This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
The linguistic property of semantics would be difficult to give any explanation for only in terms of matter in motion. Since it is not reducible to syntax, any syntax never fully specifies the semantics. And even if that would work the difficulty of specifying syntax in terms of matter in motion has the same problem, any matter in motion could specify any number of different syntaxes.
Let me see if I understand what you're saying, Heuristics. I rewrite your comment like this:"The way words have meaning is hard to explain only in terms of matter in motion. Since it's not just words, the words don't have the full meaning. And again, you can't prove that a given word has a given meaning just by matter in motion. Any matter in motion could be defined with any number of different words."Do I understand you correctly?
Merry Christmas!Nice share Vic. I was just randomly thinking about this the other day. Watching children grow up you really get the sense that there's something different going on. It seems to me the diversity of languages and the ubiquitousness of the concepts they each convey is even more difficult to explain in a purely materialistic macro-evolutionary paradigm.
Of course, the story you get from our good friends at DI is a distortion. It's not that there is no naturalistic explanation for the development of language, as these people would have you believe. The reality is that we don't know what explanation is the correct one. The main reason for that is the lack of fossil evidence that would support one theory over another. But that's very different from saying that naturalism can't explain it at all.
"Of course, the story you get from our good friends at DI is a distortion. It's not that there is no naturalistic explanation for the development of language, as these people would have you believe."Actually I think you distorted what they read. "Those people" led nobody to believe no such thing. You read all that in there.
Here is the title of the article:"Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language"That is a blatant lie.
No it isn't a "blatant lie" you jackwagon. The title applies correctly to the "leading evolutionary scientists" mentioned in the article.
Leading evolutionary scientists, like Marc D. Hauser, who was forced to resign from Harvard University for scientific misconduct.I urge you to follow the link to the article written by these "leading evolutionary scientists" and read the comments there.
Right.You just don't agree with their estimation of the cast as "leading."So in other words, no "blatant lie" anywhere. Just a loose accusation from a "rationalist" with an axe to grind.
"Leading Evolutionary Scientists say we have no explanation of the beginning of human language"And?
Read those comments. Yes, it is a lie. There are evolutionary explanations for the development of language, as I said.
Yes, it is a lie. There are evolutionary explanations for the development of language, as I said.No, there is no lie idiot. A "lie" is a premeditated falsification. You're being a pedant who disagrees with wording. Read between the lines: no evolutionary explanation that they find compelling or in line with the evidence.Totally different. Quit call people liars simply because you dislike their conclusions.
"Quit call people liars simply because you dislike their conclusions."I call people liars when they lie.
Post a Comment