.
No, I believe God cannot contradict himself.
That is not quite what I meant. I was referring to the original point of this thread, intelligent design. The theory is based on the belief that all complex things have a designer, but it necessarily makes an exception for its god.
Ellderwho, I think you're way out of your depth in this discussion and you might be better served by reading up on logic, and what it is and is not.
Deputy Dog

derek
If I may, how can you account for rational or logical thought (like awareness), from just the basic elements (mainly hydrogen),energy and motion (at the start of the universe)?
This is not a trick question and I'm not just simply asking about electrochemical processes, I mean the order of thought, logic and observation, that are universal, and transcend language. Like mental images for example.
D Dog
Pole

SNG,

I'll reply tomorrow on another thread which onacruse has just started.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/85662/1.ashx

Cheers

Pole
ellderwho

Fd :Logic is simply a movement from the general to the specific. ................ A universe full of rocks would still be subject to logic.
EW:Is the above a universal truth?
Fd: It is what it is. I think the problem here is that you have decided logic is a "universal truth" without really understanding what any of the words mean.
I havent decided this, it has to be.
This is my point, logical absolutes exist, they are conceptual thoughts. Existing in the mind. I think you'll agree to the fact that scientist use logical absolutes as a basis to verify their science. Although they themself cannot be tested in a lab they exist.
Since logical absolutes are conceptual they transcend all people at all times and are absolute in all circumstances. This, the atheist cannot account for. But the theist can. Or at least I have an explanation.
Observing nature or natural occurances for absolutes cannot be done, since everything that is in nature has not yet been discovered or observed. Then this becomes subjective. And how can you observe something that isnt there.
Im not saying that some knowledge is not subjective. But logical absolutes cannot be. If they are, then nothing is true. And everything is subjective.
As far as "laws of logic" its a pink elephant in this thread. Alan F. knows exactly what to look for in definitions that a creationist will give.
:Ellderwho, I think you're way out of your depth in this discussion and you might be better served by reading up on logic, and what it is and is not.
Perhaps your right, this might make more sense in a Christian board.
AlanF

funkyderek wrote:
: I had trouble figuring out what ellderwho was getting at throughout this thread. It seemed like he was missing the most obvious points and avoiding the questions he was asked. Usually, when someone is doing this, they're either not intelligent enough to be in such a debate or they have some sort of agenda and are trying to trick their opponents into something. It seems from the following that ellderwho is in the latter category
I think that he's in the former category. I avoided mentioning up to this point, that the guy can barely put words together into a proper sentence, and I'm fairly sure he's a native English speaker, so one can't make excuses based on his possibly being a non-native English speaker. More importantly, he's obviously incapable of understanding simple reasoning. Whether this is innate to ellderwho, or a product of years of exposure to Fundamentalist Christianity (I have rarely seen Fundies on the Net who had any more reasoning ability than the rankest of rank-and-file JWs), I don't know. But the result is what you see in this thread: ellderwho's repeated refusal to clearly define terms and horrendously poor reasoning.
AlanF
AlanF

ellerwho said:
: Perhaps your right, this might make more sense in a Christian board.
That's the understatement of the year!
AlanF

Intelligent Design

Share this