Posts by Pole

95

EVIL LOUTION? Why do you still resist? Science doesn't work?

by Terry in

jw
friends

i resisted it for years.

i was dragged kicking and screaming into the evolution theory camp.. i would rather have had my arm lopped off at the elbow;but, facts are facts.

i had to be intellectually honest.

Pole

funkyderek,

:: No I wouldn't, any more than I would say that modern elephants should be bigger or smaller than elephants 4000 years ago.
Language on that time scale is shaped far more by cultural evolution than biological.
::You really seem to have a problem with the timescales involved. We're not talking about something that happened in the last 10,000 years. If you think we are, then you're in the wrong argument.

For now I guess you are right to a certain extent when saying I may have confused the debates, but I'm not sure when exactly you think "cultural evolution" began. I assumed that ultimately cultural evolution is restricted by biological evolution. Thus both kinds of evolution must have run in parralel. Admittedly, for the last 2000-3000 thousands years cultural evolution has progressed exponentially and with an easly noticeable speed, but originally it still must have depended on what you've called the "brain growing beyond a certain point".

Let me illustrate this point with an example:

Let's imagine you can travel in time 5000 years back and somehow bring a human child of some relatively intelligent parents "back to the future".

If you brought this child up in our culture, the child would have no problems with functioning in society, receiving education, and possibly becoming a rocket scientist. No culture shock here, right?

However if you took a humanoid child born say 2,000,000 years ago, the child could have problems with adapting because of the biological limitations of the its brain.

I guess there's little we disagree about so far. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Now what timescales do I have in mind when I say that we could find out something about the evolution of human language by taking into consideration cultural evolution? I would say: let's agree about a conventional point in time when - as we might possibly assume - humanoids started spreading around the place where they originated from.

If you think there was no single central geographic location from which humanoids originated, then it's going to make my argument easier.

However I am assuming you think that all contemporary humans have common ancestors who could be traced back to a certain area of our planet and a certain point in time when they started to differ considerably from other apes.

Ok, so what? The next thing we have to agree about is that at some point different groups of humans/humanoids started separating. How long a distance do wee need to expect independant language development to take place? With no means of transport other than their feet (be it even 4 feet), let's say it could have been 100 kilometers. That's more than necessary - one can find dozens of examples of great linguistic variabilty in today's Africa with the distance being under 30 kilometers form one village to another.

To sum it up: When could humanoids have started forming their first separate proto-cultures? What is the earliest possible "date" that can be reasonably suggested?

That's another one of my Socratic questions, but it will let me know if I'm "in the wrong argument" indeed.

---------

Just to give you an idea of the kind of linguistic arguments I want to make which I think cannot be well explained by evolutionary processes (they correspond to the first 2 questions I asked in my previous post):

1) Ever since we can know directly and indirectly, all known languages have been generally becoming simpler in terms of morphology, syntax and to some extent phonology.

2) The relative complexity of languages which have been developing for

________(please specify my timescale here according to the guidelines provided above)_____

of years independently of one another cannot be explained in terms of cultural development. In other words there are no primitive languages. Rather, what is genuinely surprising is that some of the most primitive cultures have languages extremely complex grammars, and vice versa.

3)

I also think, there's one thing about language that is well explained by the evolution of the human brain. It has to do with the fact that the very nature of human language suggests that historically all abstract concepts were derived from literal ones.

I won't elaborate on these points until you tell me what my timescales are and whethere they make my points relevant to the discussion on certain aspecs of evolution.

----------

By the way: In your little theory:

Language is not really my area but whatever. How about this: the ancestors of humans had the same ability to communicate as modern apes. As their brains grew beyond a certain point, so their ability to consider and communicate complex ideas also increased. This conferred such a survival advantage that it led to a sort of runaway evolution, with brain size and complexity of language increasing in parallel. That's just off the top of my head, but I don't see anything implausible. If you want to argue details, then go ahead.

I can't really see any details we could argue. Well, at least not if you disregard what language is and what the nature of liguistic change and variability is as we know it nowadays. I can only see two other methods of theorizing on your timescales, both of which are indirect and both of them require an awful amount of wishful thinking:

a) computational simulations of brain evolution (the only ones that I am remotely familar with are connectivist models)
b) research in animal communication (this is a syncronic approach and not a diachronic one - so it's not directly verifiable)

Is there anything else we can seriously discuss? I mean I consider this:

:: This conferred such a survival advantage that it led to a sort of runaway evolution, with brain size and complexity of language increasing in parallel.

a rather metaphysical statement. There are some obvious logical premises for saying this sort of thing, but I can't see how this statement can be verified.

-----------

::Heh. I don't believe that for a second. But never mind. The Socratic Method is a perfectly valid tool of debate. Using it pre-emptively is a little strange though. Still, maybe this is the only subject you know anything about.

Maybe it is "the only subject I know anything about", maybe it isn't even that - I don't think you can know it. I started with the sarcasm though - and it was your turn now, so no comments here.

49

Honest mistakes? The Governing Body's excuses for their actions

by Terry in

jw
friends

the governing body tells us they are not false prophets because they admit their mistakes.. they only err because they are zealous to see the new order commence.. they are on the watch and warning everybody just like they are supposed to.. their doctrines change (new light) because they see and admit their errors.. what more can we expect of them?.

is the governing body honestly doing the best they can?

they are only human; how can we expect them to be perfect?.

Pole

seattleniceguy,

I wonder if any of the authors they misquoted has ever sued them or at least crtiticised them.

Probably not, because WTS literature would generally be regarded as religious pamphlets, and so non of the authors would take it seriously...

25

Only possible things happen. Is free choice an illusion?

by Terry in

jw
friends

things are what they are.. everything acts according to its nature.. nothing escapes its own nature.. we cannot be other than what we are and our "choices" follow our nature.. consequently, can we not say correctly that free choice is merely our ignorance of the fact that all our actions and choices are predetermined by our nature?.

example: if i offer you dog piss or a dove bar is that really a choice?.

only possible things happen.

Pole

I've had a nice discussion about determinacy with zen nudist, and others here (in the context of prophecies) :

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/75682/1.ashx

Let me just repost what I think best explains the issue of determinacy in the physical universe.

----------

Is the universe a "chaotic-deterministic" system, one in which a sort of randomness and a sort of determinacy can occur at the same time?

One definition of chaotic systems goes like this "chaotic systems are ones in which an arbitrarily small difference in the initial conditions can produce arbitrarily large differences in later states."

The classic example is that of the supposedly deterministic atmosphere of our planet. In the atmosphere the flapping of a butterfly at one point may condition the occurring of a storm at a later stage.

However, even if the system is deterministic in principle, it's unpredictable in practice, because however precise the measurement of the possible causes you use, there can always be some minute factors which escape your analysis, but which may amount to something really decisive.

For instance, you may be able to track every single butterfly in the atmosphere, but you can't track all the mosquitos. Once you factor in mosquitos, you still disregard bacteria, and so on and so forth. So even if the atmosphere is deterministic, it's still unpredictable.

----------------

So what? So even it the universe is deterministic, even if all events are always the result of endless chains of other events, life is still fun, because we will never ever be able to predict too much. Which gives us a pretty realistic impression of being able to decide.

Of course such a view is based on a rather simplistic form of mechanics and it desregards the kind of indeterminacies you find in quantum physics, but I like it anyway.

25

Only possible things happen. Is free choice an illusion?

by Terry in

jw
friends

things are what they are.. everything acts according to its nature.. nothing escapes its own nature.. we cannot be other than what we are and our "choices" follow our nature.. consequently, can we not say correctly that free choice is merely our ignorance of the fact that all our actions and choices are predetermined by our nature?.

example: if i offer you dog piss or a dove bar is that really a choice?.

only possible things happen.

Pole

Terry:

Is free choice an illusion? Mathematicians will tell you there really is no such things as "random". You cannot program a computer to generate an actual "random" number. There is always an algorithm underlying it. Randomness is our ignorance of the nature of inevitable consequent events.

Do you mean that "mathematicians" say that there is no randomness in nature? 

Or do they simply say that randomness cannot be simulated by (discrete) computational algorithms?

I think it'd be nice if you clarified this point, because your main question has to do with the "real"

world ("is free choice an illusion"), but you seem to be using an example from the world of computation to illustrate this argument.


Pole

45

The Internet and Apostasy

by CakeMonkey in

has the internet and forums like these caused an exodus from the j-dubs?

when i left in the early 1990s i met support groups through the yellow pages but it still felt like i was the only one in the world who was an apostate.

i've come to this forum in the last year to browse because my brother has now left.

Pole

Danny,

45

The Internet and Apostasy

by CakeMonkey in

has the internet and forums like these caused an exodus from the j-dubs?

when i left in the early 1990s i met support groups through the yellow pages but it still felt like i was the only one in the world who was an apostate.

i've come to this forum in the last year to browse because my brother has now left.

Pole

Before the advent of the Internet, in many countries other than the US there had been practically no information about the GB and the workings of the WTS.

I mean we had our local petty "apostates", but few of them even begin to compare with American exJWs, for rather obvious reasons. You guys had direct contact with the WTS leaders, you speak their language, you live their culture, you see through them, you basically know a hell more than we have known or even imagined so far.

And you can share this info with anyone interested for free.

THE WEB IS AMAZING...

95

EVIL LOUTION? Why do you still resist? Science doesn't work?

by Terry in

jw
friends

i resisted it for years.

i was dragged kicking and screaming into the evolution theory camp.. i would rather have had my arm lopped off at the elbow;but, facts are facts.

i had to be intellectually honest.

Pole

Perhaps it's just that you know a lot less than you think.

It's good rhetorics, but after you've suggested Skinner as a possible introduction to what you've called "modern linguistics", I guess this statement applies much more to you than to me - at least as far as linguistics goes.

Language is not really my area but whatever. How about this: the ancestors of humans had the same ability to communicate as modern apes. As their brains grew beyond a certain point, so their ability to consider and communicate complex ideas also increased. This conferred such a survival advantage that it led to a sort of runaway evolution, with brain size and complexity of language increasing in parallel. That's just off the top of my head, but I don't see anything implausible. If you want to argue details, then go ahead.

It's definitely not your area, but thank you for letting me know what you consider a "plausible" model of language evolution. I'll have one or two questions to begin with - see below.

If you want to argue details, then go ahead.

Well, it's always worth reading Chomsky and Skinner to get a bit of a background on modern linguistics. You might try Steven Pinker as well. I'd be interested to hear which theories you consider laughable and why.

Chomsky and Skinner are mutually exclusive in many respects, but maybe that's what you mean - getting a little bit of both approaches? Anyways, I didn't ask you for an introduction to linguistics. I asked you for an introduction to the evolution of language. Skinner's linguistic behaviourism may be relevant, but only remotely so. I can't remember where Chomsky or Pinker speculated about the evolution of language (not to be confused with language acquisition) - but it's possible - I cannot claim to have read all of their works.

I didn't say any language evolution theories were "laughable". I asked you to give me an example of one which you think is not laughable. So I am not so judgemental about it.

---------------------

I have no rigid agenda concerning language origin anyways - just some questions.

Here's three of them to begin with:

1) You suggest that "the ancestors of humans had the same ability to communicate as modern apes" and that this ability has gradually developed into the thousands of human languages we have today. Would you then say that this gradual improvement also works over shorter perdiods of times - that is the "historical" periods of time that we know something about for sure (as opposed to the prehistorical ones, no written records, etc.)? For instance would you say that languages spoken four thousand years ago should be more complex or less complex than languages spoken today according to your theory?

2) There are thousands of languages all around the world. According to the evolutionary view most of them must have evolved for many thousands of years independently of one another - just like human races (take Australia and North Canada for instance). Would you then assume that some of them should be less developed or less complex than others because they have been shaped by different environmental factors?

3) Please name some features that you think all human languages have in common and which make them different from "animal communication". In this way we will know what we are arguing about.

95

EVIL LOUTION? Why do you still resist? Science doesn't work?

by Terry in

jw
friends

i resisted it for years.

i was dragged kicking and screaming into the evolution theory camp.. i would rather have had my arm lopped off at the elbow;but, facts are facts.

i had to be intellectually honest.

Pole

Funky Derek,

I am in camp 1a. I do not see anything in evolution that cannot be explained by natural means, nor do I see the point in a creator who would use such a method to create. Evolution seems to occur primarily - or totally - by natural selection and this seems a pointless and barbaric way to design.

You seem to know a lot more than some of the brightest minds of the world.

I thought you might give me one example of a coherent theory which explains how human language has evolved so far and which theory cannot be described with your 5 adverbs + one adjective combination: "simply, absolutely, totally and completely, laughably wrong".

I don't want you to explain the details of the theory. Just give me the names of the linguists/evolutionists who've come up with an exlpanation of how language has been becoming gradually more complex, and whose arguments are not based on a bunch of "laughably" hypothetical premises.

I'll do my own research if you give me this pointer. Surprise me!

Thanks in advance.

Pole

133

String theory, Relativity, and angels

by onacruse in

current mathematical models of the universe involve what is termed 'hyper-dimension.".

ever read the book flatland?

it describes how a 2-dimensional being would perceive the intersection of a 3-dimensional object in "their" universe.. a flatlander would never be able to comprehend a sphere.

Pole

Those flatworms don't reflect or meditate as far as I know. But, heck, I haven't spoken to one lately.

I just don't know. But, it is fascinating.

Very funny Terry.

I'm just not sure if we are all that different from flatworms. Well, we are of course supreme in terms of self-delusion...

133

String theory, Relativity, and angels

by onacruse in

current mathematical models of the universe involve what is termed 'hyper-dimension.".

ever read the book flatland?

it describes how a 2-dimensional being would perceive the intersection of a 3-dimensional object in "their" universe.. a flatlander would never be able to comprehend a sphere.

Pole

For epistemology, it's a matter of how we know what we know: the words (especially of whatever language with which we were raised...our "natural" tongue), and the cultural and social influences that are incorporated in that language (the "collective consciousness" mentioned above). We can't escape it: our very thoughts themselves, as formulated in the privacy of our midnight musings, are always represented in our brains as words...words which came from someone else, which we blithely accept, and about which we often have very little knowledge of where they came from and what they really mean. Then, of course, as others have mentioned, there's the issue of genetic patterning.
So, if a Yugoslavian came up to me and expressed himself very forcefully, what would I think? I'd think "Gosh, I don't have a clue what this guy is saying!" because 1) I can't understand the words he is saying, and 2) even if I learned the words (dictionary-style), I still wouldn't have a clue about the nuances and entedre of his meaning. And so also for a higher-dimensional being trying to communicate with me, except much worse: the higher-dimensional being would be trying, using "my" language," (and such a being could only communicate to me using "my" language) to describe something to me that was utterly beyond my ability to comprehend; all "my" words in the world couldn't take me beyond the limits of my own being.

Onacruse,

1) Check out "the linguistic relativism hypothesis". Also known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis hypothesis.

2) How the heck do you know that "we can't escape it: our very thoughts themselves, as formulated in the privacy of our midnight musings, are always represented in our brains as words...words which came from someone else"??? How do you know we think in terms of natural language words and phrases only? Is it because every time you try to communicate your thoughts you use language?

Would you then say that people deaf and mute from birth don't think at all? Read the example of the deaf Nicaraguan children. I posted it above.