Why is it that of all the representatives of the animal world, speech has developed only in humans?

[DaveC426913]

It follows - what? That all determined objects are subject to cause-and-effect relationships? That is, any effect is preceded by a cause?

The fact that any given event is preceded by a cause does not mean that cause A must always leads to the same effect A, nor does it mean that given effect A can only follow from one cause A.


Regardless, it doesn't discriminate against immaterial souls. If your immaterial soul can create effects that do not require a cause then why can't you create a Big Bang universe just by thinking about it?

 

[Pinball1970]

Следует - что? То, что все детерменированные объекты подчинены причинно-следственным связям? Т.е. любому следствию предшествует причина?

Your post was about speech in humans, mammals. Are you completely incapable of not only sticking to the subject of YOUR thread but also sticking to the ethos of this sub forum?
This is "Science" STOP polluting your own thread and the SF.

 

[ольга]

Your post was about speech in humans, mammals. Are you completely incapable of not only sticking to the subject of YOUR thread but also sticking to the ethos of this sub forum?
This is "Science" STOP polluting your own thread and the SF.

Засорять? Ну хорошо, как скажете.

 

[ольга]

The fact that any given event is preceded by a cause does not mean that cause A must always leads to the same effect A, nor does it mean that given effect A can only follow from one cause A.


Regardless, it doesn't discriminate against immaterial souls. If your immaterial soul can create effects that do not require a cause then why can't you create a Big Bang universe just by thinking about it?

Пинбол запрещает дальше тут дискутировать. О'кей, не мы устанавливаем тут правила.

 

[Pinball1970]

Засорять? Ну хорошо, как скажете.

I never mentioned "litter."

Stick to the science! Stop changing the subject FFS. That means "For fucks sake "

 

[DaveC426913]

Pinball prohibits further discussion here.

Well, the rules encourage staying on-topic, but also there is some implicit 'keep the science in the science forums and the non-science in the non-science forums'.

Okay, we don't make the rules here.

So I win.

 

[Pinball1970]

Пинбол запрещает дальше тут дискутировать. О'кей, не мы устанавливаем тут правила.

No you don't. YOU started this thread on primate speech but No you want to change it.
I provided studies on this but you have not commented on one single aspect or detail of those studies. Why? That is the science, why not one single scientific question?
No, just a silly off shoot that is ZERO to do with any sort of study, actual science.

 

[Pinball1970]

Пинбол запрещает дальше тут дискутировать. О'кей, не мы устанавливаем тут правила.

Are you going to be an honest poster? Or post a thread then meander from one topic to another like a child?

Don't be that person.

 

[ольга]

Well, the rules encourage staying on-topic, but also there is some implicit 'keep the science in the science forums and the non-science in the non-science forums'.


So I win.

Это всё равно, что проигрывая, стукнуть противника доской по голове, и сказать:" я выиграл!"

 

[ольга]

Are you going to be an honest poster? Or post a thread then meander from one topic to another like a child?

Don't be that person.

Мы бы и перешли постепенно к речи приматов, и всех остальных. Но вы не захотели подождать. Вам просто непривычен такой стиль общения, когда задача решается с неожиданной стороны.

 

[DaveC426913]

It's like when you lose, hitting your opponent over the head with a board and saying, "I win!"

I was kidding around. You threw in the towel rather easily.

If you want to have a serious discussion, it really should be in the correct forum with the correct title. This is discussion forum, not a free association forum, and it is considerate to other readers (now and in perpetuity) to let them know what a given thread is about.

TL;DR: you can't argue God in the Human Sciences forum; you'll get eviscerated, and rightly so.

 

[ольга]

I was kidding around. You threw in the towel rather easily.

If you want to have a serious discussion, it really should be in the correct forum with the correct title. This is discussion forum, not a free association forum, and it is considerate to other readers (now and in perpetuity) to let them know what a given thread is about.

TL;DR: you can't argue God in the Human Sciences forum; you'll get eviscerated, and rightly so.

Ball's in your court.

Хорошо, я просто хотела показать, как работает ваше сознание. И сделать это в отрыве от всего окружающего мира не получится. Знаете, в чём проблема современной науки? Она стала создавать узконаправленных специалистов, которые неплохо разбираются в какой-нибудь одной своей теме, но совершенно не способны собрать общую картину мира. Ну, по крайней мере, мне кажется что в западной науке так.

 

[DaveC426913]

Alternately, you could Report this thread and throw yourself on the mercy of James R to split the "what is free will?" digression off into its own thread, but no guarantees. He might rather you just start anew.

We would have gradually moved on to the speech of primates and everyone else. But you didn't want to wait. You are simply not accustomed to this style of communication, when the task is solved from an unexpected side.

Sorry, no. You're the new one here. You're the one not accustomed to SciFo's style of communication.

If you want to meander, post in the Free Thoughts forum. That's what it's there for. Members who want on-topic science will stick to the science forums.

 

[ольга]

Alternately, you could Report this thread and throw yourself on the mercy of James R to split the "what is free will?" digression off into its own thread, but no guarantees. He might rather you just start anew.


Sorry, no. You're the new one here. You're the one not accustomed to SciFo's style of communication.

If you want to meander, post in the Free Thoughts forum. That's what it's there for. Members who want on-topic science will stick to the science forums.

Ну хорошо. Давайте вернёмся к речи у животных. Как вы думаете, возможно ли создать генномодифицированную собаку, умеющую говорить? Ну ведь сделали же козу, дающую безлактозное молоко, почему бы не сделать говорящую собаку?

 

[DaveC426913]

Okay. Let's get back to animal speech. Do you think it's possible to create a genetically modified dog that can talk? Well, they made a goat that gives lactose-free milk, why not make a talking dog?

No. Not in this century.

Dogs have neither the brain capacity nor the vocal structures for complex speech.

A large portion of a dog's brain is devoted to smell.

 

[Pinball1970]

Мы бы и перешли постепенно к речи приматов, и всех остальных. Но вы не захотели подождать. Вам просто непривычен такой стиль общения, когда задача решается с неожиданной стороны.

You have not discussed the science! Not one iota!
Do you have the first clue regarding the Evolution, genetic implications and Environmental factors regarding language?
No.You have wandered off to something else.


We are done, you don't care about scientific studies so I'll leave you to it.

 

[C C]

[...] There is no free will in determinism. The freedom of will is provided by religions in which there are immaterial entities other than the material world, and not subject to its laws. ..... Никакой свободы воли в детерменизме не предусмотрено. Свобода воли предусмотрена религиями, в которых есть нематериальные сущности, отличные от материального мира, и не подчиняющиеся его законам.

Random activity is not decision-making. Lack of organization is not a functioning intelligence or living entity, to begin with.

So an agent of any kind -- material or immaterial -- fundamentally entails being regulated by principles, inclinations slash instructions or some form of systematic guidance and order. This is why compatibilists point out that we actually want to adhere to our standards most of the time (if they're successful or non-detrimental) rather than randomly violate them, as a severely mentally ill person alternatively would.

Additionally, if you were a slave in a society of the past, your invisible soul or spirit that's supposedly pulling your strings would make no difference. You are still going to do what the master says if you want avoid punishment. That would be the autonomous operation of either an invisible agency or a very visible human body still outputting a choice that it does not want to receive the consequences.

In contrast, pragmatic or non-metaphysical obsessed free will is just the recognition that we have:

1. The capacity to reprogram ourselves, if we need to do so because we have undesirable or destructive and harmful habits.

2. The capacity to escape prosecution when we are genuinely not responsible for a misdeed. Being forced to do something against your usual preferences and personal standards actually illustrates that you are otherwise autonomous most of the time (at least in today's society where slavery or serfdom is mitigated).
_

 

[ольга]

Random activity is not decision-making. Lack of organization is not a functioning intelligence or living entity, to begin with.

So an agent of any kind -- material or immaterial -- fundamentally entails being regulated by principles, inclinations slash instructions or some form of systematic guidance and order. This is why compatibilists point out that we actually want to adhere to our standards most of the time (if they're successful or non-detrimental) rather than randomly violate them, as a severely mentally ill person alternatively would.

Additionally, if you were a slave in a society of the past, your invisible soul or spirit that's supposedly pulling your strings would make no difference. You are still going to do what the master says if you want avoid punishment. That would be the autonomous operation of either an invisible agency or a very visible human body still outputting a choice that it does not want to receive the consequences.

In contrast, pragmatic or non-metaphysical obsessed free will is just the recognition that we have:

1. The capacity to reprogram ourselves, if we need to do so because we have undesirable or destructive and harmful habits.

2. The capacity to escape prosecution when we are genuinely not responsible for a misdeed. Being forced to do something against your usual preferences and personal standards actually illustrates that you are otherwise autonomous most of the time (at least in today's society where slavery or serfdom is mitigated).
_

Я хоть и верующая, но при этом ещё и материалистка. И хочу понять - что такое свобода воли? Как это работает? Потому что в материальном мире всё связано со всем, нет ничего автономного и независимого, всё от чего то зависит. Если сознание - это только работа мозга, то тогда о какой свободе и независимости идёт речь? Или сознание не подчиняется известным физическим законам?

 

[DaveC426913]

I still don't follow how you think that connectedness eliminates free will.

I'm connected to the balls on the table because I can see them. How does mean I don't have a choice about which one I pick, or if I pick one at all, or instead flip the table?

You have not addressed this question.

 

[C C]

Although I am a believer, but also a materialist. And I want to understand - what is free will? How does this work? Because in the material world everything is connected with everything, there is nothing autonomous and independent, everything depends on something. If consciousness is only the work of the brain, then what freedom and independence are we talking about? Or does the consciousness not obey the well -known physical laws?

The human body is not a wooden puppet that requires an external manipulator to produce its movements, speech, intelligence, and decisions. It is autonomous for all reasonable purposes.

Just stop being an incompatibilist, or accepting that kind of requirement for free will. Why in the world would you want to behave randomly (devoid of internal regulation), as a severely insane person does?

You want your somewhat predictable choices and inclinations, as long as they are not destroying your life or others. And if they are, accepting the concept of free will enables you to change them, whereas someone who regards themselves as fatalistically locked in their current programming will not do so.

And the extreme view of requiring control over all your own origins in order for there to be free will is incoherent. The idea that you could "have been someone or something else" or that you could "have been an alternative version of yourself with different memories and routines" -- neither of those is possible. Since you would thereby cease to exist physically or psychologically (respectively) if you were someone other than who you are. You can't choose to be replaced before you exist, and if you could replace yourself afterwards you simply cease to exist. Someone else (either physically or psychologically) can't be you, since that entails different individuals.

That kind of metaphysical requirement -- in order for free will to be applicable -- is likewise designed to be dead the instant it leaves the starting gate.
_