Glen -
Right. I tried to say that the root of language is the ability to
"point at", but that what we call language is built on top of that root.
But I subsequently admitted that, if _everything_ we do as living
organisms is built atop that root, then saying it's also the root of
language is useless. My subsequent caveat is based on my (massively
ignorant) reading of people like Rosen and such who claim a closure of
some kind is the definition of life.
Good clarification... and I (think we) agree that a nounless language is
an odd thing to consider indeed. I *like* the nonduality that the
rheomode (and I believe Navajo?) carries explicitly in it's preference
for *not* distinguishing subject from object, but I'm not sure what a
process/verb/predicate only language would be? Maybe creatures such as
the Cetaceans are more prone to this given their somewhat
fluid/flux/gradient environment (compared to our own generally
discretized "chunky" environment?) Or advanced Jellyfish-like Gas Bag
sentients living in the upper atmosphere of Jupiter?
Note that I included not just the appendage with which to point, but the
neurological structure that allows us to empathize.
And is it possible that this neurological structure literally co-evolved
with language itself? I presume you use the phrase "appendage with
which to point" fairly metaphorical as we know plenty of people who can
point quite effectively with: their finger (pick any one of several for
nuanced implication); their gaze; their shoulder; their head; their
chin; their lips... Do Dolphins and Orcas point? I do believe the
ones in captivity have no trouble understanding various pointing
gestures including gaze and appendage. How much does sharing some
basic language (structure?) get involved in empathic understanding?
That's critical.
E.g. Sometimes my cats will look where I point. But not very often.
For the most part, they look at the tip of my finger. Do cats have
"language" ... well, it all depends on your definition. I would say No,
because they don't have the root of language I'm looking for ... or at
least mine don't seem to. ;-) I'd be interested in the neural
mechanisms of the pointing dog breeds.
I've had pointing breeds and *their* pointer in my experience is really
their gaze, with which their posture follows. I did not train them in
this regard, just observed their instinctual nature.
I've never had a dog that actually understood *my* pointing. I could
drop a bit of food in the kitchen and when asking for help cleaning it
up, no amount of pointing would help right up to moving the pointing
finger they were staring at all the way down to the actual object. I
would do better to just avoid stepping on the bit of food for a few
moments and let the dog find it with their nose. But silly me, I always
try to engage as I would with a human. My 1 year old granddaughter
seemed to understand pointing soon after her eyes began to focus and she
seemed to recognize discrete objects. In her case (and all babies?)
pointing started with reaching, a reach that intrinsically exceeds it's
grasp? Perhaps *this* is what identifies humans and/or sentience... a
reach that exceeds the grasp?
I've had dogs which understand (quite clearly) the gesture of throwing.
In this case, pretending to *throw* something would give he hint to look
or even *run* in the direction where my (pointing) appendage ended up
pointing. I had an Irish Setter who also understood (halfway) that a
thrown object had a shadow (often) and instead of trying to track the
object, would chase the shadow. He was as fast and he obsessive. When
the sun was low, his chase would trace a long arc, ending with the
(tennis ball usually) bouncing off of his snout which he would then
snatch from the air or after another short chase. I think this might
be a rederivation of Fermat's Principle of Least Time in Optics, by
Irish Setter? Oh yeh, he also only had three legs.
My current dog (a strange mix of chocolate lab and doberman or viszla?)
has a total jones for a laser pointer which has grown to include
flashlight beams. Walking at night with her is totally strange, you
have to be careful where you point the flashlight because she is
*always* aware of where the beam is and will try to pounce on it as she
does laser pointers (just like a cat?!). Pointing the flashlight in the
path for your guests on the way to their car leads to them tripping over
a very eager and focused dog instead. She even seems to correlate the
pointing with the (first it was my Infrared Thermometer, then a
conventional laser pointer, then accidentally the flashlight) pointing
device. A conventional (telescoping or not) "pointer" means nothing to
her except that I might either throw it for her to chase or *whack*
her. Maybe if I affixed a laser pointer to it?
*Science:*
I think you (again Glen) are saying that the core of science is the
Scientific Method?
Perhaps. But "scientific method" is a hoity-toity word intended (or
accidentally) used to intimidate people.
Nope... it is a phrase intended (coined, adopted, grown?) to mean one
thing very precisely. The Wikipedia entry might broaden it a bit (note
that the W entry is in dispute at the moment), but the central spirit of
this concept remains. The OED's description is naturally about it's
etymology and historical use, but again, still remains true to the
central concept:
"a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the
17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and
experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."
OED
It might get used for what you say (intimidation and dismissal?), but
that is not what it was coined for nor is that what it means (ok...
argue that what it is used for is what it means... but I'm not sure when
that isn't a specious and semicurcular argument?). But we've been
discussing what fairly well defined words mean already, so I grant you
that there can be an issue among common discourse.
And while many people may *be* intimidated by it's use, I think it is
still a very legitimate (motivated as well as useful) way to classify a
very specific approach to obtaining and building knowledge. I have
great sympathy for other approaches (intuitive in particular), and don't
dismiss them lightly if or when I do. I understand that there is a
large body of people who might use "the Scientific Method" in roughly
the same way as others might use "The One True Path" or "The Holy
Gospel" or "The Chosen People", to intimidate and dismiss.
What I think we are both talking about is: 1) Taking a(n educated?)
guess that involves causal relations; 2) Formulating a way to test this
guess by *doing something*; 3) Doing something; 4) Observing the
results; 5) Recording the results; 6) repeat any/all of 1,2,3,4,5
until 5 matches 1 (excluding the obvious cheat of simply adjusting 5 to
match 1, also practiced for the purpose of gaining future funding but
generally frowned upon)
There really is no Grand
Unified Scientific Method. There are methodS, emphasis on the S. There
are people who log what they do and people who don't. A scientist is a
person who logs what they do in such a way that others can repeat what
they've done.
So, a) you have to do stuff, not just think. And b) you have to do it
in such a way so that others can also do it.
Hypothesis generation and testing combined with repeatability (by
others) is all I mean by "the Scientific Method". I think you do too?
And yes, within that high level description, there are a multitude of
methodS for every aspect. The engineering approaches used to set up and
execute experiments, different styles of diagramming and of notating
data as it is acquired. And even different branches of mathematics and
schools of thought on statistics/evidence/error (e.g. frequentist,
bayesian, fuzziest)... etc.
Blatheringly,
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
