[MD] TiTs and the Illusion of SOM

[David Thomas]

On 8/23/10 3:12 PM, "David Buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>[dmb]
> You literally cannot think without language. It's the vital missing link
> between brains and minds, see?  [dt note: No SOM, no mind]
[Dave]
OMG. I can visualize primate researcher, Tetsuro Matsuzawa literally laying
on his back with all his chimps, all fours in the air, pant hooting in
hysteria with them at the very silliness of this statement.

Or the early childhood researchers at Max Planck Institute having to be
restrained to avoid hurting themselves as they roll around the floor in
laugher. 

I hope for your sake that you are smart enough not to try and defend this
statement in you thesis. But wait, it probably won't make a bit of
difference. Are there any hard core scientists on the committee? Probably
not. Remember this one:

>[ZaMM-pg197]
> The Chairman said, "What is your substantive field?"
> Phædrus said, "English composition."

[Dave] 
This is why Popper was convinced that philosophers and philosophy should be
limited to those who had a "substantive field" in science, particularly in
modern times. I imagine as he mellowed with age and might have considered
allowing some "soft" social sciences in. Just manipulating text logically
and persuasively on the page while trying to integrate information from
fields you have no real experience or expertise in was fraught with danger,
he thought. Marx was his favorite example of this.

Let's start with a common sense example:

If your above claim is true, as a child Helen Keller had no thoughts, her
mind "literally could not think" prior to being taught sign language. True?
Then how in the hell did she learn sign language? If you cannot think how do
you figure out the water splashing on your hand has something to do with the
movement of your caregivers fingers? She can't see or hear, only touch yet
she figured it out without thinking? Petuniacock!

I posted these previously in my unkludging thread:

>[Dave in Unkludging the MoQ]
> Modern children as young a six months have the ability to understand
> abstract signs and concepts with no verbal clues. The question they were
> responding to was "What is Good?"

 I believe this was on this episode of The Human Spark
http://video.pbs.org/video/1383599160/#

> [Dave in Unkludging the MoQ]
> Comparing chimps to two year olds at the same "helpful pointing" test.
> The helpful point test is set-up with two overturn cups with a treat under
> one. The treat is place under the cup before showing them to subjects.
> Tester then reveals cups and points to one with treat. Apes never take the
> suggestion, children almost always do. No verbal clues given.
> 
> Different researcher, Oxford scholar who's specialty is trying to understand
> the social aspect of brain development when ask, "Isn't language the
> significant turn point in social development between apes and humans?"
> responds after a pause, No, I think it's pointing. No other animals do it.
> 
> Young children (3yr) and hand raised chimps in helpfulness test. Apes only
> help in "dropped object test" if repeated gestures or requests are made and
> then not always. Young children almost always help voluntarily after viewing
> the accidental dropping with little or no gestures.

[Dave]
All of these experiments were specifically done to study development of
abstract thoughts in the brain with little or no talking to minimize or
eliminate its influence. But absolutely no sign of thinking was displayed in
these or any other of the thousands of similar experiments? All these
experiments failed? Absolutely no indication? Pansycock!

So you start with this doozie,

> [RMP in Paul Turner Letter]
> "intellect," that can mean thought about anything.

And you extend it to say that no animals, no proto-humans, and no humans
prior to learning a language can or ever did have a thought. Including
modern children six months or less old. If you seriously believe anywhere
close to this you are delusional.

While language maybe dependent on social interaction, both language and
social interaction are dependent on abstract thinking of some form or
another. Not the other way around.

Dave

PS: Your response will probably claim something to the effect that pointing
is the first sign of language. Guess what the thought comes before the point
every time. Always did, always will. While it often appears that we speak
without thinking, that is also an illusion. What that means is we speak
without thinking, well. (I included this last thought so you could use it as
a lead into a snark of your choice.)

PPS: I doesn't really matter what the content of your thesis is anyway. The
majority of the time they are all about showing up, politics, and BS.