From page 7, onward, is nothing but you hulking out at Clooney.
I'm definitely not misreading your emotional content.
Halcyon+On+On
Holy ing . :stongue:
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by meriter
What do we know about language evolution that makes this so unlikely?
About vocalisation: The lowering of the larynx, possibly related to our bipedal rebellion, is more responsible for the advent of our distinct abilities for vocalisation than anything else. Still, other primates have rudimentary languages, in which they can vocally distinguish calls, although they don't use syntax unless they're trained by humans (and even then, only to an appallingly limited extent).
About the necessary cognitive tools for languages: Much to our surprise, other animals have good mental structures to process language - they just can't "tie the dots", it seems, although no one knows for sure. It may seem like an opportunity for his theory, it's not like they need to "clean their brains" because there was some kind of impediment, but rather they need to enhance their cognitive capacities (and one of the best candidates for this is living in ever larger groups, an apparent necessity when you're in a savannah, left to your own devices, and with a rather frail body - like our very very distant ancestors).
Language and vocalisation: Actually, being or not being able to vocalise isn't exactly crucial, because we can still communicate pretty well by other means, such as hand gestures. If mushrooms helped us vocalise, why wouldn't we have used hand signs in the first place? If mushrooms gave us syntax, why would we vocalise if we already had our hands?
It seems to be too abrupt a step.
But, of course, I'm basing this solely on that paragraph. If there's something more reliable (like a primary source), maybe I could check whether my criticism is unfounded.
meriter
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
why wouldn't we have used hand signs in the first place? If mushrooms gave us syntax, why would we vocalise if we already had our hands?
you lost me
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by meriter
you lost me
I mean, sign languages also use syntax. Using syntax with something we (and other species) already have seems more likely than having two sudden changes at once (syntax + vocalisation).
EddieZilker
quote:
Originally posted by Lira Language and vocalisation: Actually, being or not being able to vocalise isn't exactly crucial, because we can still communicate pretty well by other means, such as hand gestures. If mushrooms helped us vocalise, why wouldn't we have used hand signs in the first place? If mushrooms gave us syntax, why would we vocalise if we already had our hands?
This seems to be contravening an assumption (or assumptions) not made clear in the cited paragraph on how mushrooms may have facilitated cognitive-linquistic development. It doesn't seem like the evolution of hand-gestures is incongruent language development, without mushrooms, so why would hand-gestures not be concurrent with them?
meriter
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
"Belief is an incredible cop-out on intellectual truth-seeking because belief precludes believing in its opposite". No, it doesn't preclude believing in its opposite. As a scientist, I often need to reframe the same problem over and over again, testing different beliefs until I find one that better fits the data. And even then, the resulting belief does not preclude me from changing my mind.
That's not a belief then. Suspicion or hypothesis ≠ belief. I think you are confusing the issue.
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
I believe that capitalism is pretty much the only viable option available to us right now. Does this mean I couldn't think of something else? Of course I can - it just so happens that I haven't found a better alternative.
Cynicism does not equate scepticism, which is what he's arguing for. (?) As a philosophical movement, there was a good deal of scepticism among the first cynics, but that's not even what the words mean nowadays.(?) More often than not being a contrarian without a good reason (and he fails to give one)(?) is just as harmful to society as a "follower", as he goes on to argue afterwards.
Your writing style just isn't coherent to me... not saying you're wrong just saying I don't think you have a clear picture of what's being said here and you're running off on false assumptions.
Well either way, I don't really have the energy to argue but let me assure you you're not going to debase a 4 hour+ lecture with a paragraph of fragmented ideas.
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by EddieZilker
This seems to be contravening an assumption (or assumptions) not made clear in the cited paragraph on how mushrooms may have facilitated cognitive-linquistic development. It doesn't seem like the evolution of hand-gestures is incongruent language development, without mushrooms, so why would hand-gestures not be concurrent with them?
It could, but vocalisation has also been thrown into the mix, which is the thing I find odd. Language is far more complex than talking, and this is the bit I find difficult to conciliate with that hypotheses.
quote:
Originally posted by meriter
That's not a belief then. Suspicion or hypothesis ≠ belief. I think you are confusing the issue.
Well, it's hard to test a hypothesis if you don't believe it is true even if just for a fraction of a second. You need to believe something, to some degree, in order to test that belief (and then possibly ditch it).
quote:
Originally posted by meriter
Your writing style just isn't coherent to me... not saying you're wrong just saying I don't think you have a clear picture of what's being said here and you're running off on false assumptions.
I don't doubt that is true - I did add a caveat that whatever I say, it can't be a fair reply because I know too little about him and I don't know what he said before/later. However, I'm saying why I was left less than impressed.
AnotherWay83
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
I know I can't take Wikipedia as a reliable summary of anyone's thoughts... but:
This is really unlikely, given what we already know about language evolution.
I can sympathise with the guy, and his intentions are definitely good, having his heart in the right place. This is awesome. However, and it pains me to say this, the content of those videos left me unsatisfied. For example:
Maybe he defined his terms before the recorded bit, but that section is useless without a proper definition of what ideology is (just equating it with adjectives isn't really any kind of advance). Saying "ideology is bad" is no more profound than saying "ideology is good".
He then goes on to make a very dubious argument: "Belief is an incredible cop-out on intellectual truth-seeking because belief precludes believing in its opposite". No, it doesn't preclude believing in its opposite. As a scientist, I often need to reframe the same problem over and over again, testing different beliefs until I find one that better fits the data. And even then, the resulting belief does not preclude me from changing my mind. Likewise, I believe that capitalism is pretty much the only viable option available to us right now. Does this mean I couldn't think of something else? Of course I can - it just so happens that I haven't found a better alternative.
Cynicism does not equate scepticism, which is what he's arguing for. As a philosophical movement, there was a good deal of scepticism among the first cynics, but that's not even what the words mean nowadays. More often than not being a contrarian without a good reason (and he fails to give one) is just as harmful to society as a "follower", as he goes on to argue afterwards.
These are the only propositions I could extract from that paragraph, and I may have been a tad bit unfair because it's not in a larger context. But, whereas it is awesome that you find some interest on someone who challenges the status quo - I urge you to challenge him as well. Go beyond what he says and equip yourself with more mental tools, and don't take a "no" (or a "bad") for an answer. "Why (not)?" should follow most propositions until there's no reasonable doubt.
i think he meant ideology in the typical dictionary sense of the word. i would imagine it would be painful to give a speech on even a simple topic if you had to pause to precisely define each and every term!
and i have to agree with TM re. belief precluding believing in its opposite. can you possibly believe that something exists and doesn't exist at the same time? how would that work? can you provide an example? how about say, believing that something is red, but then at the same time believing that it isn't? can you do this?
you might find this interesting:
apologies for the weird and annoying music in the background, that seems to be a common thing to do among TM video uploaders on youtube
