Linguists live in a parallel world, acting as if human language came out of nowhere. If they studied the history of evolution, they would realize that what differentiates inanimate matter from living matter is the ability of the former to carry out actions, and that all action is part of a process in time, where the first is the noun, second the adjective, and finally the verb. The foregoing, because following such a sequence is how the brains elaborate a "mental correlate" of the relevant material environment and generate "expectations of action".
When we use language, we unconsciously seek to represent a segment of "reality" that our brain manages. The “quality of said representation” is objectionable, being able to be very good in some cases and very bad in other cases. For example, if I ask you "how much is one plus one", you will immediately answer "two", and you will know that your answer is universally accepted, since it is considered "true" and "indisputable". Not the case if I ask you about Morale. Concretely, human language, and through it Reason, is a tool whose power we have not finished measuring. It emerged about two hundred thousand years ago, however, it was only when the human being "stumbled" on the Scientific Method, a few centuries ago, that he knew how to take better advantage of it. We make use of Reason every time we make use of the language that characterizes us. As long as there are wars, we will not have been able to take better advantage of Reason. If you want to know how Reason operates, what "Consciousness" is all about, how it came about, and the role it plays today, let me know your email and I'll send you information about it.
Linguists know little or nothing about Evolution. Being "the word" the "main object" of their eagerness to know, little has been dedicated to studying "the meaning of the word", that is, "what lies behind the word, in the real world". Thus, for example, they give the word "distance" an extremely literal meaning (distance = space that separates "the objects", ignoring the "evolutionary root" of the word "distance". “Knowing what is happening” is part of “the equation of life”. By the way, for a living being made up of Matter, it makes sense that the knowledge in question refers to “knowing what is happening in the world of Matter”. Touch and taste allude to “here”, “right here”, in the world of Matter; not so smell and hearing. Indeed, what I am smelling and what I am hearing do not tell me about the "distance" between the originator of the smell or the sound. This is not the case with touch and taste, senses that report what is happening on the border of my body, in the world of Matter. I do not know the chronological order in which our five senses arose, and I do not know if specialists in the field are certain about which came first, but it is not necessary to know this to realize that when bifocal vision emerged, an important "evolutionary leap" took place. Indeed, unlike hearing or smell, senses that capture information that refers to a temporally undetermined past, sight, a sense that operates "at the speed of light", allows "locating in time and space ” to “perceived”. Thus, by "locating" the sound emitter through sight, the "cognitive bias" decreased markedly, a bias that refers to "the quality" with which the brain is capable of representing the conditions of the relevant material environment of the environment. individual. The brain is a skillful manager of uncertainty, and Evolution, knowing this, found in the Vision an organ that considerably reduces the uncertainty implicit in the brain's ability to represent "the material reality of the individual". In any case, the truth is that it was the sound (heard), through the human Language, the vehicle that Evolution used to access an extraordinary acceleration. This, notwithstanding the obvious limitations that the organ of hearing has to contribute to the mental layout of a representation of what "is happening" in the world of matter. Perhaps the foregoing is explained without considering that it is one thing to know what is happening, which requires access to information from the environment, and another thing is to communicate between peers. Communication between peers requires managing a “common language”, which can be used by both parties. Although there may be, in practice the common thing is that there is no "language between parties" when the organ of vision, taste, smell, or touch operates. Human language can rightly be considered a child of our ability to hear. Unlike the binocular vision that humans have, just by seeing we determine the distance between the object observed and us, a limitation that, as I reported before, is typical of smell and hearing. The importance of elaborating an adequate representation of the conditions of the relevant material environment, in the Present that we are living, conditions the ability to survive. Thus, for example, if through the ear I am informed of the presence of a lion in my relevant material environment, good for that, however, it gains weight to better determine the distance between me and the predator. In this sense, the view “informs me” if I am ten meters from the predator or one kilometer from it. Getting access, through the sense of sight to this distinction, is undoubtedly a great "evolutionary advance", this, because through sight I am informed "immediately" of the place where the predator is. I react differently, very differently, when I see a lion that is about a kilometer away from me, than I do when the lion is five meters away from me. Human language requires, in order to transfer a representation of reality between peers, no less time. Thus, for example, the “reality” that I intend to transfer using language with the sentence “the lady was stirring the soup; outside, the wind blew as it usually does in the prelude to winter; she cursed her husband, and she was there when she heard someone knock, almost softly, on the window. She then turned to look, and behind her glass the face of her son appeared, she did not finish "taking shape" until the end. Indeed, if instead of "the face of her son" the sentence ended with a "lover's face", a very different "mental panorama" would be elaborated by whoever is listening to the sentence. The spoken word, to acquire the character of language, needs to be heard, and in this sense it is a complement to the organ of hearing. Touch approaches such a duality, but not sight, taste, or smell. Through touch it is possible to access a language, but clearly the ear surpasses it.
This long comment starts with some sort of generalization / stereotype ("[All] linguists know nothing about evolution."), which means that the author cannot be taken seriously.
Great guest. It's great he doesn't just take learning theory as hard truth because of the weaknesses of innatist theories.
Linguists live in a parallel world, acting as if human language came out of nowhere. If they studied the history of evolution, they would realize that what differentiates inanimate matter from living matter is the ability of the former to carry out actions, and that all action is part of a process in time, where the first is the noun, second the adjective, and finally the verb. The foregoing, because following such a sequence is how the brains elaborate a "mental correlate" of the relevant material environment and generate "expectations of action".
When we use language, we unconsciously seek to represent a segment of "reality" that our brain manages. The “quality of said representation” is objectionable, being able to be very good in some cases and very bad in other cases. For example, if I ask you "how much is one plus one", you will immediately answer "two", and you will know that your answer is universally accepted, since it is considered "true" and "indisputable". Not the case if I ask you about Morale.
Concretely, human language, and through it Reason, is a tool whose power we have not finished measuring. It emerged about two hundred thousand years ago, however, it was only when the human being "stumbled" on the Scientific Method, a few centuries ago, that he knew how to take better advantage of it.
We make use of Reason every time we make use of the language that characterizes us. As long as there are wars, we will not have been able to take better advantage of Reason.
If you want to know how Reason operates, what "Consciousness" is all about, how it came about, and the role it plays today, let me know your email and I'll send you information about it.
He's an evolutionary anthropologist.
Linguists know little or nothing about Evolution. Being "the word" the "main object" of their eagerness to know, little has been dedicated to studying "the meaning of the word", that is, "what lies behind the word, in the real world". Thus, for example, they give the word "distance" an extremely literal meaning (distance = space that separates "the objects", ignoring the "evolutionary root" of the word "distance".
“Knowing what is happening” is part of “the equation of life”. By the way, for a living being made up of Matter, it makes sense that the knowledge in question refers to “knowing what is happening in the world of Matter”.
Touch and taste allude to “here”, “right here”, in the world of Matter; not so smell and hearing. Indeed, what I am smelling and what I am hearing do not tell me about the "distance" between the originator of the smell or the sound. This is not the case with touch and taste, senses that report what is happening on the border of my body, in the world of Matter.
I do not know the chronological order in which our five senses arose, and I do not know if specialists in the field are certain about which came first, but it is not necessary to know this to realize that when bifocal vision emerged, an important "evolutionary leap" took place. Indeed, unlike hearing or smell, senses that capture information that refers to a temporally undetermined past, sight, a sense that operates "at the speed of light", allows "locating in time and space ” to “perceived”. Thus, by "locating" the sound emitter through sight, the "cognitive bias" decreased markedly, a bias that refers to "the quality" with which the brain is capable of representing the conditions of the relevant material environment of the environment. individual. The brain is a skillful manager of uncertainty, and Evolution, knowing this, found in the Vision an organ that considerably reduces the uncertainty implicit in the brain's ability to represent "the material reality of the individual".
In any case, the truth is that it was the sound (heard), through the human Language, the vehicle that Evolution used to access an extraordinary acceleration. This, notwithstanding the obvious limitations that the organ of hearing has to contribute to the mental layout of a representation of what "is happening" in the world of matter.
Perhaps the foregoing is explained without considering that it is one thing to know what is happening, which requires access to information from the environment, and another thing is to communicate between peers. Communication between peers requires managing a “common language”, which can be used by both parties. Although there may be, in practice the common thing is that there is no "language between parties" when the organ of vision, taste, smell, or touch operates.
Human language can rightly be considered a child of our ability to hear. Unlike the binocular vision that humans have, just by seeing we determine the distance between the object observed and us, a limitation that, as I reported before, is typical of smell and hearing. The importance of elaborating an adequate representation of the conditions of the relevant material environment, in the Present that we are living, conditions the ability to survive. Thus, for example, if through the ear I am informed of the presence of a lion in my relevant material environment, good for that, however, it gains weight to better determine the distance between me and the predator. In this sense, the view “informs me” if I am ten meters from the predator or one kilometer from it. Getting access, through the sense of sight to this distinction, is undoubtedly a great "evolutionary advance", this, because through sight I am informed "immediately" of the place where the predator is. I react differently, very differently, when I see a lion that is about a kilometer away from me, than I do when the lion is five meters away from me.
Human language requires, in order to transfer a representation of reality between peers, no less time. Thus, for example, the “reality” that I intend to transfer using language with the sentence “the lady was stirring the soup; outside, the wind blew as it usually does in the prelude to winter; she cursed her husband, and she was there when she heard someone knock, almost softly, on the window. She then turned to look, and behind her glass the face of her son appeared, she did not finish "taking shape" until the end. Indeed, if instead of "the face of her son" the sentence ended with a "lover's face", a very different "mental panorama" would be elaborated by whoever is listening to the sentence.
The spoken word, to acquire the character of language, needs to be heard, and in this sense it is a complement to the organ of hearing. Touch approaches such a duality, but not sight, taste, or smell. Through touch it is possible to access a language, but clearly the ear surpasses it.
This long comment starts with some sort of generalization / stereotype ("[All] linguists know nothing about evolution."), which means that the author cannot be taken seriously.