| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Huck Turner
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:43 pm Post subject: How did we get language? |
 |
|
John Wilkins wrote on 7 Sep 2003:
[quote]CLONEBEAR COOL-IDIOTKA,VD PC <clonebear@webtv.net> wrote:
How did we get language?
Why can>t adults pick up a language with no effort?
There are two competing hypotheses - one is that we have an innate
"language acquisition device" that is a kind of cognitive module from
when we first evolved language. This enables infants to infer the
structure of an underdetermined syntax and grammar from adult examples,
but which once trained does not allow the later acquisition of another
language easily or as fully as those learned early. This is the
Chomsky-Pinker approach.
[/quote]
Neither Chomsky, nor Pinker suggests that acquiring one language is
what prevents the acquisition of another one later on. They both
happily agree that two (or more) languages can be acquired with native
proficiency (bilingualism) if an individual has the necessary exposure
to each within the critical period for language development. How well
a language is acquired is a function of the age at which the language
learner is exposed to the input, not whether they have previously
acquired a language. The critical period for language is extremely
well documented, as are critical periods associated with other systems
of the mind/brain.
[quote]
Another, and to my mind more satisfying, version is that we are
generally unspecialised at learning *anything*, and that our *languages*
are so structured as to be learnable by a "naive" brain; they have
become so because they evolved by a cultural selection process - those
that became too baroque for naive brains to learn either simplified or
became extinct. This case rests on neurological evidence, and the
difference to artificial languages (like maths) that are learned at the
ages after the natural languages are learned. This is the view put
forward by Terence Deacon.
[/quote]
The 'Chomsky-Pinker hypothesis' you described is a proposed
explanation for why adults have more trouble acquiring languages, but
Deacon>s theory is about how language evolved, so in what sense are
these "competing hypotheses"?
The opinions of the real Chomsky and the real Pinker are actually
quite different from one another on the issue of language evolution.
The very little that Chomsky has written on that subject indicates
that he believes that language is probably an exaptation or a spandrel
rather than an adaptation. Pinker on the other hand, has made it very
clear that he regards language as a biological adaptation.
[quote]The question why language evolved is answered by Deacon thus: apes and
primates in general have a symbolic capacity roughly equivalent to the
encephalisation quotient of their brain:body ratio. Primates have this
in a greater ratio than most mammals. But the human ratio is off the
primate scale.
[/quote]
Actually, Deacon argues that from the point of view of language the
relevant difference between human and non-human primates is in the
ratio of prefrontal cortex to overall brain size. There is a nice
diagram on page 217 of his book The Symbolic Species comparing the
proportions of human brain regions with a 'typical' ape.
[quote]Deacon argues that we coevolved with languages; in effect
we evolved to adapt to communicating with each other. The book is _The
symbolic species_ and I recommend it.
[/quote]
Deacon>s argument is that the language acquisition device (or the
brain generally) co-evolved with culturally transmitted languages.
Each forms an essential part of the environment that selects the
other. What makes one variant of a language easier to learn than
another depends on the nature of the language acquisition device, and
what makes one variant of the language acquisition device better at
learning languages depends on the kinds of languages that it is likely
to be exposed to.
This theory is a good starting point in my opinion but leaves an
enormous amount of the detail unexplained. For instance, it explains
almost none of the grammatical universals that we observe in the
world>s languages.
H.
---
Like-minds don>t notice shared mistakes. Talk to someone else. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Peter F.
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 3:50 am Post subject: Re: How did we get language? |
|
|
Your learned dissertation is impressive!
However, to me it is rather obvious and simple understood that language is
an "ambi-advantageously evolved" (ambi-advantagously adaptive or
"ambi-adaptive") function.
Thee word "ambi" being used by me partly to generally reflect the fact that
"opportunity and adversity type selective pressures" have often and with
apparently decisive 'genotyping' significance often 'pressured' living
organisms simultaneously.
Language functions has of course deep and elaborate roots in phylogeny.
Language has an ambi-advantageously controling social function. E.g., it
serves cooperative niche-exploiting efforts, and the learning/refinement of
such efforts; And, some *not-just-neocortical* correlates of language also
serve a function that I call "selective Hibernation" (others have used words
and phrases such as repression, "pain gating" and "ideas as opiates", for
the same thing).
One end of the meaning of "ambi" serves selective consciousness the other
serves "selective _unconsciousness_" .
(Apropos consciousness, A.R. Luria, as per Chapter 2 of his book "The
Working Brain, and Introduction to Neuropsychology", has, perhaps
unintentionallly, suggested a very pragmatic simple and unifying
"neuropsychophysiological" defintion of consciousness -- that an essential
neurophysiological cause of consciousness is the "energizing" component
behind any motor and "sensorimotor" activity is "reticular activating type"
[my name] neurons.)
All our capabilities, including those that uses or have close couplings to
language, conform to, and are organized (in individual real-time) by, the
general brain-functional principle "lateral inhibition" [or "center/surround
excitation/inhibition"]. Lateral inhibition is a major organizing mechanism
by which one and not the other of functionally-adaptively incompatible
"actention modules" (this EPT concept, or concEPT, is closely related to
the rather recent concepts of "sensorimotor contingencies" and to one as old
as "neural assemblies").
I have noticed that stage performances that exploit the power of hypnosis
are very instructive as far as getting an insight into the ordinary
(every-day) functional and adptational depth of the powers of language.
E.g.:- Children being socialized by parents and peers;
The fact that disciples of gurus or subjects of states/governments and of
dictators, being (for better or for worse) *steered* by
lingually-transmitted behaviour and attitude reinforcing and specifying
"demagogic instructions";
And how, and that, an "actention selection system" can come to pay vital
actentional (consciousness generating) "energy" on producing a *hopeful*
mental-ideational focus of actention instead of a painful (or distressful)
*futile* such *when* an individual>s reality (or life-stiuational totality)
actually contains a "selective Hibernation imploring type situation" and/or
the conditioned-in dynamic aftermath of such.
[Whilst I label such residues of such experiences with the acronym CURSES,
most people tend to describe this category of memories as "tramatic
memories"; others would euphemistically call them "engrams", and yet others
would more bluntly call such memories "primal pain".]
In these (and other) ways, language offers the means whereby
neural-motivational impulses, impulses that would *potentially* become
self/socially defeating instinctive behaviours, can be blocked (or "gated")
and rerouted in the direction of being utilized for
learning/developing/refining ((and of course for energizing or activating)
more productive, or even straight-out *reproductive* (or at least _less
improductive and more likely lineage-perpetuating) actention modules.
Regards,
P |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Huck Turner
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 10:05 pm Post subject: Re: How did we get language? |
|
|
"Peter F." <fell_spamtrap_in-hopefullyeffectiveagainstspam@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:<brtsir$2lnc$1@darwin.ediacara.org>...
[quote]Your learned dissertation is impressive!
[/quote]
Thanks.
[quote]However, to me it is rather obvious and simple understood that language is
an "ambi-advantageously evolved" (ambi-advantagously adaptive or
"ambi-adaptive") function.
[/quote]
It is one thing to ask what function(s) language serves in general
terms and another to ask why languages have the specific universal
properties that they have. Why do we have this language capacity and
not some other communication system with different rules? I personally
think this question is more interesting and leads to more focussed
inquiry.
[quote]Thee word "ambi" being used by me partly to generally reflect the fact that
"opportunity and adversity type selective pressures" have often and with
apparently decisive 'genotyping' significance often 'pressured' living
organisms simultaneously.
[/quote]
I think we should expect there to be multiple pressures both for and
against _any_ given evolutionary change. All that is required is that
the benefits outweigh the costs for the change to confer a selective
advantage.
[quote]Language functions has of course deep and elaborate roots in phylogeny.
Language has an ambi-advantageously controling social function. E.g., it
serves cooperative niche-exploiting efforts, and the learning/refinement of
such efforts;
[/quote]
One apparent paradox arises here. If language is advantageous because
it allows us to learn about the world without having to directly
experience it, then we appear to have an advantage associated with
understanding language, but not for producing language. What is the
advantage to the speaker>s genes in providing information to others?
You could approach this from the point of view of kin selection, in
which case providing information to others confers an advantage to the
speaker>s genes if the individuals that hear that information are
close kin (i.e., share a significant proportion of the speaker>s
genes). Another way would be to invoke ideas of a social contract
(helping others makes them more likely to help you in return). The
benefits of this kind of cooperation would presumably outweigh the
very low costs associated with providing information to others.
But I don>t think there really is a question to answer here because it
simply isn>t true that providing information only ever benefits the
listener. There are many cases in which speaking appears to benefit
the speaker rather than the listener (e.g., boasting, propaganda) and
many cases in which it is potentially beneficial to both parties
(e.g., persuasion, negotiation), so the question of the speaker>s
advantage may not be as paradoxical as some have suggested. For a bit
more on this issue, have a look at the second half of this paper:
Turner, H. (2002). An introduction to methods for simulating the
evolution of language. In A. Cangelosi & D. Parisi (Eds.) Simulating
the evolution of language. London: Springer-Verlag.
[quote]And, some *not-just-neocortical* correlates of language also
serve a function that I call "selective Hibernation" (others have used words
and phrases such as repression, "pain gating" and "ideas as opiates", for
the same thing).
[/quote]
I>m not sure how making someone feel better would provide a selective
advantage to either the speaker or the listener. Pain and emotional
distress are presumably adaptive responses to threats from the
environment.
[quote]One end of the meaning of "ambi" serves selective consciousness the other
serves "selective _unconsciousness_" .
[/quote]
Not sure what you mean by this.
[quote](Apropos consciousness, A.R. Luria, as per Chapter 2 of his book "The
Working Brain, and Introduction to Neuropsychology", has, perhaps
unintentionallly, suggested a very pragmatic simple and unifying
"neuropsychophysiological" defintion of consciousness -- that an essential
neurophysiological cause of consciousness is the "energizing" component
behind any motor and "sensorimotor" activity is "reticular activating type"
[my name] neurons.)
[/quote]
I>m not sure we gain anything by bringing consciousness into a
discussion about language evolution.
[quote]All our capabilities, including those that uses or have close couplings to
language, conform to, and are organized (in individual real-time) by, the
general brain-functional principle "lateral inhibition" [or "center/surround
excitation/inhibition"]. Lateral inhibition is a major organizing mechanism
by which one and not the other of functionally-adaptively incompatible
"actention modules" (this EPT concept, or concEPT, is closely related to
the rather recent concepts of "sensorimotor contingencies" and to one as old
as "neural assemblies").
[/quote]
I>m not sure what lateral inhibition has to do with it either. And
what do you mean by 'actention'?
[quote]I have noticed that stage performances that exploit the power of hypnosis
are very instructive as far as getting an insight into the ordinary
(every-day) functional and adptational depth of the powers of language.
[/quote]
I guess you are alluding to powers of suggestion, which don>t appear
to be limited to the domain of language.
[quote]E.g.:- Children being socialized by parents and peers;
The fact that disciples of gurus or subjects of states/governments and of
dictators, being (for better or for worse) *steered* by
lingually-transmitted behaviour and attitude reinforcing and specifying
"demagogic instructions";
And how, and that, an "actention selection system" can come to pay vital
actentional (consciousness generating) "energy" on producing a *hopeful*
mental-ideational focus of actention instead of a painful (or distressful)
*futile* such *when* an individual>s reality (or life-stiuational totality)
actually contains a "selective Hibernation imploring type situation" and/or
the conditioned-in dynamic aftermath of such.
[Whilst I label such residues of such experiences with the acronym CURSES,
most people tend to describe this category of memories as "tramatic
memories"; others would euphemistically call them "engrams", and yet others
would more bluntly call such memories "primal pain".]
In these (and other) ways, language offers the means whereby
neural-motivational impulses, impulses that would *potentially* become
self/socially defeating instinctive behaviours, can be blocked (or "gated")
and rerouted in the direction of being utilized for
learning/developing/refining ((and of course for energizing or activating)
more productive, or even straight-out *reproductive* (or at least _less
improductive and more likely lineage-perpetuating) actention modules.
[/quote]
You>ve lost me.
[quote]Regards,
P
[/quote]
H.
---
Like-minds don>t notice shared mistakes. Talk to someone else. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kevin Aylward
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2003 5:11 pm Post subject: Re: How did we get language? |
|
|
Huck Turner wrote:
[quote]"Peter F."
fell_spamtrap_in-hopefullyeffectiveagainstspam@ozemail.com.au> wrote
in message news:<brtsir$2lnc$1@darwin.ediacara.org>...
Your learned dissertation is impressive!
Language functions has of course deep and elaborate roots in
phylogeny.
Language has an ambi-advantageously controling social function.
E.g., it serves cooperative niche-exploiting efforts, and the
learning/refinement of such efforts;
One apparent paradox arises here.
[/quote]
Only if one does not even do the most basic of analysis on the problem.
[quote]If language is advantageous because
it allows us to learn about the world without having to directly
experience it, then we appear to have an advantage associated with
understanding language, but not for producing language. What is the
advantage to the speaker>s genes in providing information to others?
[/quote]
This is trivial, so trivial, that I keep wondering why people even put
forward any argument that "help others" is *not* good for the
*individual*. I note below, that you do realise this, my agro, is that
one has to be amazingly ignoranant to not see immediately that, e.g.:
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/morals.html
*********
Consider walking home from the pub alone, i.e. a group of 1. Further
consider an oncoming group of skin heads with metal toe cap boots. Which
group member(s) has the best chances of surviving the encounter? What
this author finds amazingly surprising is that there is any debate
whatsoever that such cursory apparent altruistic behavior is not in
accord with the basic tenet of maximizing individual numbers. Arguable,
an attempt to do anything in a society on ones own, without the
equivalent of a policemen, is tantamount to suicide. Any group that did
develop by mutations, would surely take the resources of such lone
individuals such that all of that group members individually benefit by
sharing such spoils amongst themselves.
*********
[quote]You could approach this from the point of view of kin selection, in
which case providing information to others confers an advantage to the
speaker>s genes if the individuals that hear that information are
close kin (i.e., share a significant proportion of the speaker>s
genes).
[/quote]
Kin selection, is a complete red herring. Its not required in the
slightest.
[quote]Another way would be to invoke ideas of a social contract
(helping others makes them more likely to help you in return).
[/quote]
Indeed.
[quote]The
benefits of this kind of cooperation would presumably outweigh the
very low costs associated with providing information to others.
[/quote]
Nothing presumably about it, again, it is trivial:
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/altruism.html
******
Consider chance mutations that resulted in two Replicators deciding to
aid each. If we make the reasonable assumption that two replicators can
defeat a single Replicator, these selfish pairs, could immediately steal
the resources of all those single Replicators and kill them. It wouldn>t
take long for essentially all loners to be driven to extinction.
Consider now mutations that cause these Replicators to up the odds to
3>s and 4>s. It can be seen that an evolutionary selection process will
generate larger and larger groups, with members co-operating with each
other, for the selfish advantage of each member. Of course, suitable
punishment for defectors would also have to evolve, since those pair
uppers require suitable responses to non payback, i.e. the help others
trait must be conditional.
It is therefore trivially obvious as to why general society has evolved
to be social. Any remaining loners simply don>t have a chance.
Comment - The argument relies on the probability of continued success.
For example, suppose that there is a 50% chance that a lone individual
can steal the resources (R) of another and kill that competitor, and,
for the sake of argument the pair has a 95% chance to do the same.
Although in the first encounter, the average advantage for the loner is
0.5R, where as for the pair, it is only 0.95/2=0.475R, at the next
encounter the loner undergoes a further 0.5 chance to lose all of its
resources and its life, i.e. 0.25, where as for the pair, its only
0.451. The point being, that it is a cumulate effect. In the long run,
pairs have a much greater change of surviving, and hence passing on
those genes and memes.
*******
[quote]
But I don>t think there really is a question to answer here because it
simply isn>t true that providing information only ever benefits the
listener.
[/quote]
That>s right. There is zero of a question to answer. So much so, that
anyone that does not see it as you do note here, simply have not got
even the most basics of evolution under their belt.
There are many cases in which speaking appears to benefit
[quote]the speaker rather than the listener (e.g., boasting, propaganda) and
many cases in which it is potentially beneficial to both parties
(e.g., persuasion, negotiation), so the question of the speaker>s
advantage may not be as paradoxical as some have suggested.
[/quote]
ROTFLOL. I suppose such individuals have never walked home from the pub
noting that those steel toe capped yobbos accross the road are
conversing with each other as to mug you right there, or wait until you
turn the corner.
[quote]For a bit
more on this issue, have a look at the second half of this paper:
Turner, H. (2002). An introduction to methods for simulating the
evolution of language. In A. Cangelosi & D. Parisi (Eds.) Simulating
the evolution of language. London: Springer-Verlag.
[/quote]
My take is here http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/language.html
[quote]
And, some *not-just-neocortical* correlates of language also
serve a function that I call "selective Hibernation" (others have
used words and phrases such as repression, "pain gating" and "ideas
as opiates", for the same thing).
I>m not sure how making someone feel better would provide a selective
advantage to either the speaker or the listener.
[/quote]
Of course it can. The trivial assumption is that of pay back. Suitable
mutual cooperation, as explained above, always wins other loners. If you
make people feel good, the learned memes tell you that you have a better
probability of having them make you feel good in return. The fundamental
issue here, is that there is no reason whatsoever to restrict behaviour
to one off encounters, where it might from a very naive perspective
indeed, be advantages to use a simple strategy. Evolution has developed
technique to deal with this dreadfully ineffective way of maximising
*individual* numbers.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT>s and Filter Design.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter F.
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2003 10:53 pm Post subject: Point about pressures that I let slip (was Re: How did we ge |
|
|
When I wrote,
[quote]Thee word "ambi" being used by me partly to generally reflect the fact
that
"opportunity and adversity type selective pressures" have often and with
apparently decisive 'genotyping' significance often 'pressured' living
organisms simultaneously,
[/quote]
I perhaps should have stolen some spacetime to mention that my main aim
(ulterior philosophical motive or undertaking) is that the meaning of "ambi"
(of the pragmatic construct ambi-advantageous) of its rational philosophical
funneling into putting (and perversely promoting) a special focus of
attention onto a certain powerfully revealing (provided it is appropriately
understood;) evolution theoretical _sub_principle.
This subprinciple rests partly (but importantly) on my notion (and
defintion) of selective (as in specific or precisely localized) Hibernation
(as in "an adaptive minimization of metabolic activity").
Other necessary prerequisits are a capability and willingness to recognize
the fact and logical validity of that occurrence of "selective Hibernation
imploring type situations" (SHITS for short) with significant frequency
(almost throughout phylogeny) have coincided or overlapped with what may be
*very importantly meant* by (to SHITS dialectically opposed by, but not in
any strict physical or philosophical sense diametrically juxaposed)
"Opportunity-type" selective/evolutionary pressures.
"AEVASIVE", then, needs to be understood and grasped (and used with
grammatical flexibility) with a multi-pronged mind-set, or from an -
suitably EPT - perspective; one that *amongst else* include having come to
grips with the notion of "selective Hibernation" and its role in the
functioning of "Actention Selection Systems" (concEPTual replacement of
brains, nervous systems, or most broadly, "brainbody" systems). Thereof my
instructive inclusion of the term "endo-opiates" (at the end of the very
much pragmatically contrived acronym AEVASIVE).
P
P.S.
I have framed this (by me spotted) subprinciple - and contrived its
"concEPTual form" - by help of a small and stylistically consistent
assortment of freshly redesigned terms. Some of these are turgid or at least
relatively straight examples of fuzzy logic being applied and made concrete
by amalgamation of two ordinary words, others are built to be turdgid or
otherwise bent enough to deserve to be considered concrete (concEPTual)
examples of fuzz_silly logic; However, regardless, all are
classified/identified as concEPTs.
More importantly, to the uncertain extent that my "explanation pursuing
thinking" has led to a written philosophical product, that product (EPT) is
of course basically and almost totally built from, and upon, relevant and by
Science# as a whole already securely established: principles, theories,
interpretations, concepts, or suchlike intellectually informative 'items'.
You won>t be surprised that the "super principle" that my subprinciple is
"sub to" (or needs to be su-understood by) is of course Darwin>s "natural
selection".
To the deliberate extent that EPT contains certain jocular dimensions, these
are also either explained or explainable by rational and science-aligned EPT
arguments. But I suggest you just enjoy them to the extent that you can.
(BTW, one of these dimensions is such that it would help if you had some
"septic" humor.)
---
# Science - always with a capital S to indicate that the word is meant in a
holistic, and more encompassing than usual, sense - can be very
approximately defined as:~ Human practical and/or mental pursuits and
discoveries whereby *anything* from philosophical insights to technological
know-how has accumulated. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Huck Turner
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2003 10:53 pm Post subject: Re: How did we get language? |
|
|
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bs78kl$2aa7$1@darwin.ediacara.org>...
[quote]Huck Turner wrote:
"Peter F."
fell_spamtrap_in-hopefullyeffectiveagainstspam@ozemail.com.au> wrote
in message news:<brtsir$2lnc$1@darwin.ediacara.org>...
[snip]
Language has an ambi-advantageously controling social function.
E.g., it serves cooperative niche-exploiting efforts, and the
learning/refinement of such efforts;
One apparent paradox arises here.
Only if one does not even do the most basic of analysis on the problem.
[/quote]
Hence the word 'apparent'.
[quote]
If language is advantageous because
it allows us to learn about the world without having to directly
experience it, then we appear to have an advantage associated with
understanding language, but not for producing language. What is the
advantage to the speaker>s genes in providing information to others?
This is trivial, so trivial, that I keep wondering why people even put
forward any argument that "help others" is *not* good for the
*individual*. I note below, that you do realise this, my agro, is that
one has to be amazingly ignoranant to not see immediately that, e.g.:
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/morals.html
*********
Consider walking home from the pub alone, i.e. a group of 1. Further
consider an oncoming group of skin heads with metal toe cap boots. Which
group member(s) has the best chances of surviving the encounter? What
this author finds amazingly surprising is that there is any debate
whatsoever that such cursory apparent altruistic behavior is not in
accord with the basic tenet of maximizing individual numbers. Arguable,
an attempt to do anything in a society on ones own, without the
equivalent of a policemen, is tantamount to suicide. Any group that did
develop by mutations, would surely take the resources of such lone
individuals such that all of that group members individually benefit by
sharing such spoils amongst themselves.
*********
You could approach this from the point of view of kin selection, in
which case providing information to others confers an advantage to the
speaker>s genes if the individuals that hear that information are
close kin (i.e., share a significant proportion of the speaker>s
genes).
Kin selection, is a complete red herring. Its not required in the
slightest.
Another way would be to invoke ideas of a social contract
(helping others makes them more likely to help you in return).
Indeed.
The
benefits of this kind of cooperation would presumably outweigh the
very low costs associated with providing information to others.
Nothing presumably about it, again, it is trivial:
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/altruism.html
******
Consider chance mutations that resulted in two Replicators deciding to
aid each. If we make the reasonable assumption that two replicators can
defeat a single Replicator, these selfish pairs, could immediately steal
the resources of all those single Replicators and kill them. It wouldn>t
take long for essentially all loners to be driven to extinction.
Consider now mutations that cause these Replicators to up the odds to
3>s and 4>s. It can be seen that an evolutionary selection process will
generate larger and larger groups, with members co-operating with each
other, for the selfish advantage of each member. Of course, suitable
punishment for defectors would also have to evolve, since those pair
uppers require suitable responses to non payback, i.e. the help others
trait must be conditional.
It is therefore trivially obvious as to why general society has evolved
to be social. Any remaining loners simply don>t have a chance.
Comment - The argument relies on the probability of continued success.
For example, suppose that there is a 50% chance that a lone individual
can steal the resources (R) of another and kill that competitor, and,
for the sake of argument the pair has a 95% chance to do the same.
Although in the first encounter, the average advantage for the loner is
0.5R, where as for the pair, it is only 0.95/2=0.475R, at the next
encounter the loner undergoes a further 0.5 chance to lose all of its
resources and its life, i.e. 0.25, where as for the pair, its only
0.451. The point being, that it is a cumulate effect. In the long run,
pairs have a much greater change of surviving, and hence passing on
those genes and memes.
*******
But I don>t think there really is a question to answer here because it
simply isn>t true that providing information only ever benefits the
listener.
That>s right. There is zero of a question to answer. So much so, that
anyone that does not see it as you do note here, simply have not got
even the most basics of evolution under their belt.
There are many cases in which speaking appears to benefit
the speaker rather than the listener (e.g., boasting, propaganda) and
many cases in which it is potentially beneficial to both parties
(e.g., persuasion, negotiation), so the question of the speaker>s
advantage may not be as paradoxical as some have suggested.
ROTFLOL. I suppose such individuals have never walked home from the pub
noting that those steel toe capped yobbos accross the road are
conversing with each other as to mug you right there, or wait until you
turn the corner.
[/quote]
My point was that you don>t even need to think of this in terms of
co-operation (i.e., your example about the men with steel-capped shoes
is also irrelevant). Sometimes it>s in the speaker>s interest to
provide others with information even when he/she does not expect any
information in return. For instance, if the information is something
bad about one of the speaker>s rivals, or something good about the
speaker him- or herself, then the speaker can potentially increase his
or her social status by passing on this information to others. There
is only a question here for people who assume that the transmission of
information is only ever useful to the receiver, but this is not the
case. Anyone who works in advertising or public relations will confirm
this.
[quote]For a bit
more on this issue, have a look at the second half of this paper:
Turner, H. (2002). An introduction to methods for simulating the
evolution of language. In A. Cangelosi & D. Parisi (Eds.) Simulating
the evolution of language. London: Springer-Verlag.
My take is here http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/language.html
And, some *not-just-neocortical* correlates of language also
serve a function that I call "selective Hibernation" (others have
used words and phrases such as repression, "pain gating" and "ideas
as opiates", for the same thing).
I>m not sure how making someone feel better would provide a selective
advantage to either the speaker or the listener.
Of course it can. The trivial assumption is that of pay back. Suitable
mutual cooperation, as explained above, always wins other loners. If you
make people feel good, the learned memes tell you that you have a better
probability of having them make you feel good in return. The fundamental
issue here, is that there is no reason whatsoever to restrict behaviour
to one off encounters, where it might from a very naive perspective
indeed, be advantages to use a simple strategy. Evolution has developed
technique to deal with this dreadfully ineffective way of maximising
*individual* numbers.
[/quote]
Okay, but we>re talking about making people feel good by telling them
things. In general, you can make someone feel better by helping them
and you could argue that receiving quality information can help
someone, but saying things like "Don>t worry, it>ll be okay" and
"Mummy is in heaven now" serve to make people feel good without
benefiting them in any obviously survival-related way. Indeed, getting
back to the language of Peter F.'s post, if by "ideas as opiates" he
was alluding to Marx, then we should remember that when Marx said
"religion is the opiate of the masses", it was intended as a criticism
of organised religion for discouraging action that could improve the
lives of the exploited masses. As I said in my last post "Pain and
emotional distress are presumably adaptive responses to threats from
the environment."
H.
---
Like-minds don>t notice shared mistakes. Talk to someone else. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter F.
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2003 1:20 am Post subject: Re: How did we get language? |
|
|
"Huck Turner" <huckturner@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bsah0q$7h0$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
[quote]"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<bs78kl$2aa7$1@darwin.ediacara.org>...
Okay, but we>re talking about making people feel good by telling them
things. In general, you can make someone feel better by helping them
and you could argue that receiving quality information can help
someone, but saying things like "Don>t worry, it>ll be okay" and
"Mummy is in heaven now" serve to make people feel good without
benefiting them in any obviously survival-related way.
[/quote]
So YOU presumtiously say! ;-)
[quote]Indeed, getting
back to the language of Peter F.'s post, if by "ideas as opiates" he
was alluding to Marx, then we should remember that when Marx said
"religion is the opiate of the masses", it was intended as a criticism
of organised religion for discouraging action that could improve the
lives of the exploited masses.
[/quote]
I was alluding to Primal Theory.
[PT is a straightened-out modern day descendant of (and much more highly
evolved than) Freud>s theorizing and psychoanalytical poking around with
people.]
[quote]As I said in my last post "Pain and
emotional distress are presumably adaptive responses to threats from
the environment."
[/quote]
My point was precisely that they are NOT always adaptive.
Specifically, NOT when an individual has ended up in (as often happens) a
"selective Hibernation imploring" (type of) situation or (IOW) a ditto
physically inescapable and more or less chronically and influential
familial - or otherwise environmental - life-situational "setting".
[NB that such settings also automatically put CURSES (or CCKHHURSES) type
memories inside the brain of those that are in a SHITS (i.e., are in and
being challenged by a traumatic - whether slowly or rapidly so - situation).
Also note that CURSES can accumulate/be "put in" more than once in a
life-time; and that they work as both "Darwinian selective" and "actention
selecting" {within a brain or "Actention Selection System"} *pressures*
within individuals and their societies.]
[quote]Like-minds don>t notice shared mistakes. Talk to someone else.
[/quote]
Good slogan! Hope you adhere to it. ;-)
Merry Xmas,
Peter |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kevin Aylward
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2003 9:59 pm Post subject: Re: How did we get language? |
|
|
Peter F. wrote:
[quote]"Huck Turner" <huckturner@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bsah0q$7h0$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:<bs78kl$2aa7$1@darwin.ediacara.org>...
Okay, but we>re talking about making people feel good by telling them
things. In general, you can make someone feel better by helping them
and you could argue that receiving quality information can help
someone, but saying things like "Don>t worry, it>ll be okay" and
"Mummy is in heaven now" serve to make people feel good without
benefiting them in any obviously survival-related way.
So YOU presumtiously say! ;-)
Indeed, getting
back to the language of Peter F.'s post, if by "ideas as opiates" he
was alluding to Marx, then we should remember that when Marx said
"religion is the opiate of the masses", it was intended as a
criticism of organised religion for discouraging action that could
improve the lives of the exploited masses.
I was alluding to Primal Theory.
[PT is a straightened-out modern day descendant of (and much more
highly evolved than) Freud>s theorizing and psychoanalytical poking
around with people.]
As I said in my last post "Pain and
emotional distress are presumably adaptive responses to threats from
the environment."
My point was precisely that they are NOT always adaptive.
Specifically, NOT when an individual has ended up in (as often
happens) a "selective Hibernation imploring" (type of) situation or
(IOW) a ditto physically inescapable and more or less chronically and
influential familial - or otherwise environmental - life-situational
"setting".
[/quote]
Would you care to re-phrase this so it actually makes sense?
I have skimmed a few of your posts. What do to expect to gain by writing
in such an incomprehensible way?
What you have wrote here is, essentially, completely meaningless.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT>s and Filter Design.
That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kevin Aylward
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 25, 2003 9:59 pm Post subject: Re: How did we get language? |
|
|
Huck Turner wrote:
[quote]"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
message news:<bs78kl$2aa7$1@darwin.ediacara.org>...
Huck Turner wrote:
"Peter F."
fell_spamtrap_in-hopefullyeffectiveagainstspam@ozemail.com.au
wrote in message news:<brtsir$2lnc$1@darwin.ediacara.org>...
[snip]
Language has an ambi-advantageously controling social function.
E.g., it serves cooperative niche-exploiting efforts, and the
learning/refinement of such efforts;
One apparent paradox arises here.
Only if one does not even do the most basic of analysis on the
problem.
Hence the word 'apparent'.
[/quote]
I did realise this.
[quote]
There are many cases in which speaking appears to benefit
the speaker rather than the listener (e.g., boasting, propaganda)
and many cases in which it is potentially beneficial to both parties
(e.g., persuasion, negotiation), so the question of the speaker>s
advantage may not be as paradoxical as some have suggested.
ROTFLOL. I suppose such individuals have never walked home from the
pub noting that those steel toe capped yobbos accross the road are
conversing with each other as to mug you right there, or wait until
you turn the corner.
My point was that you don>t even need to think of this in terms of
co-operation
[/quote]
In principle, maybe.
[quote](i.e., your example about the men with steel-capped shoes
is also irrelevant).
[/quote]
Hardly irrelevant.
[quote]Sometimes it>s in the speaker>s interest to
provide others with information even when he/she does not expect any
information in return. For instance, if the information is something
bad about one of the speaker>s rivals, or something good about the
speaker him- or herself, then the speaker can potentially increase his
or her social status by passing on this information to others. There
is only a question here for people who assume that the transmission of
information is only ever useful to the receiver, but this is not the
case. Anyone who works in advertising or public relations will confirm
this.
[/quote]
This is pretty trivial. Yes this is correct, but arguably it is a
"higher" level aspect of language communication. Something that occurs
after the basics of lanuage has been developed. The idea presented here
is that telling tales on rivals is *more* important to the development
of language, than the mutual co-operation aspects. I don>t buy this in
the slightest. Arguable, mutual helping each other, rather than doing a
possible detriment to another is usually more beneficial. Telling tales
is not that effective in eliminating rivals in general. Try it sometime.
Indeed, *all* news is usually good news. One only has to note the
success of Hugh Grants follow-up film to his "public event" to
appreciate this.
[quote]
I>m not sure how making someone feel better would provide a
selective advantage to either the speaker or the listener.
Of course it can. The trivial assumption is that of pay back.
Suitable mutual cooperation, as explained above, always wins other
loners. If you make people feel good, the learned memes tell you
that you have a better probability of having them make you feel good
in return. The fundamental issue here, is that there is no reason
whatsoever to restrict behaviour to one off encounters, where it
might from a very naive perspective indeed, be advantages to use a
simple strategy. Evolution has developed technique to deal with this
dreadfully ineffective way of maximising *individual* numbers.
Okay, but we>re talking about making people feel good by telling them
things. In general, you can make someone feel better by helping them
and you could argue that receiving quality information can help
someone, but saying things like "Don>t worry, it>ll be okay" and
"Mummy is in heaven now" serve to make people feel good without
benefiting them in any obviously survival-related way.
[/quote]
That>s correct. One can be programmed to feel good about *anything*.
Memes evolved for the purposes of increasing replication numbers, but
their very nature in selection of emotions to achieve adaptability to
*all* environments necessarily results in, essentially, complete
arbitrary programmability.
I address this at http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/psychology.html
[quote]Indeed, getting
back to the language of Peter F.'s post, if by "ideas as opiates" he
was alluding to Marx, then we should remember that when Marx said
"religion is the opiate of the masses", it was intended as a criticism
of organised religion for discouraging action that could improve the
lives of the exploited masses. As I said in my last post "Pain and
emotional distress are presumably adaptive responses to threats from
the environment."
[/quote]
I agree, and this is, essentially *provable*, if we exclude magic, so no
presumption is required. i.e.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/emotions.html
e.g. Whatever the mechanism, emotions must be physical traits of a
Replicator, but traits that have underwent numerous selection, variation
and replication, hence they *must* be selfish. etc...
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT>s and Filter Design.
That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Huck Turner
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2003 1:40 am Post subject: Re: How did we get language? |
|
|
"Peter F." <effectivespamblock@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message news:<bsapkm$ad1$1@darwin.ediacara.org>...
[quote]"Huck Turner" <huckturner@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bsah0q$7h0$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<bs78kl$2aa7$1@darwin.ediacara.org>...
Okay, but we>re talking about making people feel good by telling them
things. In general, you can make someone feel better by helping them
and you could argue that receiving quality information can help
someone, but saying things like "Don>t worry, it>ll be okay" and
"Mummy is in heaven now" serve to make people feel good without
benefiting them in any obviously survival-related way.
So YOU presumtiously say! ;-)
[/quote]
I>m only saying that it isn>t _obvious_ that there are
survival-related benefits. It needs to be demonstrated.
[quote]
Indeed, getting
back to the language of Peter F.'s post, if by "ideas as opiates" he
was alluding to Marx, then we should remember that when Marx said
"religion is the opiate of the masses", it was intended as a criticism
of organised religion for discouraging action that could improve the
lives of the exploited masses.
I was alluding to Primal Theory.
[PT is a straightened-out modern day descendant of (and much more highly
evolved than) Freud>s theorizing and psychoanalytical poking around with
people.]
As I said in my last post "Pain and
emotional distress are presumably adaptive responses to threats from
the environment."
My point was precisely that they are NOT always adaptive.
Specifically, NOT when an individual has ended up in (as often happens) a
"selective Hibernation imploring" (type of) situation or (IOW) a ditto
physically inescapable and more or less chronically and influential
familial - or otherwise environmental - life-situational "setting".
[NB that such settings also automatically put CURSES (or CCKHHURSES) type
memories inside the brain of those that are in a SHITS (i.e., are in and
being challenged by a traumatic - whether slowly or rapidly so - situation).
Also note that CURSES can accumulate/be "put in" more than once in a
life-time; and that they work as both "Darwinian selective" and "actention
selecting" {within a brain or "Actention Selection System"} *pressures*
within individuals and their societies.]
[/quote]
If I understand what you>re saying, CURSES are like phobias, and these
make it more difficult for a person to deal with genuinely threatening
situations. I guess an example would be someone who is agoraphobic who
needs to flee from a burning building, but can>t because they fear the
open spaces outside.
So I guess you>re saying that language might have been favoured in
evolution partly because it is useful as a remedy for mental illness
(if it can be used to encourage people to get past such fears).
I don>t know what kind of evidence you could use to support this view,
and it seems to me that there are already reasons to doubt it given
that problems with self-talk seem to be a significant factor in
depression.
[quote]Like-minds don>t notice shared mistakes. Talk to someone else.
Good slogan! Hope you adhere to it. ;-)
[/quote]
I try my best to.
[quote]Merry Xmas,
Peter
[/quote]
And to you,
H.
---
Like-minds don>t notice shared mistakes. Talk to someone else. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Huck Turner
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2003 1:40 am Post subject: Re: How did we get language? |
|
|
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bsfmkl$1kkl$1@darwin.ediacara.org>...
[quote]Huck Turner wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
message news:<bs78kl$2aa7$1@darwin.ediacara.org>...
Huck Turner wrote:
"Peter F."
fell_spamtrap_in-hopefullyeffectiveagainstspam@ozemail.com.au
wrote in message news:<brtsir$2lnc$1@darwin.ediacara.org>...
[snip]
Language has an ambi-advantageously controling social function.
E.g., it serves cooperative niche-exploiting efforts, and the
learning/refinement of such efforts;
One apparent paradox arises here.
Only if one does not even do the most basic of analysis on the
problem.
Hence the word 'apparent'.
I did realise this.
There are many cases in which speaking appears to benefit
the speaker rather than the listener (e.g., boasting, propaganda)
and many cases in which it is potentially beneficial to both parties
(e.g., persuasion, negotiation), so the question of the speaker>s
advantage may not be as paradoxical as some have suggested.
ROTFLOL. I suppose such individuals have never walked home from the
pub noting that those steel toe capped yobbos accross the road are
conversing with each other as to mug you right there, or wait until
you turn the corner.
My point was that you don>t even need to think of this in terms of
co-operation
In principle, maybe.
(i.e., your example about the men with steel-capped shoes
is also irrelevant).
Hardly irrelevant.
[/quote]
It>s unnecessary to bring this up in a discussion about whether there
is ever any benefit to speakers because there are simpler, more direct
examples of speaker benefit. I>m not saying that co-operation isn>t
important. Given that talking is an activity that we don>t generally
engage in alone, I think it is fairly safe to conclude that
considerations of speaker-hearer co-operation are pretty fundamental
to understanding the selective advantage of language. Having said
that, self-talk (thinking in words) might be quite important too.
[quote]
Sometimes it>s in the speaker>s interest to
provide others with information even when he/she does not expect any
information in return. For instance, if the information is something
bad about one of the speaker>s rivals, or something good about the
speaker him- or herself, then the speaker can potentially increase his
or her social status by passing on this information to others. There
is only a question here for people who assume that the transmission of
information is only ever useful to the receiver, but this is not the
case. Anyone who works in advertising or public relations will confirm
this.
This is pretty trivial. Yes this is correct, but arguably it is a
"higher" level aspect of language communication. Something that occurs
after the basics of lanuage has been developed.
[/quote]
Why? Information is information. What would be different about the
language used to pass on a piece of information when the passing on of
that information is in the speaker>s interests versus the interests of
a hearer or hearers?
[quote]The idea presented here
is that telling tales on rivals is *more* important to the development
of language, than the mutual co-operation aspects. I don>t buy this in
the slightest. Arguable, mutual helping each other, rather than doing a
possible detriment to another is usually more beneficial. Telling tales
is not that effective in eliminating rivals in general. Try it sometime.
Indeed, *all* news is usually good news. One only has to note the
success of Hugh Grants follow-up film to his "public event" to
appreciate this.
[/quote]
Saying bad things about another person (particularly when they are
true and looked upon very negatively by others - e.g., so-and-so
murdered some children) is just one example of where the speaker
potentially benefits. I>m not suggesting that this is the primary
reason language was selected, but it could be for all I know. Other
examples where the speaker can be expected to be the primary
benefactor are boasts, requests, commands and questions. How important
are each of these? Again, I think it>s hard to say, but it seems to me
that the information we communicate is very often of mutual benefit
rather than exclusively of benefit to either the speaker or hearer. It
is co-operative, but not in the sense that the speaker provides
information with the expectation of receiving something back in return
although this kind of thing might happen as well. There are many
speech acts that are of mutual benefit in themselves. This is the
whole point of persuasive comments, contractual promises and of
expressions that reinforce social bonds. These are generally of
immediate benefit to both parties without any delayed payment to one
or the other.
[quote]
I>m not sure how making someone feel better would provide a
selective advantage to either the speaker or the listener.
Of course it can. The trivial assumption is that of pay back.
Suitable mutual cooperation, as explained above, always wins other
loners. If you make people feel good, the learned memes tell you
that you have a better probability of having them make you feel good
in return. The fundamental issue here, is that there is no reason
whatsoever to restrict behaviour to one off encounters, where it
might from a very naive perspective indeed, be advantages to use a
simple strategy. Evolution has developed technique to deal with this
dreadfully ineffective way of maximising *individual* numbers.
Okay, but we>re talking about making people feel good by telling them
things. In general, you can make someone feel better by helping them
and you could argue that receiving quality information can help
someone, but saying things like "Don>t worry, it>ll be okay" and
"Mummy is in heaven now" serve to make people feel good without
benefiting them in any obviously survival-related way.
That>s correct. One can be programmed to feel good about *anything*.
[/quote]
I don>t know about *anything*. You seem to like making hard-and-fast
rules. I>m a bit more tentative about these things.
[quote]Memes evolved for the purposes of increasing replication numbers, but
their very nature in selection of emotions to achieve adaptability to
*all* environments necessarily results in, essentially, complete
arbitrary programmability.
I address this at http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/psychology.html
[snip][/quote]
I don>t know how you could say that for *all* conceivable
environments, there is a conceivable meme that can replicate in it. I
doubt that this is so for the same reason that I doubt that there is
any conceivable life form that could live in a hostile environment
like the centre of a star.
H.
---
Like-minds don>t notice shared mistakes. Talk to someone else. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kevin Aylward
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2003 12:42 am Post subject: Re: How did we get language? |
|
|
Huck Turner wrote:
[quote]"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote in
[/quote]
[quote]
I>m not sure how making someone feel better would provide a
selective advantage to either the speaker or the listener.
Of course it can. The trivial assumption is that of pay back.
Suitable mutual cooperation, as explained above, always wins other
loners. If you make people feel good, the learned memes tell you
that you have a better probability of having them make you feel
good in return. The fundamental issue here, is that there is no
reason whatsoever to restrict behaviour to one off encounters,
where it might from a very naive perspective indeed, be advantages
to use a simple strategy. Evolution has developed technique to
deal with this dreadfully ineffective way of maximising
*individual* numbers.
Okay, but we>re talking about making people feel good by telling
them things. In general, you can make someone feel better by
helping them and you could argue that receiving quality information
can help someone, but saying things like "Don>t worry, it>ll be
okay" and "Mummy is in heaven now" serve to make people feel good
without benefiting them in any obviously survival-related way.
That>s correct. One can be programmed to feel good about *anything*.
I don>t know about *anything*. You seem to like making hard-and-fast
rules. I>m a bit more tentative about these things.
[/quote]
I think the fact that there are suicide bombers about confirms
absolutely that people can be programmed to do, essentially, anything.
My hard and fast rules are based on experience. I *know* that that the
way to create an entity capable of dealing with *all* environments, from
a practical point of view, *requires* generic software programmability.
The engineering cost of custom hardware to deal with killing the killer
of a killers killer is way too much. As soon as programmability arises,
one automatically inherits the ability to program for, essentially,
anything. Its the *only* way to be able to deal with *anything*.
My view is that evolution has taken a simple solution. It has evolved
emotions (a gene trait) to instigate behaviour, and morals (meme traits)
to select (a Darwinian process) what emotion is invoked.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/emotions.html
[quote]
Memes evolved for the purposes of increasing replication numbers, but
their very nature in selection of emotions to achieve adaptability to
*all* environments necessarily results in, essentially, complete
arbitrary programmability.
I address this at
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/psychology.html
[snip]
I don>t know how you could say that for *all* conceivable
environments, there is a conceivable meme that can replicate in it.
[/quote]
I don>t. That would be daft.
[quote]doubt that this is so for the same reason that I doubt that there is
any conceivable life form that could live in a hostile environment
like the centre of a star.
[/quote]
I said that to deal with all environments, one requires the ability to
have memes/genes that can deal with all of those environments. I was not
implying that such memes/genes were actually realisable in practise.
There are laws of physics you know.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT>s and Filter Design.
That which is mostly observed, is that which replicates the most.
http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
