Yes. But the people who say this seem to forget all the non-
linguistic "things we do" that are uniquely human: play piano
concertos, paint portraits, play chess games, and perform ballets,
for example. I think all of these activities are only done by
humans because, in order to do them, the behaving system must
be able to represent aspects of the world that only the human
brain can construct (perceive).
The prevalent view is that a "language organ" has evolved in
the highly modularized human brain.
This sounds like a pretty clear example of a dormative principle.
I think we can non-contemptuously dismiss that one.
PCT has little to say about language yet.
I think PCT has a great deal to say about language. What is
missing is research to test the PCT model of language. I bet
there are studies in "psycholinguistics" that could serve as
a good staring point for some PCT-oriented language research.
What do you think?
Best regards
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com
Rick (01.01.19.1300 and 01.01.19.1420) commented on "our desires
(references), vexations (conflicts), fallibility (poor control and
irrelevant side effects) and grace (good control)." For these to be "the
essence of our humanity" we must mean references, conflicts, etc. at higher
levels of the perceptual hierarchy that we understand that non-humans do
not perceive or control.
I agree. Only humans could have planned and implemented the final solution
to the "Jewish problem." I suppose that's one example of the essence of our
humanity.
What distinguishes humans from non-humans? What does PCT say about it?
A first answer might be that we control perceptions at higher levels of the control hierarchy. Perhaps the reason they don't is because the physical basis for learning to perceive and control them has not evolved in their species.
Language is usually identified as uniquely human. The prevalent view is that a "language organ" has evolved in the highly modularized human brain. Philip Lieberman has adduced evidence that other primate species lack means to make phonemic distinctions. Research in teaching animals various symbol bases for communicating is unfashionable (pointless, given the standard view) but suggestive. PCT has little to say about language yet.
Anything else?
Rick (01.01.19.1300 and 01.01.19.1420) commented on "our desires (references), vexations (conflicts), fallibility (poor control and irrelevant side effects) and grace (good control)." For these to be "the essence of our humanity" we must mean references, conflicts, etc. at higher levels of the perceptual hierarchy that we understand that non-humans do not perceive or control.
Only humans could have planned and implemented the final
solution to the "Jewish problem." I suppose that's one example
of the essence of our humanity.
Of course it is. Only hierarchical control systems could so
effectively control for such a result. PCT makes it possible
to understand why this kind if controlling happens (over and
over and over again) and it suggests ways in which we can
"rise above" this essence of our natures so that we can
control together cooperatively rather than competitively
(if we want to).
Best regards
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com
Of course it is. Only hierarchical control systems could so
effectively control for such a result. PCT makes it possible
to understand why this kind if controlling happens (over and
over and over again) and it suggests ways in which we can
"rise above" this essence of our natures so that we can
control together cooperatively rather than competitively
(if we want to).
I must have missed that part. I thought I "wanted" to control cooperatively
only if doing so satisfied an intrinsic reference level directly or as the
result of random reorganization associated with the persistent failure to
control non-coperatively. Tell me more about "rising above". Is there a
model for this mode of reorganization?