Lorna Dane (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
magnet_girl) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
sixwordstories2019-02-07 09:43 pm
magnet_girl) wrote in sixwordstories2019-02-07 09:43 pm
Entry tags:
(no subject)
Language was a mutation. You're Welcome.
It's really not, but go ahead and believe what you want.
If it wasn't, your species would be the same as it was 200,000 years ago.
It is an evolution and a mutation if you think about it.
Language developed as a way to communicate with others of your species, akin to the sounds animals does. Communication turned out to be a tactical advantage among early human tribes as an entire group could be directed to take down larger animals and predators. Thinkers such as Rousseau have argued that language originated from emotions while others like Kant have held that it originated from rational and logical thought. 20th-century philosophers such as Wittgenstein argued that philosophy is really the study of language.
Theories about the origin of language differ in regard to their basic assumptions about what language is. Some theories are based on the idea that language is so complex that one cannot imagine it simply appearing from nothing in its final form, but that it must have evolved from earlier pre-linguistic systems among our pre-human ancestors. These theories can be called continuity-based theories. The opposite viewpoint is that language is such a unique human trait that it cannot be compared to anything found among non-humans and that it must therefore have appeared suddenly in the transition from pre-hominids to early man. These theories can be defined as discontinuity-based. Similarly, theories based on the generative view of language pioneered by Noam Chomsky see language mostly as an innate faculty that is largely genetically encoded, whereas functionalist theories see it as a system that is largely cultural, learned through social interaction.
So to put it simply, it's mainly a result of evolution and development. Whether it's genetic or not like a mutation? My personal opinion is that it's learned, not simply genetically encoded. I had to learn to speak and I imagine you had too.
[Kyle is a walking encyclopedia. You're welcome.]
Theories about the origin of language differ in regard to their basic assumptions about what language is. Some theories are based on the idea that language is so complex that one cannot imagine it simply appearing from nothing in its final form, but that it must have evolved from earlier pre-linguistic systems among our pre-human ancestors. These theories can be called continuity-based theories. The opposite viewpoint is that language is such a unique human trait that it cannot be compared to anything found among non-humans and that it must therefore have appeared suddenly in the transition from pre-hominids to early man. These theories can be defined as discontinuity-based. Similarly, theories based on the generative view of language pioneered by Noam Chomsky see language mostly as an innate faculty that is largely genetically encoded, whereas functionalist theories see it as a system that is largely cultural, learned through social interaction.
So to put it simply, it's mainly a result of evolution and development. Whether it's genetic or not like a mutation? My personal opinion is that it's learned, not simply genetically encoded. I had to learn to speak and I imagine you had too.
[Kyle is a walking encyclopedia. You're welcome.]
Edited 2019-02-08 14:32 (UTC)
You wouldn't have been able to learn to speak, write or otherwise communicate without the series of genes that work together to produce the amino acids that make complicated thoughts possible though. And that's with a situation that allows learning possible.
All that took genetic mutation back in your early pre-human ancestors though .
All that took genetic mutation back in your early pre-human ancestors though .
Those are two very different development processes. Although linked, the specifics that made that possibly is very different. Yes, language probably developed in conundrum with the same process that formed our speaking organs. But language itself is culturally bound aswell. Otherwise we'd all speak the same language. Dogs can converse with other dogs regardless of sub-species while two humans of different origin would have a much harder time conversing beyond sound, body language and gestures.
And here I thought we were going to have a scientific discussion. My apologies.
And it's our species. You're still just as human as I am.
And it's our species. You're still just as human as I am.
There is more to evolution than mutation, though that is the main cause. As far as language is concerned, both descriptors can and do apply.
It's fine. I'm not interested in 'discussions'.
'Still'.
'Still'.
Apparently not.
There's a reason we call people with abilities metahuman.
There's a reason we call people with abilities metahuman.
Not a common term where I'm from. So not really a 'we'. 'Home Superior' is the preferred term.
Well when the scientific community decides to use something else, I'll consider it a lie.
They need their degrees revoked. What's worse is them calling you mutants.
Not if you have the right people in charge. Which, I grant, we don't.
You saying that to Me is actually really hilarious. Not in an actual Ha-ha way but in an ironic one. I was cool with just being a normal person, getting my degree and making dinner until the government decided I was too dangerous to live and tried to kill me.
So at the moment I’m fine othering myself. At this point it’s a survival tactic.
So at the moment I’m fine othering myself. At this point it’s a survival tactic.
The government tries to kill a lot of people. You get over it.
Page 1 of 3