Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> > dhw: […] [i]I would suggest that the ability to innovate was probably used only for purposes of survival, and even today this ability is largely used for the same purpose, extended to encompass improvements to our means of survival, and including ways of destroying our enemies. I do agree, however, that “hypothetical thinking” has enabled us to go far, far beyond the requirements of survival.[b] To what extent language inspires thought and thought inspires language I do not know.[/b] But there is no doubt that we give names to our discoveries and inventions – the names do not precede them! See below.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Note the bold. I know I think in language. Previously, I think new words were sounded out, not in thought, except now in highly technical studies words are invented to fit what is being described. Onomatopoeia applies early on. I think early homos lived in the present, but, I agree, they certainly invented.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Yes, we all think in language, but language is a vast collection of symbols for the “reality” it refers to. The word “happy” is not onomatopoeic (French heureux, German glücklich). Ignoring etymology, at some time or another, somebody somewhere thought up a sound to denote the feeling, so thought gave rise to language. But because language is not reality itself, someone might ask himself “what do I mean by happy?” and then language inspires thought.    
> > 
> > dhw: [i]Stasis here is just another way of saying that for a long time, nobody came up with any new ideas. As regards language, [b]I’d be inclined to say that concepts give rise to language and in turn language gives rise to concepts in an on-going, interactive process[/b].[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]I agree with this bold in current times, not 70,000 years ago when language really started to develop.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: I’m inclined to agree, though of course we have no idea to what extent our ancestors questioned the realities they were trying to symbolize with their language. 
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Your 'stasis' is the stasis I recognize. Big brain but nothing new for quite while until the owners learned to use it.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: I have never really understood what you mean by this. I haven't learned to “use my brain”. I learn as I expand my experiences, think about things, get ideas and ask questions, but I don’t “learn to use” my cortex or my cerebellum! The brain provides me with information and it responds to my requirements.
> 
> Stasis does not really apply to you or me. The input in childhood is continuous from everyone and everything that surrounds us. That did not exist in the time frame the author discussed before  language really exited. The sapiens brain of 315,000  ya  undoubtedly looked  and could have acted much like ours, was larger by 200 cc, and yet not used in the way you describe for yourself or me.  As we've noted much input by many thinking folks over centuries has created the context of our awareness. It impinges upon us the moment we appear, and is sopped up quickly and constantly by a sponge-like childhood brain.
> 
> My phrase 'learning to use it' implies the additive work done by successive humans over centuries and generations of us. They did the work. We receive the gift of that.