Wow, now I am stuck. I feel "accident" has too little explanatory power, but I feel the only solution to your response I can think of would get chopped up by Occam's Razor. =) fun dilemma to be in
I don't think this can be the case here. The gene itself may have developed by accident, but the selection for that gene across generations was not accidental. Selection is by definition not accidental. Additionally, I just posted what I figured the obvious response was: that the gene for language is actually a gene for something else. I am thinking something along the lines that it is a gene for general higher level brain function. Thus, it was selected for because hunters and gatherers were able to do so more smartly. Thus the people with lower brain function were more likely to get trampled by elephants or something along that nature. Anyways, the linguistic capacity was merely a correlated memic byproduct. If that is the case, then language itself never really evolved by selection but rather by memic development.
I rephrased the idea to another replier. Basically, I was stating that the capacity for language is a genetic trait, but that it was more than likely not utilized for several generations after being somewhat prominent in the gene pool. Instead of the bird example, try looking at it as if you had a cup, but nothing to fill it with. Regardless, if the gene for linguistic capacity was not utilized in the first few generations, why was it selected for? Perhaps it piggybacked with another gene that was selected for. Perhaps it was utilized for different intellectual expression (more intelligent hunting possibly). All I am getting at is that the gene is unlikely a "gene for linguistic capacity" but probably something more general that happens to allow linguistic function to occur in addition.
Also,
It doesn't seem that language is merely confined to humans, but it further seems like a learned trait rather than a biological trait
was not meant to be a dichotomy. Instead, it was a response to two different items contained in the original article (1 that language is limited to humans and 2 that it is a biological trait).
Definitely. I guess I didn't say what I was getting at well. Let's try it again, differently.
The capacity for language is genetic. However, the actual use of that capacity is a learned trait (something like a meme).
More than likely, the use developed several generations after the capacity came about in the gene pool.
Why then, would the linguistic phenotype be selected for when it is not being utilized by those first few generations?
Without reading one of the supplementary articles...
I am not buying language as an object of biological evolution at all. At best, it seems to be an expressed meme, rather than a genetic advancement, or a trait that can be selected for. Also, I am not buying the facts expressed in the article abotu language. Haven't we taught chimps and apes sign language? Aren't there example of such creatures telling us things spontaneously (the most recent example was when the chimp told some scientists that it had a mildly severe toothache)? It doesn't seem that language is merely confined to humans, but it further seems like a learned trait rather than a biological trait. For instance, even if we had the biological capacity for language, there does not seem to be an inherant argument for the actual expression of language. In other words, an organism may have the capacity to express a meme-like trait, but may never actually express it. Thus, in humans, the capacity to understand language may be selected for, but the language usage itself is a socially learned trait. Also I would wonder if we never began using our capacity for language, then if the capacity may be biologically selected for, but if the utility of that capacity is never expressed, then why is the gene for that capacity being selected for?
Good point, although I would be interested in your opinion on the normative claim. That is, should laws define and impose moral stipulations? or conversely, should all moral imperatives (depending on how you define them) be laws? or should laws have no correlation to morality?
of when SBC got the Illinois house and senate to draft, vote on, and enact a bill of their liking in less than a week. This was record time in our state. The amount of money this company dumps into state politics is so insane that they are entirely able to control the elected officials or fund the campaign of the person who will replace them in the next election.
You should really double check your own work when commenting about another person's grammar. I think you meant to use the word "word" intead of "work"
=)
After reading the article, I must admit that it does make sense. However, there is a self-preservation outlook that can explain the same phenomena. Hardware review sites want the latest and greatest toys as quickly as possible. If my hardware review site publishes an article that doe not look faovrably upon Company X's latest high end product, how likely is Company X to send me their next greatest product as quickly? Granted, it shouldn't happen this way, but Company X is in business to make a profit. They don't want bad PR and they want as many people to buy their most profitable items as possible. My hardware review site wants to stay in business. It wants to make a profit, and to do so, I have to act in a certain way. I have to ensure that I have a product to sell. It isn't fun and it isn't nice, but that's business.
Classic Foundations of Arithmetic - Gottlieb Frege Contributions to the Founding of the Theory of Transfinite Numbers - Georg Cantor Complete works of Spinoza - Spinoza
Well, last time I checked I was most assuredly not an existentialist, but I guess a little ad hominem never hurt anyone (pun intended).
First, I guess I should be more specific. I'd like to put forth that there is Truth and truth. Truth (note the capital T) is absolute truth. It is observer independant. Little truth is more like contingent truth. You'll see this in an example.
Science gives us truth, however so does faith. This kind of truth in science amounts to "Assuming all current theories and that all things are equal... X" which is usually stated as simply "X." Faith gives us the same formulation of truth, but has a different consequence. Faith says "If everything I believe is true, than X," but the problem is that X is usually some circular formulation of the first part of the conditional (usually like "If god exists and my religion is correct, then I am justified in believing in god.").
However, neither concept gets us anywhere near Truth (unless we are talking about a priori Truth which is really just word games anyways). Truth doesn't rely on assumptions. It is a complete body in itself and is in every way unknowable. Science is based on too many assumptions, too many models, too many possibilities to get us there. Science is stuck in its own box, similar to how faith is stuck in its own assumptions to which it cannot break free.
That's what I mean.
Next time you go to the bookstore, pick up Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolution. Science may be pragmatic, but is nothing near providing us with truth.
The writer of this report has no clue what the straw man fallacy is. He means that Sun committed the fallacy of a biased sample. Straw Man is when you distort someone's position and attack the distorted view. Biased sample is when you pick X out of population P that best supports your cause and draw conclusions on P.
Excellent point. I did in fact word that poorly and it is a very important issue. Let me ask a question. Would you say that the constitution defines what rights the government is established to protect? I'm a bit rushed right now, but if you reply I'll try to better explain why I ask tomorrow. Thanks
I was pressed for time a bit on that last post. Boss doesn't like me playing on the internet under his time. Let me try explaining this better.
The original post stated that, in other democracies, when a party wins and does not receive the majority of votes, a coalition is created to represent the popular majority. This is the basis for his statement that other democracies do well under a multi-party system.
What I was trying to get at is this: A democracy, by definition, is majority rules. Thus, any government that declares an electoral winner who does not get the popular vote seems to fit dubiously into this categorization. However, the government described does require that the majority winner is represented in a governing coalition.
Now, if the US is a democracy, this is a valid point. The important thing is why the point is valid, namely because a democracy has a prmia facie obligation to protect the will of the majority. However, if the US is not a democracy, it does not share this obligation. Declaring that the US is not a democracy was not an attempt to split hairs in terminology, but rather an attempt to show different underlying principles of government in order to demonstrate that the given line of reasoning is not applicable to the US.
Nope, I'm surely not wrong about that. Let me take your points in order:
The constitution does in fact grant rights to individuals, states, and government branches. Hell, there is even a section of the constitution dubbed "The Bill of Rights." I really cannot see how the constitution does not provide for these rights. Granted, if a critical mass of people dissent and revolt, perhaps the document's effectiveness would be under suspicion, but it most assuredly does provide rights assuming the working government it describes.
Additionally, voting is not a right. In fact, the state may revoke the ability of citizens to vote, so long as it does not do so with certain bias (such as race or sex). Many states do not allow convicted felons to vote. Rights cannot be stripped of an individual. Thus, voting is a privilidge.
I don't believe I am. I think that the initial post is invalid no matter what, but even more so if the US is not a democracy. If the US were a democracy, some sort of argument could be made in support of such a mandatory coalition (in order to ensure minority representation). However, if the US is not a democracy, but rather a republic whose sole governmental proceedure is defined by the contsitution, then there is no valid argument to say that the US should act like these other governments can be made.
No, it is not. A government that holds a small amount of democratic practices does nto amke it a democracy. Let me cite examples. Article 4, Section 4 of the US Constitution:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
The US Pledge of Allegience:
... and to the republic for which it stands...
Benjamin Franklin when asked what form of government the second continental congress had given:
"A Republic, if you can keep it."
Furthermore, your idea of what makes a democracy is... well just plain wrong. Democracy is characterized by majority rules. There is no protection for the minority in a democracy. As Plato aptly pointed out, democracy is nothing but a disguised tyrrany.
Here's some reading that might help you correct your mistaken perceptions:
Republic vs. Democracy[chrononhotonthologos.com] A Republic, if you can keep it[thenewamerican.com] Even the US government agrees[library of congress]
Do you really believe that it is the government's responsibility to push or bind its constituents into some moral paradigm?
I don't buy this at all. The government should be as inevasive as possible into the lives of the citizens, especially at the federal level. The federal government needs to do nothing more than create a protected environment for the states to operate under. Further, morality is something that should be brought about in the family or community setting. Federally supported ethics is a horrible idea. The government is not there to tell you when and how you can wipe your ass, but rather to provide the right of ass wiping for you. You ultimately are the one who determines how to do it right.
Are you in a battleground state? If so, then perhaps you have good reason to vote for the major party you believe in most. However, if you don't live in a state that is within 5% margin of victory for a major candidate, your vote will most likely not matter, and thus you should feel free to vote 3rd party.
I think the US is the only democracy in the world that does not ahve a multi-party system. In most other democracies, if the winning party has less than a majority of the vote, they have to form a governing coalition in their Parliament.
Actually, the United States is not a democracy. The Unites States is instead a Constitutional Replublic. I think you would be hardpressed to find any founding document that declares the US a democracy. Further the founding fathers explicitly did not want to create a democracy. The ability to vote is a privelige in the US, granted by the constitution, and not some innate right.
I doubt this will affect bluetooth's ability to enter the mainstream. In fact, I never quite understood the need for bluetooth in your cellphone (aside from cellphone PDA type devices). Wireless headphones are nice, but is this really what I want to use bluetooth for?
Rather, I think that the PC perhipheral market is what will ultimately drive bluetooth. Think about it. Truely wireless keyboards, mice, modems, printers, etc. are so beneficial for end users. Bluetooth's future is in "untangling the PC" not the convienence of wireless cell phone headsets and small PC to cellphone data transfers.
It seems odd that Smith would pick up the same characters 10 yesrs later when he has some intention of killing Dante in the alternate ending of the first film.
I think your argument is fallacious at best and silly at worst. People need to stop looking at this issue from the consumer standpoint and start looking at it from a corporate standpoint.
Here's the problem with your argument. If Apple is solely supported (which I know you did not claim) by people unwilling to change their stance, and not in any way by the products they sell, then Apple should literally be able to package dog dookie in a box and sell it. Clearly there is a certain amount of competative product that is sold, and from the product, they are able to achieve the loyal fanbase. Thus, you should give as much credit to the product enticing the fan base, as the fan base itself.
Moving beyound this though, I sincerely doubt the goal of the iPod and iTMS is to stifle competition. Apple wanted to tap into the portable music player market. Now it is more than probably that Apple users would by an Apple MP3 player, as it would be very compatable with MAC OS. Furthermore, it would be difficult for Apple to sell such a player without having a guaranteed source where users could get music. Thus, iTunes Music Store. In order to get the deal Apple did, it was necessary to incorporate DRM into the music. With no universal DRM "codec" they had no choice but to build their own.
Now here's where the meat and potatoes come in. Should Apple have any responsibility, obligation, or reason to support another company's format? Now, if there was a universal standard DRM format, I could see such a thing. However, Apple should not have to support any other "proprietary" format. Furthermore, Apple's DRM is their own invention, their own IP, and as such such not be forced to open their IP as a standard. Let a standards body or committe do that much.
So is what Real did, reverse engineering the DRM, immoral, bad, or criminal? Of course not (IANAL). I believe they were well within their rights.
This is business people. If a business can make more money by proprietizing their hardware and software, then they should. Their first concern should be the proliferation of business and profits not the utilitarian benefit of consumers. However, as every company needs to learn, the consumer must be kept in mind enough to ensure that they keep coming back. Just like Adam's guiding hand of economics, there seems to be a guiding hand between maximizing profit and maximizing consumer happiness. A company that operates in the red but has really happy customers won't operate for very long
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, now I am stuck. I feel "accident" has too little explanatory power, but I feel the only solution to your response I can think of would get chopped up by Occam's Razor. =) fun dilemma to be in
I don't think this can be the case here. The gene itself may have developed by accident, but the selection for that gene across generations was not accidental. Selection is by definition not accidental. Additionally, I just posted what I figured the obvious response was: that the gene for language is actually a gene for something else. I am thinking something along the lines that it is a gene for general higher level brain function. Thus, it was selected for because hunters and gatherers were able to do so more smartly. Thus the people with lower brain function were more likely to get trampled by elephants or something along that nature. Anyways, the linguistic capacity was merely a correlated memic byproduct. If that is the case, then language itself never really evolved by selection but rather by memic development.
Also, was not meant to be a dichotomy. Instead, it was a response to two different items contained in the original article (1 that language is limited to humans and 2 that it is a biological trait).
Definitely. I guess I didn't say what I was getting at well. Let's try it again, differently.
The capacity for language is genetic. However, the actual use of that capacity is a learned trait (something like a meme).
More than likely, the use developed several generations after the capacity came about in the gene pool.
Why then, would the linguistic phenotype be selected for when it is not being utilized by those first few generations?
Without reading one of the supplementary articles...
I am not buying language as an object of biological evolution at all. At best, it seems to be an expressed meme, rather than a genetic advancement, or a trait that can be selected for. Also, I am not buying the facts expressed in the article abotu language. Haven't we taught chimps and apes sign language? Aren't there example of such creatures telling us things spontaneously (the most recent example was when the chimp told some scientists that it had a mildly severe toothache)? It doesn't seem that language is merely confined to humans, but it further seems like a learned trait rather than a biological trait. For instance, even if we had the biological capacity for language, there does not seem to be an inherant argument for the actual expression of language. In other words, an organism may have the capacity to express a meme-like trait, but may never actually express it. Thus, in humans, the capacity to understand language may be selected for, but the language usage itself is a socially learned trait. Also I would wonder if we never began using our capacity for language, then if the capacity may be biologically selected for, but if the utility of that capacity is never expressed, then why is the gene for that capacity being selected for?
Good point, although I would be interested in your opinion on the normative claim. That is, should laws define and impose moral stipulations? or conversely, should all moral imperatives (depending on how you define them) be laws? or should laws have no correlation to morality?
of when SBC got the Illinois house and senate to draft, vote on, and enact a bill of their liking in less than a week. This was record time in our state. The amount of money this company dumps into state politics is so insane that they are entirely able to control the elected officials or fund the campaign of the person who will replace them in the next election.
You should really double check your own work when commenting about another person's grammar. I think you meant to use the word "word" intead of "work" =)
After reading the article, I must admit that it does make sense. However, there is a self-preservation outlook that can explain the same phenomena. Hardware review sites want the latest and greatest toys as quickly as possible. If my hardware review site publishes an article that doe not look faovrably upon Company X's latest high end product, how likely is Company X to send me their next greatest product as quickly? Granted, it shouldn't happen this way, but Company X is in business to make a profit. They don't want bad PR and they want as many people to buy their most profitable items as possible. My hardware review site wants to stay in business. It wants to make a profit, and to do so, I have to act in a certain way. I have to ensure that I have a product to sell. It isn't fun and it isn't nice, but that's business.
Classic
Foundations of Arithmetic - Gottlieb Frege
Contributions to the Founding of the Theory of Transfinite Numbers - Georg Cantor
Complete works of Spinoza - Spinoza
Well, last time I checked I was most assuredly not an existentialist, but I guess a little ad hominem never hurt anyone (pun intended). First, I guess I should be more specific. I'd like to put forth that there is Truth and truth. Truth (note the capital T) is absolute truth. It is observer independant. Little truth is more like contingent truth. You'll see this in an example. Science gives us truth, however so does faith. This kind of truth in science amounts to "Assuming all current theories and that all things are equal... X" which is usually stated as simply "X." Faith gives us the same formulation of truth, but has a different consequence. Faith says "If everything I believe is true, than X," but the problem is that X is usually some circular formulation of the first part of the conditional (usually like "If god exists and my religion is correct, then I am justified in believing in god."). However, neither concept gets us anywhere near Truth (unless we are talking about a priori Truth which is really just word games anyways). Truth doesn't rely on assumptions. It is a complete body in itself and is in every way unknowable. Science is based on too many assumptions, too many models, too many possibilities to get us there. Science is stuck in its own box, similar to how faith is stuck in its own assumptions to which it cannot break free. That's what I mean.
Next time you go to the bookstore, pick up Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolution. Science may be pragmatic, but is nothing near providing us with truth.
The writer of this report has no clue what the straw man fallacy is. He means that Sun committed the fallacy of a biased sample. Straw Man is when you distort someone's position and attack the distorted view. Biased sample is when you pick X out of population P that best supports your cause and draw conclusions on P.
Excellent point. I did in fact word that poorly and it is a very important issue. Let me ask a question. Would you say that the constitution defines what rights the government is established to protect? I'm a bit rushed right now, but if you reply I'll try to better explain why I ask tomorrow. Thanks
The original post stated that, in other democracies, when a party wins and does not receive the majority of votes, a coalition is created to represent the popular majority. This is the basis for his statement that other democracies do well under a multi-party system.
What I was trying to get at is this: A democracy, by definition, is majority rules. Thus, any government that declares an electoral winner who does not get the popular vote seems to fit dubiously into this categorization. However, the government described does require that the majority winner is represented in a governing coalition.
Now, if the US is a democracy, this is a valid point. The important thing is why the point is valid, namely because a democracy has a prmia facie obligation to protect the will of the majority. However, if the US is not a democracy, it does not share this obligation. Declaring that the US is not a democracy was not an attempt to split hairs in terminology, but rather an attempt to show different underlying principles of government in order to demonstrate that the given line of reasoning is not applicable to the US.
The constitution does in fact grant rights to individuals, states, and government branches. Hell, there is even a section of the constitution dubbed "The Bill of Rights." I really cannot see how the constitution does not provide for these rights. Granted, if a critical mass of people dissent and revolt, perhaps the document's effectiveness would be under suspicion, but it most assuredly does provide rights assuming the working government it describes.
Additionally, voting is not a right. In fact, the state may revoke the ability of citizens to vote, so long as it does not do so with certain bias (such as race or sex). Many states do not allow convicted felons to vote. Rights cannot be stripped of an individual. Thus, voting is a privilidge.
I don't believe I am. I think that the initial post is invalid no matter what, but even more so if the US is not a democracy. If the US were a democracy, some sort of argument could be made in support of such a mandatory coalition (in order to ensure minority representation). However, if the US is not a democracy, but rather a republic whose sole governmental proceedure is defined by the contsitution, then there is no valid argument to say that the US should act like these other governments can be made.
Here's some reading that might help you correct your mistaken perceptions: Republic vs. Democracy[chrononhotonthologos.com]
A Republic, if you can keep it[thenewamerican.com]
Even the US government agrees[library of congress]
Do you really believe that it is the government's responsibility to push or bind its constituents into some moral paradigm?
I don't buy this at all. The government should be as inevasive as possible into the lives of the citizens, especially at the federal level. The federal government needs to do nothing more than create a protected environment for the states to operate under. Further, morality is something that should be brought about in the family or community setting. Federally supported ethics is a horrible idea. The government is not there to tell you when and how you can wipe your ass, but rather to provide the right of ass wiping for you. You ultimately are the one who determines how to do it right.
Are you in a battleground state? If so, then perhaps you have good reason to vote for the major party you believe in most. However, if you don't live in a state that is within 5% margin of victory for a major candidate, your vote will most likely not matter, and thus you should feel free to vote 3rd party.
I doubt this will affect bluetooth's ability to enter the mainstream. In fact, I never quite understood the need for bluetooth in your cellphone (aside from cellphone PDA type devices). Wireless headphones are nice, but is this really what I want to use bluetooth for?
Rather, I think that the PC perhipheral market is what will ultimately drive bluetooth. Think about it. Truely wireless keyboards, mice, modems, printers, etc. are so beneficial for end users. Bluetooth's future is in "untangling the PC" not the convienence of wireless cell phone headsets and small PC to cellphone data transfers.
It seems odd that Smith would pick up the same characters 10 yesrs later when he has some intention of killing Dante in the alternate ending of the first film.
=) point taken
I think your argument is fallacious at best and silly at worst. People need to stop looking at this issue from the consumer standpoint and start looking at it from a corporate standpoint.
Here's the problem with your argument. If Apple is solely supported (which I know you did not claim) by people unwilling to change their stance, and not in any way by the products they sell, then Apple should literally be able to package dog dookie in a box and sell it. Clearly there is a certain amount of competative product that is sold, and from the product, they are able to achieve the loyal fanbase. Thus, you should give as much credit to the product enticing the fan base, as the fan base itself.
Moving beyound this though, I sincerely doubt the goal of the iPod and iTMS is to stifle competition. Apple wanted to tap into the portable music player market. Now it is more than probably that Apple users would by an Apple MP3 player, as it would be very compatable with MAC OS. Furthermore, it would be difficult for Apple to sell such a player without having a guaranteed source where users could get music. Thus, iTunes Music Store. In order to get the deal Apple did, it was necessary to incorporate DRM into the music. With no universal DRM "codec" they had no choice but to build their own.
Now here's where the meat and potatoes come in. Should Apple have any responsibility, obligation, or reason to support another company's format? Now, if there was a universal standard DRM format, I could see such a thing. However, Apple should not have to support any other "proprietary" format. Furthermore, Apple's DRM is their own invention, their own IP, and as such such not be forced to open their IP as a standard. Let a standards body or committe do that much.
So is what Real did, reverse engineering the DRM, immoral, bad, or criminal? Of course not (IANAL). I believe they were well within their rights.
This is business people. If a business can make more money by proprietizing their hardware and software, then they should. Their first concern should be the proliferation of business and profits not the utilitarian benefit of consumers. However, as every company needs to learn, the consumer must be kept in mind enough to ensure that they keep coming back. Just like Adam's guiding hand of economics, there seems to be a guiding hand between maximizing profit and maximizing consumer happiness. A company that operates in the red but has really happy customers won't operate for very long