On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 10:06:37 PM UTC-4, Gabriel Bodeen wrote: > > > On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 8:24:33 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> Another knife in the heart of CTM, IMO... >> > > It took several minutes of Googling to find a plausible expansion of CTM, > at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computational-mind/ . I guess > objectively that's hardly any work at all compared to what would have been > needed in the past, but in the modern world it feels like that makes "CTM" > incredibly cryptic. :D > > >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_speech >> >> >>> A striking feature of language is that it is modality-independent. >>> Should an impaired child be prevented from hearing or producing sound, its >>> innate capacity to master a language may equally find expression in >>> signing [...] >>> >>> This feature is extraordinary. Animal communication systems routinely >>> combine visible with audible properties and effects, but not one is >>> modality independent. No vocally impaired whale, dolphin or songbird, for >>> example, could express its song repertoire equally in visual display. " >>> >> >> This would be hard to explain if consciousness were due to information >> processing, as we would expect all communication to share a common logical >> basis. >> > > But all the forms of language do share a common logical basis, according > to many linguists. How is it relevant to the logic of a language that it > can be expressed in different modalities? >
It's not relevant to the logic of the language, its relevant to the overall nature of language. If language were logical, then they would be universally modality-independent, but what the evidence seems to indicate is that pure logic or information is not the relevant aspect in developing language. What matters is the aesthetic engagement. It's about touching and feeling, not knowing and believing. > > >> The fact that only human language is modality invariant suggests that >> communication, as an expression of consciousness is local to aesthetic >> textures rather than information-theoretic configurations. >> > > "local to aesthetic textures ..." -- would you mind recasting the sentence > into more concrete terms? I haven't the foggiest idea what you're trying > to communicate. > It means that birds squawk because they like the feeling and sound of it. The intention of using the squawking to convey information is optional and evolves much later. > Since only humans have evolved to create an abstraction layer that cuts >> across aesthetic modalities, >> > > That appears untrue. I know birds, mammals, some molluscs, and some fish > can reason abstractly about motor behaviors and achieve the same goal with > very different kinds of motor behaviors. > You'll have to argue with the Wiki about that... "Animal communication systems routinely combine visible with audible properties and effects, but not one is modality independent. No vocally impaired whale, dolphin or songbird, for example, could express its song repertoire equally in visual display. Indeed, in the case of animal communication, message and modality are not capable of being disentangled. Whatever message is being conveyed stems from intrinsic properties of the signal." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_speech 'Intrinsic properties of the signal' = aesthetic texture. Craig > -Gabe > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
