Need a place to rant

Glorn2 wrote:

lol; it never really grows into animals.. it is responsible for our fight or flight response. where humans learn reason; however, communication is what really helps evolve that area of our brain.

and yes, humans also have an area of the brain that deals primarily with language; but it isny simply the learning of language we are talking about here; it is the conditioning of language, and what made language.. language. and what i mentioned in the 2nd post, that is gone forever; is that this ability to rationalize, using our prefrontal cortex, is what makes us `not animals`. However, without the ability to communicate over tens of thousands of years of evolution; we wouldnt have evolved into what we are today.

Or, if you want, you can say:

god made us speak english, god made it so dogs cant.

But that is the difficult way out (hard to believe that shit)

ending this post before i get disconnected

our language area of the brain is not in the prefrontal cortex, it is located above the left ear and in brocca's area

flight-fight response is not exclusively in the prefrontal cortex, it is mainly active through the hypothalimus

we dont really learn reason, we modify existing versions of reason. ex. a child can reason better than a crackhead who has "learnt" to reason. (in most cases)





"if your dog bites you when you get close to his water or cookies, dont get close to his water or cookies. im tired of seeing people calling in cesar milan because when their blind pug gets flipped over on its back it gets viciously angry. really? why are you forcing your blind pug onto its back? stupid"

and if you give a pigeon a treat in random intervals you will get a pigeon spinning in circles and bobbing its head.
there are many ways to get beings to do what you want. just condition them right by giving them praise only when they do good and being mad only when they are bad. mindless affection will confuse their behavior and random fits dont help either
we are talking about conditioning here, not being tolerant of a bad dog.

yea, i mean, all you gotta do is kick it in the ribs when it starts barkin and everything is gonna be alright in a few weeks

how come we cant train our children that way...

Quote :

how come we cant train our children that way..

well that's what happened to me... now the only bad thing i do is drugs lol but that's a different story.

as far as religion goes, the universe is infinite therefore anything you imagine is real somewhere in the universe whether its god, aliens, or a cure to cancer.

Quote :

as far as religion goes, the universe is infinite therefore anything you imagine is real somewhere in the universe whether its god, aliens, or a cure to cancer.

You must do drugs..

lol well ya but if you think about it if the universe is infinite then it is full of infinite possibility so anything goes... or this is one of those posts im going to regret when i sober up lol

Premise A) The Universe if ever expanding
Premise B) The Universe has infinite possibilites
Conclusion) Anything one imagines is real in the universe.

Whats wrong with this argument? The Universe is a PHYSICAL Universe which is bound by laws. If I were to to imagine a solid gas then according to this is would be real. But laws of physics say that a "solid" is a different state then a "gas". The universe is bound by the laws of physics. Its like saying I wish the Lord of Rings were real, and BAM the Universe creates Middle Earth in a galaxy far away, sorry doesn't work like that. Yes the Universe expands, but it creates in order and by laws. Not just random imaginative thoughts of a tiny little race that isn't even a tiny speck upon it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really don't know how me and Glorns discussion about psychological learning theories has been transformed into a theological debate. Please stay on the topic of the discussion or find the appropriate thread to suggest an argument. If you don't know much about psychology don't just ramble a bunch of stuff about religion to try and substitute and feel included.

That being said, Glorn and blazin let's finish debating whether non-humanoids can understand language.

hmmm i never thought of it like that but if you go on the premise that a higher being made everything in the universe then the lord of the rings is at least feasible. also i think the creation of the universe is still unknown, i don't believe in any of the theories i have heard

as the result of the work of chomsky and other linguists, language came to be viewed not as verbal behavior that was the outcome of conditioning and associative learning, but as the result of the application of a hierarchical set of rules called grammar. these rules allow the individual to generate a virtually infinite number of grammatical sentences, while also enabling the person to immediately identify non grammatical sentences. for instance, to use one of chomskys favorite examples, we easily recognize "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" as perfectly grammatical, if silly, while we have no difficulty rejecting these same words in a different order, "sleep ideas green colorless furiously," as ungrammatical. these sentences w use cannot be the result of simple learning, chomsky argued, but must follow from the systematic application of grammar.

and his theory was rejected by many other theories. The idea that infants are born knowing grammar is disproven in this forum alone.

I believe the true argument was that humans have a part of the brain (yet unidentified) that allows us to learn language to a much higher level, and much faster than anyone, or anything. You could argue that all the years of evolution could attribute to this. It is true that two parents with a high IQ will, on average, have children with high IQ's, even if the child is adopted from birth and brought up by an average income family.

If mental capacity and the ability to learn and retain information is in fact hereditary, it could be said that because we as a race rely heavily on language for survival, it became a basic trait passed down through all strains of people.

Glorn2 wrote:

and his theory was rejected by many other theories. The idea that infants are born knowing grammar is disproven in this forum alone.

I believe the true argument was that humans have a part of the brain (yet unidentified) that allows us to learn language to a much higher level, and much faster than anyone, or anything. You could argue that all the years of evolution could attribute to this. It is true that two parents with a high IQ will, on average, have children with high IQ's, even if the child is adopted from birth and brought up by an average income family.

If mental capacity and the ability to learn and retain information is in fact hereditary, it could be said that because we as a race rely heavily on language for survival, it became a basic trait passed down through all strains of people.

i dont believe infants know perfect grammar either.
but i also dont think that the acquisition of language is simple conditioning either.

50% of intelligence is determined by genes, studies have shown.

neither heredity nor the environment have 100% influence in most cases. even diseases present themselves differently depending on the environment.


could you elaborate on the grounds for rejecting this theory?
im pretty sure almost every theory has been rejected by other theories.
hell, evolutionary theory is rejected by creationism, it doesnt make it false

and the language area of the brain has been identified. it is broccas area and some surrounding regions

and, your right, language was important for survival. language allows us to communicate with each other and to form societies. these societies help ensure safety and increase survivability.
but language is not wholly responsible for mental capacity and the ability to learn and retain information. children, before learning a language, think in images.

these children certainly are learning. they just arent using language as an encoding device for their experiences.

You guy's really suck at staying on track in the midst of a debate, the topic was not whether human's have an innate biological structure that allows for higher level communication. The topic was that of if animals could conclusively understand our language. But anyways,

Quote :

I believe the true argument was that humans have a part of the brain (yet unidentified) that allows us to learn language to a much higher level, and much faster than anyone, or anything.

Wernicke's and Broca's Areas. Furthermore, on par of the "higher level" language, many other factors also come into play. The sophistication and ability to control our vocal cords as compared to other animals is much higher. Thumbs also have had a significant role in this process, as they allowed us to further develop and control language. Once we figured out how to write, we added much more detail and sophistication.

Way back when, as we began to develop language, a couple things happened. The mutations that separated us from homo erectus and the other homo genus tree were probably centralized around the development, or more advanced development, of areas such as Wernickes or Broca's; the ability to pass along information this way to such a degree, or to communicate with one another to achieve socialization was the foundation and ultimately complete survival mechanism of the Human race. As we began to develop this trait more and more over tens of thousands of years, these abilities and developments began to alter our DNA slowly, as a fallatic but easy analogy, think of working out a muscle. This work out passed down generation after generation after generation.

As I previously said at the beginning of the argument, language is not unique to our race. Every creature on Earth uses it and understands it to such a degree. Whether that is body language, simple sounds or complete words. Same as a vicious dog is less likely to attack if you assert dominance over it, same as your can train your dog to understand simple commands such as "sit".

To counter your argument on Chomsky with grammar Blazin that language is not conditoned. What about one word responses, the foundations of language? They require no grammatical laws, but often are the most effective ways of communicating. I agree, to form complex language you must use grammar, but doesn't have anything to do with learning. Grammar and syntax are simply laws your must follow in order to express how your words relate to each other.

As another slightly fallatic example to show my point, learning how to drive an automobile. The actual action of driving an automobile does not have anything to do with societies laws on driving. To learn how to drive you must learn how to Turn on the car, use the gas pedal, shift the transmission etc. This can be said to be accomplished through conditioning, turning the ignition and hearing the engine turn on is a stimulus which illicits an unconditioned response (enjoyment as you can now travel). This action is repeated every time you need to travel. We can go on and on but I think you see my point. Learning language functions the same way, we are conditioned. Why is that? When I say apple, and you produce an apple this repeats and repeats and repeats and I expect that every time i say the sound "apple" it will be associated with an apple. When I say apple and I mean orange, I am corrected till my mix up is extinct and replaced with the pairing of an orange with an orange.

See my point? Grammar has nothing to do with "learning" language persay, it does however have everything to do with using language. But Learning and Practicing are two very different concepts.

Quote :

If mental capacity and the ability to learn and retain information is in fact hereditary, it could be said that because we as a race rely heavily on language for survival, it became a basic trait passed down through all strains of people

We as a race do heavily rely on our intelligence and language as survival. When we really look down to the attributes of humans vs other animals; we are a completely weak, squishy and physically pathetic race. What we do have however is physical endurance and vast intelligence. Furthermore, we have the ability to pass down knowledge to future generations; through language. This is why every generation lives better, longer and is more advanced at the next and generally has less struggle with "survival". The use of language to pass down the secrets of survival has been the paramount figure in human prominence on Earth.

Quote :

but language is not wholly responsible for mental capacity and the ability to learn and retain information. children, before learning a language, think in images.

Your right, language is not wholly responsible for this, but it is the one factor that has been the most important for expanding our intelligence, thought and domination over every other thing we have ever come across. Sure we can retain pictures, images, smells etc in our mind, But it is with language that these are re expressed and completely understood. For example a tree, we can see a tree, remember what a tree looks like, taste it, smell it. But how without language would we reexpress that tree for others to learn about it? Sure we could draw a picture, but would that really explain what bark is, how its made, how leaves produce choroform etc? How about even simpler. Lets go back to the days of the caveman when language was first developing, they could draw pictures of the buffalo, but could they express a strategy on how to hunt them, their migration patterns, what to do with each piece of the buffalo, etc. etc.

epicpowda11 wrote:

You guy's really suck at staying on track in the midst of a debate, the topic was not whether human's have an innate biological structure that allows for higher level communication. The topic was that of if animals could conclusively understand our language. But anyways,

Quote :

I believe the true argument was that humans have a part of the brain (yet unidentified) that allows us to learn language to a much higher level, and much faster than anyone, or anything.

Wernicke's and Broca's Areas. Furthermore, on par of the "higher level" language, many other factors also come into play. The sophistication and ability to control our vocal cords as compared to other animals is much higher. Thumbs also have had a significant role in this process, as they allowed us to further develop and control language. Once we figured out how to write, we added much more detail and sophistication.

Way back when, as we began to develop language, a couple things happened. The mutations that separated us from homo erectus and the other homo genus tree were probably centralized around the development, or more advanced development, of areas such as Wernickes or Broca's; the ability to pass along information this way to such a degree, or to communicate with one another to achieve socialization was the foundation and ultimately complete survival mechanism of the Human race. As we began to develop this trait more and more over tens of thousands of years, these abilities and developments began to alter our DNA slowly, as a fallatic but easy analogy, think of working out a muscle. This work out passed down generation after generation after generation.

im pretty sure that the two split because of them occupying different niches in the environment

and i dont know but, i dont think there is any proof of the heritability of acquired traits

sure you can pass on your good genes but they wont carry the accomplishments you made throughout your life

i dont wanna go and research articles on this so i just pulled from wiki
"The basic concept of inheritance of acquired characters was finally widely rejected in the early 20th century."


As I previously said at the beginning of the argument, language is not unique to our race. Every creature on Earth uses it and understands it to such a degree. Whether that is body language, simple sounds or complete words. Same as a vicious dog is less likely to attack if you assert dominance over it, same as your can train your dog to understand simple commands such as "sit".

To counter your argument on Chomsky with grammar Blazin that language is not conditoned. What about one word responses, the foundations of language? They require no grammatical laws, but often are the most effective ways of communicating. I agree, to form complex language you must use grammar, but doesn't have anything to do with learning. Grammar and syntax are simply laws your must follow in order to express how your words relate to each other.

if words are conditioned, than how are we able to combine these words in an almost infinite number

it cant be a case of simple generalization, we are able to understand it because its similar to other words. we are able to perfectly understand and differentiate between the validity of two sentences we have never been exposed to before.

As another slightly fallatic example to show my point, learning how to drive an automobile. The actual action of driving an automobile does not have anything to do with societies laws on driving. To learn how to drive you must learn how to Turn on the car, use the gas pedal, shift the transmission etc. This can be said to be accomplished through conditioning, turning the ignition and hearing the engine turn on is a stimulus which illicits an unconditioned response (enjoyment as you can now travel). This action is repeated every time you need to travel. We can go on and on but I think you see my point. Learning language functions the same way, we are conditioned. Why is that? When I say apple, and you produce an apple this repeats and repeats and repeats and I expect that every time i say the sound "apple" it will be associated with an apple. When I say apple and I mean orange, I am corrected till my mix up is extinct and replaced with the pairing of an orange with an orange.

there is a theory, i think its called the serial position theory. it says that some actions, like playing a violin, occur way to fast for simple conditioning to come into play.

you should contact chomsky and let him know what you think. i think it will blow him away.

See my point? Grammar has nothing to do with "learning" language persay, it does however have everything to do with using language. But Learning and Practicing are two very different concepts.

can i quote this line when i talk to others on this subject. it just seems amazing

Quote :

If mental capacity and the ability to learn and retain information is in fact hereditary, it could be said that because we as a race rely heavily on language for survival, it became a basic trait passed down through all strains of people

We as a race do heavily rely on our intelligence and language as survival. When we really look down to the attributes of humans vs other animals; we are a completely weak, squishy and physically pathetic race. What we do have however is physical endurance and vast intelligence. Furthermore, we have the ability to pass down knowledge to future generations; through language. This is why every generation lives better, longer and is more advanced at the next and generally has less struggle with "survival". The use of language to pass down the secrets of survival has been the paramount figure in human prominence on Earth.

Quote :

but language is not wholly responsible for mental capacity and the ability to learn and retain information. children, before learning a language, think in images.

Your right, language is not wholly responsible for this, but it is the one factor that has been the most important for expanding our intelligence, thought and domination over every other thing we have ever come across. Sure we can retain pictures, images, smells etc in our mind, But it is with language that these are re expressed and completely understood. For example a tree, we can see a tree, remember what a tree looks like, taste it, smell it. But how without language would we reexpress that tree for others to learn about it? Sure we could draw a picture, but would that really explain what bark is, how its made, how leaves produce choroform etc? How about even simpler. Lets go back to the days of the caveman when language was first developing, they could draw pictures of the buffalo, but could they express a strategy on how to hunt them, their migration patterns, what to do with each piece of the buffalo, etc. etc.

[u]

i agree with this