Re: Not good at it yet.

Cyde Weys wrote:
> NashtOn wrote:
>
>>David Canzi -- non-mailable wrote:
>>
>>>A species practicing a recently acquired skill will not do it well.
>>>
>>>The development of rational thought required the development
>>>of languages complex enough to contain logical connectives and
>>>quantifiers, eg. "if", "and", "all". Our ability to use such
>>>languages and think rationally is new. We're not good at it yet.
>>>
>>>This explains why the intelligence that separates us from other
>>>animals doesn't separate us from them by much. This explains
>>>why most people readily believe nonsense. This explains a lot
>>>about alternative medicine, creationism, and holy wars.
>>>
>>>This phenomenon, widespread belief in harmful nonsense, probably
>>>happens to *any* species that begins to evolve intelligence
>>>*anywhere* in the universe. I wonder if any incipient rational
>>>species ever survives long enough to reach the point where most
>>>of its members think straight most of the time?
>>>
>>
>>Judging by this nonsense, at least in your case, you're probably right.
>
>
> Actually he seems pretty dead on to me (if a bit forceful). Care to
> share what disagreements you have with what he posted?
>


Based on what proof does the OP base his far-fetched assertions? What is
"new" and how can we prove this?
Secondly, the use of language per se and cognition are separate notions.
Furthermore, belief in a religious system has nothing to do with the use
of language either, unless you have some proof to that effect.
Thirdly, religious beliefs are not harmful, it's the people who use them
as it were, for their own agendas.
Finally, we have no proof of extraterrestrial life, let alone the
existence of any "species" in the universe.

If his nonsense seems dead on (sic) to you, then you also believe in
evolution, not because you know what it is or what it implies, but
merely because it suits your ideology and system of belief.


As I said, the OP's assertions were nothing but nonsense.

Nicola

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Hypothesis That Ends All Debate
    ... parcel to new biomes. ... Manifest nonsense. ... How many new species are ... monkeys, most OW monkeys, mandrill baboon, ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: If you were to design a language, how many vowels and consonants would you use?
    ... The speakers of two different _languages_, however, ... the situation you describe where people live in monoglot isolation ... In the same ideal world where members of different biological species ... communicative isolation. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Everyone,look! Windy feels the air flowing in her head.
    ... species. ... results may try to repeat them, not that the original discoverers must ... You mean COPIES of books in the original languages? ... proceeded to ask questions about origins of species. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: If you were to design a language, how many vowels and consonants would you use?
    ... >> Well, if we go down to the level of the individual speaker, ... >> individual animal and the species it belongs to. ... The claim that there are different languages gives each language the ... This comment is not intended to necessarily have any relevance to what Jens is on about, ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: If you were to design a language, how many vowels and consonants would you use?
    ... The speakers of two different _languages_, however, to the extent that they're not mutually intelligible (a concept nearly as difficult to quantify in many cases as is reproductive isolation in the wild, of course), have sufficient difficulty communicating using them for us to speak of them being "communicatively isolated", to at least the same extent as wolves and coyotes are reproductively isolated. ... Conversely, a fair degree of isolation, geographical or behavoural, is necessary for one species/language to split into two. ... In the same ideal world where members of different biological species never interbreed, ...
    (sci.lang)