Evolving Scientism
by BradfordRational Design is also reflected in precisely specified interactions. Such specified interactions work to maximize the fidelity of the flow of information, energy and/or material.- The Design Matrix by Mike Gene; Chapter 9; Rationality and Foresight; Page 252
In The Design Matrix. Mike has crafted good arguments outlining criteria that would guide one in detecting design. The book challenges conventional thinking without the 'take no prisoners attitude' that all too often marks exchanges about Intelligent Design. The greatest resistence to ideas outlined in the DM are not likely to be based on scientific data. Rather they are more likely to stem from a religious philosophy that makes evolutionary change a belief that is separated from its biological, empirical moorings.
The above quote is applicable to many human designs including the symbols you are looking at which make communication of the English language possible. Apparently some do not believe the alphabet was designed. When pressed as to how this symbolic system came into existence through a non-design process, an undetailed evolutionary explanation is suggested that is short on cause and effect scenarios. Assertions replace evidence.
You may have noted parallels to a biological process but unlike the biological process the alphabet evolution lacks specificity and supporting data. But it rings of a religious impulse. A belief supported by elements of faith replaces empirical data. Love for the concept of undirected gradual change replaces the need for evidence and logic. Alphabets do indeed "maximize the fidelity of the flow of information." Humans, capable of intelligent design, are known to have developed alphabets. The cognitive processes associated with symbolism and the nature of the symbolism itself are evidence of rational design to all but those having an unhealthy emotional attachment to the idea of undirected change. It is ritual like thinking on display not to be confused with sound science.
February 9th, 2008 at 2:12 am
There is a question: where knowledge comes from? Science helps us discover empirical knowledge, but science has been unable to answer this simple question. The question belongs to philosophy, and it was studied by Kant.
We look to religion and call in faith-based, but it is feeling based knowledge that has come upon a community expression. Sentience as feeling is evidence, and this self evidence does not require a reason for its being. Self evidence simply is, in all its starkness. The feeling is the synthesis of the provisional and the universal, and this is as far as philosophy can go (as a post-hoc evaluation of religion), but we can go further.
There is an emotional unwillingness to see intelligent design (ID) as a simple contradiction of Darwin's theory; and this unwillingness is apparent in both creationists, and Darwinists. The duck and rabbit, as you say, have their inclinations.
The innate equivocation is presented as a contrivence, an agenda that is full of dirty tricks, or what has come to be known as intelligent design with all the self-evident tension that ID brings, where the covert middle term is hidden beyond the synthesis of the representation and its recognition.
Hegel was able to go beyound Kant's dualism with this insight, though Hegel used his own system of words that are hard to understand. Edmund Husserl did a better job with self evidence leading to transcendental subjectivity. Brouwer developed his intuitionist mathematics with this insight, and Brouwer was also a mystic. Teilhard de Chardin was a mystic, and found purpose in evolution. When we move beyond science, and philosophy what we find are the mystics and saints, as they are on record showing a non-dual awareness.
There is one primal action, all other actions are provisional to the drive that pulls through our feelings (giving us volition despite the best preditions of science). Ducks and rabbits are angry because they feel something that has not yet been resolved.
Comment by Stephen — February 9, 2008 @ 2:12 am
February 9th, 2008 at 8:14 am
I will agree that the alphabet was designed, but what about the rest of language. Were the words designed, did someone make a conscious decision to call a table a table? Who decided about all those irregular verbs and why? Looking forward to evidence, not assertions!
Comment by The Pixie — February 9, 2008 @ 8:14 am
February 9th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Conscious decision as opposed to what- an unconscious decision? How did intelligent beings come to agree that t-a-b-l-e represents table without making a decision conscious or otherwise?
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 8:56 am
February 9th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Many people have thought that writing was a gift from the gods. Were they wrong? What evidence do you have to support your claim?
Tokens were used for accounting. Then impressions of tokens were used on containers (clay envelopes) of tokens. Then impressions of tokens were used as the records themselves. And that is the beginning of cuneiform writing.
This process took over 4000 years, generations just for the tokens to be discarded"”even when all the information was being recorded on the exterior of the containing clay envelope. The long stretch of time involved is convincing evidence that each step was taken without regard to any eventual development of an alphabet.
Tokens are evidence. Clay envelopes are evidence. Cuneiform tablets are evidence. You can continue to wave your hands, but Denise Schmandt-Besserat's work has been very influential in archaeology, and there is little remaining doubt that cuneiforms evolved from tokens.
There was no purposeful intention of creating an alphabet when tokens were replaced by marks in clay. They were counting sheep and had no conception that they were taking steps towards creating an alphabet.
The definition you provided of design, the purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details, does not appear to apply to the origin of the alphabet.
The Pixie got neither evidence nor assertions. Bradford, you avoided answering the question.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 11:36 am
February 9th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Zachriel:
I asked questions. You ought to try it when you do not know all the answers. It beats having to fake it.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 11:43 am
February 9th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
The question was whether words were designed. Did someone make the original decision to call a table a table? You didn't answer The Pixie's question, implying you don't know the answer. This is a previous exchange.
It's hard not to get the impression that you think this is not subject to question, though the origin of language is certainly of great interest to many scientists. This statement offers clarification:
We happen to know that the English word for table evolved from the Latin tabula. We can trace the evolution of the word through German and Old English. So, did someone make the original decision to call a table a table? Or was it due to minor and incidental changes as it was passed through the generations without any purposeful intention of ending up with the modern English word, "table"
I will certainly take your advice.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Because the 'other thread' is too long and I've no patience for childish trolling, I'll bring this here.
Zach:
There are several hypotheses about what's responsible for the vowel shift. Some say it was the result of immigration to southern England following the Black Death, where more attention was paid by the surviving natives to pronunciation separate from the Continental Latin derivatives, for the purpose of setting apart the English language as something unique to England (and forcing the immigrants to "speak proper English" in order to be accepted.
Others suggest it was the result of the notorious and long-standing state of perpetual warfare with the French, the English taking pains to set apart the English language as something unique to England.
A few suggest it was the result of some influential members of the aristocracy who had speech impediments (notoriously inbred, the lot of 'em), but whose status persuaded the lower classes to copy their speech patterns. Still others suggest that it was part of the concurrent attempt to standardize the spelling of English as printing and popular literacy took hold, at the same time the English were engaged in separating their language from French pronunciations.
But all of the explanations mention the concurrent work to standardize during the latter course of the vowel shift in pronunciation (majority falling on the side of separation from continental Latin derivatives to make the language unique from those with which the nation was forever at war). All indicate intent by the common speakers of the language, design by those engaged in standardizing the language and increasing care to standard by the writers who used the language to tell their tales. There are of course regional dialects and "proper," spoken by the aristocracy – the social authorities who determine what is "proper" and do the governing.
Mark Twain wrote some of his conversational exchanges in dialectic vernacular. Surely you don't pretend that he didn't intend to have his characters speak to each other in this way or design his spelling and sentence structure accordingly.
As for the genitive case, the English chose to take their cue from German's style using 'es' to mark genitive, dropping the 'e' and adding the apostrophe as was common in Saxon. It is sometimes difficult to parse whether the genitive means 'of' or 'for' and which noun it belongs to, clarified primarily by context and now denoting primarily possessives. English also has double genitives, though these are usually avoided for proper phrasing. Again, the change is most often linked with separation from French form and identification with Anglo-Saxon (Germanic) forebears rather than the older French and Italian overlords. Possibly having something to do with resistance to Christianity and Papal authority – which was also a good part of the historical conditions that led to this long identity crisis.
Despite the fact that all these things developed over time and generations, design is evident in every change and every development. Why you choose to pretend otherwise is a mystery I don't care to solve, though I suspect it has something to do with your ideological rejection of the idea that evolution – of anything, including uniquely human historical developments – could ever display discernible design. You probably think agriculture, government, architecture, religion, science, medicine and warfare are all devoid of design too. Go figure…
Zach to Bradford:
Of course they did. That's because the priests were the ones who formalized it, deployed it, and held it exclusive to themselves and their authoritative roles in ancient societies.
Comment by Joy — February 9, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
The question is whether the vowel shift occurring over several centuries was intentional. Did people intend to cause the language to change into a new form?
Social and geographic immigration would cause non-intentional changes to the language. The intent of imposing "proper English" would be conformity, not change over generations. Supposed speech impediments in the aristocracy and the desire to emulate them would also not be associated with any intention to reshape the language. Standardization is intended to slow the natural rate of change in language.
Each incremental step can be purposeful, but the global result inadvertent. Each couple decides to have children, but overpopulation is not the intent.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
All you have to do is follow your own logic. At some point an association was made between a word and table. Subsequent modifications are irrelevat to the initial association.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Zachriel:
The blog topic is alphabet design. The population blurb is a red herring.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Decisions were made to that effect. It may have been more than one person.
Intent is not a prerequisite to design.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Zachriel:
Tokens do nothing to explain the development of the alphabet. You're confusing a prior event in time with a causal connection.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Zach:
??? "Family Planning" is a very, very recent development, Zach. Birth control was exclusively the realm and responsibility of women since time immemorial, all the men ever wanted was exclusive access to sex (with some assurance that the children were theirs for inheritance and bride-price purposes). Sex is a lot older than human beings, and human beings do it just like other critters do it. Reproduction may or may not be the goal (it's usually just sex for the guys). Most of the time it's just a side-effect of sex.
Couples can decide to have children. They can decide not to have children. Or just the woman can make that decision, and traditionally did in more ancient societies. "Over" population is a subjective term (or was until recently), not a consideration and normally not the result. Having children doesn't cause overpopulation, limiting the natural boundaries to population growth causes overpopulation. We discussed this before when you talked about 'saving' millions of children in the Third World who die of malaria every year. When you do defeat that natural boundary on population growth, you've got no business blaming nature (having babies as a side-effect of having sex) for there being too many people.
You seem unwilling to admit that modern science and medicine are more responsible for the current overpopulation issue than individual couples having sex during their fertile years (as they are designed to do). The telling factoid is that people in the Third World out-produce rich folks by a large margin, and have historically done that to ensure that at least one of their 6 to 12 children lives long enough to carry genes forward and take care of them in their old age. If all 12 children survive (no smallpox! No polio! No malaria!) the family is that much poorer than it otherwise would have been with just a couple of children with reasonable life expectancies. Thereby also increasing poverty among the already poor, perpetuating that cause of suffering.
It's good to reduce suffering where we can. But to do that intelligently, we also have to impose means of replacing natural boundaries on population growth that what we defeat represents – with something designed. Which brings up human rights issues and issues of authoritarian impositions. China has an imposition policy in place to limit its population growth. Resulting in a sexual imbalance overall due to most people wanting their single child to be male rather than female. Could be an effective cure for male proclivities that have traditionally victimized the actual baby-makers (women), even if they don't have a celibate priesthood to take care of the excess.
Still, I doubt you'd claim that defeating smallpox, polio and malaria weren't the result of intelligent design, even if it's not nearly as intelligent as it should have been.
Comment by Joy — February 9, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
hrun:
The involvement of an intelligence does not automatically signify design. But an alphabet (having properties that signify design) would not come into existence without an intelligent designer(s).
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Yes, but the question was how that association was made. In fact, the Latin word tablula means board (the usual word for table being mensa).
The example is relevant to the point.
design, the purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details.
intent, the act or fact of intending : purpose.
I even emphasized the point by calling it "purposeful intention". Have you decided your definition of design is no longer appropriate? Are you saying purpose is irrelevant to design?
I'm not confusing anything. I'm stating the findings of archaeologists based on physical evidence. I can point to the evidence, but I can't make you look.
The thread title is "Evolving Scientism".
As I am more than willing to consider design elements when appropriate, I'm not sure your point.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Zachriel:
There is an 'or' between the words purposeful and inventive. Inventiveness is found where no intellect is part of the causal chain. Nature evidences this. So too do individuals engaged in linguistic modifications. They can be inventive without having to take a holistic view of the language they are modifying. The inventiveness lies in linguistic changes. It does not require a purpose to transform Latin to Italian even if the cumulative effects of many changes led to that.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Bradford: Tokens do nothing to explain the development of the alphabet. You're confusing a prior event in time with a causal connection.
Your problem is the evidence is not for the generation of the alphabet. Thousands of years from now an archeologist might uncover 21st century subway tokens in Manhatten. A futuristic Zachriel would argue that the tokens led to the development of a computer language prevalent in the latter part of the 21st century. A futuristic Bradford will patiently point out the weakness of "evidence" for that conclusion.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I agree with this statement, and I agree that the ability to manipulate symbols is important to the development of the alphabet.
The alphabet did not suddenly appear de novo, but evolved from more primitive symbolic associations. The bit about "unhealthy emotional attachment to the idea of undirected change" is just rhetoric. I am more than willing to considered directed change when appropriate, and I have previously pointed to many examples of design with regards to language.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Zach:
Yes, it was sociologically intentional, just like American language and pronunciation was intentional, for the reasons I outlined per historical events. That languages "evolve" is uncontroversial, I just can't figure out why you don't consider uniquely human sociological developments – such as languages and writing – to be substantially different from your Neodarwinian model of biological evolution. Is nothing humans do reasonably to be considered design?
Languages Evolve in Rapid Bursts, Rather than Following a Steady Pattern -
Comment by Joy — February 9, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I had thought so, but apparently not.
It is substantially different, as noted on the previous thread. This is my basic claim:
Zachriel: This process is substantially different from biological evolution, but is still largely evolutionary in the sense that for most of the history of language, changes occurred without regard to the future course of language development, but through incremental changes over generations. In the case of Romance languages, the cultural isolation of the various groups after the fall of the Roman Empire led to divergent paths akin to allopatric speciation.
As I also mentioned before, in direct response to you, design elements are very common in modern languages; dictionaries, grammar orthodoxy, spelling conventions, jargon, slang, advertising, etc.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
You are using the term evolved so loosely that it ceases to retain any meaningful applicability. If you wish to contend the alphabet evolved you need to point to the alphabet that preceeded it and explain how humans changed it to its present form. But if you do that you provide evidence that humans designed the alphabet. A conundrum.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Okay, I'll repeat it for the third time.
Zachriel: This process is substantially different from biological evolution, but is still largely evolutionary in the sense that for most of the history of language, changes occurred without regard to the future course of language development, but through incremental changes over generations. In the case of Romance languages, the cultural isolation of the various groups after the fall of the Roman Empire led to divergent paths akin to allopatric speciation.
I have done that repeatedly. But instead of engaging the evidence, you have merely repeatedly rejected its relevance.
The alphabet is a symbolic association that evolved from more primitive symbolic associations that were not yet an alphabet. The transition occurred in increments without regard to the creation of an eventual alphabet. What did you think happened?
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Zach:
Zach, do some homework. The monogenesis theory lost favor in the 1960s and has been replaced with a more accurate theory (and some subs) per the development of languages and writing when the Mayan script was deciphered in the '70s, representing an unarguable independent development of a phonetic script in the New World with little to no evidence of accountancy as precursor. What is wrong with the monogenesis theory is described quite clearly in the 'origins' section of Ancient Scripts -
And the conclusion from this criticism of the Darwin/Eurocentric (Monogenesis) view of writing? The modern consensus:
Here is another good overview.
Why do you ignore the link and citation I gave you per the specific political designs for "rapid burst" changes in languages? Will you still hold to monogenesis of writing even though it is known to be polygenic (as are languages), and that the different types of writing systems are not more or less 'evolved' for their uses in any of the systems developed (originally by priestly classes or specific scholars [Chinese])?
Comment by Joy — February 9, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
IOW, you can't account for all that exists – in life and in human intelligent design – by appeal to Charlie Darwin. Get over it.
Comment by Joy — February 9, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
This type of evolution lacks a mechanism. The agent for change is intelligence that effects linguistic changes over time and in doing so redesigns languages.
The changes you refer to are more accurately assessed as conceptual changes. You are pegging changes to preceeding symbolic associations. While it is true that all human endeavors build on preceeding accomplishments innovations on prior knowledge can take conceptual leaps generated by human creativity accounting for actual change. This means present symbolism is not necessarily a modified version of what preceeded it. It may be a radical innovation bearing little resemblance to what preceeded it because the idea resulted from imagination rather than a conceptually revised template of existing symbolism.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
And again the question arises: Can a process where intelligence was involved by anything other than 'design'?
Comment by hrun — February 9, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I am not citing monogenesis theory, but Denise Schmandt-Besserat who didn't publish her theory until 1992. I thought it was clear in context, but if there was confusion, I am referring the origin of Mesopotamian scripts. Thank you for your other information, though.
As I already mentioned several times, language evolution and biological evolution are substantially different.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 4:30 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
The mechanism is the individual activities of people, of course, trying to find solutions to their immediate problems, but without regard to some far distant vision of how the language is to develop. In the case of tokens, they were just trying to find a better way to keep track of their sheep.
A lot of this discussion, just like much of Intelligent Design, is apparently just semantics.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 4:39 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
hrun: And again the question arises: Can a process where intelligence was involved by anything other than 'design'?
http://telicthoughts.com/evolving-scientism/#comment-175674
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Still fits a definition of design- an inventive arrangement of parts.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
This is sort of off-topic, but the skeptics' denunciation of ID, as exhibited by the likes of the Wikipedia article on ID, I would like to see someone come up with a new term for what amounts to "raw ID", ID without any particular association with the Discovery Institute, et al. I'm a little tired of the broad brush that "ID" opponents are using with respect to motives and religious organizational affiliations.
MikeGene and his fellow travellers, as several participants here, including myself, who accept "evolution", while open to intelligent agency at various points in the process, are simply not the kind of folk that the Wikipedia article, and those like it, seems to describe. I favor the term "intelligent evolution."
Also, it seems like someone needs to create an flatly secular organization devoted to intelligent evolution.
Any thoughts?
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 9, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Zechriel: "Each incremental step can be purposeful, but the global result inadvertent. Each couple decides to have children, but overpopulation is not the intent."
This reminds me of how when Thomas Edison invented the phonograph, he thought it's main application would be in language instruction. He did not take seriously the idea of distributing music with such recordings.
Boy was he wrong.
But perhaps computers are a better analogy of stepwise accumulation of sophistication. Long ago somebody came up with the idea of counting using their fingers. Somebody else started using tokens instead of fingers. Somebody then came along with the idea of using powers of 10 for speed and efficiency. And so on. The guy who started counting on his fingers couldn't imagine modern computers. But his step was essential. And it involved insight at every step, from first to last.
Perhaps the designer(s) of life, if there are any, did not have the precise details of the goal in mind when they started, but if there was insight at every step, i.e, the proper variation at important points in the environment, or "context", then it might have been sufficient towards more a general goal. (Such as a race of rational beings, with insight and the capacity to investigate the universe using these powers.) Those who understand process control theory will understand what I'm talking about here.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 9, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Zachriel: "This process is substantially different from biological evolution, but is still largely evolutionary in the sense that for most of the history of language, changes occurred without regard to the future course of language development, but through incremental changes over generations"
One stark example to the contrary is the development of the Kana character set by the Japanese, which includes Hirigana and Katakana. Chinese languages (e.g, Cantonese, Mandarin) have relatively simple grammars compared to most languages in the world. When literally translated into English they sound almost like "pidgeon English", which is why, historically, Chinese immigrants who learn English as adults tend to, in fact, speak "pidgeon English."
On the other hand, the Japanese language has rich and complex grammar. (Contrary to popular misconception, Japanese is utterly unrelated to the Chinese dialects, Although there has been some word borrowing down through the centuries in both directions, as would be expected. Chinese and Japanese Asians may look alike to Westerners, but the Japanese and Chinese languages are as different as Chinese and English.)
At any rate, a few centuries ago the Japanese adopted and modified the Chinese Kanji non-phonetic ideograms. Since Japanese has many grammatical "devices" (such as postpositions, verb tenses, etc), and Chinese has no such analog to these, the Japanese invented the Kana set as a way to phonetically spell out anything not present in the Chinese Kanji, including grammatical devices, foreign words and names, or any other word that does not have an applicable Kanji. (The hirigana set is very Kanji looking and is the set normally used, and the Katakana set is more blocky looking, typically used for foreign words and for grabbing attention, like English writers use bold or italic fonts.)
Not really germane to the topic, but what the heck.
Ja mata
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 9, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
design, the purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details.
Apparently your definition of design includes non-purposeful invention. Please define 'inventive'.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 6:24 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Zachriel, this is a strange comment coming from you. You've been maintaining that changes are incidental, gradual and without an end goal in mind. That's a prescription for local inventiveness having global effects.
inventive: Adept or skillful at inventing; creative.
BTW, does Nature design?
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Computers are designed. The original finger-counter (if such an individual existed) could be said to have designed finger-counting methodology. We would not say the original finger-counter designed computers. We would say that counting systems have evolved over time. It's just semantics, but this is a blog devoted to discussions of Intelligent Design, so valid understanding of these basic concepts does seem relevant.
In the case of the origin of the alphabet, the evidence indicates it evolved from simpler symbolic systems. Tokens to impressions to pictograms to phonetics occurred gradually over many centuries. Perhaps some one person may have designed a new phonogram, but that singular stroke of genius doesn't constitute the design of a phonetic alphabet. The alphabet crept into the culture, bit by bit.
You could define the term 'design' broadly, but the origin of the alphabet is more properly described as evolution or even development.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
hrun asks:
To see how far nullasalus, for one, is willing to stretch the meaning of 'design', see my comment below (copied from the other thread):
After rereading the thread, I realize that I haven't fully credited the sublime ridiculousness of nullasalus's position.
He writes:
Ponder that. In this scenario, neither general coins a single word, alters a single pronunciation, or invents a single grammatical structure. Between them, they might not even understand a single word of their enemy's language. Yet nullasalus is unwilling to say that they didn't design the new language. "I don't think a decisive 'no' has much grounding," he says.
Wow.
Comment by valerie — February 9, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Bradford to Zach:
This is a salient observation, Bradford. It seems that in order to refute the idea that intelligent humans intelligently design their linguistic conventions and symbolic formalities for conveying ideas and concepts through generational time, one is left with nothing but the baseless assertion that languages and writing cannot be intelligently designed! What a pointless, self-defeating position!
The subject of human language and writing systems is highly illustrative of intelligently designed, guided evolution. Writing specifically ALLOWS us to build on knowledge gathered by previous generations so we don't have to start all over every generation. If we're being particularly xenophobic this generation we can always change our vowels and tongue placement to make our speech unintelligible to those we fear. If we're not being xenophobic, we can borrow words, concepts (and the knowledge accumulated) one system to another wholesale. And as Kornbelt points out, pieces-parts of writing systems as well even if they are a different type that we've used previously, if doing so enhances our general purposes.
That's a pretty darned good analogy to a secular view of ID evolution in biology, even of front-loading in that humans (of all critters) have the innate capacity for complex language in our vocalization structures, for writing in our ability for hand-eye fine motor control, and syntax in our brain wiring. As well as the intelligence to use all these things for our own progressive and social 'evolution', increasing knowledge and abilities to communicate ideas across wide audiences effectively.
Why the heck would any critic wish to diminish that to the level of RM-NS "It Just Happens, That's All" garbage? I honestly don't get it.
Comment by Joy — February 9, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
That is a reasonable restatement of my expressed view. That remains whether you want assign the appelation 'design' to such a process or not. Most people would not use the word 'design' to refer to unintended global effects such as over-population, traffic jams, etc. We even make a distinction between cities which are designed and those which are not.
Not a very particularly useful definition.
The word 'design' can be used (loosely) to describe a tree or a cloud. But I would assume you are attempting to be more precise (and perhaps relevant) in your terminology. Clouds can even be said (loosely) to be inventive.
Try to apply your definition to a city. Some cities are considered designed. Some are not.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Your analogies amount to obfuscation. Alphabets entail an act of the intellect which aligns letters to sounds and then sequences them into words. That involves intent as well.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Joy: "The subject of human language and writing systems is highly illustrative of intelligently designed, guided evolution."
Well put. The same could be said of airplanes, automobiles, computers, communications technologies, medical and surgical technologies, and so on.
Humans may not know the state of art at any time in the future, but the common theme is better, faster, easier, healthier.
Guided incremental evolution. What a concept.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 9, 2008 @ 7:08 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
zechriel: "We would say that counting systems have evolved over time."
Right. Guided evolution by intelligent agency oriented toward easier, better, faster, stronger, healthier. Of course, mistakes and blunders occur, but overall the evolution has been pretty impressive, don't you think?
I wonder if some intelligent process exists at the level of cells that drove biological entities to where they are now.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 9, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Bradford to Zach:
Very true. The invention of the alphabet most likely involved a series of related events wherein creative thoughts were acted upon to associate symbols to sounds and allow those same symbols to be used in words. Given that the alphabet's purpose is to allow for written communication it requires much effort to even try to conceive of historic events that would have produced an alphabet without design. The letters themselves must have been invented at some point. If they were mere revisions of precusor letters then precursors would have been invented at some point.
The whole issue calls into question the intellectual integrity of critics. Given the obvious need to invent symbols and the clear absence of evidence of relevant historic events, it takes gall to assert that the process that generated the alphabet was one devoid of design.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Bradford, I see you once again neglected a very reasonable request which might help throw light on your understanding and use of the term 'design'.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Finally.
Quite an acute observation. Though the overall evolution of counting systems was not designed"”nor even foreseen"”we can say that along each step of the way the mechanism was the incremental improvement in the efficiency and accuracy of counting. From a variety of evidences, we know this mechanism was the genius and imagination of the human species.
Now, I wonder if anyone has observed a biological mechanism that can lead to incrementally more efficient reproductive success?
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Zach:
Sure. Human intelligent design. Of course, that – like biological evolution – to can be rapid and 'explosive' rather than incremental. Sort of like punctuations in the equilibrium.
Comment by Joy — February 9, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Zechriel: "Now, I wonder if anyone has observed a biological mechanism that can lead to incrementally more efficient reproductive success?"
Ah. That is the question, isn't it. The answer is: partly. We know for certain that selection weeds out unfitting entities from the environmental context. We can empirically observe this in operation at all levels of biological life. And we can empirically observe that some "random" variations lead to minor selective advantage. No doubt that this works at very small scales. We can see it in action. But does that source of variation provide the right kind of change against selection that can scale "all the way up" to novel cells, tissues, organs and body plans? That's the big question. So far, for me personally, there is no justification for assuming that it does in any given case simply because we have no empirical evidence that it ever has occurred in any case. Maybe it does. But maybe it doesn't. So far I'm agnostic. It's a very intriguing question for an engineer interested in biology.
The bottom line is, the information that we lack are the logical pathways. Mutation rates are of no use here because they do not address the pathways, i.e, the initial conditions, and the "truth table". Consider a Rubic's Cube. For any given initial state, there are infinite pathways that can occur to the solution, and there is the shortest path. If I secretly rearrange the stickers so the solution is impossible, no amount of turning and twisting is ever going to arrive at the solution (although it might be fun to watch someone try.) There are simply no pathways from the initial state to the goal.
At present, we do not have enough information to know if the logical pathways exist without intelligent insight overriding the system.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 9, 2008 @ 9:15 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
We can directly observe mechanisms that work many times faster than the historical record requires.
Let's limit ourselves to just the common descent of placentals. Is there any specific barrier to the evolution of mice and elephants from their common ancestor?
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 10:09 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
zechriel: "We can directly observe mechanisms that work many times faster than the historical record requires."
That's a meaningless statement unless there are known logical pathways from initial conditions to the result.
If I hook a random generator with known properties to a computerized Rubic's Cube, I can compute how long it will take to get from an initial state to the goal. If I rearrange the colors on the cube so that the normal Rubic's goal is not possible (i.e, no possibility of uniform colors on all sides), no amount of random spins will ever reach the normal goal. The pathways have been rendered impossible.
What makes you think logical pathways exists that would allow observed mechanisms to generate novel cells types, tissue types, organs or body plans?
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 9, 2008 @ 10:22 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Incremental adaptation has been identified for all sorts of transitions. You can't just sweep it away. You have to look at the data. If Eutheria is too large, try just Equidae.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Zachriel: "Incremental adaptation has been identified for all sorts of transitions. You can't just sweep it away. "
Indeed. But I thought it was the cause not the effect that we're discussing. Moreover, I limited the scope to novel cell types, tissue types, organs and body plans.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 9, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
"Is there any specific barrier to the evolution of mice and elephants from their common ancestor?"
Not enough information is available for anyone to know to what degree, if any, it occurred via stochastic processes without intelligent insight involved.
What you're asking is kind of like asking if there is any known barrier from an initial scrambled state of a Rubic's Cube to a uniform color state from a mere casual glance without analyzing the nature of the system and it's possible states.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 9, 2008 @ 10:35 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Zechriel,
I need to ask again, slightly amended:
What makes you think logical pathways exists that would allow observed mechanisms to generate novel cells types, tissue types, organs or body plans without intelligent agency involved?
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 9, 2008 @ 10:40 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
You seem to think that just saying something constitutes an argument. Variation and selection are both subject to empirical investigation.
We know the differences between various species of Equidae, we have transitional fossils, and we know what sorts of variation to expect within a population (e.g., the standard deviation of weight is on the order of e^0.15).
Again, we have to establish the limits of what we do know.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 10:44 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
My interest lies primarily at the level of novel cell types, tissue types, organs and body plans, as I clearly have indicated. The entities you have cited are constructed of cells, organs, tissues, and have particular body plans. Are you acknowledging that you have no useful information for me regarding the origin of novel cells types, tissue types, organs and body plans?
One more try: What makes you think logical pathways exist that would allow observed mechanisms to generate novel cells types, tissue types, organs or body plans without intelligent agency involved?
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 9, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
That evidence begins with other well-established biological facts, including common descent. By ignoring established facts about evolution, it appears you really don't want to know the answer.
In fact, we do know a lot about natural variation in mammals, and we know the relationship between variation and selection. Indeed, the natural evolution and divergence of Eutheria is a strongly supported area of biology as atested by the vast majority of specialists in the field.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 11:09 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Right. A city with a map of itself divided into zones labeled A,B,C… and a convention mapping A to school districts, B to high rise apartments, C to retail stores, D to manufacturing… would be evidence of a city with a zoning board design already planned out. Symbolism is a clue that design might be present. Design and detection of it is a rational endeavor.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 11:10 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Moderation help, please.
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 11:11 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Except you didn't answer the query. Some cities are considered designed (most modern cities), and some are not (many Medieval cities in Europe). What is the nature of that distinction?
Comment by Zachriel — February 9, 2008 @ 11:27 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Those who so consider the distinction are guided by the process by which the cities were established. Modern cities are regulated. The manner of settlement is planned out like the development of an organism through homeobox genes. They are centrally planned. Apparently no central planning determined the outlay of old cities although an accumulation of individual decisions did.
Comment by Bradford — February 9, 2008 @ 11:51 pm
February 9th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Zach:
Oh, I dunno. Calculus seems like a "rapid burst" rather than a mere increment toward efficient counting. The equations of relativity and QM are a bit quantum leap-like too (pun intended), all things considered.
RM-NS gradualism has increasingly come under challenge as new understanding is gained. As the evolution of languages occurs in rapid bursts rather than steady, gradual steps, many biologists now believe that biological evolution occurs in this way as well.
Again, here is the link.
Comment by Joy — February 9, 2008 @ 11:56 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Joy:
Irregular bursts of progress would not be at all surprising. We're not talking about a physical process but a process determined by human minds. Those minds are influenced by historic circumstances and cultural influences in addition to the vissicitudes of birth which sometimes distribute genius unequally. The incremental paradigm borrowed from biology is not the best fit.
Comment by Bradford — February 10, 2008 @ 12:08 am
February 10th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Zachriel,
You've given him no reason to think there is any logical or rational connection between what you are claiming as evidence and the question he is asking. He's not ignoring any "established facts about evolution." (By the way, what facts did you present?)
So you need to argue, whether by extrapolation or analogy or inference or whatever, that the facts that you are talking about can be applied to the things he is talking about, whether or not any direct evidence exists for what he is asking for.
Comment by Mung — February 10, 2008 @ 12:46 am
February 10th, 2008 at 9:26 am
So, the outlay of old cities were not designed, even though they were the result of the individual decisions of intelligent agents, each designing some small part of the city to suit their own needs. Surely, you can see why people would be confused by your use of the term 'design' when we don't even apply it to cities in some cases.
You might try to find another way to label your concept, or at least use scare-quotes.
It's appropriate that you point "rapid bursts". That's how such networks of interactions are expected to evolve: minor changes happen frequently, major changes happen infrequently, revolutionary changes happen very rarely. Indeed, a scale-free structure is a signal of an evolutionary process.
As to whether calculus was incremental or not depends on the scale of observation. The general pace of advance has increased in modern times, so then has the increment; and we would probably want to consider a fractal scale. I don't want to overstate the idea, though, as it wasn't meant as a complete history, but just as a first-order illustration.
Similarly, improvement in stages of reproductive success can lead to profound ordering over time.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2008 @ 9:26 am
February 10th, 2008 at 9:46 am
You can't ask for "what makes me think" something, and then ignore the argument. I will present the argument in stages, and each stage has to be examined and found acceptable before proceeding. That's how an argument is built. If kornbelt888 doesn't think dogs evolved from wolves, then I will marshall that evidence. Having established that, we can proceed to other taxa such as Equidae, establish the limits of Common Descent, and examine the various mechanisms involved.
That the rate of observed evolution is much faster than the fastest transitions inferred from the historical record. This has been confirmed by a variety of methodologies, but is certainly open to falsification. I also referred to Common Descent, the existence of fossil species of Equidae, the amount of variation expected within mammalian populations, and the known relationship between variation and evolutionary rates. I would be happy to provide additional detail as required to advance the argument.
Common Descent is an intrinsic component of the Theory of Evolution. Indeed, it is intrinsic to kornbelt888's question. The observed mechanisms of evolutionary change are an intrinsic component of the Theory of Evolution. Indeed, they are intrinsic to kornbelt888's question.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2008 @ 9:46 am
February 10th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Those are your words not mine. The old cities are very much a product of design. In fact there is a parallel to science. Reductionism allows for arising of designed patterns from more basic natural laws. No planning involved but designed outcomes nonetheless.
Comment by Bradford — February 10, 2008 @ 10:28 am
February 10th, 2008 at 10:35 am
There's no real process. It's a mirage. What we actually witness are a series of intellectual breakthroughs occurring in separate minds of many distinct individuals. They are a chain of conceptual novelties. The action occurs in minds. The physical symbols are but mere manifestations of thought.
Comment by Bradford — February 10, 2008 @ 10:35 am
February 10th, 2008 at 10:41 am
The usage is common. We refer to some cities as designed and other cities as organic. The layouts are neither purposeful nor inventive. Instead, they are haphazard and ad hoc.
So not only are archaeologists wrong about the origin of writing, but architectural historians can't even accurately describe the layout of Medieval cities.
Well, it apparently depends on what's found inside those scare-quotes.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2008 @ 10:41 am
February 10th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Cities have common denominators- common components that mark them as cities. That's the design feature. Causality can originate top down (modern cities) or bottoms up (older ones).
You are placing your own spin on cherry picked archeologists. You have not placed in evidence a consensus that the alphabet was not designed.
Comment by Bradford — February 10, 2008 @ 11:16 am
February 10th, 2008 at 11:28 am
I think you mean 'designed'. Some city layouts are haphazard and ad hoc, not purposeful and inventive. Hence the layouts are not 'designed'.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2008 @ 11:28 am
February 10th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Those homes on the east side of town exemplify both inventiveness and purpose and the government building in the center the same. The church at the north end was purposely built as were the connecting roads. There may have been no central plan but then again the patterns of snowflakes are not centrally planned either.
Comment by Bradford — February 10, 2008 @ 11:35 am
February 10th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Huh? Take a look then. Are snowflakes 'designed'?
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2008 @ 11:50 am
February 10th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Patterns can be evidence of design. In this case we are not looking for an intelligent designer.
Comment by Bradford — February 10, 2008 @ 11:56 am
February 10th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Zach:
So what? How does this demonstrate a lack of intelligent design in human culture and artifacts?
Sounds like a job for the Design Matrix!
Simple yes or no, Zach. Are you denying the existence of intelligent design even in regard to human beings? And if so (it certainly looks that way), what makes you – a mere human – qualified to judge?
I realize you're desperately attempting to forestall an analogy you don't want to deal with, but this is getting beyond ridiculous.
Comment by Joy — February 10, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
So, take a look then. Are snowflakes 'designed'?
Scale invariance results when a structure is built by local factors acting under global pressures. This doesn't indicate whether intelligence was or was not involved in the local factors, just that the pattern can occur without global planning, with or without intelligence acting at the local level.
Joy, I have responded to that point several times. If you look above, you will see my reference to the "genius and imagination of the human species". I'm rather surprised you would still be confused on this.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Zechriel to Mung: "That the rate of observed evolution is much faster than the fastest transitions inferred from the historical record. This has been confirmed by a variety of methodologies, but is certainly open to falsification. I also referred to Common Descent, the existence of fossil species of Equidae, the amount of variation expected within mammalian populations, and the known relationship between variation and evolutionary rates."
Let me see if I can clarify. Firstly, I largely accept common descent, and "evolution" as defined as change over time. I believe the earth is billions of years old. I am not a creationist, per se. I accept long development of life on this planet spanning billions of years. Secondly, you are addressing effects, not primary causes. The variations you speak of are the effects of microbiological causes, and it's those microbiological causes that I am concerned about here, particularly with respect to the novel generation of cell types, tissue types, organs and body plans by these microbiological process.
As an engineer, I am very interesting in what I see going on at the microbiological levels, at the level of DNA, RNA, codons, ribosomes, etc.
So then, let me ask it this way, what known logical paths, from initial states to end results, exist at the microbiological level make you think that the variations we see in populations, that lead to the origin of species, are generated solely by stochastic processes operating at the microbiological level?
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 10, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Zach:
So… you admit that intelligent design can – and does – manifest via processes that are labeled "evolution," thus evolution cannot correctly be asserted to replace, falsify or otherwise negate intelligent design. Thanks for that concession.
Comment by Joy — February 10, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Okay. That should help move the discussion forward. You left out observed mechanisms, though. Maybe your next statement will help clarify this issue.
Are you trying to imply that the *observed* variations in populations is not due to natural mechanisms?
We *observe* phenotypic variation in populations. We *observe* the process of mutation, recombination, gene duplication, and other mechanisms of genetic variation, and experimental testing indicates that these genetic mechanisms are robust enough to account for the phenotypic variation. We *observe* natural selection on these variations both in the lab and in the wild. We *observe* and measure the rate of evolutionary change.
These mechanisms seem sufficiently powerful to account for the evolution and diversification seen in Equidae. Indeed, we have *observed* substantial changes in horses just in the last few centuries, and by similar mechanisms, we've seen substantial changes in dog populations.
Are we okay with the evolution of Equidae? If so, what about Eutheria?
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
We can apply the label "evolution" to all sorts of processes; the evolution of computers, the evolution of language, the evolution of the Solar System. But we wouldn't want to conflate that with biological evolution or the Theory of Evolution. Which, as I mentioned to you more than once, is substantially different from biological evolution.
Is there a reason you keep wanting me to repeat myself?
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Joy wrote:
Good grief, Joy.
When has Zachriel ever stated that human culture and artifacts are devoid of intelligent design?
Everyone participating in this thread knows that humans design things. Zachriel is no exception.
Joy, somehow you have gotten the impression that Zachriel is espousing an absurd position. This presents a couple of possibilities:
1. You are correct, and Zachriel, an intelligent and informed commenter, has suddenly decided to embrace an obviously ridiculous position, one that can be refuted simply by pointing to the computer he is using to participate in this discussion.
2. You have misunderstood his position.
#2 is more likely by far. You continually misinterpret the comments of participants at TT, so it's not at all surprising that it should happen again. You yourself have acknowledged your reading difficulties.
Given the overwhelming likelihood that you are mistaken, then, why confront Zachriel instead of reviewing his comments to see if your impression is accurate?
Why inject this needless confusion into the discussion?
You're saying that Zachriel, a mere human, is not qualified to judge whether humans design things, but you, a mere human, are qualified? How bizarre.
Comment by valerie — February 10, 2008 @ 1:35 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Zachriel:
So what?
Your argument can be reduced to: these mechanisms are powerful enough to change the way horses and dogs look, therefore they must be powerful enough to bring about "the novel generation of cell types, tissue types, organs and body plans."
This is analogous to saying that since we can see how beak sizes change in finch populations we have an adequate explanation for how the neck of the giraffe evolved.
You need to some how relate the things you are talking about to the things he is talking about, and you simply have not done that. I can see birds flying, but would you accept that as an explanation for how it is that airplanes came into existence?
Comment by Mung — February 10, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
You neglected #3.
3. Joy understands that when Zachriel insists on an alternative "evolutionary" explanation he is implicitly claiming that the "evolution" of an alphabet somehow negated it being designed.
Comment by Bradford — February 10, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Identify the local factors and global pressures which produced the alphabet.
Comment by Bradford — February 10, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Zach:
Why the heck not? You've argued repeatedly and endlessly in two threads (with help from your swamp groupies) that the fact of evolution in human endeavors and developments MEANS THEY ARE NOT INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED. Period. Over and over and over again. That human endeavors are not single molecules of DNA is irrelevant. The appeal to evolution as falsifying intelligent design is used to assert that human endeavors do not display intelligent design. That they're "substantially different" in some way is superfluous.
From the thread Irrational Design following newcomer One Brow's assertion that the "hallmarks" of design are simplicity and separation from the environment, Bradford said -
Your replies:
Catch that? Evolution, NOT design.
Evolution, NOT design.
Evolution, NOT design.
Evolution, NOT design.
Evolution, NOT design.
Evolution, NOT design.
Evolution, NOT design.
Evolution, NOT design.
Evolution, NOT design.
That's just the other thread. Your argument, your words. I haven't gotten it wrong, if you were communicating something other than gibberish. You've continued and expanded your argument to city building and by extension any other collective human endeavors which 'evolve' over time.
The argument is AND HAS BEEN OVER TWO THREADS that because human inventions 'evolve' over time they do NOT display intelligent design. If that's true you've no reason to be here on this internet blog arguing about anything using a computer and keyboard, language, syntax, spelling or font. You've nothing intelligent to say.
Comment by Joy — February 10, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Bradford:
Yes, that's precisely what I understand. That's been his argument for awhile. It has not changed, it's been expanded to cover other human designs too. The most ridiculous argument I've ever encountered. So ridiculous, that I might be persuaded that it isn't intelligently designed.
I can easily see the underlying point – he's desperate to head off the suggestion that human design of evolutionary systems in human culture can be analogous to a postulated design of evolutionary systems in biology. But whoa. It was waaaaaayyy the wrong way to go about it!
Val's easy enough to ignore. Maybe if we don't feed him, he'll crawl back to his swamp to commiserate with his kin.
Comment by Joy — February 10, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Joy:
That's a pretty clear example. Chinese pictographs were not designed because they evolved?
Comment by Bradford — February 10, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Joy:
The argument will continue. "To be intelligently designed a designer must have used an evolutionary process with the end result in mind like front loading- wait… er… I did not mean FL could be viable. Rather it had to be like the biblical creationists said. So choose. You're either a creationist or an evolutionist a la Zach."
Comment by Bradford — February 10, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
I explained this already. I was asked "what makes me think" something. What I find convincing involves a lot of evidence from a lot of areas of research. We're trying to reconstruct hundreds-of-millions of years of biological history in order to understand the mechanisms involved.
Are we okay with the evolution of Equidae? If not, then we need to grapple with that before attempting to understand much more ancient transitions.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2008 @ 3:51 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Joy:
Another pathetic strawman, so typical of Joy when she runs out of arguments.
The collective behavior of ants can create quite amazing structures that look designed. Yet individual ants have very limited cognitive abilities. So it's fair to say that an ant colony is not intelligently designed. Just because individual humans are intelligent, it doesn't follow that the result of collective human action can be said to be intelligently designed. In some ways, the results of our collective actions are just as undesigned as those of ants. Is that so hard to understand?
Comment by Raevmo — February 10, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
So identify the collective actions that produced the alphabet and do try to connect the dots so a process is clearly visible.
Comment by Bradford — February 10, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Of course not. Many human endeavors display intelligent design. But many do not.
I provided the example of the typical Medieval European city. The layout of these cities were haphazard and ad hoc. Architectural historians semantically distinguished them from designed cities. Nonetheless, they exhibit global patterns. Streets still wind their way through the city. They are cities that are not designed.
I provided you that information, repeatedly. I can point to it, but I can't make you look.
Someone might be able to make the argument that the alphabet is designed. But to do that you would have to do more than just say that people use alphabets and people design things. You would have to actually examine the origin of the alphabet to see how it was developed. People designed all sorts of things on the way to developing the alphabet. Tokens then envelopes then impressions of tokens on envelopes then just the envelopes, then tablets; then the impressions became pictograms, and sometimes people would add a phonogram here or there until eventually they had a phonetic alphabet. But you aren't making that argument, and I would guess, not particularly interested in the origin of the alphabet.
Did you ever tell us? Are snowflakes 'designed'?
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Bradford:
What Zach said quite eloquently. But of course you didn't address my argument at all. Do you think that the collective actions of intelligent agents can result in something that is not intelligently designed?
Comment by Raevmo — February 10, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Bradford,
Please answer Raevmo's question.
Comment by valerie — February 10, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Zach:
Oh give me a break! Even you can go to Wikipedia
Why would the displaced (unprotected) left-behinds when the Roman Empire fell choose to congregate – when they used to be happily rural – to an abandoned fortress, build to its fortifications and outward from there per the terrain (and necessary uses of it)? If you fashion a weapon of a stick or rock to defend yourself from an attacking wolf, is that not design because you were just trying to survive? I don't buy it. So don't bother.
Comment by Joy — February 10, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Organic, like the rings of a tree. Yes, you have it now.
That would be design.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Zach:
Yet cities were centrally designed from UR and Ninevah on. Then there's a civilizational break for reasons we know of from WRITTEN history, where the survivors gathered to fortifications and incoming refugees added on, "organically." It's still a city. They all had a reason to be there, they all helped to build the necessities. How is that not intelligent design? The fact that it's not as "pretty" to you as Ninevah or Rome?
Science evolves 'organically'. Is it not intelligent design?
Even if there are people in cities who have fancy guns with bullets and gunpowder and everything? Who would view a stick or a rock as completely undesigned? Did he sharpen them artificially? Shape them artificially? Use them artificially? What determines "design?"
If the defender were a young king off on his own, would they forever after venerate his blood-covered rock or stick? Why? Would you recognize it as designed or representing design if you found it 2,500 years later in a hole?
Would you recognize intelligent design as an archaeologist digging up an early Medieval city abandoned during the Renaissance and since reclaimed by nature? Even if its castle were ruins and its wandering streets made about as much sense as the megaburbs of Tampa? How? What would tip you off? Why would you think that?
Comment by Joy — February 10, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
This thread has "evolved", has it not?
Comment by Anton — February 10, 2008 @ 6:23 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Reading Zach's comments on this (and other) threads serves as an important reminder of how absurd misuse of words damages an argument.
Comment by Anton — February 10, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
If I offered a 2000 dollar reward for the best piece of art, and I received entries ranging from poetry to music to sculptures to recorded dance to elsewise, did I design anything? I created a contest that had a generalized plan. Even if someone surprised me with their entries to the contest, that would just mean my plan was an even greater success. But I didn't personally design any of the entries. And yet, I acquired responses in accordance with a plan.
You don't need exacting, detailed plans to have a design. Hell – procedural and open-ended design can even be part of a design plan.
Honestly, I expect the real answers to questions like these are philosophical more than anything. Though 'there's no design, because it looks organic' doesn't strike me as the strongest argument.
Comment by nullasalus — February 10, 2008 @ 7:00 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
So identify the collective actions that produced the alphabet and do try to connect the dots so a process is clearly visible.
Zach has made a claim unsupported by causal specificity. A link or two and some vague notions of alphabets evolving from tokens. Much fluff and little beef. Now please respond to a request that you connect the dots. ABC… came about exactly how. I don't know is an acceptable answer.
Yes. But the focus of this thread is a specific design- the alphabet. How was it not the product of design?
Comment by Bradford — February 10, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Zachriel, this is from the link you supplied as evidence for the evolution of the alphabet. No wonder all but the swamp crew finds this type of evidence wanting.:smile:
Conclusion
A faint sketch of the places and people associated with ancient accounting begins to emerge. Counting and data storage with tokens started in open air compounds where subsistence was based on cultivating or, at least, hoarding cereals. Their first purpose was to record quantities of the traditional Near Eastern staples: grain and small stock. In the fourth millennium B.C. complex tokens kept track of manufactured goods in large centers. Starting in the sixth millennium, tokens are recurrently found in public buildings. The clusters of tokens found in situ range usually between a dozen to 75 artifacts, showing that the counters were never kept in large quantities. There is some evidence that the counters were mostly discarded during the summer, after the harvest. Tokens, together with other status symbols, are sometimes included in the burials of prestigious individuals, suggesting that they were used by the elite who controlled the economy of redistribution.
Comment by Bradford — February 10, 2008 @ 7:13 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Anton:
Hi, Anton. Welcome to TT, where dumb arguments go on forever! §;o)
I do not see that Zach is 'misusing' his words, he has a specific intent in mind, based on his intelligent forward projection of where this argument goes. But of course that's based on the Design Matrix, and the questions opened by Mike about whether or not evolution can be a means of executing intelligent design. Zach understood that right away (I don't think he's as dumb as he presents himself to be), tried to head it off at the pass. It hasn't worked, and now we're bogged down in trivia.
If the word "evolution" can be applied as if it were a natural progression from biology to human cultural achievements, then it's very much open to having been designed. He has not demonstrated what he hoped to demonstrate by whining that human cultural achievements are 'evolutionary' and thus NOT designed. He's a human arguing with humans. Of course that tactic won't work.
Yet I believe his argument displays intelligent design, even if it's weak, nonsensical and ridiculous. And don't be fooled. If he were an archaeologist digging up the "mounds" that were once Tampa's suburbs in the year 4008, he'd definitely surmise intelligent design even though the streets have no rhyme or reason and the layout isn't desert grid-like (alphabetical streets north to south, numbered streets east to west). That's a no-brainer.
Should I (or Mike, or Bradford) now introduce the end product thread on the assumptive rebels Zach's posse have tried so hard to head off at the pass? §;o)
Comment by Joy — February 10, 2008 @ 7:13 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
I can't image the DM score would be very high then.
If he were an archaeologist in 4008 using the Design Matrix) will there still be rabbits and ducks in 4008?), he might well come up little reason to think it designed.
Assume no streets exist in 4008, even the score from analogy might be 0 or even negative.
Comment by Mung — February 10, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Mung:
You may be right. I lived for 9 years in a Florida city shot through with rivers, marshes and other landforms that constrained development. There was one main thoroughfare – University Boulevard – that along its meandering along waterlines length was labeled north, south, east AND west. Same road, though. My favorite description of the area was "you can't get there from here."
Finally decided it was laid out by pirates, who of course didn't want the stodgy English or Spaniards to be able to negotiate the environs. Heck, there were entire quicksand regions in between gated communities of cul-de-sac wanderings!
Would you say those pirates hadn't actualized an intelligent design? Why?
Though in the Tampa suburb case (and that's not the CITY I mention above), intelligent design would be surmised from the structure of the dwellings and the presence of consumer goods and the ability to get from here to there (however circuitously) if you know your way around. Metal bed frames and kitchen appliances and 4 cars per household and… it goes on and on. We may not think of our modern society as very intelligent, but I assure you it's designed. I suspect humans (or whatever we've evolved into in 2,000 years) will recognize it.
Comment by Joy — February 10, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
nullasaurus asks:
Yes. You designed the contest.
Did you design the entries? No (except for any that you created and submitted yourself).
But Raevmo's question was this:
Null? Bradford?
Comment by valerie — February 10, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Joy,
You certainly try to sound authoritative. Then you drop this:
German *has* a genitive case, which is used as a possessive, as the objects of various prepositions, etc. When you use such an elementary mistake as the focus of why one aspect of English was designed, why should I take your word anything else you said was accurate?
Comment by One Brow — February 10, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
It is in every definition, verb or noun, offered so far.
Comment by One Brow — February 10, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
The first alphabet may have neither preceded by an alphabet nor designed, but rather emerged as a customary usage with slaight alterations, depending upon which first alphabet you mean.
Comment by One Brow — February 10, 2008 @ 9:37 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
One Brow,
it surely didn't take long for you to become a defensive, insultive person on these boards.
You initially introduced yourself as an open-minded individual interested in discussing these topics – but that veneer quickly fell off.
Do you talk this way to your child? It's a bully tactic, one brow.
I enjoy reading your posts because it's like you can't stop yourself from throwing an insult in at the last moment.
Comment by BrainyLack — February 10, 2008 @ 9:54 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Yes, as valerie pointed out, you designed a contest.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, that is not my view. Many human cultural achievements are designed.
One might determine the roads were designed even if the overall layout was not.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2008 @ 10:13 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
One Brow:
Strangely, I'm still just me. I got invited to be a contributor to this blog back in 2005, and was thrilled at the opportunity. I don't write that much here, but I've contributed some. I only know what I know, post things that interest me per what I know. I do not pretend to know what I don't know.
That makes it easy to keep up with discussions like this one, where the bobbing and weaving is so claymation-fast-forward that you could easily lose track if you were a poser. My Dad taught me that. Told me when I wasn't very old that I'm a terrible liar. And I am, I know it (as he did). If you're not lying (even to yourself), then you've nothing to remember later on in the conversation except what's still true right now. Nifty how that works, isn't it?
Excuse me? I offered factual information out there for anybody to find. The English transition was modeled on Saxon usage, a means to further separate the language from Continental pronunciations and forms – to make it unique, and English. Which has got to be one of (if not T-H-E) most patchwork languages on the planet, ever. Science used to use German exclusively for its formalities. Instead of French or Latin (the previous scientific faves). Now it's English. Do you know why?
I do.
Comment by Joy — February 10, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Zach:
LOL!!! Oh, my! You were always arguing that human cultural achievements (like language and writing and city-building and agriculture and…) were designed?
Who knew?
Comment by Joy — February 10, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Were the entries part of my design, Val? Clearly, yes. I don't need to have designed them for that to be true.
Easy: Yes. You just do a bad job of figuring out when that's the case.
Comment by nullasalus — February 10, 2008 @ 10:37 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
You're actually getting very close. We apply the adjective to just those aspects of an object that it properly applies to. So, you designed the contest. You intended that people would enter the contest, so you designed an entry process as part of the contest. You apparently did not design the actual artwork.
For the archtypical Medieval city. Settlers individually hugged existing fortifications forming rings. People designed homes, but no one designed the rings. The fort was designed, but no one designed the town's layout. The city square was set aside by the city fathers, so it was designed, but no one designed the market economy that uses the city square. And so on.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2008 @ 11:11 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
From Websters:
Comment by Bradford — February 10, 2008 @ 11:18 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
So you have a city with designed components. Do they include subway tokens that could evolve into alphabets?
Comment by Bradford — February 10, 2008 @ 11:21 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
That's a nice story. Identify the first alphabet and its manner of emerging. What did its symbols look like?
Comment by Bradford — February 10, 2008 @ 11:24 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
We sometimes use the word 'design' to mean pattern. However, that is not the definition you are using, the purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2008 @ 11:27 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
There's not much left of Ctesiphon, the largest city in the world in the 6th century [bce]. Located about 35 km south of Baghdad, people were still fighting one another on the site 14 centuries later: in 1915, the British and Ottomans engaged in a pitched battle amongst the ruins, destroying much of what little remained.
History for Kossacks: Classical Persia
Comment by Joy — February 10, 2008 @ 11:28 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Zachriel, where are the alphabet letters?
Comment by Bradford — February 10, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Zach – Hope you will peruse that link, Moonbat's an excellent teacher.
Is war intelligently designed?
Comment by Joy — February 10, 2008 @ 11:36 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Most English words have varying shades of meaning. One only need match up with one of the definitions to properly use the term.
Comment by Bradford — February 10, 2008 @ 11:36 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
I don't need to for the artwork to be part of my design, Zach. If I set a theme for the contest ('Make it about cats'), I've instituted a step in the design process, even though I still didn't design the resulting art. If I get more and more specific, I'm providing more and more steps to the process.
Going by your logic, you can say that no one truly designed a TV show, because the show is the result of cumulative design on the part of writers, actors, make-up artists, etc, for the studio/network. The producer didn't necessarily write the scripts, or do the makeup, or create the scenery, or act – which is fine enough to point out, but arguing that he provided no design input and that the end wasn't a designed one is silly.
I'd go into the rest re: your misconceptions about city design, but I'll leave Bradford and Joy to making their points.
Comment by nullasalus — February 10, 2008 @ 11:39 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Yes they do, and when you slide between the meanings, it's called equivocation. You were asked specifically and repeatedly which definition of design you were using. You settled on the purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2008 @ 11:45 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Zachriel:
Since you presumably know the alphabet was not designed you must know our alphabet's origin. The token stuff is pathetic even from a fictional vantage point. Of what use is a partial alphabet incapable of symbolizing commonly used sounds in a language? How does one write with an incomplete alphabet?
Comment by Bradford — February 10, 2008 @ 11:48 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
…
I don't know exactly what you are trying to say. You designed the contest. But if the entries were cats, it sounds like you want to say you designed the cats.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2008 @ 11:51 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Thanks, Joy. I appreciate that. I'll check it out.
Comment by Zachriel — February 10, 2008 @ 11:53 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
No post-modern art allowed.
I didn't design the entries. I designed the contest, and the entries were part of my design – they were an intended part of the contest, something whose introduction I purposefully helped instigate. C'mon, this isn't hard to follow.
Comment by nullasalus — February 10, 2008 @ 11:55 pm
February 10th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
I used the purposeful or inventive arrangement definition for the topic in question. It's better to use the definition of Dennett et. al. for certain natural phenomenon.
Comment by Bradford — February 10, 2008 @ 11:56 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 1:44 am
Okay, let's see if I got this correct. The following words no longer have any meaning:
evolution
intelligence
design
alphabet
language
economy
inflation
marketplace
and
city.
Did I miss any? I hope you guys are pleased (all of ya's) you broke 'em. Everyone take a deep breathe. Step away from your keyboards. Go outside or something. This can't continue any longer.
You've broken words people. Words. I implore you, please. Before a third blog and who knows how many more words die an excruciating painfully slow death. I believe we're now all slightly dumber for having seen this… and I didn't have all that much to spare to begin with.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!
Comment by Rob R. — February 11, 2008 @ 1:44 am
February 11th, 2008 at 2:41 am
Don't fret, Rob. English has a lot of words. It'll take forever to kill all of them.
Comment by valerie — February 11, 2008 @ 2:41 am
February 11th, 2008 at 2:43 am
rabbit
Comment by Mung — February 11, 2008 @ 2:43 am
February 11th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Yes, we apply the adjective 'designed' to just those aspects of an object that are purposeful. You might have chiseled a stone, so the shape is designed, but the crystalline structure is not. Some of this is just how we use the language to communicate. Someone might say they like the design of the stone, referring tacitly to the shape.
Comment by Zachriel — February 11, 2008 @ 9:00 am
February 11th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I'm not aware that it has happened yet. "Defensive" would mean that I was over-reacting to a criticism of an idea of my own, when in fact I had not previously mentioned the topic of the genitive in English on this board. "Insultive" would mean that I was in some way negatively characterizing the person of Joy, when in fact I said nothing about her as a person. I have no doubt that I would enjoy the compny of Joy, MikeGene, Bradford, Zachriel, Valaerie, or any other poster on this board. You all seem like a fine group of people.
Well, I consider myself open to evidence, but I thought I also made clear that I considered ID to be a philosophical position, not a scientific/evidentiary position. Since I'm a skeptic, it's pretty natural that I don't personally hold thatposition. So, if you thought I meant that I had no opinion concerning whether ID was a real phenomenon, I apologize, and will try to be more clear. I think ID is a valid phiolosophical position to take, but it is one that I personally reject.
At times. Such as, when my 14-year-old tells me he will do his homework at a given time, and 1/2 hour after that time he says he doesn't want to do his homework, I will ask him if I should believe him the next time he wants to put his homework off.
I don't agree. A reputation is a precious thing, and a person should value it (IMHO). How they respond to a comment like that can tell you a lot about their character.
Perhaps you're finding exactly what you're looking for?
Comment by One Brow — February 11, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
What of those articles was relevant to the issues of whether the individual writing systems were designed or evolved? I saw the term "more eveolved", which I agree is a false indecation of better, but nothing that said the writing systems were all designed.
Comment by One Brow — February 11, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
What's the concession? That individual acts within a framework can be purposeful, even though their overall effect is unintended? If anything, that's what I've been trying to get you and Bradford to acknowledge.
Comment by One Brow — February 11, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Mine, as well. My Dad also taught me that, when you make an error, it's best to to say you made a mistake and you'll try to do better in the future. People are more accepting of errors than pride, more willing to forgive than give in.
Except, the factual information was incorrect, in the way I specified.
No argument there. It was the attempt to cite the German influence to which I objected.
Comment by One Brow — February 11, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Do you agree with this position/definition?
I honestly thought that we were discussing whether the alphabet/English were intelligently designed. If all you meant was that they were designed in the same way an adaptationist might claim a jaw is designed by natural selection (which I think we would both agree is not an example of intelligent design), I would certainly agree with that, and I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Comment by One Brow — February 11, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Well, of the likely several differently arising alphabets, I can't say which was first. However, as far as our alphabet goes, the Proto-Canaanite is thought by many to be a "transitional form" between true heiroglyphics and a sound-based system.
Comment by One Brow — February 11, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
BrainyLack,
Since you apparently are willing to remonstrate other posters for their insulting terms, will we be reading a remonstration to either of these posters?
FRom this thread:
From the Irrational Design thread:
Comment by One Brow — February 11, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
OB, try reading all the comments of a thread in which you are active. Design, like most English words, has many different meanings and shades of meaning. That was already mentioned in an exchange with Zach. You need to be clear on context and useage before assuming something. There is no selection parallel to an alphabet. The alphabet is symbolic. There is purpose in symbolism that may not exist in a natural process.
Comment by Bradford — February 11, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
February 11th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
I'm having a high school flash-back. I'm in 4th period philosophy class and were having an Argument of Definition but we can never get past agreeing on the definition of anything.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 11, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Heh.
Actually, we did agree to use Bradford's definition, the purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details. The problem is that he is (unconsciously) equivocating, so much so that he can't say whether snowflakes are 'designed'.
I did read your blog entry on this, by the way. I found your thoughts, well, thoughtful. You say that you consider language to be 'designed', but you are using a somewhat broader definition than the one in use here. With your broad definition, evolution by natural selection is 'design', but not 'intelligent design'.
In fact, by some quite reasonable definitions of 'intelligence', evolution by natural selection is intelligent, as well. Febble (Abbie Smith) took Dembski's definition of Intelligence and showed that it applied to evolution by natural selection. Subsequently, she was banned from Uncommon Descent.
Comment by Zachriel — February 12, 2008 @ 8:26 am
February 12th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Designed by forces of Nature. No intent needed. Not much close attention to detail needed either to gather that from my previous comments.
Comment by Bradford — February 12, 2008 @ 8:31 am
February 12th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Speaking of questions how about an answer to these:
Of what use is a partial alphabet incapable of symbolizing commonly used sounds in a language? How does one write with an incomplete alphabet?
Comment by Bradford — February 12, 2008 @ 8:34 am
February 12th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Bradford,
Just because design, the purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details, and design, a pattern, share the same sequence of letters doesn't make them the same thing. When you switch between words like that, it's called equivocation. It's a type of fallacy. If there is any chance of confusion, then you should make a clear distinction, preferably by using a different word.
Snowflakes are not designed in the sense we have agreed to use the term, the purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details.
Pictograms were slowly adopted to act as acrophones then phonograms. (An acrophone is a picture used as a phonogram, so a picture of a bee might represent the b-sound.) That's one of the reasons why Egyptian hieroglyphs took so long to decipher. They looked like pictograms, while many of them were acrophones. Acrophones are the 'intermediate species' between pictograms and phonograms. The Egyptians would use a limited set of acrophones to spell out foreign names that had no appropriate pictogram, sans vowels. Semagramatic clues and logograms are also part of this evolutionary history.
Comment by Zachriel — February 12, 2008 @ 8:51 am
February 12th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Zachriel:
Correct. I've been the one pointing out repeatedly that English words have varying shades of meaning. Looks like we agree on this.
They are designed according to another definition also supplied by me. You don't want us to ignore some definitions do you? If the shoe fits wear it.
What this indicates are conceptual breakthroughs that are purposefully acted upon to generate new means of written communication. Did you ever study the history of mathematics? The same phenomenon is observed in that discipline. Intellectual breakthroughs lead to mathematical innovations. You can call this evolutionary if it pleases you but current modifications are built on some very telic prior ones.
Comment by Bradford — February 12, 2008 @ 9:32 am
February 12th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Thanks for the link Zachriel, at this point I really feel that my first step in reaching any insight into this debate needs to be coming to a greater understanding of intelligence. I suspect our human egos might lead us to assign greater value to intelligence than is truly justified. I find the idea of a natural process being genuinely intelligent in an analogous way to human intelligence to be absolutely fascinating and filled with powerful implications to how we perceive the world.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 12, 2008 @ 11:15 am
February 12th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Mung,
Notice Zechriel addressed your "so what?" but didn't reply to the rest of what you wrote. Perhaps he thinks he is addressing evolution at the level I have been mentioning with regards to novel cell types, tissue types, organs and body plans. I can't get a straight answer out of him on this, so I'll have to let it go. My vacation is over and I have to get back to work. Feel free to try to get him to address it. It would be interesting.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 12, 2008 @ 11:28 am
February 12th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
You sure you don't already have all the understanding and insight you need?
I visited your blog, it seems like your conclusions are pretty much set.
Design Matrix is 'God of the Gaps'?
Comment by Doug — February 12, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
I answered your question concerning the use of a partial or incomplete alphabet.
Which definition of 'design' was at issue when you waxed eloquent about "unhealthy emotional attachment" and "ritual like thinking"
Bradford: Designed by forces of Nature. No intent needed.
Bradford: The purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details.
You asked what makes me think logical pathways exists that would allow observed mechanisms to generate novel cells types, tissue types, organs or body plans?
What I find convincing involves a lot of evidence from a lot of areas of research. And because the conclusions depend on a variety of scientific facts, we have to establish those facts first to justify the conclusion.
You say you accept Common Descent. Now, we are discussing the mechanisms involved in the evolution of various taxa. Do you reject adaptive evolution of all taxa? If not, then do you have a problem with the evolution of Equidae? If so, then I would be happy to discuss the evidence. If you're down with Equidae, then what about Eutheria?
You did say you accept Common Descent, so the progression through the taxonomic hierarchy should be of obvious importance.
Comment by Zachriel — February 12, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Bradford (quoting Mike Gene):
Do they indeed? I must have missed the quantitative analysis that led to this conclusion. How do you reckon?
Comment by Raevmo — February 12, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Allow me to rephrase the question your Honor. There is a qualitative difference between pictograms and alphabet letters. My question is focused on the latter and is again- Of what use is a partial alphabet incapable of symbolizing commonly used sounds in a language? How does one write with an incomplete alphabet? I'm uninterested in evolutionary claims. I'm looking for a specific pathway.
Comment by Bradford — February 12, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Bradford: Apparently some do not believe the alphabet was designed"¦
But it rings of a religious impulse. A belief supported by elements of faith replaces empirical data. Love for the concept of undirected gradual change replaces the need for evidence and logic. Alphabets do indeed "maximize the fidelity of the flow of information." Humans, capable of intelligent design, are known to have developed alphabets. The cognitive processes associated with symbolism and the nature of the symbolism itself are evidence of rational design to all but those having an unhealthy emotional attachment to the idea of undirected change. It is ritual like thinking on display not to be confused with sound science.
The purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details. The quoted phrases are a reaction to the vagueness of the proposed non-telic evolutionary pathways to an alphabet. The explanations lack the scientific rigor I would expect from you.
Comment by Bradford — February 12, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Raevmo:
The alphabet makes it possible to go from zero to differing positive numbers.
Comment by Bradford — February 12, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
The Pentateuch was written without symbols for vowels.
Comment by Zachriel — February 12, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Zachriel:
Greek has a different protocol. Is there any historic evidence that partial ABC like alphabets were once used?
Comment by Bradford — February 12, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
The Pentateuch was written in Alefbet, which like other early Semitic writing systems, lacked symbols for commonly used sounds"”vowels.
Comment by Zachriel — February 12, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Any evidence that English (or other European languages utilizing the alphabet) was once written without vowels?
Comment by Bradford — February 12, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Not as far as I know. The Greeks developed the first 'true' alphabet (with each letter being a different sound rather than being syllabic as in the Phoenican), and descendant writing systems, including Latin and English, have this same characteristic.
Comment by Zachriel — February 12, 2008 @ 5:31 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
I doubt you can prove that. Any agreed-upon set of symbols, including a currently-existing set of pictographs, can also be used to form an alphabet.
It would be useful both as pictograms and as an alphabet.
That's a self-contradiction. If you don't have a reasonable pathway, you don't have an evoluitonary claim. Of course, there may often be too many plausible pathways to pick just one as *the* pathway.
Comment by One Brow — February 12, 2008 @ 7:27 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
As I said in response to you earlier, acrophones are an 'intermediate species' between pictograms and phonograms. An acrophone is a pictogram whose initial sound is borrowed for the phonetic spelling. Egyptian hieroglyphics used acrophones (along with ideograms), as did early Canaanite writing. Hieretic was largely logographic, but did include some acrophony.
Over history, acrophones became increasingly abstracted, but it took a long time for people to forget that an A was an Ox, and for phonograms to come to represent single sounds rather than syllables.
Comment by Zachriel — February 12, 2008 @ 8:18 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Let's be clear about a distinction among symbols. A picture depicting that which the picture stands for is an already complete short story relevant to the concept in question. So if a boat corresponds to a symbol that looks like a boat a very primitive form of communication already exists. Not so with ABCs Alphabet letters must come with agreed upon protocols mapping sounds to letters. Even then nothing is gained unless sequencing is correct: emdiighkkre sujgnweh toiugfna mean absolutely nothing. With rare exceptions single letters have no meaning. As a general rule multiple ones don't either. Combinations must spell words. The elementary nature of this can cause one to overlook the irreducuble complexity exhibited in alphabet dependent written languages. That in turn poses a dilemna for anyone wishing to argue that such written languages developed in a non-telic manner.
My question is focused on the latter and is again- Of what use is a partial alphabet incapable of symbolizing commonly used sounds in a language?
One pictogram can convey a coherent message. Letters do not unless properly sequenced. So what value would an alphabet consisting of emxpjql have? How is gradualism a worthy paradigm for language development among alphabet dependent languages?
Comment by Bradford — February 12, 2008 @ 8:31 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Zachriel:
How are you deriving lack of purpose from this?
Comment by Bradford — February 12, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
The assignment of pictograms to sounds doesn't require some special and arbitrary code. The initial syllable of a word was borrowed, the logogram becoming an acrophone. Indeed, the logogram used was initially arbitrary or based on closest analogy. Simplifying this to specific logograms regardless of content was an important step towards an eventual alphabet.
kornbelt888 had it basically right when he said, "Guided evolution by intelligent agency oriented toward easier, better, faster, stronger, healthier." There is purpose. But the purpose is local without regard to the eventual development of an alphabet.
Only later, after many centuries of development do these logograms become specific sounds rather than syllables and abstracted such that we now forget that the letter A is actually an inverted pictogram of an ox.
Comment by Zachriel — February 12, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
This is mere assertion. Global purpose is indicated in the modification of the Latin alphabet to accomodate it to individual European tribal languages. Some Medieval scribes get together and figure out how to best adapt the Latin to their own tongues. How many letters does one require to effectively communicate English?
Comment by Bradford — February 12, 2008 @ 10:40 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Zachriel wrote:
Actually, Febble (Elizabeth Liddle) and ERV (Abbie Smith) are different people, though Dembski's eyelid probably twitches when he thinks of either one.
Comment by valerie — February 12, 2008 @ 10:53 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
We know how ancient peoples used logograms as syllabic acrophones. We know that over time the acrophones became simplified, abstracted and eventually stood for individual phonemes.
I believe the usual number is 26 letters. Keep in mind that English came much later than writing, and adopted many aspects of its spoken and written language from others.
Comment by Zachriel — February 12, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Yes! And thank you for the correction. I had started on one thought, and while trying to find a link to the story, got turned around. Something about the epicycles of the planets lately is tending to make me dizzy.
Comment by Zachriel — February 12, 2008 @ 11:03 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Bradford: How many letters does one require to effectively communicate English?
Speakers of Old English took an already established alphabet and refined it to suit their own language. That's global purpose. The fact that one would need most of those 26 letters for the function of writing English is an indicator that the complexity level would not have evolved locally. This was globally conceived by the Germanic invaders to express their language.
This is an indicator of global purpose:
The Anglo-Saxons began using Roman letters to write Old English as they converted to Christianity, following Augustine of Canterbury's mission to Britain in the sixth century. Because the Runic wen, which was first used to represent the sound 'w' and looked like a p that is narrow and triangular, was easy to confuse with an actual p, the 'w' sound began to be written using a double u. Because the u at the time looked like a v, the double u looked like two v's, W was placed in the alphabet by V. U developed when people began to use the rounded U when they meant the vowel u and the pointed V when the meant the consonant V. J began as a variation of I, in which a long tail was added to the final I when there were several in a row. People began to use the J for the consonant and the I for the vowel by the fifteenth century, and it was fully accepted in the mid-seventeenth century.
Get the basics and then tinker.
Comment by Bradford — February 12, 2008 @ 11:15 pm
February 12th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Precisely. It's inheritance and tinkering.
I couldn't have found a better example of local purpose. Thank you.
Your cite speaks clearly of the ad hoc and minimalist nature of the changes. It was local adaptation of an inherited Latin alphabet to suit the immediate needs of the here-and-now. There was no global plan in Ancient Rome to prepare for the spelling requirements of the Anglo-Saxons, nor a global plan on the part of the Anglo-Saxons to prepare for the requirements of texting in the 21st century. There wasn't even a plan to adapt the Latin alphabet to the Anglo-Saxon! Those few changes you cite occurred over generations among different groups of writers.
It's inheritance and tinkering.
Comment by Zachriel — February 12, 2008 @ 11:54 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Bradford,
Zachriel's right. You couldn't have picked a better example of local, non-global purpose.
Local problem: The runic wen looks like a 'p'.
Local solution: Use two u's instead.
Local problem: Two u's looked like two v's.
Local solution: Create the 'w'.
Local problem: Confusion between consonant 'v' and vowel 'v'.
Local solution: Use rounded-off 'u' for vowel, pointed 'v' for consonant.
Local problem: Confusion between consonant 'i' and vowel 'i'.
Local solution: Borrow 'j', which was invented for another purpose, and use it for the consonant.
If the purpose had been to come up with an alphabet suitable for Old English, they would have tackled all of these problems at once — or better yet, they would have invented an entirely new alphabet, optimized for Old English. Instead you get a slow evolution, with each change driven by an immediate need.
Comment by valerie — February 13, 2008 @ 12:26 am
February 13th, 2008 at 12:31 am
The significant adaptation was mapping an existing alphabet to a new language. That's global purpose from A to Z. The ad hoc changes were fluff tinkering.
The Latin alphabet was not inherited. It was borrowed. Inheritance is a biological process that anti-teleologists substitute for more suitable English words. Latin symbols are fitted to Old English words. The Latin system came supplied with an existing ediface. The Anglo-Saxons simply mapped the symbols to their unique sounds. Intent and purpose revealed in the transformation.
Of couse not. Euclid had no global plan to prepare his postulates for non-Euclidean versions that followed either. Some mathematical geniuses were undeterred and proceeded with their global non-Euclidean adaptations anyway.
Irrlevant to the event.
There had to be or there would have been no point in using the Latin framework. The event was the fit of the symbols to Old English which had never occurred before.
These changes are trivial. The change that was important preceeded it- using Latin symbols to put Old English into writing. Good work monks.
It was a decision to take Latin symbols and mold them to Old English words. That's acting on intelligent deliberation.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2008 @ 12:31 am
February 13th, 2008 at 12:39 am
That's stupid. They put into effect a workable system allowing them to write and make very minor changes later. That's a hallmark of intellgent design.
Why reinvent the wheel particularly when they were clueless as to writing in the first place. That's why they adapted a pre-existing system. The symbolic system they adapted enabled them to write Old English. That's the point.
You misunderstand the significance of the minor changes. The written system was in effect and then slightly modified. Evolution is not a magical incantation meaning no teleology.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2008 @ 12:39 am
February 13th, 2008 at 12:47 am
These modifications were made after the capacity to write Old English had already been made through coopting the Latin. Adapting the Latin to create a capacity to write OE was the design event. The letter adaptations that followed modified the design. You're confusing the modifications with the design.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2008 @ 12:47 am
February 13th, 2008 at 1:09 am
a, æ, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, l, m, n, o, p, r, s, t, u, w, y, þ and ð are the letters of the Old English alphabet. The letters were mapped to Old English sounds in order to create Old English words. The mapping occurred at the outset of the transformation. That was the intelligent design event. Minor changes took place in the following years. They modify without negating the design.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2008 @ 1:09 am
February 13th, 2008 at 1:16 am
It seems to me that arguing about linguistics and morphology is a bit off topic. At the root are more generic issues: Bradford believes that a process influenced by intelligent agents can legitimately be said to be "designed" by those agents. Zachriel believes that without a planned and purposeful goal the process is more analogous to evolution and the term "designed" doesn't really fit. At its core this still seems like an Argument of Definition.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 13, 2008 @ 1:16 am
February 13th, 2008 at 2:38 am
Todd Berkebile wrote:
True enough, but not all arguments of definition are equally legitimate.
A legitimate argument of definition arises when both antagonists reason correctly from accepted but different meanings of a term or concept. Such an argument can be resolved once each party comes to understand that the other party's position makes sense if his or her (often implicit) definition is taken as a starting point.
On the other hand, an illegitimate argument of definition arises when one party adopts a bizarre or nonstandard definition of a term without making it clear that they are doing so.
If I tell you that dogs use litter boxes, keep themselves clean and don't need to be walked, you will likely disagree. We could argue about this for hours. If at some point I tell you that this is just a semantic argument, because by 'dog' I mean 'the small mammal known as Felis sylvestris', you won't buy it for a second. Nor should you.
Bradford and nullasalus are wrong to hold that an outcome is designed simply because it is arrived at by a number of actions taken consciously and with purpose. That is not how English speakers use the word 'design'. As I pointed out on the other thread, their definition leads to the absurd conclusion that all of the following are designed:
1. Inflation.
2. The traffic backups on I-880 during rush hour.
3. The brown paths through the grass left by pedestrians too lazy, or in too much of a hurry, to stay on the sidewalk.
4. The shortage of Democratic ballots in some California polling stations on Super Tuesday.
5. Stock market crashes.
6. Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Imagine that Bradasalus is driving down the street with the purpose of getting to work. Nullaford strides into the street with the purpose of getting to the other side. Bradasalus hits Nullaford, injuring him fatally.
Police officer: You just hit a pedestrian!
Bradasalus: I know.
Police officer: Was that by design?
Bradasalus: Yes.
Comment by valerie — February 13, 2008 @ 2:38 am
February 13th, 2008 at 3:03 am
Ha-ha, thank you for a good laugh, I love that conclusion. It would seem to follow that all those examples you mention fall into the same category as language. Maybe we should use Mike's "evolvoid" term to describe these? Even when reading the book it seemed to me the only requirement for something to be an "evolvoid" was that an intelligent agent be in any way connected to a process that otherwise seems analogous to evolution. Oddly that seems to exactly match Bradford's usage of "designed."
As I mentioned on my blog I prefer a definition of design that doesn't require the designer to be intelligent. Bradford and Zachriel should come to their senses and just agree with me.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 13, 2008 @ 3:03 am
February 13th, 2008 at 5:50 am
Val,
If Bradasalus says 'no' does that mean the Police Officer will say "Alright then, you can go."
Of course not. It's going to be investigated. The actions of Null and Brad, as well as the conditions they were acting under, are going to be checked – was Null jaywalking? Where was Null crossing? Was Brad speeding? What traffic signals were in play? Was Brad drinking? Was he paying proper attention to the road? Etc, etc.
They're going to ask those things in order to determine culpability. If Brad's actions are judged to be negligent – if he ran a red light or a stop sign, if he was ignoring traffic signs, if he got into the car drunk – Brad will be punished. Fault will be assigned to him because he chose behaviors which raised the possibility of an accident. "Your honor, I did not specifically intend for this outcome in advance" isn't going to be much of a defense. You don't need to in advance intend for a specific outcome in order to have an active role in choosing the outcome – all you need is an awareness of possibility.
And by the way – even if neither Brad or Null are judged to be negligent, it doesn't mean there was absolutely no culpability or awareness. It means that said culpability isn't believed to have passed a threshold to legally assign blame. If I know that every 30 minutes 1 person is killed by a drunk driver in America, does that mean if a drunk driver hits my car that I'm responsible because I knew about the possibility in advance? Of course not. But does it also mean that if I get into a car, I'm not accepting a risk – however remote? Again, no.
So, if Brad says 'I didn't intend to hit Null! I was too drunk to even THINK of malice!', is the conclusion that Brad was culpable – that he made decisions which he realized would dramatically increase the likelihood of an accident – absurd? Of course not. If you argue 'Well, there's a difference between Brad planning in advance to run over Null and Brad making decisions that he knows would increase the likelihood of a general accident', guess what? I agree. Amount of design shifts, type of design shifts, and the question is far from black and white.
Comment by nullasalus — February 13, 2008 @ 5:50 am
February 13th, 2008 at 6:30 am
nullasalus wrote:
Null,
You've missed the entire point.
Read the dialogue again:
Any native speaker of English knows that Bradasalus should answer "no" if he doesn't want to go to prison for murder. Yet if your definition of design were correct, it would make sense for him to answer "yes", and the police officer would understand exactly what he was trying to say.
The word simply does not mean what you claim. If Bradasalus didn't mean to run him over, then Nullaford's death was not designed — it was an accident.
Comment by valerie — February 13, 2008 @ 6:30 am
February 13th, 2008 at 7:33 am
Val,
Which word is appropriate to use in casual conversation isn't the heart of this dispute – it's about how to consider 'design' in situations that aren't explicit and exacting. If Brad was driving drunk and behaving irresponsibly, a judge sentencing him could say 'Sir, the death of Null was a design wrought from your decisions' and it would be every bit as valid.
Some people don't believe in free will. But if such a person walks out of a voting booth and are asked 'Did you place your vote of your own free will?', odds are they're going to answer 'yes'. The person asking the question isn't trying to engage them in a philosophical conversation about libertarian versus incompatiblist views of will – they're wondering if another person forced them to vote how they did. The reply isn't a lie – they're putting aside an aspect of the word that isn't appropriate to the conversation.
Comment by nullasalus — February 13, 2008 @ 7:33 am
February 13th, 2008 at 8:18 am
valerie:
This is typical of the mischaracterization we expect from critics. When the Anglo-Saxons borrowed Latin symbols to express their own language in writing, they made an intelligent decision to utilize a completely operational system mapped to sounds unique to their language. This is the biological equivalent of coopting, not a minor biochemical change or a subcellular structural change, but rather an entire cell from a prebiotic starting point. This is no gradual evolution. It is a sudden creation of a capacity to communicate Old English in written from. The fact that they tweaked the language with subsequent changes does not negate this historic finding.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2008 @ 8:18 am
February 13th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Todd:
I pointed out this possibility with an alternative definition of design. Definitions are less important than identification of causes and effects. What is evidenced by critics is this thread is an attempt to distort historic events to suit their personal non-telic predilections.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2008 @ 8:23 am
February 13th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Imagine that valerie is driving down the street with the purpose of getting to work. Zach strides into the street with the purpose of getting to the other side. valerie hits Zach, injuring him fatally.
Police officer: You just hit a pedestrian!
valerie: Yo se.
Police officer: Was that by design?
valerie: No entiendo
Police Officer: OK write this in the primary language of the accused.
Police Officer upon receiving the written affidavit: I see this is a mixture of more than one language. (To the officer that took the affidavit) What gives?
Other Officer: The jurad part (in which valerie swears to the truth) was written in English and translated for valerie so the court would have ready understanding. Most of the remainder was written in Spanish except for this one colloquial word that seems to be used only by immigrants in the US and seems neither English or Spanish.
Police Officer: Then you're telling me that this affidavit evolved without intent. That's what that one word signifies- lack of intent for the entire affidavit. Since affidavits require the intent of the accused, this is not admissable. I see only non-telic evolution here but then again that's what I see when I look at anything.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2008 @ 8:40 am
February 13th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Ignoring what you specifically cited"”that it tooks centuries for the I to change to a J"”which was apparently not relevant.
Missionaries brought their Latin alphabet with them when they Christianized the Anglo-Saxons. When they did, the Anglo-Saxons adopted very similar phonetic relationships as they were already familiar with. (Of note is that Anglo-Saxon and Latin are both Indo-European languages.) So? That's exactly what you would expect by an evolutionary process. A 'species' enters a new environment, then is adapted to local conditions.
There is no doubt that the missionaries did this purposefully. But this is the very essence of local, not global, adaptation.
No. It means Bradasalus didn't do it purposefully, so it's not intentional murder. There is still the question of negligence.
No, he would say Brad 'designed' a situation that he should have known would put others in danger. That makes him guilty of negligence. He might say Null is just as dead as if he had purposefully killed him. Notice how we apply the term 'design' only to those aspects of the situation to which it applies. Brad's decision to drink may have been purposeful, but the death of Null was not. Design is purposeful, and if the death of Null was purposeful, then it was murder.
Comment by Zachriel — February 13, 2008 @ 8:49 am
February 13th, 2008 at 8:50 am
That says it all. Lie to advance a personal objective. The truth does not matter does it valerie? The best course of action is to explain that the accident resulted from mechanical difficuties, or distracted attention or whatever the mitigating circumstance was. If none exist then maybe intent was present after all and this was murder. But will Clemens or valerie place priority on truth. Don't bet your paycheck.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2008 @ 8:50 am
February 13th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Except the newly acquired capacity to write was the result of a sudden adaptation of an already self-sufficient structure. No gradual evolution needed. Simply the decision to use the symbols with a different language. Once the decision was made to borrow the Latin symbols Old English then had its own alphabet. The subsequent I to J thing does not alter this.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2008 @ 8:54 am
February 13th, 2008 at 8:58 am
The mapping already existed. It only had to be modified slightly.
I just asked you what definition was applicable to this blog.
No one disputes the telic nature of language, as I and others have repeatedly stressed. But the overall pattern of language development is best described as evolution, not design. We say that the Romance languages evolved from the Latin. The Romance languages were not designed.
Comment by Zachriel — February 13, 2008 @ 8:58 am
February 13th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Zachriel:
The pattern is cooption of an existing self-sufficient alphabet structure to enable written communications where none previously existed. Call cooption evolutionary if you prefer but this example shows that writing capacity comes front loaded with design needed for function at the outset. Sounds much like cells arising.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2008 @ 9:03 am
February 13th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Yes, Bradasalus' brakes gave out. A much better story. The question isn't what Bradasalus did, but what his meaning would be if he said he 'designed' the death of Null. We know that means purposeful murder, not negligence, not distraction, not mechanical failure.
Precisely right. By analogy, the species enters a new environment then is modified slightly over time due to local conditions. This is exactly what we mean by an evolutionary process. The adoption of the alphabet was local, and happened in many places all over Europe. Then the alphabet diverged in each of these locations in a process akin to adaptive radiation. (A single species of Finch migrated from South America to each of the Galápagos islands, then slowly adapted and diverged in response to varying local conditions.)
The adoption of the alphabet by the Anglo-Saxons was purposeful. The pattern of long term divergence across Europe was evolutionary. The local pattern is telic, the global pattern is not.
Comment by Zachriel — February 13, 2008 @ 9:06 am
February 13th, 2008 at 9:13 am
That's not an accurate analogy. A capacity was enabled where nothing previously existed. That's an abiogenesis analogy. The intelligently designed solution was to adapt an existing, complex, functional device which was subsequently tweaked.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2008 @ 9:13 am
February 13th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Each incident of cooption of an existing alphabet to enable writing was purposeful and there would have been many such incidents. This looks more like quantum leaps from time to time with each leap enabling a writng capacity. The cooptions are global with respect to individual languages. Gradual modifications occur after cooption.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2008 @ 9:21 am
February 13th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Zach,
Likely, B's going to answer that way whether he did it or not – I went on to explain the complexities of determining intention both in type and level.
Zach, Val's example was an issue of 'What people would say in casual conversation'. The judge can say what I had him say, and no one would reasonably get the wrong idea. You can pipe up and correct him – and you can pipe up and correct the person in the 'free will' question. All this illustrates is how the use of words in casual/common conversation only gets you so much justification when you're dealing with issues on the level we're discussing them. For our purposes, the justification has a limit, and we're beyond it.
A aims a gun at B. A knows that when he fires, he has a 40% chance of killing B, a 50% chance of wounding B, and a 10% chance of merely terrifying B. A will be happy with any of the three results. According to the way you're arguing, no matter what the result is, whether B dies, is wounded, or is terrified, it wasn't A's design. A is the one making the move, A is aware of the results and the odds of them, A is desiring any of the three options on the table – but because A can't be 100% certain which result will actualize, there is no design. "All A designed is aiming the gun and pulling the trigger. He didn't design the result." That's right up there with "A didn't kill B, the bullet did."
Now hey, you can justify that view of things all you want. You can argue that going by your perspective and definitions you're technically correct – A's act was telic, which started an atelic process which had a result A desired, but did not design. Meanwhile, I'm going to say that the result was designed, even if A had incomplete information about what would definitely transpire – A knew he was engaging in an act that had certain possibilities. Even though he couldn't be certain which result he would get, he was welcoming the results nevertheless. If B is merely scared, A may be surprised – it was a 1 in 10 chance – but there's still design present in the result, because 'design' can cover an extraordinarily broad range of machinations.
Comment by nullasalus — February 13, 2008 @ 9:25 am
February 13th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Sure the capacity existed. (Just as Finches, with all their capabilities, were introduced into the Galápagos.) Alphabets were being used for other, closely related languages. We agree that the act of adoption was telic. But the pattern of divergence of alphabets across Europe, that specific pattern, was not telic, but a result of local conditions creating a global pattern.
Though the original immigration from South American may have been due to happenstance of winds and weather, the dispersal among the various islands may very well have been purposeful on the part of the Finches. This was followed by the very telic mechanism of sexual selection as partners choose mates that they hope have the most advantageous characteristics for survival in each of the local environments.
Comment by Zachriel — February 13, 2008 @ 9:25 am
February 13th, 2008 at 9:32 am
nullasalus wrote:
That's right. The heart of this dispute is whether the word 'design' applies to things like pedestrian accidents.
Let's find out. The Googlesphere encompasses billions of samples of English usage from the most casual to the most formal, from the simplest to the highly technical. Let's do a search to see who, besides you and Bradford, refers to the 'design' of pedestrian accidents:
"design of pedestrian accidents":
Okay, how about "design of traffic accidents"
Perhaps if we back off and search for plain old "design of accidents". Hey — we got a hit! Not exactly what we were looking for, though; the words are next to each other by accident, with a semicolon in between:
By contrast, "design of computers" gets 205,000 hits.
You're being ridiculous, Null. English speakers don't use the word 'design' in the way that you claim.
Comment by valerie — February 13, 2008 @ 9:32 am
February 13th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Like biology this comes down to an initial cause and effect dynamic which is why I've emphasized the inapplicability of localism to an outcome that requires a mapping of many symbols for the many sounds of human languages. ABCD will not do. Neither will xyzqrs. Ditto mhplfg. Too many mappings and symbols are needed for written communication in alphabet form. That signals global intent for the alphabet innovation.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2008 @ 9:33 am
February 13th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Sure they would. If judge said Bradasalus designed Null's death, then that means the death was intentional homicide. (And therefore murder, assuming there is no claim of self-defense.)
If A was happy with any of those results, then it was probably a crime of passion. This is usually called Murder in the second degree. There is intent to commit an act that a reasonable person would know could lead to death, but no premeditation. If the premeditated intent was to kill, then it's Murder One. And the odds of survival are the reason people often use more than one bullet. It's all about purpose and intent.
It's the usual definition, it's the proper definition, it's the explict definition provided by Bradford, and you have provided no examples that are in anyway contrary. The best you have is that it might be a slip of the tongue.
Comment by Zachriel — February 13, 2008 @ 9:39 am
February 13th, 2008 at 9:48 am
I wrote:
Bradford replied, incongruously:
Bradford,
You're funny.
There's a pretty long conditional clause in my sentence. Did you miss it?
Comment by valerie — February 13, 2008 @ 9:48 am
February 13th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Val,
I'm sorry, but basing your argument on an appeal to common/casual use of language was bad enough. Trying to do it via google search? I can argue back "'designed by accident' gives 30700 results!", but it means as much as "design of pedestrian accidents" returning 0 does – not a thing. And this before pointing out that Bradford and I, while agreeing in general, are probably working off different views and justification.
I'll argue with Zach, Val. If you want to make a point, channel it through him. I'd rather discuss this with someone a little less emotionally invested.
Zach,
He said "Sir, the death of Null was a design wrought from your decisions". You can have design without specific intention. And no, they wouldn't.
I gave an example of someone engaging in an act where they know the 50%, 40%, and 10% chance results of their action. I'm not asking you to tell me what their state of mind was and how a court would view that state of mind.
50% odds of a kill, 40% odds of wounding, 10% odds of scaring. The shooter knows the odds, and would be happy with any of the three. A shoots. Is what happens to B, designed? Yes or no.
Is what happens to B, designed? If you say 'no', then you demonstrate why I view your use of the word as incomplete – whenever there's an element of uncertainty in what will result from an act, you will say there is no design, even if all of the possible results are seen in advance. If you say 'yes', then the result of an action is or has design even in cases where the specific result is uncertain.
Which is it?
Comment by nullasalus — February 13, 2008 @ 9:53 am
February 13th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Second, if Bradasalus didn't kill Nullaford intentionally, do you really think he's lying if he says "No, I didn't kill him by design"
Comment by valerie — February 13, 2008 @ 9:55 am
February 13th, 2008 at 9:55 am
If indeed he did hit the pedestrian how should he answer?
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2008 @ 9:55 am
February 13th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Bradford asked:
I assume you meant to ask this:
The answer depends on whether or not you're using "should" in the ethical sense. I was not.
Perhaps this retelling of the story will show you how we use "should" when we are not referring to ethical questions:
Comment by valerie — February 13, 2008 @ 10:25 am
February 13th, 2008 at 10:26 am
nullasalus wrote:
Um, Null, "designed by accident" does not mean the same thing as "design of accidents".
And a Google search returning 0 hits tells you that the phrase in question was not found in Google's entire database. That's highly significant.
But if you disagree, show us all the websites that Google missed. You know, the ones where people talk about the design of accidents.
Run away! Run away!
Comment by valerie — February 13, 2008 @ 10:26 am
February 13th, 2008 at 10:43 am
That is not the agreed definition, nor is that how anyone would normally use the word. He would say "the death of Null was a result wrought from your decisions". The decisions were intentional, but the death not.
Again, you use the slip of the tongue or unartful use of language to justify your position. If intent is a component of the trial, then determining whether the death was purposeful or not is of paramount importance.
Of course it's design. If someone purposefully points a gun at someone and shoots, knowing it might kill them, well then it's purposeful. It's not an unintended consequent.
Let's assume Bradasalus gives a truthful answer and that he did hit the pedestrian. He would say "Yes, I hit the pedestrian".
1. Bradasalus might add, "I purposefully ran him down because he ran off with my wife."
2. Or he might say, "He had a gun, and I ran him down in self-defense".
3. Or he might say, "I didn't see him because I was texting".
4. Or he might say, "Well, gee officer, I only had six or seven drinks."
5. Or he might say, "He ran out into the road, and I didn't have time to stop."
6. Or he might say, "I braked, but the brakes didn't work."
Assuming the veracity of these statements; 1 and 2 are intentional homicide, though only 1 constitues a crime; 3 and 4 are arguably negligent homicide, meaning the accident was not designed, but an unintended consequent of other intentional acts; while 5 and 6 are not intentional.
Note the phrase "unintended consequent".
Comment by Zachriel — February 13, 2008 @ 10:43 am
February 13th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Val,
Who said it does? But I saw that many results for "designed by accident". Does that mean you can design something by accident? If so, can you guess what I'm going to say next? And if not, then obviously 'getting thousands of hits on google' means nothing for the argument.
Do you mean 'change my alias, post under a new one, and pretend I'm a brand new person'? I want to get this 'run away' thing down cold.
Comment by nullasalus — February 13, 2008 @ 10:47 am
February 13th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Zach,
I'm not talking about the judgement. I'm illustrating how common/casual use of terms isn't going to help us when we're dealing with a technical, deep view of a subject. Back to the free will example, again and again.
Nullasalus: If you say 'yes', then the result of an action is or has design even in cases where the specific result is uncertain.
On we go.
A person is dying of a painful disease. A doctor offers them a pill that may cure them – but there's a 1% chance the pill will immediately cure their disease and ailments, and a 99% chance the pill will kill them instantly. Since there are no other options available, they would welcome the release from their pain through death. But they would vastly prefer to be cured.
The pill is taken. Is what happens to the patient, designed?
Comment by nullasalus — February 13, 2008 @ 10:57 am
February 13th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Yes, if you are intentionally attempting to design Widgets but get an unexpected result and instead invent Teflon then you designed Teflon by accident. There is still intent and purpose even though the exact outcome is impossible to predict. Its just like the 50%/40%/10% example above. If you miss your target you fall into the 10% category and you missed by accident but you still were purposefully engaged in a plan where missing was a foreseen possibility.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 13, 2008 @ 11:15 am
February 13th, 2008 at 11:18 am
The patient purposefully took the pill knowing the possible consequences. The hope was a cure, but death was the likely result. Now consider a similar situation. The pill is considered safe and someone dies due to some rare allergic reaction. This is an unintended and unforeseen consequent.
I understand that words often have gray areas of application, and there may be some quibbling about the edges. But there are some things clearly contained within the category and some things clearly outside the category. This doesn't salvage Bradford's blog on the subject. Indeed, it directly contradicts it.
What you claim is a slight variation in usage, or a gray area of categorization, Bradford claims is an unhealthy emotional attachment, ritual like thinking, and not sound science. He is making a very specific claim using a very specific definition of 'design'.
Comment by Zachriel — February 13, 2008 @ 11:18 am
February 13th, 2008 at 11:21 am
You are formulating a distinction in usage, not form.
Which protocols can be derived from the pictograms from when they originate. For an example from modern English (my Proto-Canaanite is quite inadequate to the task) the pictogram for an eye could be used to represent the object or the sound.
Sequencing is determined by language, not created.
My answer, again, is that it is still fully functional in it's original use, as a system of pictograms, while some of the characters gradually acquire a secondary duty.
Comment by One Brow — February 13, 2008 @ 11:21 am
February 13th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Zach,
I'm being pedantic here, but for a reason. Are you saying that the result is designed?
As for the similar situation: What if it's recognized that no pill is ever 100% safe, and that in spite of all the testing a death can (or even will) occur? In that case, the death is not entirely unforeseen. And if it's not unforeseen, then 'unintended' gets blurred.
Thank you. I would agree that there is a gray area here – I believe 'design' can display comparable difficulty with defining the edges the way 'intelligence' is difficult. Both have some clear uses, and sound like they can be easily bordered off. The reality is more complex.
First, I'm not sure I'd agree with slight. It's enough for me to say that there's definitely a gray area in play, and defining the edges is not always a cut and dry affair.
Second, I'll leave Bradford to argue what the scope of his claims covers. But clearly topics like this do get some people emotional, and the result is to argue black and white where there is gray. I'm sure both of us can dredge up examples of this happening. Even Einstein apparently had days like that.
Comment by nullasalus — February 13, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Don't be so modest (#16).
Comment by Zachriel — February 13, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Of course there are gray areas. That's the nature of categorization. But not everything is in the gray area. Nor does equivocation have anything to do with gray areas.
So you strain at gnats while swallowing camels. There's nothing about any gray area that is relevant to Bradford's claims. He certainly doesn't allow any gray area in his original blog on the matter.
Evolutionary aspects of language are very clear and lead to specific types of evidence; such as predictions of intermediates, a step-by-step type process, divergence and diversification from common ancestors, a lack of long term planning or preparation. That individual steps might be telic is not in dispute.
Then it's a question of applying a label"”which is apparently of major importance to the Intelligent Design community. Once the label is applied, then it can be subjected to equivocation.
A word is just a handle on an idea. I recommend a firm grip.
Comment by Zachriel — February 13, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
lol Valerie is Keiths. And "he" seems to be more "confused" than ever.
Comment by Guts — February 13, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Zach,
Well, then let's explore these gray areas. I asked a question – I'm going to have more after you give your answer. If you want to end the line of questioning, that's fine. But if you want to sign off on 'I don't want to answer those questions, but you're wrong' – hey, your prerogative.
I've said repeatedly – I have no 'side' in these conversations but my own. I haven't brought up Bradford's claims about emotional motivation except in response to you. I said clearly, I'll leave Bradford's claims to Bradford, but I gave my take when prompted. No gnats or camels here.
Again, I'm glad you said that these subjects have gray areas. You say it's obvious, but by the tone some take, you wouldn't always think so.
Comment by nullasalus — February 13, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Seriously?
Comment by Doug — February 13, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Ya rly.
Comment by Guts — February 13, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
So where is the evidence for pictogram to Latin alphabet claims. Specific causes and effects please, not evolutiondunnit.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Was keiths banned and now using another handle?
Comment by Doug — February 13, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Yes Doug.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Bradford:
Are you sure? The probability that two persons have fairly similar writing styles is surely greater than the UPB.
Comment by Raevmo — February 13, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
IP address?
Then you don't need to worry about similarities in writing styles.
Comment by Doug — February 13, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Doug:
If Valerie had the same IP as Keiths, I suspect she would have been banned from the very start. Maybe she's Keiths' wife. Surely she can't be held responsible for Keiths' infractions?
Comment by Raevmo — February 13, 2008 @ 3:34 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
The police are not on constant patrol.:grin:
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
I just got real busy at work after the new year, otherwise I would have banned the shemale a long time ago.
Comment by Guts — February 13, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Not if he was never officially banned and the IP was still permissible.
He might have received a 'you're no longer welcomed' email, but without officially blocking an IP.
But, wouldn't you find it odd that Keiths and his wife have such a similar style?
My wife and I spend alot of time together but our tone, typing quirks, and general style is significantly different.
Comment by Doug — February 13, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Doug:
What style does your wife prefer? Oh never mind.
BTW, whether or not Valerie=Keiths, I propose the ban be lifted because (a) it was undeserved*, and (b) it's just good fun to have them around here, whether you disagree with them or not. I don't think I am alone in this.
*http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=5205;st=120
Comment by Raevmo — February 13, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Best not to joke around about my wife.
Feel the same way about Stunney?
Comment by Doug — February 13, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
a) It was deserved, as I explained over at AE and here, I gave Keiths multiple chances to get back on topic, even after he mocked TT and myself, and restored a comment from the memory hole. He continued the harassment. See here for the gory details.
b) I agree he was fun to have around (mostly because it was fun laughing at him), which is why I gave him multiple chances even after all the mocking and harassment. But he just couldn't stop.
c) The only way he will be let back in is if he apologizes and it is approved by the majority of TT authors.
Comment by Guts — February 13, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Doug:
Absolutely! I positively miss his contributions and hilarious abuse. I propose he be reinstated as well. Who else is in favor?
Comment by Raevmo — February 13, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
I'd be cool with it.
Both Keiths and Stunney.
Comment by Doug — February 13, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
I didn't even know stunney was banned. Heck, I didn't know keiths was – I thought the Val routine was just some weirdness.
I'm really fine with whatever the admins decide here, but I'll give the wildly biased view of 'stunney before keiths'. Stunney was insulting, but it was insult mixed with a whole lot of philosophical meat. On any given day, I'd prefer people who are calm and respectful though – a place with open commentary where insults are kept to a minimum makes for an oasis on the net.
Comment by nullasalus — February 13, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Raevmo, now that I'm back, you're my last piece of comic relief left on this board. Don't make me get rid of you too.
Comment by Guts — February 13, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Raevmo, we're very tolerant of your constant insults. It actually takes quite a bit to get banned. But don't take advantage of that.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Bradford:
Yeah, I know, and I do appreciate your tolerance. I'm just saying that it would be good for the "couleur locale" here to unban keiths and stunney, without vindictively demanding some humiliating apologies. Such an act of goodwill would only enhance the prestige of this board and do nothing to diminish your own profile.
Comment by Raevmo — February 13, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
I would only accept an apology before putting him up for an unban vote (minimum 2 paragraphs).:lol:
Comment by Guts — February 13, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
I loves me some Guts!
Although now I'll never get to fit Keiths for that fMRI. Dang!
Comment by chunkdz — February 13, 2008 @ 5:04 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Just how specific and detailed do you require? Do I need to insert the entire text of 60 or so peer-reviewed papers on the transiton from Egyptian heiroglyphics through the Proto-Canaanite and Phoenician to the Greek? Would that even be sufficient? Do you mean you require a symbol-by-symbol listing with a precise chronology? I would be surprised if such existed.
For that matter, were I to provide that level of detail, would you care to read it? It seems that the various terms such as "Proto-Canaanite" have appeared in this thread with such frequency that there should have been no difficulty figuring out terms to Google, etc. I'll be happy to provide a starting point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Canaanite_alphabet
At this point, I have no intention of spending hours and/or dollars collecting this information without some hint of precisely the standard that needs to be met. If that means you remain unconvinced, I can live with that.
Comment by One Brow — February 13, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Yeah get back on topic , I'm off to work.
Comment by Guts — February 13, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Are you so familiar with the current level of knowledge of linguistics hisotry, to the point you can say this with assurance?
There is no religious impulse nor ritual-like thinking involved. There's just knowing the difference between when a development is the result of planning (a design) or the result of local, small adaptations that never foresaw the end result (evolution). I, and most of the people who see the alphabet/languages as evolved, have no problem calling things designed when the situation so warrants.
Comment by One Brow — February 13, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
I could do what you and others have tried only with mathematics. It's not hard to doucment. Breakthroughs in one era are built on ones from prior eras. That's generally the way it works in academic fields. Building on prior knowledge to achieve intellectual discoveries is not evidence that the discoveries are local or that an evolutionary process is in effect. The process is actually progress achieved by a succesion of genuises who are inspired by and benefit from knowledge ascertained by their predecessors. It's a telic process from start to finish notwithstanding the occasional incidental modification of a letter or two or three after the major transitions have been conceived and brought about. Cooption of the Latin for use with Old English was just such an example. Latin was coopted as a fully functional system for the definitive purpose of writing OE.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Adapting Latin symbols was not a local small adaptation. It was taking on a completely functional system to enable a newly conceived function- writing Old English.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
No doubt you could also do it with chess, law, and philosophy. Since all four of those things are formal systems, as opposed to independent objects of study, it's natural that breakthroughs are designed and planned. You don't write a proof or lay out a combination without planning it ahead of time. The changes that occur in independent objects of study often come unplanned, unsought, and with no intention on a future goal. This is very different from what happens in a formal system.
Something like 90% of the sounds of Latin were in Old English, and vice-versa. It did not require design, genius, etc. to go from writing one type symbol that sounded like "r" to writing a different symbol from a prior system that had the same sound. It would be a natural transition.
However, it's quite possible that the Church deliberately encouraged the monks to faze out the prior alphabet in favor of the new one, for various reasons, so I have no objection to your calling that particular alteration a design. That does not make the alphabet itself itself a design (or more specifically, a designed design, since by your usage it seems to be an undesigned design).
So I ask again: just what level of proof are you looking for? Have you looked up anything on, for example, the Proto-Canaanite already? Are there specific questions you have, or standards that need to be met?
Comment by One Brow — February 13, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
What is Intelligence?…
I've been reading the Telic Thoughts blog and slogged my way through the extensive comments for the Evolving Scientism article. Surprisingly enough at lunch today before I had read this debate we happened to be discussing whether language was &…
Trackback by Todd Berkebile's Blog — February 13, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Zachriel: A word is just a handle on an idea. I recommend a firm grip.
I assume this is the question.
Words are tools for conveying ideas. When you push a word too far into the gray zone, it can lose its utility at conveying ideas clearly. Then you should choose a new word or term to more accurately convey your meaning.
One purposefully takes the pill with the intention of getting well, but things don't always work out according to plan. Please don't confuse the word with the thing itself. If the meaning isn't clear, find another way to describe or categorize the idea.
When I said the alphabet does not appear designed, I indicated that it did not seem to meet Bradford's definition, the purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details. The development of alphabets are more akin to an evolutionary process where changes made to suit local conditions eventually lead to profound and unforeseen global patterns. Even the English alphabet (Bradford provided an incredibly powerful example) is an evolutionary adaptation of a preexisting alphabet. It took generations just to turn the letter-I into the letter-J. (For whatever reason, Bradford thinks this is contrary to an evolutionary process.)
There are certainly design aspects in languages, especially in modern times. But the origin and diversification of alphabets appear to be more of an evolutionary process. It's an arguable point, but arguing it would require looking at the evidence.
Comment by Zachriel — February 13, 2008 @ 7:09 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Zach,
I wasn't making this complicated – the questions were clear, the situation distinct, the answers simple. If answering yes/no is going to wreck the word 'design', then it wasn't much of a word to begin with.
You say it's arguable – believe it or not, that's good enough for me. Remember, I hail from the land of the inconclusive, and I'm fine with admitting situations are complicated and gray. Hell, what drove my original interest in ID (And I used to be a big a-hole who gave YECers hell) was realizing 'You know, a lot of the questions design touches on aren't as cut and try as this one side is making it sound.'
I'm content to leave the alphabet-talk largely to Bradford, and we probably don't have 1:1 views on the subject. But even taking the pictogram-to-alphabet idea as gradually as possible, I see nothing but design. The moment humans figured out that 'hey, this repeatable symbol can prompt this general thought', the core component of written language was created, and the sky was the limit. It's been a neverending R&D project since then – there is no 'end result' of language (oral or written), and probably never will be.
Comment by nullasalus — February 13, 2008 @ 9:07 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
The mapping of symbols to sounds is a formal system. Partial alphabets are useless. They don't come about without planning.
This is a red herring. Transitioning to another symbol occurs after the main event- the cooption of the Latin alphabet.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2008 @ 9:44 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
There's nothing evolutionary about it. The Latin alphabet was used to enable the writing of Old English. Why are you corrupting the word evolution?
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
True. But whether humans were endowed by a higher intelligence with symbolic powers, or those powers came through an a-telic process, it could be reasonably said that, while no particular alphabet was foreordained, the making of alphabets was an inevitable consequence of those symbolic powers the very first moment a human possessed those powers. It is conceivable that the entire thrust of the development of biological life operates on a similar basis.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 13, 2008 @ 9:51 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
The words "land" and "sea" are quite excellent words even if there is a place where it is difficult to say where the land ends and the sea begins.
The Pentateuch was written without symbols for commonly used sounds (vowels). I pointed this out to you before, but for some reason you just keep repeating your claim.
Yes, the adoption of the Latin alphabet by the Anglo-Saxons was certainly intended. That's the local pattern. The global pattern is divergence and diversification. In fact, the English alphabet we are using here is an evolutionary modification of the Latin alphabet, as you yourself pointed out. Just like the Finches that first arrived in the Galápagos were the same as those on the mainland, but then diversified into the various niches.
Comment by Zachriel — February 13, 2008 @ 10:47 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
The Chinese built an advanced civilization that lasted over many centuries without an alphabet.
Meanwhile, the Egyptians avoided the progression to a true alphabet. Writing had ceremonial purposes, and writing was a zealously guarded component of political and cultural power. But as it turns out, the world is large enough that other peoples existed who could then borrow and adapt the Egyptian writing for their own purposes. It may require more than just 'symbolic powers', but competition between groups, and maybe a number of other factors. It's an interesting speculation, though.
Well, yes. That's the point. Once these evolutionary processes exist, then they result in adaptation and divergence, the world being large enough and complex enough to offer many niches for biological diversification to proceed.
Comment by Zachriel — February 13, 2008 @ 10:54 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
I could write the Bible and eliminate the vowels. It could be understood. With greater difficulty? Of course. It is the existing linguistic structure that would enable us to read it. IOW you have not eliminated the need for a substantial existing alphabet for comprehensibility. Mappings of symbols to sounds just don't happen
It's global. The goal is writing Old English. The solution: borrow an existing tool. Done.
Comment by Bradford — February 13, 2008 @ 10:56 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Right. What I had in mind was complex systematized writing systems. Not necessarily a phonetically based transcription. Although I suppose it was bound to happen eventually, as indeed it has.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 13, 2008 @ 11:02 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
The writers of the Pentateuch didn't have symbols for vowels, but their spoken language had vowels. Consequently, they wrote everything with an incomplete alphabet, as did many other Semitic cultures. So partial alphabets are not useless as you said.
Global encompasses local. In this case, the Latin alphabet and all its derivatives are global, with each derivative local. When viewed historically, we see the Latin alphabet migrating and diversifying.
Comment by Zachriel — February 13, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Yes. As I said, you posed an interesting speculation. This is an issue in biology, as well. How constrained is evolution? We might assume bilaterates would emerge at some point as an adaptive consequence of locomotion. But is that really true? If we could rerun evolution, what would we see?
Gould suggested life would be much different. But I suppose it depends, at least in part, on what we mean by "much different". After all, humans are 'just' elaborated deuterostomes, that is, tubes with appendages.
Comment by Zachriel — February 13, 2008 @ 11:15 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Zach to Bradford:
Zach, modern Hebrew is still without vowels. It's (recently) a live language anyway, and people communicate with it every day all over the place. Vowels are sort of a different order of thing per construction, there's only so many sounds they make. English has a grand total of 5 of them (and two alternates). Ours is the most complex linguistic system on the planet right now, when it's put to its proper use. That's the reason science is generally done in English nowdays (though originals are in local vernacular).
The 'Church' once held all scholarly discourse to Latin. From the Greek (even the Pentateuch was Greek very quickly when this change was going on). Then it was French. Then German. Now it's English. I'd think that you would appreciate the progression of expressive creativity in this. Science (intelligent design, in its sociological manifestations) led it.
Just a last note, this thread's too long.
Comment by Joy — February 13, 2008 @ 11:25 pm
February 13th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
MikeGene,
Off topic, but I recently got a copy of your book.
Well done. A real page turner and thought provoker.
Comment by kornbelt888 — February 13, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 12:02 am
That's the whole point of this Zach. I read the history and conclude that distinct decisions led to the deployment of the written alphabet for differing languages. A complete linguistic turn key operation was chosen to enable writing. There is no incidental process that leads to a then c then f then b … The reason. No reason for it. F makes the f sound so here's your f symbol right? No. Unless you have a large complement of letters this is a non-starter.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2008 @ 12:02 am
February 14th, 2008 at 12:07 am
Joy:
Thanks for that.
Exactly. This is a history of creativity, not some haphazard mudcaking that accidently created an alphabet. And as you correctly indicate science has the same pattern.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2008 @ 12:07 am
February 14th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Have you modified your view on the previous statement? We know of languages written phonetically even though the alphabet is 'incomplete' (lacking symbols for commonly used sounds). We also know of intermediates between letters and ideograms. If you need another example, traditional Chinese writing is primarily logographic. However, many if not most characters have some indication of pronunciation.
Comment by Zachriel — February 14, 2008 @ 8:30 am
February 14th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Yes, we agree each step was purposeful. However, the global pattern was not purposeful. No one decided that Europe should have different alphabets in different places, anymore than the Indo-Europeans decided that people should have different languages in different places. The design equivalent is the Tower of Babel. The evolutionary equivalent is gradual diversification. We know which is supported by the evidence.
Interesting example. In the seventheenth century, you would often find what looked like the letter-f where we would expect the letter-s. It was actually still a letter-s with a bit of a flourish. It eventually fell out of fashion.
Comment by Zachriel — February 14, 2008 @ 8:47 am
February 14th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Not in English. There are far too many exceptions and one-offs.
So, you're not really interested in evidence to the contrary? You seeming refuse to do research or provide some standard of proof.
You are free to hold any random, unsubstantiated belief you choose.
No, it *was* the main event. The Old English sound of "a" was naturally associated to the Latin letter used to make the "a" sound in Latin. That's how the transition happened.
Comment by One Brow — February 14, 2008 @ 10:35 am
February 14th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
OB, if you want to show how an alphabet like the Latin ABC came about in a non-telic fashion start by explaining why an incidental association between the first invented letter and a sound would be made. Why would this come about? What function does it represent when other letters have not yet been invented?
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Zachriel:
You have a stronger argument for Latin to Romance languages. One size does not fit all however. Using the Latin alphabet to express Old English in writing is analogous to me borrowing a tool from my neighbor to construct a mailbox. The other mailboxes in the neighborhood may have been purposefully designed, borrowed, renovated or a combination. It did not matter to my circumstance. I simply borrowed a device that enabled my mailbox. It may have been a tool my neighbor used to do the same thing. The fact that I painted my mailbox years later does not affect the original relationship between the tool and the mailbox outcome. It also does not mean the tool had a cause and effect relationship to mailboxes that preceeded or followed it.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Only to this extent. Could English be functional if the letter x were eliminated? Of course. But would it be functional if half the 26 letters were eliminated. Don't think so. The point is there is a minimal level of function and difficulty avoiding ad hoc explanations for why letter g would be mapped to its associated sounds if no other mappings existed.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Bradford,
From my view, things like 'complete alphabets' are concepts for reference, not hard realities. I could see having a functional alphabet with only 13 of 26 letters – you just wouldn't have the full functionality of an alphabet with 26 letters. On the other hand, an alphabet with no capital letters doesn't have the functionality of an alphabet that does. Or punctuation, or other symbols, etc. It doesn't end.
But whether you're dealing with an alphabet of 26 letters, 1 letter, 13 letters, etc, all you're seeing is a design concept in action. The idea of 'it can't be design, because there were certain end products achieved that weren't explicitly planned in advance' falls down when you realize A) there are no actual end products, and B) that was essential to the concept right from the start. Among other reasons, but there's the core.
Comment by nullasalus — February 14, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
nullasalus:
This is a critical statement having implications not just for linguistics but for biology as well. You mentioned "a functional alphabet" without a reference to a particular language. I suppose I might be able to imagine a language expressed by a thirteen letter alphabet too. But the issue before us centers around some very specific alphabets and some very specific languages. As in biology I'm interested in actual pathways to alphabets and actual pathways to biological structures as opposed to conceptual ones which tend to be short on details and supporting evidence. The Latin alphabet could be specified with exact symbols. How did that symbolic system actually develop? Local unintended events produced it? Why would rational thinking bring us there as opposed to another scenario involving deliberate planning with the end function in mind?
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Again, I refer to the example of a pictogram for an eye. An eye is a concrete object, but it is pronounced with a singular sound. You might have a different pictogram for a golf tee.
So, you're writing a story, and some guy name Ite comes up. YOu could use teh general pictogram for a man, but you realize that the name sounds like two words spoken close together. You put somthing down that another person might read as referring to an eye and a tee, but since the sybols are so close together and you are obviously talking about a person, will likely get the idea of saying them quickly and forming a name. You're not planning on doing this with any other words or sounds, but you have just taken the first step to an alphabet. There's no notion of an alphabet, you have a fully functional pictogram system.
I'm not claiming this combination of letters is historical, much less the first combination, but since you asked why it would come about, as opposed to how it specifically did, I believe I have answered that question.
Comment by One Brow — February 14, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
And again ABC alphabets are not pictoral. How is a single sound (not even a word) of any use in this pathway scenario?
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Why not? We already have several letters that pull multiple duties. If the idea is one-letter-one-sound, we don't have a full alphabet right now. If you allow for an alphabet to have multiple sounds per letter, then you can do that with 13 as completely as with 26. It just takes longer to write, because you might now have three letters for some sounds, instead of only two.
Comment by One Brow — February 14, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Not anymore.
Do you feel the rest of my post was not a good example of the change from word to sound? Why not? What was unrealistic about it?
Comment by One Brow — February 14, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Bradford,
Hey, good questions. For exact pathways, I'd have to guess of course – though 'local unintended events'? I'd say no. As in literally not possible. It's communication – you can't get away from intention at any point in the development. And I'd argue it's impossible to divorce conscious awareness of language and symbolism from concept of scope. OB's actually got a good example for me to show this with, so..
That 'first step to an alphabet' involves realizing that you can use symbols to transfer a sound which will result in an idea. The notion of an alphabet is there – obviously the idea of creating the association where it wasn't there before is present, because you just did it. Whether there's a moment where you say 'Aha! Look at this, using symbols to inspire thoughts of sounds associated with words! I should make a complete system out of this!' is besides the point – you know you did it with one word. You know you can likely do it with other words. And when others see your writing, these thoughts are getting communicated as well – and thus you show the origin of the notion of the alphabet.
Comment by nullasalus — February 14, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I suppose I might be able to imagine a language expressed by a thirteen letter alphabet too. But the issue before us centers around some very specific alphabets and some very specific languages. As in biology I'm interested in actual pathways to alphabets and actual pathways to biological structures as opposed to conceptual ones which tend to be short on details and supporting evidence. The Latin alphabet could be specified with exact symbols. How did that symbolic system actually develop? Local unintended events produced it? Why would rational thinking bring us there as opposed to another scenario involving deliberate planning with the end function in mind?
Agreed.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Acrophones are assocations between pictograms and syllables.
They're ideograms.
Yes, Latin was purposefully borrowed by the Anglo-Saxons, indeed, a very close fit even without modification (due in part to the common ancestry of the languages). The original adoption was a near exact duplication, a migration or reproductive event.
Meanwhile, elsewhere in Europe, the same Latin alphabet was adopted by others. Then over time the global pattern emerged as these alphabets drifted apart. This is same pattern as adaptive biological radiation.
The local events are intentional and designed to solve local problems.
You couldn't have said it better. Because the process of going from pictograms to a true alphabet, such as Latin, was not planned with the end function in mind.
But they were at one time. The letter-A is a highly abstracted and inverted ox. You just forgot.
Comment by Zachriel — February 14, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Zachriel, when I read your comments I see you citing a series of different linguistic symbols used at various points in time. I then see your claim that the different symbols have an evolutionary relationship. The last relevant claim is that you think a series of unspecified incidental events caused the earlier systems to change into the latter ones. What I do not see are cause and effect scenarios linked to actual historic events that would cause an observer to say: "So that's how it was done." That's why this has the appearance of a story that is pleasing for those liking things explained through unplanned historic perpsectives.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I differentiate between the notion of "the association" (which I agree was just created, even designed, if you like, and is there) and the notion of an alphabet (a set of letters for a language arranged in order, not there at all) .
It's only beside the point if you don't care whether the alphabet is designed or not. Adding an additional meaning to one or two pictograms at time, in no particular order, is not design.
Comment by One Brow — February 14, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Since the "actual historical events" in question would be people sitting down at desks writing, and there were no video cameras at the time, I accept that no one will be able to meet your standard of evidence in my lifetime.
Comment by One Brow — February 14, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Consider the letter-A. In Egyptian times it was an pictogram of an ox. Over time, the image was coopted for its sound, then abstracted until it is no longer recognizable as an ox. No one chiseling an ox on an Egyptian tomb considered that they were working towards a highly abstracted phonetic alphabet. Most scribes probably had less conception of the evolution of language than you do.
As it took generations for the I to develop into the J, that would be a very slow movie.
Comment by Zachriel — February 14, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
OB,
The idea of there being symbols in order for language? But your own example had that – there was an order to the symbols to create a sound that matched a word. The concept of a letter? Surely that can't be it – especially if a letter was a picture with a sound associated with it.
I'm willing to bet that every critical point in that path from pictogram to alphabet is going to hinge on the creation of a concept whose potential is recognized and exploited. There's no real alternative.
Sure it is – you're designing the meanings of the pictograms, more and more. Eventually you hit a point where people are organizing and standardizing those meanings through a variety of methods (disciplined teaching, awareness of common use, etc.)
I mean, you realize that the very word and concept of 'alphabet' is a creation too, yes? At what point did you get from 'partial alphabet' to 'complete alphabet'? The moment you make decisions about standardizing and grouping the symbols. It's pretty arbitrary, and akin to a computer program – when is a program finished? When you decide it's finished.
Comment by nullasalus — February 14, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
We certainly have discussed specific causes and effects. Indeed, you yourself cited the introduction of an entirely new letter to the English alphabet.
Along with the W (double-V, the V coming from the Semitic-waw, other descendents of which can be found in Hebrew and Arabic), that's two whole new letters added to the Latin alphabet!
Comment by Zachriel — February 14, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Each step is telic, but the global pattern is largely not. Consider the evolution of the J, a process that started with its use as an end character. The writers were solving problems of clarity in their own lives and times without regard to any overall design criteria. Even after the fact, with the evidence there to be seen, most people have trouble with the concept that alphabets as diverse as Arabic and English share a common ancestry.
Nowadays, trying to strongly influence the langugage is common. We know that languages evolve, and like a river, we might try to divert its flow (dictionaries, universal education, grammar nazis) or perhaps just throw jetsam into the stream. (Just do it. We try harder. Plop plop, fizz fizz. The Un-Cola.)
But you know those crazy kids with their viral videos.
Comment by Zachriel — February 14, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I agree. That's just not enough to call the output of the process a design. The inputs of a thousand, hundred, or even a dozen decisions that are not coordinated and don't have a common purpose will often result in an undesigned outcome.
Comment by One Brow — February 14, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
We've discussed imaginary pathways which themselves are quite revealing. For example, pictograms are imagary. B is a symbol. Attempts to link "developmental pathways" indicating one is a causal pathway to another are contrived. Might as well claim pictures are causal indicators of wood. These things are different types whose causal connection is suggested by anti-telologists based on aversion to global effects. As I've indicated before changing a letter is window dressing. What is needed is a cause for the window. Human imaginations are not causes.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2008 @ 6:21 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
You're claiming Egyptians used the ox head as an image or a symbol? What exactly did it suggest.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Why would you think it more likely that designed letters of an alphabet were incidental to the generation of the alphabet itself. That's counterintuitive to cause and effect assessments. A planned layout associating multiple letters to sounds is indicated by the alphabet.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Centuries from now anti-teleologists will point to the model T and explain that an evolutionary process led to a 21st century Ferrari from humble model T origins. Although each part of the model T was the result of a telic process the model T itself resulted from incidental local arrangements of parts with no intention of designing the vehicle.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2008 @ 6:39 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
I don't think that. The causation is reversed. The generation of the alphabet was incidental to the creation of the letters.
A planned layout would associate one sound to one letter, and vice-versa, similar to the previously discussed, designed Korean alphabet.
Well, nothing real will ever meet the standard of evidence you require on this issue.
Comment by One Brow — February 14, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
OB:
One letter to a sound and another letter to another sound and so on until writing capacity is enabled.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Zach,
You insist that a pattern can't be telic (Or 'largely not' – maybe that's a slip of the tongue, but otherwise you mean that even the pattern is telic in part) because there was no 'overall design criteria', whereas I see that the lack of an 'overall design criteria' is inherent in the concept and creation of this whole crazy 'symbol' idea. Some language users turned I to J? Wonderful – the invention is still working as intended. More below.
OB,
Not when the 'output of the process' is itself created by a decision entirely within the context of an idea invented with that purpose in mind. Language is like playdo – the whole point of its creation was to change and grow according to each person's needs and use. The 'outcomes' are always the results of design, both original ('This is what this 'language/symbol' thing is for) and immediate ('I'm going to write this word like this to communicate this idea in this way'). This before realizing that some coordination always has to be in play with language, otherwise you don't get off the ground – you're communicating with yourself and others, after all.
Yes, I understand that "I" became "J" through a series of decisions – let's say 30 humans procedurally made incremental changes to I before J was the result. But J was at the very least certainly the result of human 30's design, since I29 became J through H30's actions. Are you saying the overall process – H2 making a slight change to I, H3 making a slight change to I2, etc – wasn't designed? Sorry, you're still not getting there cleanly, because the idea of each person making incremental changes to language, in whole and part, is itself designed too.
When every decision is designed specifically, and the change of language over time from individual to individual is designed generally, all that's really left over to 'not be designed' are base specifics, from one perspective. 'H1 didn't design H2-H29's design'. I suppose you could call the development of I to J through H1-H30 to be evolution of a design. But what's 'undesigned' there certainly isn't the outcome.
Comment by nullasalus — February 14, 2008 @ 6:51 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
So you're advancing a gap argument. Since we don't yet know the identity of the innovators of the first symbolic alphabet you are claiming that local effects did it.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
So one day someone maps a B to a sound. 30 years later a C is mapped to another sound. 20 years later D is mapped… Centuries later some observant ancient exclaims: "Look. We can put these letters together to spell words." The marvels of locality.:shock:
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
design, the purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details.
That distills the issue down to its fundamental aspect. Without "common purpose", the result is not "purposeful". In this case, the actors are not only separated by space, but by time, by language, even by modes of thinking.
You seem to still be having troubles with the concept. The Egyptians had a pictogram of a house, which is 'pr' in Egyptian. (We get our word pharoah from 'pr-aa' meaning great house.) When trying to render a foreign word or concept, the Egyptians developed a technique of using the first syllable from the word associated with the pictogram, an acrophone. Eventually, the acrophone was simplified, and the sound was reduced to a single phoneme, making a letter. The mapping did not occur in a single step, but by many changes over many centuries.
But even with the advent of a true alphabet, the process of evolutionary change continued. Consider the variations in the Latin alphabet across Europe. They don't even agree on what constitutes a distinct letter, while a B in English and a B in Spanish sound quite different.
We're talking about the development of the alphabet. How can a new letter not be important to that discussion?
Comment by Zachriel — February 14, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Zach,
I'll raise:
Verbs.
1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for
2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
3. to intend for a definite purpose
4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan:
5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose
Assign in thought or intention. Form or conceive in mind. Plan and fashion artistically/skillfully. And there's intend for a definite purpose as one definition among them.
And yet, the outcome is entirely designed. In the I to J history, I is designed. J is designed. The intermediary I/J steps/outcomes were all designed. The in principle development of language from person to person, over time, was designed.
Even if you argue that the process of I becoming J is undesigned – and I've already pointed out problems with that claim – the outcome of the process is J. And that outcome was certainly designed.
Comment by nullasalus — February 14, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Zachriel:
So the Egyptians transformed their pictograms into letters. The ______ were the first to utilize an alphabet. Who were they?
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
The longer I think about it the more evident it becomes that the origin of the first alphabet and its subsequent many cooptions and adaptations very much parallels the abiogenesis/evolution paradigm from an ID perspective. Front load that first alphabet using planning and purpose and then observe the ensuing modifications. If you ignore the initial start-up dynamics you get the illusion of a non-telic process.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
It's not that "a pattern can't be telic" but that "this pattern is not telic". I'm sure you realize the difference. Also, it is untrue that "the lack of an 'overall design criteria' is inherent in the concept and creation of this whole crazy 'symbol' idea", since we know of languages that were designed to an overall design criteria. Those languages are considered designed.
You are certainly free to simply assume the first language was created, but since there is no evidence of this, the assumption is unpersuasive.
So, you agree that every traffic jam is deisgned?
Comment by One Brow — February 14, 2008 @ 9:49 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
If you mean that I am acknowledging there will continue to be a gap between the level of evidence you demand and what humans can reasonbly expect to find, yes.
No, I'm saying we have a historical record of reasonable transitions from a fully pictographic system to a fully alphabetic one, that the symbols involve look very similar in the transition, and that there are complexities at each step that no designer would normally include. You could compare that to Esperanto, which springs out with no direct connection to a rior language and is very simple (for example, there are no strong verbs).
I never expect the evidence to overcome your personal incredulity.
Comment by One Brow — February 14, 2008 @ 9:58 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
The pre-Phoenician Canaanites (in the ares of the Middle East), using the Proto-Caananite alphabet.
I agree. They are both philosophical perspectives, ultimately neither provable nor falsifiable.
Comment by One Brow — February 14, 2008 @ 10:05 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2008 @ 10:13 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
OB,
Even by the most incremental view, written language got off the ground through the realization that a symbol could be designed to store knowledge. You don't get that realization without creating a symbol where there used to be none – and you don't get that far in turn without realizing you can do it again. It's an open system right from the start.
There are no languages which were not designed.
I'm appealing to introspection: Tell me how you use a single word without designing it. Even if you employ an onomatope – bark bark – you're designing it the moment you consider and employ it.
It's unpersuasive until you realize there are no other options.
Asks the person who believes letters, words, and language came about without design.
Comment by nullasalus — February 14, 2008 @ 10:40 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Please read Bradford's original post. He subsequently provided the specific definition at issue.
Then reconcile your position with One Brow's comment.
French is a language. It was inherited with modification from the Latin. French was not designed.
Comment by Zachriel — February 14, 2008 @ 10:46 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
I'm not Bradford – I provide my own views, and look to no one else in the thread to support what I say. If you have no disagreement with what I'm saying, leave it at 'I don't disagree, but that's not what Bradford said'. Bradford doesn't need my support to make his points, he's very capable.
I don't need to reconcile anything with OB's comments, considering I disagree with his and your views. I think you may be getting your wires crossed here.
People in a given geographical location and cultural grouping spoke and wrote latin over a period of time, each alteration introduced intentionally among the populace, with little regard to the people outside of their sphere. The alteration of latin was designed, the changes were designed, the words were designed – and french was designed.
Comment by nullasalus — February 14, 2008 @ 11:14 pm
February 14th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
The purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details- consistent with the invention of the alphabet by Phoenicians.
Comment by Bradford — February 14, 2008 @ 11:26 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 12:08 am
That's fine, but you possibly introduced a new concept that was not at issue (apparently because it shares the same spelling d-e-s-i-g-n). You might try to use a different term so that there is no inadvertent equivocation.
You disagree with his argument, but won't offer a justification? Very well, I'll just restate it myself.
Yes each change was intended. But then you draw the conclusion that the result was 'design', which I might suppose you mean to also be intended. (Notice how your premises are based on the word 'intend', but your conclusion then shifts to a term with an equivocal definition.)
In any case, the end result was not intended. There was no coordinated activity. Without "common purpose", the result is not "purposeful". In this case, the actors are not only separated by space, but by time, by language, even by modes of thinking.
The Phoenicians inherited their alphabet from the Proto-Canaanites, but refined it considerably in that one sound was represented by one letter. It still wasn't a complete alphabet per your definition, as it lacked vowels.
Comment by Zachriel — February 15, 2008 @ 12:08 am
February 15th, 2008 at 1:26 am
You like that word. Equivocation.
Nope, I'll be sticking to 'design', because that's what it is. There's a whopping 4 active parties to this conversation here, and I'm speaking clearly. I trust people will figure it out.
I'll assume you're talking about latin->french here.
Of course there was coordinated activity – words were chosen from those in common use in the culture, knowingly. New words, word-designs and general language alterations were designed for said culture, again knowingly. The changes were noticed. Even the common purpose was there – communication among peers at the very least. An amount of purposeful differentiation could well have been in play too, and certainly can't be ruled out.
Really, do you think latin became french without anyone noticing 'the language among these people is no longer the latin it used to be, and it isn't what the people from italy are speaking'? The former couldn't be true, because the Catholic Church not only preserved latin, but preserved it in such a way that it minimized novel development. The latter couldn't be true – even if most people didn't travel abroad, trade was still going on, and word would certainly get back.
That crappy resource, wikipedia, has this to say about vulgar latin:
So right here, we're seeing a lot of interesting information in play. We have a major central authority (the Church) officially not only maintaining, but preserving formal latin. We have dispersed clergy throughout these areas not only reading formal latin, but preaching it as well – which means more consistent awareness of the divergence. We have travel and trade throughout these areas, which means an awareness of divergence between various 'new' vernaculars too.
So, that there was some awareness is a certainty. The amount is another debate – but even putting amount aside, we know that people were aware of their own language changing, and are aware of a present and growing divergence between the formal latin and the distant vernaculars. Attempts to harmonize between the vernaculars are either not made, or are resisted.
You're not only getting design at every letter, word, and sentence – you also have it by way of intended audience (I'm using words that people from my region will understand, I'm making changes they can comprehend, I speak like someone from my region as opposed to the people who wrote the preacher's book or those traders or, etc.) It's design by intended scope, design by omission – if I develop slang specific to my friends, I'm developing words that would likely be confusing to people outside that circle. Even though I probably only introduced the words to convey an idea to my friends, that lack of understanding beyond intended group comes part and parcel with the development.
Comment by nullasalus — February 15, 2008 @ 1:26 am
February 15th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Jeepers. The Egyptians used pictograms as acrophones, not letters. Part of the problem with defining the first alphabet is that it was a gradual process and there is no exact moment when it occurred. That's the nature of evolution. Egyptians employed acrophones. The Proto-Canaanites developed an incomplete phonetic system. The Greeks added vowels. The Latins modified the Greek. The Anglo-Saxons adapted the Latin. Then someone decided that a modified i would be helpful for untangling minims. (It wasn't yet a letter, but something in between. A modified i, e.g. filiis.)
I don't see the word 'design'. I see 'developed', 'localized', 'diverged', 'emerging'. I see a process where the distinction between Classical Latin and the Vulgar was so gradual that for generations it was hard to say where one began and another ended.
Well, if they don't make any attempt to change the course of language development, then it's irrelevant. But when they did, it was like trying to divert a river. This is something we discussed several times. Each step is telic, but the global pattern is largely not.
Precisely the problem. When talking about language history, linguists use terms like 'evolution', 'development', 'divergence', 'emergence'. So now linguists are wrong (along with biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, geologists, microbiologists, and even architectual historians), too. The Tower of Babel is a model of design in language. But the facts indicate other processes at work.
We agree that language is the result of communities of very intelligent people acting in very intelligent ways over many, many generations. We know that people craft sentences, even poetry sometimes.
Words are tools for conveying ideas. When one word is inappropriate or stretched beyond its valid use, it can lead to confusion. Long ago, I suggested using a somewhat different term, a non-controversial term, a standard term, such as 'development', that more accurately conveys the process.
But the problem is that ID is wed to the word 'design'. It's as if the word has some mystical significance, a talisman. If you can convince others to use the word in relation to developmental processes, you seem to think you have won some sort of victory. But the underlying facts don't change. The understanding of those underlying facts don't change. Nothing is learned or communicated by forcing the facts into the confines of the singular word 'design'. It isn't the history of language that you care about.
Where others would adopt a different word with a more precise application, you insist upon a word whose usage is inappropriate and confusing. It isn't the denotation of "design" that is desired, but the connotation. And so it goes.
Comment by Zachriel — February 15, 2008 @ 9:25 am
February 15th, 2008 at 10:54 am
It looks like you have a central intelligent agent (the Church) trying to carry out a global design (standardizing language) but failing to do so because local factors (fitness to niche environments, random mutation) prevent the actions of global design. As a result the intelligent agent must constantly reevaluate and adjust its design goals eventually accepting the inevitable evolution of local languages. I agree with the conclusion that language can be described as "designed" due to the guiding actions of intelligent agents but in this case there was certainly no original design that survived into the final product.
In general the problem with the definition "The purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details" is that it doesn't require intelligence. "The purposeful arrangement of parts or details" would require intelligence, but "the inventive arrangement of parts or details" only requires problem solving which can be accomplished by simple iterative processes devoid of intelligence.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — February 15, 2008 @ 10:54 am
February 15th, 2008 at 11:00 am
My opldest son was six months old when he started cooing, except he used a "g" sound, so it came out "goo". My wife and I would say it back to him. Now, 14 years later, "goo" is a word in our house for a baby. There was no one moment that was decided, the initial creation did not involve an understanding of what a word was. Having personally seen a word join my family's vocabulary in a microcasm of language evolution, I have no trouble accepting it on a larger scale.
I notice you didn't answer the question. I don't believe the traffic jam is designed, nor the letters, common words, and language of English. Some English words are designed, of course, and some alphabets, and some languages. I prefer to remain open when looking at each one. How consistent are you in applying your definition?
What makes you think pronounciation/grammar changes were introduced intentionally?
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 11:00 am
February 15th, 2008 at 11:03 am
It's funny when you speak of my incredulity, yet I have all along noted that some languages are designed, some are not; some alphabets are designed, some are not. I am not a person who needs to fit every example of a language or an alphabet into a single category of "evolved" or "designed". Thanks for the laugh.
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 11:03 am
February 15th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Yes, the response to the existence of the vernacular was a designed response. What was the design that caused the vernacular to exist?
Why are they changes people from your region will comprehend, and not those from other regions, if you are starting from the same language?
So, you think the Romanians developed Romanian deliberately so the Spanish would not understand them?
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 11:12 am
February 15th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Zachriel:
You have it reversed. IDists are quite content to acknowledge that there are undesigned outcomes when that is appropriate. It is their critics who have resisted design even when the evidence points to it. The evidence indicates Phoenicians designed their alphabet.
Comment by Bradford — February 15, 2008 @ 11:19 am
February 15th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Then lay out the evidence, please.
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 11:21 am
February 15th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Comment by Bradford — February 15, 2008 @ 11:30 am
February 15th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
I agree.
In more modern times, with a deeper understanding of language evolution, global design is much more effective. Still, modern people may channel the river somewhat, but the river still regularly overflows its banks.
That doesn't answer the objection. You're still insisting upon the word "design" dividing the universe into two clearly delineated halves; designed and undesigned; when the delineation may have fuzzy or chaotic boundaries. If clarity of communication is the goal, you might simply abandon the word as confusing or unhelpful.
The Phoenecians adopted the Proto-Canaanite alphabet, and per your own definition, is incomplete as it lacks symbols for *essential* sounds.
Comment by Zachriel — February 15, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
That's your spin. I have treated design on a case by case basis. The specific case where It has been imputed is the origin of the alphabet.
Bradford: We know who designed the alphabet- Phoenecians.
You're misrepresenting what I wrote. Function is the bottom line. I indicated that an English alphabet stripped of half its letters would not be functional IMO. Clearly there is some level of dysfunction. Could English be expressed with only d, e, f and g? This illustrates the contrived nature of local causality for an initial alphabet. It is not suggested by alphabet function. If you are looking for mysticism look in the direction of having to find a lack of global purpose- a good way to protect a personal metaphysical bent
Comment by Bradford — February 15, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
How did fitness to niche environments prevent Phoenicians from arranging letters for the purpose of forming an alphabet?
Comment by Bradford — February 15, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Zachriel,
Just to make this thread even more excrutiating than it already is, I'll just add another wrinkle and say that you are wrong about this, Zach. The alphabet was not incomplete, it was simply used in a seemingly non-intuitive way. In Hebrew, certain consonant characters can be inserted as placeholders for vowel sounds, thereby serving an alternate function depending on placement. Google "Mater Lectionis".
Comment by chunkdz — February 15, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
One Brow to Bradford:
Bradford's response: copy paste a previous comment without evidence or references.
Give it up, man. Some alphabets have been designed, some haven't. Folks on this thread have supplied more than enough evidence to convince any reasonably open-minded person. It's been an education for me, but now it's becoming tedious.
Comment by Raevmo — February 15, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Wrong. That was the first time that comment was posted. It was typed not cut and pasted. I thought you were going to ask for links but I should know better.
Talk with Zach. He thinks no alphabets were designed.
Comment by Bradford — February 15, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Ummmm …
A little confused here. Aren't *all* alphabets use for the *purpose* of communication and aren't *all* alphabets impossible (directly or indirectly) without the existence of intelligence?
Furthermore, if every step of alphabet creation involved some type of intelligence then this only goes to show how intelligence, law, and chance work together to produce amazing things.
Conclusion: Every book you read (and every alphabet created) was the result of intelligent input and chance occurrences involving intelligent agents. Thus, just as with every intelligent design that has any signs of age, such as a rusty automobile, even though the pure chance aspects (such as the rust on the car) aren't the cause of intelligence, the concept and creation of the alphabet itself was the result of intelligence and could not have happened absent intelligence.
Does that clear up anything?
Comment by CJYman — February 15, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
I was using Bradford's definition, and have either used scare-quotes, or specified the definition.
We were referring to the writers of the Pentateuch. Original Hebrew had no symbols for vowels, and the Torah is still normally written without niqqud. Excellent point, though. The use of consonants for vowel sounds is a good example of cooption. Sort of like, what use is half a vowel?!
Comment by Zachriel — February 15, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
To clarify on my last comment …
The alphabet was intelligently created for the purpose of communication. It then evolved as a result of intelligent, purposeful restructuring and chance events.
Comment by CJYman — February 15, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Three hundred twenty-three comments and you still don't know my position. Some alphabets were designed, just as some cities are designed and some are not.
The evidence indicates that the alphabet evolved from simpler associations, such as acrophones. But I agree that once established, the alphabet continued to evolve.
"”
One Brow: "The inputs of a thousand, hundred, or even a dozen decisions that are not coordinated and don't have a common purpose will often result in an undesigned outcome."
Comment by Zachriel — February 15, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
I have not seen you designate which are designed and which are not. My position with alphabets is very similar to my position vis a vis cells. If the original was designed and subsequent local effects gave rise to succeeding modifications one can accurately point out that an nth alphabet with local influences is nonetheless also a causal outcome of initial design dynamics. Speaking of parallels the history of the alphabet contains an element of front loading.
Comment by Bradford — February 15, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Zachriel:
… which were then intelligently structured and specified (associated with ideas/meaning) for the purpose of communication.
Zachriel:
… "as a result of intelligent, purposeful restructuring and chance events."
I only clarify this because the word "evolve" can mean many different things. But, in that case, I actually agree with you on something … this is good.
One brow:
… by "undesigned," do you mean lacking purpose or lacking foresight? If the former, then your quote is irrelevant as all languages today have the same purpose (communication of ideas/meanings) as the "original" language(s). If the latter, then your quote still doesn't fully relate to the evolution of alphabets, since many restructuring events of languages along the way were done with foresight (ie: to effect future communication with a more efficient alphabet) and some events were indeed the result of chance. However these chance interactions and splits still involved intelligent agents as a necessity who were still using language for the purpose of communication whether they realized that they were slightly changing, mixing, or splitting the language or not and in many cases they *were* fully aware (with purpose and foresight) of what they were doing while assimilating or destroying languages. Man has known for quite some time, the power of communication.
Therefore, although the whole process and the end product hasn't been completely the result of foresight, it hasn't been the complete result of chance and law either. Thus, as I have already stated, the evolution of language is a good example of the "cooperation" between intelligence and chance. Furthermore, there are definitely intelligently produced targets along the way which show both purpose and foresight (as I just mentioned in the above para) and the beginning of the process was completely purposeful (for communication) and the whole process couldn't have occurred absent intelligence.
From Bradfords original blog post:
That is the point!
Comment by CJYman — February 15, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
We know that if the Phoenecian alphabet was designed, it was the Phoenicians, sure enough. That's not evidence.
Evidence, please.
Evidence they were invented instead of developed, please.
I didn't see any evidence in the rest of the post, just rhetoric about how things must have been.
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Actaully, yes. If you like, I would come up with a system for you.
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Alphabets don't have purpose or foresight, that belongs to people who use alphabets. That's a key distinction. I think we all agree alphabets were developed to aid communication, and the result is a useful tool for communication. This would be true regardless of whether the alphabet was designed or not.
"The inputs of a thousand, hundred, or even a dozen decisions that are not coordinated and don't have a common purpose will often result in an undesigned outcome."
Any purpose or foresight would be that on the part of the decision makers. If none of the decision makers intends to create an alphabet, and yet an alphabet is developed, it was not designed.
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
I have a good imagination too but since this is a discussion centered around actual historic events is there a documented connection to reality?
Comment by Bradford — February 15, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
You mean, like the actual historic events you're going to provide that show the Phoenecian alphabet was designed?
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Quite so.Well, associated with phonemes, sound parts. Phonetic alphabets evolved from other types of associations, as I just mentioned. But certainly for the purpose of communication.Yes, but generally lacking global purpose (meaning beyond the immediate cultural milieu and time).
When discussing the evolution of networks, that would be considered the global pressure. But the local adaptations are only planned as far as immediate needs. When scribes added a tail to a i to help distinguish the last in a pair of i's, they weren't attempting to make a new letter j, or a new alphabet. They were just trying to resolve their own problems with communication without regard to the overall structural evolution of the alphabet.
Comment by Zachriel — February 15, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Identifying who designed x is not pertinent to a case for design huh. I'll remember that.
Some background (looks like English is the writer's second language):
The discover of this alphabet did not consisted in the invention of a series of graphical signs, but in the decomposition words in simple sounds which each one is represented for an only sign. The difficulty was resolved once and for all by Phoenicians in an original form, in the beginning by the cleaning and precision of forms, by the Wright choose of simple sounds. This alphabet was composed of 22 consonats and turned itself perfect.
The archaic Phoenician alphabet, that is in the origin of all actual alphabets, appeared for the first time in Biblos. The ancient document inscription was discovered in Akhiram and it is dated of the 13 Th century BC. The colonies established by Phoenicians, in Cyprus and in the north of Africa, and the frontiers installed in Egypt, contributed definitely to the expansion of this alphabet until territories that didn't suffered directly Phoenician influence.
Letters came into useage around 1700 BC
Aleph Ox A laryngeal consonent A Around 1700 B.C. this letter was used to represent alryngeal consonant ('), or glotal stop. After 900 B.C. the Greeks borrowed the sign from Phoenician and reversed its form, changed its name to Alpha and made the sign stand for the vowel A.
Comment by Bradford — February 15, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
If we know that two men are in a safe, and one dies, we know who the killer is if there was a murder. That's not proof there was a murder. The latter sentence is not the same as saying identifying a murderer is not pertinent to showing there was a murder.
I read the rest of your post. Information on when the alphabet appeared, how quickly it spread, etc. is still not evidence it was designed. However, your very quoted material has the letter A appearing at least 300 years before the alphabet. Doea that match a design claim?
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Your cite notes that the symbols were inherited, but that their use was modified somewhat. This actually occurred over a period of time. The cite also says,
"Writing and civilisation evolution." In any case, I just don't think specific word choices of a poor English translation of a Portuguese source is authoritative.
Comment by Zachriel — February 15, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Identifying the designer is just one piece of the puzzle. You are overlooking the fact that what seems obvious to you based on what you read on websites actually resulted from some very hard work put in by archelogists and other scholars who have given us the physical evidence for what the Phoenicians did.
The choice of symbols is unimportant. X could have been chosen to represent the 'a' sound. It would not have made a difference because what did matter was the decision to link a symbol to a sound and create an alphabet. Unless of course you believe that Phoenicians went through all this trouble without realizing that the linkage of sounds to symbols would afford the function enabled by their alphabet. Duh. Those smart yet dumb Phoenicians.:shock:
Comment by Bradford — February 15, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Sounds and symbols had been linked for centuries, including in the Proto-Canaanite. The following site gives a basic overview, including the evolution of specific scripts and letters.
Comment by Zachriel — February 15, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Granting that, does that mean you will be providing evidence that the Phoenician alphabet was designed?
Then why bring it up?
I think it's quite possible, and am waiting for you to provide evidence otherwise, that the realization was present very early in the process. Any time.
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Here is an interesting discussion from the same resource on who invented the alphabet.
Comment by Zachriel — February 15, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Zachriel:
The symbols are not the design. You can push this back to Proto-Canaanite although the evidence is much weaker. It really does not affect the analysis. At some point a system fitting the meaning of alphabet was developed. That's a purposeful arrangement of symbols by intelligent people. Why is it reasonable to believe these intelligent people put together an alphabet without realizing it?
Comment by Bradford — February 15, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
The Phoenicians invented the alphabet. There is purposeful arrangement in the mapping of symbols to sounds. These things are historically documented. Are you claiming that the Phoenicians accidently invented an alphabet?
Comment by Bradford — February 15, 2008 @ 7:49 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
From Zachriel's link:
This contrasts with systems whose symbols or imagery represent words or even phrases. The contrasting systems of writing each have unique properties.
Comment by Bradford — February 15, 2008 @ 8:07 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Messengers much like ourselves? Explain it.
Steadfastness the darkness makes explicit?
Something heard most clearly when not near it?
Above particularities,
these unparticularities praise cannot violate.
One has seen, in such steadiness never deflected,
how by darkness a star is perfected.
Star that does not ask me if I see it?
Fir that would not wish me to uproot it?
Speech that does not ask me if I hear it?
Mysteries expound mysteries.
Steadier than steady, star dazzling me, live and elate,
no need to say, how like some we have known; too like her,
too like him, and a-quiver forever.
"By Disposition of Angels," Marianne Moore
Comment by Rock — February 15, 2008 @ 8:49 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Proclamations and open-ended questions proclaiming your personal disbelief are not evidence.
I think there are other choices besides purposefully and accidentally. I would say they inadvertently created an alphabet.
So, no evidence?
Comment by One Brow — February 15, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
So they put togther a linkage of sounds to 22 different symbols inadvertently? Was the wheel invented inadvertently too? Why not take the most parsimonious interpretation instead of one that requires additional information to explain the real reason they linked 22 symbols to sounds? After the linkage was made do you think someone revealed to their surprise what they had "inadvertently" invented? Human inventions occurring inadvertently.:roll:
Comment by Bradford — February 15, 2008 @ 10:16 pm
February 15th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Todd,
The Church maintained and maintains formal latin for its own uses, to this day – so it depends on what you mean by failure. The promotion of formal latin is an inherent part of the Church's promotion, but considering the Church itself ordered preachers to use vernacular and locally understandable languages, 'failure' is a funny word to use.
Then again, this general desire to force the language of evolutionary biology (Fitness? Words are fit now?) has that lovely 'square peg into round hole' awkardness going on. Too many David Sloan Wilson fans in this thread.
OB
Intentionally discarding and/or ignoring attempts to maintain language harmony, for one thing. Do you think people don't notice when their language diverges from a standard? Do you think hundreds of years went by and 'our use of language is differing' didn't get picked up on?
Because there's an awareness of the language used in your own region in particular, compared to an awareness of the language used in other reasons in general. I'm from Northeast PA – how do I know that there are terms and pronunciations in use here that someone from Georgia would have difficulty understanding? We both speak english. But the awareness is still in play.
Do you think the romanians developed romanian while thinking 'Oh, the spanish probably understand everything we're saying'? Of course not. Did the romanians get together and go 'Hey, let's alter our words so the spanish don't understand us!'? It's a mischaracterization of what went on. They knew the differences were accumulating between both the original language, and between contemporary vernaculars.
Of course you did – you simply created an onomatope. You heard the sound come from your infant (And frankly, you probably heard the sound from other sources – 'goo' is a pretty popular cultural onomatope), you assigned a meaning to it (sound a baby makes), you employed it.
Back to 'bark'. A dog is heard making that noise, a person decides what it best sounds like, they establish the association. The word didn't 'evolve'. Not unless 'evolution' now means 'any change over time, ever, for any reason'.
Extraordinarily. I've laid out my justifications for employing design language in these cases, I've pointed out the flaws of applying evolutionary language. Can you point out a place where I'm inconsistent with my judgment of language? By all means, I'd love to address that.
The fact that pronunciation and grammar are produced by beings who have to mentally prepare and consider their words to articulate them, no matter how primitive. Now and then, I'll post on here with 'yer' instead of 'your' – do you think that's happening with zero intention?
Zach,
Oh please.
Back to 'largely'. Every person changes the course of language development, as does every group and culture. And your discussion always comes down to, 'Alright, every single step is telic, and even the global pattern isn't completely atelic, but it's still evolution for some reason.' It's evolution if that word means 'any change whatsoever over a period of time by any means'. In which case, the weather's been evolving nicely lately, hasn't it? I hope we evolve better weather satellites, though.
Many – arguably most – were aware of the global pattern in language. An incredible number of individual decisions were made with that knowledge in mind. People chose their words, from letters to pronunciations to changes to elsewise, purposefully. Design, design, design – starting to become my favorite word.
Naturally – I'd have shown someone the considerable value of approaching language development with a proper perspective, and thinking about design on an individual and group level. You know, the levels that allow someone to understand the reason behind the origins of individual pronunciation, spelling, word choice, grammar pattern, definition, slang, symbol development, symbol arrangement, communication failure, vocabulary divergence, alphabet, language, and so on.
Meanwhile, I'm seeing people in this thread talking about how some words have 'fitness' and are naturally selected. Have you ever stopped to think that, from this side of the conversation, you're the one who looks – pardon me – rather culty with the insistence on 'evolution'? And the terminology of darwinian biological evolution is wildly inappropriate for language development, and sounds downright funny. And yet, for some, it must be used. So when you get worked up at how you think I'm using a certain words because they're socially special to me, and it has far more to do with being part of a culture rather than truly advancing knowledge – well, I'm going to chalk that up to 'projection'.
I know, it's crazy of me to pay great attention to intention, knowledge, purpose, and – scary word – design, when it comes to human communication. And yet it explains so much, so reliably. If I saw any value in talking about how these 'weren't designed', I'd do it – but really, appealing to 'unintended processes' and the like to explain an alphabet seems about as useful as slicing open a chicken and poking at its entrails to divine how sanskrit came about. I'm sure it makes for one hell of a story, maybe even provides a boiled down if inaccurate description, but there's not much real understanding to be had there.
Comment by nullasalus — February 15, 2008 @ 11:51 pm
February 16th, 2008 at 12:17 am
I think that almost everyone thinks what they currently speak *is* the standard, and it's always the other guys who have the funny accents.
Whatever was picked up was about how other people talked funny.
An onomatope has to be a word. The creator of this sound was six months old, he didn't know what a word was. When I said it back to him, I wasn't using it as a word.
If your acknowledging that every traffic jam is a designed thing, I'm good with that. It's a very unusual definition of design, but c'est la vie.
Stuff like that comes from me unintended quite frequently.
The cost is that you call unforseen consequences and unexpected emergences design. You make life designed, but with no design process or designer, and undesigned design. It's an interesting goal.
Comment by One Brow — February 16, 2008 @ 12:17 am
February 16th, 2008 at 1:05 am
OB,
Overly simplistic and misses the point. It doesn't matter if the gaul descendants think their version of latin is 'better than the kind people used to speak, or the kind they speak in that other place. The awareness is there, and ample.
Again, overly simplistic. If you asked them 'What do you mean?', do you think they could have illustrated why? I have a sneaky suspicion of 'yes, they'd be able to give examples – even exaggerations.'
You were using it as an onomatope. Guess what? The dog likely doesn't realize it's saying b-a-r-k 'bark' either. But when I say 'bark', I know what I'm dealing with.
Goo is an onomatope. You were using language – you took a sound, categorized it, associated it, added it to your vocabulary. You designed it, through and through. You can't get away from that, anymore than saying 'clunk' isn't an onomatope on the grounds that wooden boxes falling to the ground aren't talking to you.
C'est la vie? Let me guess – that word evolved into your mind. I mean, it's from another language and everything.
You find yourself often saying things with no intention? They have medication for that, you know.
Really, if you want to retreat into solipsisms, go for it. 'I know it's evolved because a lot of what I write I don't intend to write.' And yours is the standard we should use to figure things out with?
Life? I'm dealing with language here. I'm illustrating the design mechanisms at every stage, the scope of intention and omission, reconstructing mental models and pathways. The designers, the design, the scope, the possibilities, the effects – it's a fruitful model. Against what? 'It just happens, no one meant for it to, I mean I always find myself saying stuff without comprehension or purpose'? 'That guy is using a word with this meaning, this pronunciation, this case, but it's undesigned'? Keep that chicken handy, shaman.
Comment by nullasalus — February 16, 2008 @ 1:05 am
February 16th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Of course. I have always discussed the global aspects of language development, including global awareness and global pressures.
True, but nearly always with a view only to local and immediate needs, though under the global pressure of the desire to communicate.
The global level of historical language development is *largely* atelic.
Evolution can be applied rather broadly, but my discussion concerns whether the global patterns of language development are purposeful or not.
People design weather satellites, just like they design tails on letter i's. They design poetry, and sometimes they design new words and mannerisms. People have not historically designed languages. They inherit languages from their culture.
The cult is called Linguistics.
There are substantial differences between biological evolution and language evolution. One has to be cautious when making such comparisons.
No, I suggested the neutral term 'development'. This avoids any confusion with biological evolution and with any inappropriate connotations of the term 'design'. If you were interested in the history of languages, then adopting a different terminology would be of negligible concern as long as the meaning was clear.
Comment by Zachriel — February 16, 2008 @ 11:16 am
February 16th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Zachriel:
As in nature does not historically witness cells arising. They simply come about through an inheritance process. The same logical conundrum is seen. Sure languages are inherited. So are genetic traits. At some point in history an accounting needs to be made for that first cell and that first alphabet. The inheritance paradigm fails at this juncture.
Comment by Bradford — February 16, 2008 @ 11:27 am
February 16th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Yes, awareness, intent, mechanism and effect on the global level. This is exactly the point! Thank you. But most of language development is *not* due to this. Latin! The poor monks were fighting a losing battle against the stream of living language. Finally only they could speak Latin, a dead language.
The most important pattern in the history of language development is that there are so many languages. A closer look reveals that they can be arranged in families. There is no Design Theory that scientifically explains this pattern. Divergence is a result, not a plan. All of linguistics depends on this understanding.
Comment by Zachriel — February 16, 2008 @ 11:37 am
February 16th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Agreed.
In the case of alphabets, we know that they were derived from more primitive symbolic associations, e.g. acrophony. Interestingly, these more primitive systems were actually more complex than alphabets, with many different symbols being used for entire syllables mixed with ideograms.
Comment by Zachriel — February 16, 2008 @ 11:44 am
February 16th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Zachriel;
Too much time has been devoted to symbols and not enough to the useage of them in alphabets which afford alphabets their unique properties. It is commonplace to coopt existing symbols or revise them for another type of useage. Symbols are tools. The design lies in the useage to which such tools are made. Alphabet design has distinguishing characteristics. That's the design connection.
Comment by Bradford — February 16, 2008 @ 11:58 am
February 16th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
The "most a-telic conclusion" that one can come to re: the formation of our alphabet must still presume intelligent, creative ability at the beginning of the process and all along the way.
Here is the most a-telic conclusion:
When transferring information from conscious intelligence to other conscious intelligence, the exact end form of symbolic representation of information, although the necessary result of telic processes, is not deterministic from the viewpoint of the starting intelligence for the simple fact that every intelligent transmitter of the alphabet and language along the way is creative and thus has the ability to generate its own information and change previous information and informational representations while retaining function.
Even if there was a slip of the pen which may have accidentally changed the shape of the symbol, it is still intelligence which chose to continue to use the symbol. Furthermore, I highly doubt that's how the majority of symbolic representations of sounds or ideas (letters or hieroglyphs) for the purpose of communication were generated. Also, symbols don't have any intrinsic representation in themselves. If the symbol is used at all in the alphabet it is because an intelligence somewhere along the process chose to associate it with a sound or idea for the purpose of future communication.
Furthermore, the function of associating sounds and symbols for the purpose of communication at the very beginning and all along the way of this [alphabet creating] process is 100% telic and that purpose of communication is still the same today.
Therefore, while the exact symbolic form of the alphabet has evolved indeterminately along the way as a direct result of the creative ability of intelligence, the function as the purpose of communication has remained the same.
Thus, to say that the beginning of this process, the continual process itself, or our present alphabet is the result of mainly a-telic (blind) processes is highly misleading at best and horribly incorrect at the worst.
I've just argued that the form of any alphabet is undetermined because of the creative aspect of intelligence. This is far from every alphabet being largely the result of a-telic processes. "Indeterminate" due to anything other than creativity can equal "a-telic," however "indeterminate" due to creative ability does not equal "a-telic" since "a-telic" can not presuppose intelligent creativity as a causal factor of the "indeterminacy."
If someone still wishes to maintain that our alphabet is formed through mainly a-telic process please provide evidence that intelligent creativity had a lesser role to play than chance on the generation of both form and function of any alphabet including the most recently generated ones.
Comment by CJYman — February 16, 2008 @ 10:53 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 9:51 am
As I mentioned to you before (and repeatedly throughout the thread), the alphabet was developed from acrophones. The sounds had preexisting associations with the words that the logograms represented.
(I can't find that quote anywhere on this thread. I assume they're scare-quotes, then.)
That's not in dispute. This is the argument.
One Brow: "The inputs of a thousand, hundred, or even a dozen decisions that are not coordinated and don't have a common purpose will often result in an undesigned outcome."
And this is the valid counter-argument.
One such global pattern is the divergence of Latin into the various Romance languages; French, Spanish, Romanian, etc. In order to dispute One Brow's argument, you have to show that the global patterns were the intended result. You responded,
Communication is the global pressure. But that still doesn't address the paramount historical question as to why people who spoke Latin developed various derivatives across Europe. If the goal was simple communication, then everyone could have just kept speaking Latin. Instead, the Romance languages diverged over centuries until people could no longer understand Latin, or one another. Hardly enhancing communication.
To answer One Brow's argument, you have to, as nullasalus pointed out, show that there was a concerted effort and success across Europe to create the observed pattern of divergence. Instead, the only concerted effort in Europe was a futile attempt to preserve Latin.
Latin is a dead language. Living languages evolve. The global pattern we observe of this historical divergence and change was not purposeful. It is the result of many individual decisions made on the local level. This is one of the fundamental understandings in linguistics, and the root of all studies of the history of language.
Comment by Zachriel — February 17, 2008 @ 9:51 am
February 17th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Zachriel:
And this is the valid counter argument, since it shows the most a-telic position possible and shows the difference between indeterminate and a-telic and also invalidates your assertion re: the development of the alphabet being mainly a-telic:
Here is the most a-telic conclusion:
When transferring information from conscious intelligence to other conscious intelligence, the exact end form of symbolic representation of information, although the necessary result of telic processes, is not deterministic from the viewpoint of the starting intelligence for the simple fact that every intelligent transmitter of the alphabet and language along the way is creative and thus has the ability to generate its own information and change previous information and informational representations while retaining function.
Even if there was a slip of the pen which may have accidentally changed the shape of the symbol, it is still intelligence which chose to continue to use the symbol. Furthermore, I highly doubt that's how the majority of symbolic representations of sounds or ideas (letters or hieroglyphs) for the purpose of communication were generated. Also, symbols don't have any intrinsic representation in themselves. If the symbol is used at all in the alphabet it is because an intelligence somewhere along the process chose to associate it with a sound or idea for the purpose of future communication.
Furthermore, the function of associating sounds and symbols for the purpose of communication at the very beginning and all along the way of this [alphabet creating] process is 100% telic and that purpose of communication is still the same today.
Therefore, while the exact symbolic form of the alphabet has evolved indeterminately along the way as a direct result of the creative ability of intelligence, the function as the purpose of communication has remained the same.
Thus, to say that the beginning of this process, the continual process itself, or our present alphabet is the result of mainly a-telic (blind) processes is highly misleading at best and horribly incorrect at the worst.
I've just argued that the form of any alphabet is undetermined because of the creative aspect of intelligence. This is far from every alphabet being largely the result of a-telic processes. "Indeterminate" due to anything other than creativity can equal "a-telic," however "indeterminate" due to creative ability does not equal "a-telic" since "a-telic" can not presuppose intelligent creativity as a causal factor of the "indeterminacy."
If someone still wishes to maintain that our alphabet is formed through mainly a-telic process please provide evidence that intelligent creativity had a lesser role to play than chance on the generation of both form and function of any alphabet including the most recently generated ones.
Comment by CJYman — February 17, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
February 17th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
No one is disputing that each step by each person was purposeful and sometimes creative"”but you didn't answer argument. Languages diverging from common ancestors is the most important pattern in historical linguistics. Did people intend to create new and incompatible languages from the universal language of the Roman world? Can decisions lacking coordination and a common purpose result in particular and unintended outcomes?
Blind and atelic are not synonyms. Telic means purposeful. Blind people can be purposeful. To avoid ambiguity, we have concentrated on the term purpose. We're talking about whether the global patterns in language development were due to some human purpose or whether they were incidental to more parochial concerns.
Comment by Zachriel — February 17, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
February 20th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Of course. By definition, since decisions deal with creative intelligence as the driving force, the results will be unintended from the viewpoint of the beginning of the process.
But, I've already answered this and explained myself. The process and outcome is indeterminate precisely because we are dealing with creative intelligence at every step of the way regardless of other chance circumstances that influence the process. The pattern is neither mainly purposeful nor mainly accidental. The pattern is mainly indeterminate. I've already explained why indeterminate in this context *can't* be synonymous with a-telic or accidental/purposeless in my previous comment.
They are synonymous to the extent that every atelic process *is* blind. The global patterns are indeterminate, since every change was *filtered and incorporated* by a creative intelligence regardless of surrounding "more parochial concerns."
Exactly the point! At least someone caught on. The process and pattern is indeterminate, as opposed to mainly purposeful or mainly accidental. And this indeterminacy is caused by the very foundation of the process being creative intelligence.
Thus, you have your final answer from me. The process is indeterminate. Care to provide evidence otherwise?
Comment by CJYman — February 20, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
February 20th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.
When decisions are coordinated and a common purpose embraced, it can result in particular and intended outcomes. The result of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely was not unintended; it was purposeful. But the question then becomes, can decisions lacking coordination and a common purpose result in particular and unintended outcomes?
Not mainly purposeful. That's correct.
Comment by Zachriel — February 20, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
February 20th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
CYJman,
While Zach desperately tries to turn 'indeterminate as opposed to mainly purposeful' into 'not purposeful'…
How would you, personally, consider purposefulness of development in a system explicitly developed to be open-ended and indeterminate? What I find amusing about the 'language evolved' bit is that no individual part of language – no symbol, no letter, no word, no conjunction of words, no language – comes about without design at every utterance, conception, and point of writing. Even the groupings and classifications are designed. About the only things you can argue are not designed are the exact meta-patterns of development – 'The ox was designed, a was designed, the intermediary symbols were designed, but the person who came up with the ox wasn't trying to come up with a'. But if you're dealing with people who themselves realize and expect language to change and grow – if that 'indeterminate development' is itself expected – would you say that the development was purposeful? Not purposeful? Partly purposeful?
Personally, I see purpose and design even in the indeterminate development – mostly because indeterminancy and open-endedness is yet one more aspect of a creation I can see being intended. But you've got an interesting tact with it all, so I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Comment by nullasalus — February 20, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
February 20th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
nullasalus:
It matters not if the Phoenicians used a letter that is perceived as connected to a prior ox usage. The significant aspect of the written system developed by the Phoenicians is their mapping sounds to symbols in a distinct form we now label an alphabet. How could they have mapped the associations without purposeful intent that had the end result of a writing system in mind? You have to introduce an unparsimonious intermediate Phoenician useage to make a case and then find the evidence justifying the effort.
Comment by Bradford — February 20, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
February 20th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Huh? I included the qualifier. CJYman said not mainly purposeful while previously I indicated largely not purposeful. (You even noted the qualifier at the time.)
There are clearly some global aspects to language development, though most attempts to influence the natural course of language evolution have been largely ineffective until modern times.
For most of human history, people have been merely inherited the language of their parents and passed it on to their children. Consider that Genesis includes a creation story for languages.
There is a developing mathematical understanding of how local interactions can organize themselves into global patterns in the absence of common goals or coordination.
They started with the existing Proto-Canaanite acrophonic system. Each generation changed minor details of the system. Because the process was gradual, there is no strict dividing line between the Proto-Canaanite and Phoenician alphabets.
Comment by Zachriel — February 20, 2008 @ 11:18 pm
February 20th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Zach,
No one, not a single person, gets a truly complete language from their parents. Probably not even from their community. On a personal level they comprehend, consider, ascribe meaning, and develop personal communication. The plasticity is built into the concept – there is no 'mere inheritance' at work.
Saying that patterns aren't designed is vastly different from saying end results aren't designed. But even the patterns aren't completely without purpose, goals, or coordination.
Bradford,
I agree with that, though I could see it playing out in a different design path. We've seen assertions that going from pictogram to alphabet was gradual – but that doesn't do anything to the assertion of it being the result of design, or even to your claim that they were mapping sounds to symbols.
But even with that put aside, I'm not sure how 'gradual' I'd believe the development was – because I could easily see 2-3 common mappings getting into use, and then formal attempts at development are made. We certainly know that, at some point, people started to sit down and make lists of mapped vocalized characters – so in a hypothetical then-typical alphabet of 30 characters, did they start formalizing at 27? 22? 13? 3? All the more difficult considering changes, gradual and not, never stop with language.
Comment by nullasalus — February 20, 2008 @ 11:49 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 8:16 am
This does not avoid the process problem. Merely changes the subjects of the sentence. How could the Proto-Canaanites have mapped the associations without purposeful intent that had the end result of a writing system in mind? If you avoid specification in providing an answer you need to simultaneously acknowledge the speculative nature of the perspective you are insisting on.
Comment by Bradford — February 21, 2008 @ 8:16 am
February 21st, 2008 at 8:21 am
nullasalus:
Right. Insisting on a gradual process does not obviate the need to answer questions as to how an outcome occurred. Gradual outcomes need not be conflated with non-telic ones. The moment it was realized that mappings of symbols to sounds would generate written communication, a purpose was evidenced.
Comment by Bradford — February 21, 2008 @ 8:21 am
February 21st, 2008 at 8:28 am
Community and generations are probably the correct metrics.
Precisely right.
The plasticity is inherent, which is quite different from "built in". As you just said, the change is local, personal. And gradual enough that most people are not even aware of the change.
Vulgar Latin developed differently in the various provinces of the Roman Empire, gradually giving rise to such modern languages as French, Catalan, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and Romanian. Although the official language in these areas was Latin, Vulgar Latin was popularly spoken until the new localized forms diverged sufficiently from Latin, thus emerging as separate languages. However, despite the widening gulf between the spoken and written ("late") Latin, for the duration of the empire till the 8th century CE, it was not significant enough as to make them mutually unintelligible.
Comment by Zachriel — February 21, 2008 @ 8:28 am
February 21st, 2008 at 8:37 am
Once a language exists we have witnessed gradual changes occurring throughout history without some sort of centralized control over the process. It is reasonable to think Latin fathered Romance languages in this manner. This perspective can become dogmatic though when applied to the invention of an initial alphabet. The central feature of that was not any symbols that may have been borrowed and modified but the linkage of the symbols to sounds for useage in writing. A global paradigm is not demonstrable with respect to this.
Comment by Bradford — February 21, 2008 @ 8:37 am
February 21st, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Sure, inspiration for design can be drawn from a variety of quarters. From family to friends to culture to, etc.
The plasticity is built in. Every person is aware of it, precisely because every person experiences and takes advantage of it. They're immediately aware of change in language, because individuals are the conduit for that change even throughout their own lifetimes. Go back as far as you theoretically like in the origins of human language – even at inception, you'd have to be dealing with a person going from a vocabulary of 0 to 1, and probably 1 to 2+. The ability to develop and alter language is present from moment one of the construct – and you don't get much more built in than that.
The change from vulgar latin to french, etc is one where the awareness of the shifting pronunciations, etc is demonstrated beautifully. You've got just about everything you could want – a frozen original language to compare against (formal latin via the Church), persistent trade and interaction between regions, etc. But even lacking all that, you'd still have change within the culture itself – and you'd have people aware of, instigating, and reacting to same.
Comment by nullasalus — February 21, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 1:31 pm
If that were so, there wouldn't be a need for a creation story for languages.
And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech… Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
Your cite indicates imperceptible changes over hundreds of years, primarily in common peoples. Even scholars were mostly unaware of the process, only of the current state of Latin poorly spoken. The common folk would think they spoke the same language as their fathers and their fathers before them. And they did, with only minor variations.
Nor is awareness enough. No one decided or agreed or cooperated on a purposeful venture of creating new and incompatible languages from the universal language of the Roman world.
Comment by Zachriel — February 21, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
nullasalus:
Other than demonstrating your disbelief in the biblical passage and your disregard of NOMA how is the above responsive to the points raised by nullasalus?
Comment by Bradford — February 21, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 2:01 pm
As there is a substantial gap in knowledge, I suppose a dove could have endowed the survivors of the Deluge, each with the gift of a different language. However, languages exhibit evidence of common evolutionary origins.
Nullasalus claims that people have always been aware that languages can change sufficiently so as to diverge into new languages, and people then acted on this awareness in order to influence this change over the broad sweeps of time required. This is generally not true. He suggested this applied to the early history of language as well as the modern age, hence the reference to an ancient story concerning the original creation of multiple languages.
Comment by Zachriel — February 21, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 2:03 pm
There are very real aspects of design in language. Shakespeare crafting new words (e.g. moonbeam, dawn, swagger), scientific terms derived from dead Classical languages, the injection of advertising slogans into the lexicon, grammar nazis, and that little flourish on the second of two i's making the beginnings of the letter j.
Comment by Zachriel — February 21, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Zachriel:
He can speak for himself but I gather his point about proceeding with additional increments of words was an indication that the inventors of those words had the intent of furthering communication, were aware of basic principles associating concepts with symbols which enabled the progress and proceeded along an incremental path with awareness and purpose. A gradual process of change over time must be assessed on a basis specific to the process in question before concluding design. Awareness of incremental impacts of additional words from a zero starting point is a prima facia case for a designed outcome.
Comment by Bradford — February 21, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Zach,
You have a habit of diving for skeptic-literal Genesis whenever you feel like you're running out of options.
The funny thing is, insofar as language is concerned, even a dead literal reading pretty much gets you to 'in a tight region/locale, there was one language spoken. Then they were dispersed/language changed.' Single origin hypothesis of language aside, that's pretty much what you yourself assert. You crazy myth-maker!
They weren't imperceptible, Zach. At the absolute best, the changes were modest and gradual – but they were still perceived by the people themselves. They knew intimately what words they used, and how they used them. Even the almighty 'pattern' wasn't itself imperceptible – the church was well aware of what was going on.
Are you honestly telling me that the 'common folk' in iberia weren't aware of people from other regions, despite active trade, a centralized and networked church, and in many cases conflict? That the common folk weren't aware that they were saying things slightly differently than their fathers, and grandfathers – and certainly different from those texts the clergy read from?
Let me guess – the Mona Lisa was undesigned too. Because it was a gradual (perhaps 17 years) process, Da Vinci arguably did not envision the exact finalized product when he started the painting, and he couldn't have precisely pictured how his model would age.
Awareness is plenty – you've already shown that any definition of 'design' you dislike, you'll rule as being accurate but so confusing that it shouldn't be called design. But your insistence doesn't make this true.
We have awareness of change from generation to generation and person to person. We have awareness of change from locality to locality. We not only have records which naturally freeze communication as an artifact to compare against, but a cultural (the Church) which actively froze the formal language itself. We have trade, travel, and conflict going on which steadily provides awareness of the divergences. We have acceptance of the divergence, and a resistance to harmonization.
By all means – give me a word that wasn't designed, Zach. Give me a letter. Give me a pictogram. You haven't, and you won't. Because you can't. You need design to explain every end product. And even the pattern involves design.
I've claimed that people are entirely aware that they can and do develop intentional sounds and symbols which others do not know or use, and that this would have to be part of the program since the very start of language. By all means, deny this if you like – it'll just go to prove Bradford's OP wonderfully.
As for the acting on it – I've pointed out that when you have awareness that people develop new sounds and symbols over time, you also have at least a basic understanding that people you don't learn from or communicate with are going to develop sounds and symbols unknown to you. Certainly in the case of the romance languages, we not only had divergence from a common source, but awareness of the divergence (both from the original, courtesy of the church at the least, and from each other, courtesy of the church, traders, etc). In this situation, even a passive acceptance of this constitutes a design decision – 'I/we are not going to harmonize'.
I haven't argued that french came about due to the explicit desire of a centralized group/individual. On the contrary, I've been arguing that there's no need for that for design to be heavily in play. Decisions are a central part of design, and it was the decisions made that resulted in the divergence with regards to romance languages.
You've broadly said that my claims are 'generally not true' – so by all means, deny what I've just laid out here. Which is the falsehood – that even in the most primitive stages of language, people are aware they can and do create new sounds/symbols, and people don't instantly understand them? That other people create new sounds/symbols, and they won't understand them without communication/teaching? That people notice when they speak differently from their ancestors, from written sources, or from foreigners? That people make decisions with regards to language, from what words mean to what they'll learn and teach?
Comment by nullasalus — February 21, 2008 @ 3:30 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 4:44 pm
It directly addresses the point you raised. What did people used to think about why people had different languages. Genesis is very influential"”even today.
Sigh. No.
And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
You clearly have missed the nature of this discussion. Genesis provides a purpose and action to effect that purpose. It's design, just as the creation of Adam is design.
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Comment by Zachriel — February 21, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 5:00 pm
With regards to most of human history, that is not an accurate statement. Most people, such as those who spoke Vulgar Latin, would say they spoke the same language as their fathers and their fathers' fathers. For centuries, Vulgar Latin wasn't even considered to be separate languages, just uncultured dialects.
Then we are in agreement. There is {largely} no global purpose in the history of language, only local actions leading to global patterns. Of note, even though communication is the goal of each local activity, the global effect can be the fragmentation of language into new and mutually incomprehensible forms"”contrary to everyone's intended purpose.
Comment by Zachriel — February 21, 2008 @ 5:00 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 6:00 pm
And here we have an example of lack of intention at work. It does address the point – just not how you thought it would.
Sorry, yes. Which is why you stop a line early.
7Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
8So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
Let's go down and confound their language. And then, they're scattered. There's no other mention of how their language was confounded, Zach. I brought up this more-or-less exact example with the general dispersing the populace, knowing what the result to their language would be.
It's entirely accurate. I know that I speak 'english'. I also know that the english I speak is a different english (my coming from the northeast US) than the english in the south, the west, England, or elsewise. I know that I use words and phrases and spellings my father and grandfather and so on did not. Same goes for the people in question.
If we're in any agreement at all, it's because you tossed 'the alphabet wasn't designed' and the like over the edge of the ship awhile ago. Not that I can blame you.
And there's plenty of global purpose in language – it's a mental construct, conceived of and designed to communicate. Every language innovation has been designed to facilitate communication with a desired target(s). That language fragments isn't contrary to everyone's intended purposes – on the contrary (ha ha) the state reflects the global purpose, and its history. What, you think people came up with words so their intended targets couldn't understand them?
Comment by nullasalus — February 21, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 6:44 pm
So, your position, contrary to previous claims, is not that people designed Romance languages, but that God did. That view is not supported by the evidence, but you are welcome to it.
Comment by Zachriel — February 21, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Ohoho, Zach. You're a riot. Do you come up with these yourself, or do you pay someone to evolve your lines for you?
Comment by nullasalus — February 21, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Nullsalus:
Zachriel, explain how you draw this conclusion. Nullasalus went to some effort to point out the useage of the word confound. You then make a leap and conflate confound with people designing Romance langauges. Does that mean you are tired of the thread? Is that the way you express it?
Comment by Bradford — February 21, 2008 @ 7:29 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 7:38 pm
*fingers crossed* [Please, please, pretty please!] The same (Zachriel) logic/argument has now managed to un-design the Mona Lisa. Add that to the list (somewhere after alphabet but before city should work.) Hope ya'll are happy.
Comment by Rob R. — February 21, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Who designed the words "cdesign proponentsists"
Comment by Raevmo — February 21, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 7:49 pm
What do you suppose the point of all that effort is Rob R?
Comment by Bradford — February 21, 2008 @ 7:49 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Since this thread doesn't want to die [added in edit: and since no new "sciency" posts are forthcoming], let's drag up some unanswered questions. Bradford, in what sense is the current alphabet optimal, as I seem to recall you claimed far far upthread?
Comment by Raevmo — February 21, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Hi, Bradford:
Just Rob is cool. Who knows. I think Z (and null) just like to debate. Not sure if it requires anything more sinister than that. I reckon, maybe, by not giving up this point wrt to design there's no need to get into cosmological/biological arguments about agency. 'You can't even establish that language, cities, etc., are designed how/why should we entertain your ideas about design in anything at all' or something like that could also have something to do with it.
*shrug*
It's like a train wreck though, I CAN"T LOOK AWAY.
Comment by Rob R. — February 21, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 8:08 pm
We're discussing whether alphabets and languages are designed, meaning intended in this context. My claim is that the divergence of languages and writing systems is evolutionary, that is, the global patterns are the result of individual creative actions made largely without the intention of affecting the global pattern. While someone intentionally added a flourish to the letter i, he didn't intend to create a new letter much less a new alphabet; but after generations of development, English ended up with the letter j.
The alternate claim on this thread is that people intended to create new languages and alphabets. As languages and alphabets have historically arisen mostly through small changes over many generations, and as it is unlikely anyone planned that far ahead, this seems like a weak claim. Evolutionary processes seem much more descriptive, some of the same mechanisms can be observed still operating in the modern world, and the theory leads to specific empirical predictions, such as the existence of intermediates (e.g. Proto-Sinaitic alphabet).
Meanwhile, nullsalus proposed that the divergence of languages was God's intention. Perhaps, but there is no evidence of such. It would certainly belie those who claim people did it.
Strangely enough, experts in urban architecture distinguish between designed and undesigned cities, while linguists study what they claim is the evolution of language.
Comment by Zachriel — February 21, 2008 @ 8:08 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Bad editing?
More importantly, how do you pronounce it!
Comment by Rob R. — February 21, 2008 @ 8:08 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 8:15 pm
cdesign proponentsists
Comment by Zachriel — February 21, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Raevmo:
Rob:
Bingo! You admit these words were not designed! Therefore the English language was not designed. Having achieved this breakthrough, we can now put this thread out of its misery.
Unfortunately, the designer of English forgot to design transparent rules for mapping written language to spoken language.
Comment by Raevmo — February 21, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 8:29 pm
It is true that the langauges with which we are familiar today have changed over centuries to become what they are today. That tells us little about how initial languages, that are at the root of this tree, came to be. At some point some intelligent source (read that plural if you wish) would have to take deliberate steps to communicate. Have you ever watched two or more people attempting to communicate when noone knows the others' language? They improvise, use sign language in conjuction with words or sounds to convey meaning. If they had to continue this over time why would such a method not produce a new language. Who is in a position to claim this would be the unintentional result of the efforts? Expanded communication, according to an agreed system, would be very predictable to those involved.
Comment by Bradford — February 21, 2008 @ 8:29 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Yup. You got the point of the no design arguments.
Comment by Bradford — February 21, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Bradford:
What do you mean by "initial languages" Don't you think that the ancestors of Homo sapiens were using vocal communication? And their ancestors? Etc?
Comment by Raevmo — February 21, 2008 @ 8:35 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Animals do communcate in a very limited way by comparison to human languages. And if evolution is an appropriate paradigm stasis looks like the rule where animals are concerned. Words have meanings raevmo and the term human language conveys an idea that is distinct from barking dogs or even chimps. The human language tree would have something akin to what we define as a language(s) at its root.
Comment by Bradford — February 21, 2008 @ 8:44 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Zach,
Bwahaha. You're still gonna dive for that one?
I pointed out that your example of a 'creation myth' gives no details of the method, save for one that you yourself endorse. Watching you try to twist that so far is.. well, let's just say you're communicating more than you realize.
I said that the idea of introducing new words and symbols into use was a built-in aspect of human communication – even the first person to develop a meaningful sound or symbol would have to realize they created meaning where before there was none. And all a language or an alphabet is is a grouping of words and symbols – they are never utterly exhaustive lists, because communication is always in flux. What's more, even that grouping itself is designed.
Meanwhile, you've yet to provide a single letter, word, or symbol that was free of design. Because you know that you can't; the evolutionary process that 'seems much more descriptive' is only descriptive insofar as it accepts that 'people used these words and symbols for these reasons'. Every detail hinges on conscious, purposeful choices made by individuals – design, design, design.
Raevmo,
'course they were designed, Ravey. You think a word without a standard spelling is undesigned? "Raevmo" isn't in the dictionary – so let me guess. Your name wasn't designed either?
And Rob's pretty much dead on. I enjoy a discussion, especially one as ludicrous as 'languages and words and alphabets weren't designed'. It's not going to accomplish anything, other than Zach getting a little rammy. We're in that "who's going to get worn out first and stop responding" phase of the e-argument.
Comment by nullasalus — February 21, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Bradford:
Agreed. (But don't forget that humans are also animals.)
I think you'll find that animal (other than human) language is just as dynamic as human language. Check out cowbirds. Sorry, I'm too lazy to provide links.
Monkeys have distinct "words" for snake and eagle, for starters. These words have meanings. How is that different from human language?
Um, yeah? A language at the root of a language tree. Color me flabbergasted.
Comment by Raevmo — February 21, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Nulley:
What's your evidence the words "cdesign proponentsists" were designed? Just saying "'course" doesn't make it so.
My name here was designed by me, as you so cleverly inferred. Does that imply or lend credence to the claim that all words were designed?
Comment by Raevmo — February 21, 2008 @ 9:09 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Raevmo,
Sure thing: cdesign proponentsists has the words 'design proponents' in clear order. It's in text online, so odds favor a keyboard being involved either directly or indirectly – and we have plenty of examples of people poorly spelling words, ranging from typing too fast, having a mistaken knowledge of common spelling, etc. Hell, we even have cases where people misspell words on purpose for the fun of it.
Care to roll out your evidence that the words weren't designed?
It lends credence to the claim that a word with inaccurate common spelling or no common spelling can still be designed.
C'mon, Raevmo, this is basic human understanding here. You've been spending too much time at the zoo.
Comment by nullasalus — February 21, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 9:26 pm
The reason I introduced the Tower of Babel is because you keep insisting people have always known that languages evolved into new languages over time. This is simply not true. Even in the modern world, most people probably don't know that the Arabic alphabet and the English alphabet share a common origin, or that a large part of the English language is incorporated from Latin languages.
In addition, the story of Babel says the diversification of language was *intended* by God. He confounded their language. This is what people used to think"”regardless of how you want to interpret it today. Not that languages changed slowly into new languages over time as you keep repeating.
Moonbeams, nullasalus. Why would that be a strawman challenge? At least try to understand my position.
Comment by Zachriel — February 21, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 9:33 pm
nullasalus:
Oh, a keyboard being involved implies design? Sounds like the monkeys typing on keyboards to me. It's too easy to embarrass you.
Why don't you just admit it? The words "cdesign proponentsists" were not designed. They are inadvertently mutated words. Yet by now they are genuine words that are used at increasing frequency. Just as you would expect from "beneficial mutations".
Comment by Raevmo — February 21, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Zach,
They don't need to know the specific "lineage" of their words to know that language changes over and with time, anymore than I need to know the exact history of cooking that preceded my favorite chili recipe to know that recipes change and develop by design.
You provided a 'creation story' that involves at best a mechanism that mirrors your own contention of how languages diverged – it was a bad example. It happens. But even if you brought up another language myth (and you'd be surprised at how many language myths involve people being separated, and developing discordant language as a result), you still have people who see the divergence in their own language, in their own communities. You can't be asserting that in 500AD, people in Iberia thought people in the Gallic areas were speaking differently because elves were messing with their heads. Or that kids nowadays think their grandparents don't understand their slang because aliens are at work.
If it's a strawman, say it clearly – that every letter, word, and symbol is designed. If you disagree, my challenge stands. If you agree, you'll cede as much on the spot; what's the harm?
Raevmo,
Sure, Raevmo – there are plenty of monkeys with access to keyboards, the internet, youtube logins, and a knowledge of how to acquire and post ID-related clips. I was kidding about the 'spending too much time at the zoo' bit before, but now I have to wonder.
By the way – gotta love that call for me to provide evidence, and then quiet decision to not provide any evidence of your own when requested. Got nothin'?
Comment by nullasalus — February 21, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Compare that to Shakesphere or the Molecular Biology of the Cell. What do you think?
Comment by Bradford — February 21, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Bradford, you said:
And I gave an example showing that non-human animals also have words with meanings. Of course there's no dispute that human language is much more complicated than the language of other animals, but there's meaningful language in animals and it's not much of a stretch to see the continuity between the two. Unless of course you're a creationist.
Comment by Raevmo — February 21, 2008 @ 10:10 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 10:17 pm
You again ignored what I wrote.
In other words, you have no idea of my position.
Comment by Zachriel — February 21, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Raevmo's in that 'dogs and birds both fly, it's merely that birds are able to remain airborne for longer than dogs' camp.
Zach,
Keep on duckin'.
Comment by nullasalus — February 21, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 10:22 pm
nullasalus:
So you maintain that the words "cdesign proponentsists" were designed. Without any evidence. Fine. I can't prove that they weren't designed, but it's easy to see how a mistake like that could happen. In contrast, it's hard to see the "specificity" of the design. You know that, but you just cannot admit that you're wrong. Pathetic. And now I'm going to sleep.
Comment by Raevmo — February 21, 2008 @ 10:22 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 10:26 pm
If you wish to contest my position, it would behoove you to at least try and understand it. You have repeatedly misrepresented it.
Why would that be a strawman challenge? Try to restate my position to discover why.
Comment by Zachriel — February 21, 2008 @ 10:26 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 10:35 pm
When I wrote this blog entry I specified a specific linguistic entity- the alphabet. Is there a meaningful system of written communication in the animal world for which it would take not much of a stretch to see the continuity between it and the Phoenician alphabet?
Comment by Bradford — February 21, 2008 @ 10:35 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Raevmo,
I've provided evidence, Raevmo. Your problem is you believe that a typo or misspelling in a word means the word wasn't designed – so rather than place it as poor design against a standard, or careless design, you chuck it out as 'undesigned'.
Meanwhile, your ace in the hole is 'Okay, I have no evidence for my position, but.. come on, clearly it's not designed.'? I'll see your "c'mon" and raise you reasonable evidence.
Zach,
This from the guy who made a gambit of 'See Nulla was lying all this time, he doesn't believe man designed languages, he thinks God did'?
Your position, frankly, is fraught with fallbacks and muddled reasoning. At your clearest you argue that patterns are not wholly designed – and you refuse to clearly admit that letters, words, and symbols are designed, for reasons that seem to validate Bradford's OP. You view that D-word as a thing cherished by your opponents; and that realization isn't the result of psychoanalysis, so much as scrolling up in the thread.
I'll ask you again to either provide an instance of a letter, word, or symbol that is free of design, or to admit there are no such instances. If your response is another "I won't answer, because of strawman" – well, let's just say you're communicating quite a lot there.
Comment by nullasalus — February 21, 2008 @ 10:37 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 10:51 pm
I never said you were lying. I said you misrepresented my position, presumably carelessly. That includes my clearly stated reason why I introduced the Tower of Babel (not to ask you what you thought the story meant, but to illustrate that many people thought that God had intentionally confounded human languages).
I have a consistent position, which I have repeated throughout the thread. I have quite reasonably asked you to try and understand my position before arguing against it. Anyone following this thread should know my position and recognize the strawman. I'm asking you to recognize it as well. You have again refused.
Moonbeams, nullasalus. Why would that be a strawman challenge? Try to restate my position to discover why.
Comment by Zachriel — February 21, 2008 @ 10:51 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Zach,
->
C'mon, Zach. Don't do it then deny it. At least not when anyone can scroll back and see what was up.
I understand your position perfectly, muddled as your presentation is. I even understand why you won't answer my question. It just doesn't have anything to do with any strawman.
Comment by nullasalus — February 21, 2008 @ 11:00 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Zachriel, both the Tower of Babel account and the evolutionary model presented by you and Raevmo share something in common. The analysis begins with an existing langauge and (in this thread) existing form of written communication. A language needs to exist before it can be confounded and the continuity Raevmo argues for is broken at the written level. This thread could easily terminate in short order if your side made one very reasonable recognition namely, that while casual changes have been recorded over time there is no historic evidence that the first human alphabet was invented without the end goal of written communication in view. The multi-component mappings (22 of them by the Phoenicians), the fact that common useage of them occurred around 1700 BC and principles of parsimony which indicates intent as the most parsimonious route to an alphabet all argue for purpose. Pushing the issue back to Pre-Canaanite peoples does not answer questions nor provide more meaningful supporting historic evidence.
Comment by Bradford — February 21, 2008 @ 11:15 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Off-topicIf you understood my position, you wouldn't pose the strawman that you did. This is the exchange.
Instead of replying to my question, you have repeatedly refused. You haven't tried in the least to understand a position you insist on arguing against.
Each step purposeful. Intelligence acting at the local level. Missionaries did this purposefully. The result of individual creative actions. Design in language. Shakespeare crafting new words (e.g. moonbeam).
Comment by Zachriel — February 21, 2008 @ 11:26 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 11:35 pm
No one knows the exact predecessors to spoken language. They don't leave fossils. Much of what we know comes from comparative linguistics, which is limited in its historical reach.
However, the alphabet has well-known ancestors, more primitive symbolic associations.
Written communication predates the Phoenician alphabet which is a progressive simplification and adaptation of more complex ancestors.
Comment by Zachriel — February 21, 2008 @ 11:35 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Zach,
So there you go – there are no end products that are undesigned. Odd for you to claim the question 'is a strawman', then insist you've admitted as much all this time. But hey, that D-word can be spooky.
But if you admit as much, then saying 'alphabets/languages weren't designed, they evolved' can't fly. You can at best say that the specific historical pathway to that language was not (fully) designed – but so what? Back to the Mona Lisa. Did Da Vinci decide in advance 'I will take 17 years to finish this painting'? Probably not. But was the Mona Lisa designed? Of course it was. Working within the context of design means you take seriously Da Vinci's inspiration, intentions, decisions, goals – and also his omissions, what he did not intend, etc. Talking about the evolution of the Mona Lisa is either a.. shall we say, poetic use of words, or nonsense.
And before you go off on another tear about how obvious that is, keep in mind you've got misters 'misspelled words are undesigned words' and 'onomatopic words are undesigned words' flailing about beside you.
Comment by nullasalus — February 21, 2008 @ 11:41 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 11:55 pm
This written communication maps sounds to symbols. That's an innovation. What evidence is there for this specific innovation prior to the Phoenicians? Don't waste time with red herrings and other forms of writing systems. Apples, not pears. Alphabets, not pictures.
Comment by Bradford — February 21, 2008 @ 11:55 pm
February 21st, 2008 at 11:59 pm
This is your own creation story. You locate something that occurred in a prior time period and declare a cause and effect relationship. Pictures evolve to sound symbols. Why? Because it fits the theme of your story.
Comment by Bradford — February 21, 2008 @ 11:59 pm
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:00 am
I'm not sure why you are having troubles with this. The Proto-Canaanite and Proto-Sinaitic also predate the Phoenicians systems. Both are written communication that maps sounds to symbols.
Jean-François Champollion showed the Egyptian Hieroglyphics are a combination of ideograms and phonetics. Egyptian Hieroglyphics predate the Phoenicians system by a couple of thousand years.
Champollion: It is a complex system, writing figurative, symbolic, and phonetic all at once, in the same text, the same phrase, I would almost say in the same word.
Written communication that maps sounds to symbols is not an innovation with the Phoenicians. Theirs was a significant simplification of previous systems though. That made is easier to learn, and easier to transport to other languages. Hence, it became the de facto standard in that part of the world.
In this case, it isn't necessary to show cause and effect, though the evidence of that is quite clear. We know the languages of the period, and we know how the writing systems worked and changed over time. But you said that mapping sounds to symbols was an innovation with the Phoenicians. This is simply not true. Such mapping systems predate the Phoenicians by millennia.
Comment by Zachriel — February 22, 2008 @ 9:00 am
February 22nd, 2008 at 9:36 am
Off-topic.That's the definition of a strawman, nullasalus. You have misrepresented my position repeatedly. I repeatedly corrected you. You would then continue to misrepresent my position. I challenged you to restate my position so that you might possibly see your error. You refused to do so. You might find your tactics interesting somehow, but they shed no light on the topic.
If you wish to continue to argue against my position, then please do so. But do not argue against positions I do not hold. I will restate it for you.
On-topicYou might indicate whether you agree or disagree with this proposition. If you disagree, then there is little point discussing the specific instances before resolving this issue.
This provides a modern mathematical basis for the
Globalclaim above. Preferential attachment does create global patterns. If you disagree with theGlobalclaim, you might try to address the math on the relevant thread.If you agree with the Global claim, then it becomes a matter of arguable specifics. We know that human communication is purposeful on the local level. The question concerns the global patterns of change and diversification. We know someone devised the flourish on the double i's. We can say that the process of evolution is particulate on some level. We can also surmise that this process is irregular. Lots of small changes, a few big changes, and the very rare revolution.
The Phoenician alphabet is very similar to the Proto-Canaanite. But the Phoenicians made a few changes that made it simpler and more portable, consistent with a maritime people, who then spread it throughout the Mediterranean world. Today, there is a diversity of alphabets derived from this early successful radiation. Each incremental step was purposeful, but the global result was not.
As far as the divergence of Romance languages from the Latin, I'm just not sure how you would show this was intentional. We have too much information that indicates otherwise.
The creation of La Gioconda was purposeful.
Comment by Zachriel — February 22, 2008 @ 9:36 am
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Zachriel:
Written communication, mapping sounds to symbols, was an innovation requiring an initial insightful moment at some point in history. Identity is less important than the insight itself whose implementation is evidence of design.
Comment by Bradford — February 22, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Zach,
You have a certain love of repeating indignations – 'That is equivocation' 'That is a strawman' 'That is scientifically vacuous'. But you rarely back up the charges. And in this case, I'm pretty sure you don't even know 'the definition of a strawman'.
Your big complaint is that I asked you a dead-on question about whether end-products were designed. How my question can 'be a strawman' is a mystery. Your correction of me was to say that you've stated your position clearly, and say my question was a strawman. But you don't want to answer yes or no. You'd rather do anything BUT answer directly. So be it – you already are on record in this thread as regarding the word 'designed' as something you find a bit spooky.
By all means, play your game. You don't want to give me an answer because you're afraid it's what I want – but the fact is, I'll take the squirming just as readily. It proves my point.
'Global results' are vague. Do you mean end products, or mere patterns? In other words, are end products – pictograms, symbols, letters, words – designed?
Oh wait, there we go again.
Bradford,
Utter agreement. Completely obvious. Yet for some reason, so hard for some people to swallow.
Comment by nullasalus — February 22, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
February 22nd, 2008 at 3:05 pm
No, just address the argument.
global: of, relating to, or applying to a whole (as a mathematical function or a computer program)
I provided a link to the relevant discussion on the mathematics of networks and how global patterns can emerge from local interactions.
An important global pattern of interest in linguistics is the diversity of languages, and upon closer examination, their apparent commonalities. The most important finding is that modern languages have descended from a few ancestral families.
Comment by Zachriel — February 22, 2008 @ 3:05 pm