continued@ontologysue
“My point was, 1) scientists cannot find any evolutionary evidence that credibly supports a natural progression in evolution from the “trousered ape” to the human syntax/meaning triad”
Despite the evolutionary evidence that I have directed you towards, eh? The presence of an “(evolutionary counterpart) in monkeys”. The demonstration of chimps ability to grasp our language, the most accomplished of which currently surpass your grandson, you don’t deny him the ability of language at the moment do you?
Here are some milestones for human language development at the age of 2-3 (the approximate level that chimps have demonstrated, with sign language so forget about such things as question inflection) taken from the national institute on deafness and other communication disorders
nidcd.nih.gov/index.asp
Knows about 50 words at 24 months.
Knows some spatial concepts such as “in,” “on.”
Knows pronouns such as “you,” “me,” “her.”
Knows descriptive words such as “big,” “happy.”
Says around 40 words at 24 months.
Speech is becoming more accurate but may still leaveoff ending sounds. Strangers may not be able to understand much of what is said.
Answers simple questions.
Begins to use more pronouns such as “you,” “I.”
Speaks in two to three word phrases.
Uses question inflection to ask for something (e.g., “My ball?”).
Begins to use plurals such as “shoes” or “socks” and regular past tense verbs such as “jumped.”
I’ve directed you to a masters thesis on the co-evolution of human anatomy and neurology with human language.
Here’s the synopsis of that other Stephen Pinker book I mentioned, “The Language Instinct” (I haven’t read this one, but it seems to be quite relevant):
“This book looks at one of the most fundamental of our species’ distinguishing characteristics: the use of language. The author argues that our language abilities are part of our genetic inheritance, not a cultural artefact, bringing together Darwinian natural selection and Chomsky’s linguistics. The author debunks many of the standard facts - the dozens of Eskimo words for snow, the belief that we think using language, that English is a logic-defying tongue - and shows that language is a basic human instinct.”
I’ve given solid evolutionary reasons why there aren’t numerous examples of human-level-complexity language all around us.
Clearly there are still questions to be answered, I’m not saying there aren’t, but you almost seem to be hanging your entire argument on other animals not using human language/syntax/meaning. I’m sorry, but human language/syntax/meaning was not the goal of evolution, there was and is no goal, you’ll need to get over this all too common human arrogance. This is not an unponderable problem, and many scientists are making real, verifiable, progress without any requirement of whatever it is that you might be referring to when you mention an “infinite intelligence” etc.
“2) the examples you give of semiotic scholars supports my view that, although, on a gross level similarities can be demonstrated, still, the human capacity seems more and more an “anomoly” in the sense that it appears to be another “animal” all together in mind/brain development”
The differences are only differences in degree rather than anything really unheard of in the animal kingdom. Chimps and Bonobos are our closest animal relatives (and I was surprised to find that we are THEIR closest animal relatives) and, surprise surprise, they exhibit the closest similarities to our capacity for language (our language at least, there are studies into other animal communication). We share 99.6% of our active genes with them, and they get to the level of a 2-3 year old in our language. Just what other similarities are you hoping to find?
“3) What the implications of current scholarship in language and consciousness, along with the irreducible complexity”
LOL! Irreducible complexity, the heart and soul of the Intelligent Design “movement”, was mercilessly crushed in the court case in Dover and deemed unscientific.
“found in the fields of micro-biology and quantum physics, indicates is that of a meta-physical reality (intelligence, information, wisdom, a thought) underlies these processes,”
Misguided, unfounded nonsense. Biological science has found no evidence of what you speak of in humans, other animals or plants. (Stengar “Bioenergetic Fields” Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine 3, no.1 (Spring/Summer 1999)). In regards to quantum physics, there are a lot of dishonest writers taking advantage of the complicated nature of quantum physics to make people think it says more than it does.
“perhaps the material is “embedded” in this meta-physical reality?”
What are you even talking about here?
