DAVID: You are generally correct. Our brains developed language when the brain we ere given had the proper neurological setup to handle it. Brain first, functions second.

We are now in agreement. To take your example: neither we nor our fellow animals would have been aware of our thirst if we hadn’t had a brain. Brain first. Awareness of objects/processes/dangers etc. etc. next. So far, it’s the same pattern for us and our fellow animals. But they have only a limited number of sounds to communicate with. We humans, with our enhanced awareness, need a far greater range of sounds. Awareness first, human language next, i.e. the invention of words. Once we have the words, they become part of our thinking, and the same process of invention goes on even now with each new thought/object/process etc. that requires a new word.

DAVID: I think in words. How do you think? My dog goes to the kitchen for water because he knows it is there, no thought involved but the recognition of thirst.

dhw: An excellent example of how the process works, except that you have conveniently overlooked the fact that it illustrates how the thought would have preceded the INVENTION of the words. Our subject is the origin of language, not how words are used once they have been invented. Humans also recognized thirst, and invented a word to express it. Do you honestly believe that they would not have felt thirsty if they hadn’t had a word for it? Thirst first, then the word. But once the word has been invented, we use it in our thoughts.

You are generally correct. Our brains developed language when the brain we ere given had the proper neurological setup to handle it. Brain first, functions second.

DAVID: I'm sure as you must think that the need for meaningful sounds created the drive for words, using the new larger brain provided by evolution. Brain first, new words next.

dhw: I don’t understand your syntax, but yes, I believe the need for meaningful sounds to express each thought/object/perception/suggestion/decision etc. created the drive for words. And yes, I believe humans use their brain, just as our fellow animals do. And yes, without a brain, humans would not be able to think the thoughts that require the sounds out of which humans have made words. How does this support your view that the sounds/words were invented before the objects/thoughts they describe?

DAVID: I think in words. How do you think? My dog goes to the kitchen for water because he knows it is there, no thought involved but the recognition of thirst.

An excellent example of how the process works, except that you have conveniently overlooked the fact that it illustrates how the thought would have preceded the INVENTION of the words. Our subject is the origin of language, not how words are used once they have been invented. Humans also recognized thirst, and invented a word to express it. Do you honestly believe that they would not have felt thirsty if they hadn’t had a word for it? Thirst first, then the word. But once the word has been invented, we use it in our thoughts.

dhw: The fact that some thoughts are more complex than others does not mean that the invention of the words precedes the thought!

DAVID: I'm sure as you must think that the need for meaningful sounds created the drive for words, using the new larger brain provided by evolution. Brain first, new words next.

I don’t understand your syntax, but yes, I believe the need for meaningful sounds to express each thought/object/perception/suggestion/decision etc. created the drive for words. And yes, I believe humans use their brain, just as our fellow animals do. And yes, without a brain, humans would not be able to think the thoughts that require the sounds out of which humans have made words. How does this support your view that the sounds/words were invented before the objects/thoughts they describe?

I think in words. How do you think? My dog goes to the kitchen for water because he knows it is there, no thought involved but the recognition of thirst.

dhw: You are agreeing with the exact opposite of what I have written. The object or thought comes first, and someone invents a word to describe it. Only after its invention does it become part of our thinking.

DAVID: Objects certainly come first, and are given sounds to describe them. A thought like 'let us walk over there' has a more complex beginning. Each part of the thought has to have words developed to get rid of gesturing.

The fact that some thoughts are more complex than others does not mean that the invention of the words precedes the thought!

DAVID: I'm sure as you must think that the need for meaningful sounds created the drive for words, using the new larger brain provided by evolution. Brain first, new words next.

I don’t understand your syntax, but yes, I believe the need for meaningful sounds to express each thought/object/perception/suggestion/decision etc. created the drive for words. And yes, I believe humans use their brain, just as our fellow animals do. And yes, without a brain, humans would not be able to think the thoughts that require the sounds out of which humans have made words. How does this support your view that the sounds/words were invented before the objects/thoughts they describe?

DAVID: We are in agreement. Of course sounds with meaning, words, come first.

dhw: You are agreeing with the exact opposite of what I have written. The object or thought comes first, and someone invents a word to describe it. Only after its invention does it become part of our thinking.

Objects certainly come first, and are given sounds to describe them. A thought like 'let us walk over there' has a more complex beginning. Each part of the thought has to have words developed to get rid of gesturing. I'm sure as you must think that the need for meaningful sounds created the drive for words, using the new larger brain
provided by evolution. Brain first, new words next.

dhw: Of course we think in words that have already been invented, but how do you imagine words get invented in the first place? Do you believe your God says to somebody “computer” and then somebody invents a computer? Every word in the great collective store of every language must have had its origin in an object or idea that needed a NEW “sound” (word) to express it. The object or thought precedes the invention of the word that describes it. Then, and only then, do we the inheritors use the words in our thoughts.

DAVID: We are in agreement. Of course sounds with meaning, words, come first.

You are agreeing with the exact opposite of what I have written. The object or thought comes first, and someone invents a word to describe it. Only after its invention does it become part of our thinking.

DAVID: Many thoughtful folks I read point out that we think in words which is what expands our ability to conceptualize and develop abstract thought. Speech before deep thought.

dhw: Of course we think in words that have already been invented, but how do you imagine words get invented in the first place? Do you believe your God says to somebody “computer” and then somebody invents a computer? Every word in the great collective store of every language must have had its origin in an object or idea that needed a NEW “sound” (word) to express it. The object or thought precedes the invention of the word that describes it. Then, and only then, do we the inheritors use the words in our thoughts.

We are in agreement. Of course sounds with meaning, words, come first.

DAVID: Answered many times before: God uses the evolutionary method for progress. Only religions use the Garden of Eden.

And yet (4 December at 17.33 under "automatic molecular actions") you can’t actually explain why he didn’t start at the Garden of Eden. You simply assume that you know his purpose, and so it doesn’t matter if the method doesn’t make sense to you. Whereas if your God intended organisms to find their own ways of survival and improvement, that would explain why different species of hominin came and went, and 99% of other species also came and went, in the great higgledy-piggledy of evolution. At a stroke it would rid you of all those aspects of evolutionary history you find so puzzling.

dhw: You believe the ability to make new sounds led to thought, whereas I propose that thought led to the ability to make new sounds. Speech before thought, or thought before speech? I know which one I consider more logical.

DAVID: Many thoughtful folks I read point out that we think in words which is what expands our ability to conceptualize and develop abstract thought. Speech before deep thought.

Of course we think in words that have already been invented, but how do you imagine words get invented in the first place? Do you believe your God says to somebody “computer” and then somebody invents a computer? Every word in the great collective store of every language must have had its origin in an object or idea that needed a NEW “sound” (word) to express it. The object or thought precedes the invention of the word that describes it. Then, and only then, do we the inheritors use the words in our thoughts.

dhw: Firstly, you insist that your God dabbled or preprogrammed all the different vocal tracts and all the different phenotypic alterations that resulted in different species of hominin, although his purpose was to produce sapiens. Why do you think he did so, instead of going straight to sapiens if sapiens was his purpose?

Answered many times before: God uses the evolutionary method for progress. Only religions use the Garden of Eden.

dhw: You believe the ability to make new sounds led to thought, whereas I propose that thought led to the ability to make new sounds. Speech before thought, or thought before speech? I know which one I consider more logical.

Many thoughtful folks I read point out that we think in words which is what expands our ability to conceptualize and develop abstract thought. Speech before deep thought.

Xxxxx

dhw: Thank you for the extremely interesting article on big brain evolution, which really does expand our discussion and raises important questions relating to all the above. I will get back to you on this.

I was delighted to discover that article. Thank you.

dhw: Our ancestors had voices. Monkeys have voices. Monkeys communicate with their voices and their hands. My guess is that early humans did the same. And as their enhanced consciousness brought the need for enhanced communication, they used their voices to produce new sounds, and just as physical exercise can influence the muscles, the effort to produce new sounds brought changes to the vocal tracts. As I said, the new discovery doesn't actually change our basic premise. But I still think it favours mine over yours, if it's true that the physical capability was already present in monkeys. No need, then, for your God to fiddle around.

DAVID: You stated above: "the effort to produce new sounds brought changes to the vocal tracts". Really? Produced new hominin species just by vocalizing? The vocal tract changes in each new pre-sapiens form also came with all sorts of other phenotypic alterations at the same time. I'll stick with God as the producer of new species with all their newly changed parts.

That is an absurd exaggeration of my proposal. Nowhere have I suggested that vocalization caused speciation! Nobody knows how speciation happens, and nobody knows the cause of enhanced human consciousness. Two points arise from this discussion of vocal tracts. Firstly, you insist that your God dabbled or preprogrammed all the different vocal tracts and all the different phenotypic alterations that resulted in different species of hominin, although his purpose was to produce sapiens. Why do you think he did so, instead of going straight to sapiens if sapiens was his purpose?

Secondly, as regards the vocal tracts themselves, unless I’ve misunderstood you, your suggestion is that thanks to your God changing the physiology, humans discovered they could make new sounds, and the fact that they could make new sounds enabled them to enhance their consciousness. I suggest that enhanced consciousness (cause unknown) required new sounds, which led to developments in the vocal tracts. You believe the ability to make new sounds led to thought, whereas I propose that thought led to the ability to make new sounds. Speech before thought, or thought before speech? I know which one I consider more logical.

Xxxxx

Thank you for the extremely interesting article on big brain evolution, which really does expand our discussion and raises important questions relating to all the above. I will get back to you on this.

DAVID: Except, we have fully accepted evidence that anatomic vocal tract bony changes started with or before H. habilis, a couple million years ago. Habilis appeared with the changes. Do you think Australopithecus thought, I need to find a way to communicate better than hand gestures? I still think God makes species, species don't make new ones by themselves.

dhw: Our ancestors had voices. Monkeys have voices. Monkeys communicate with their voices and their hands. My guess is that early humans did the same. And as their enhanced consciousness brought the need for enhanced communication, they used their voices to produce new sounds, and just as physical exercise can influence the muscles, the effort to produce new sounds brought changes to the vocal tracts. As I said, the new discovery doesn't actually change our basic premise. But I still think it favours mine over yours, if it's true that the physical capability was already present in monkeys. No need, then, for your God to fiddle around.

You stated above: "the effort to produce new sounds brought changes to the vocal tracts". Really? Produced new hominin species just by vocalizing? The vocal tract changes in each new pre-sapiens form also came with all sorts of other phenotypic alterations at the same time. I'll stick with God as the producer of new species with all their newly changed parts.

DAVID: Except, we have fully accepted evidence that anatomic vocal tract bony changes started with or before H. habilis, a couple million years ago. Habilis appeared with the changes. Do you think Australopithecus thought, I need to find a way to communicate better than hand gestures? I still think God makes species, species don't make new ones by themselves.

Our ancestors had voices. Monkeys have voices. Monkeys communicate with their voices and their hands. My guess is that early humans did the same. And as their enhanced consciousness brought the need for enhanced communication, they used their voices to produce new sounds, and just as physical exercise can influence the muscles, the effort to produce new sounds brought changes to the vocal tracts. As I said, the new discovery doesn't actually change our basic premise. But I still think it favours mine over yours, if it's true that the physical capability was already present in monkeys. No need, then, for your God to fiddle around.

DAVID: Their ability to speak as we do is theoretical. Mc Crone talks about tongue muscle control, lip control, clipped breath control as issues to be handled. Monkeys could learn all of that as muscles are trained, if they had the brains. Muscle controls must be developed.

dhw: Agreed. The case made by the new research is that monkeys can’t speak like us because they don’t have the brains, not because they don’t have the vocal apparatus. But it doesn’t really make any difference to our disagreement. You think your God gave us the apparatus first, just as you think he gave pre-whales their new anatomy before they entered the water. I suggest a natural process the other way round: we and the whales developed new apparatus as a result of new – perhaps self-imposed – needs (to make new sounds, to adopt an aquatic way of life). And both hypotheses are theoretical.

Except, we have fully accepted evidence that anatomic vocal tract bony changes started with or before H. habilis, a couple million years ago. Habilis appeared with the changes. Do you think Australopithecus thought, I need to find a way to communicate better than hand gestures? I still think God makes species, species don't make new ones by themselves.

DAVID: The fossil record is incontrovertible that the vocal tracts changed with each prior species of Homo prior to sapiens and with sapiens.

But that does not mean God intervened and fiddled with our vocal tracts before we could speak. My alternative is that the need to make new sounds resulted in changes to the vocal tract, just as physical exercises can develop muscles.

dhw: And if it is true that monkeys are capable of making the same sounds as us, I would regard that as supporting my case.

DAVID: Their ability to speak as we do is theoretical. Mc Crone talks about tongue muscle control, lip control, clipped breath control as issues to be handled. Monkeys could learn all of that as muscles are trained, if they had the brains. Muscle controls must be developed.

Agreed. The case made by the new research is that monkeys can’t speak like us because they don’t have the brains, not because they don’t have the vocal apparatus. But it doesn’t really make any difference to our disagreement. You think your God gave us the apparatus first, just as you think he gave pre-whales their new anatomy before they entered the water. I suggest a natural process the other way round: we and the whales developed new apparatus as a result of new – perhaps self-imposed – needs (to make new sounds, to adopt an aquatic way of life). And both hypotheses are theoretical.

dhw:I regard my proposal below as being just as reasonable as the hypothesis that there was a sudden change when God intervened and fiddled with our vocal tracts.

The fossil record is incontrovertible that the vocal tracts changed with each prior species of Homo prior to sapiens and with sapiens.

dhw: And if it is true that monkeys are capable of making the same sounds as us, I would regard that as supporting my case.

Their ability to speak as we do is theoretical. Mc Crone talks about tongue muscle control, lip control, clipped breath control as issues to be handled. Monkeys could learn all of that as muscles are trained, if they had the brains. Muscle controls must be developed.

DAVID: McCrone (1991) did not know what has been discovered now about monkeys and apes. But his point that our speech anatomy changed tremendously before modern language developed is still the same.

I don’t know where ancient languages ended and “modern” languages began. Nor does anyone else. I regard my proposal below as being just as reasonable as the hypothesis that there was a sudden change when God intervened and fiddled with our vocal tracts. And if it is true that monkeys are capable of making the same sounds as us, I would regard that as supporting my case.

dhw: I proposed that early humans communicated with limited sounds, just like their fellow animals, but these gradually became more complex as their enhanced consciousness required more and more of them. No “modern language” as such – just a step-by-step evolution of sounds and structures, in precisely the same manner as languages continue to evolve today, though we now have the written word as well. The only new factor we have now is the suggestion that early humans didn't need specially developed voice mechanisms to begin this process.

DAVID: Again structure came first, but you are correct, our ancestors had to learn to use their new anatomy and gradually developed proto-language which gradually modernized. The arrival of H. sapiens cemented the final event which was complex language, spoken reading, and writing.

I agree that proto-language evolved into the complex language we have today. What preceded protolanguage is a matter of speculation.

dhw: Once again, I can only judge by what the experts tell us. I assume that McCrone shares your belief that certain changes were essential to the appearance of what you call “modern language”. The new research tells us they were not, and that monkey vocal organs are not as restricted as we thought they were. Did McCrone know that?

McCrone (1991) did not know what has been discovered now about monkeys and apes. But his point that our speech anatomy changed tremendously before modern language developed is still the same.

dhw: I proposed that early humans communicated with limited sounds, just like their fellow animals, but these gradually became more complex as their enhanced consciousness required more and more of them. No “modern language” as such – just a step-by-step evolution of sounds and structures,

Again structure came first, but you are correct, our ancestors had to learn to use their new anatomy and gradually developed proto-language which gradually modernized. The arrival of H. sapiens cemented the final event which was complex language, spoken reading, and writing.

dhw: in precisely the same manner as languages continue to evolve today, though we now have the written word as well. The only new factor we have now is the suggestion that early humans didn't need specially developed voice mechanisms to begin this process.

Once again an atomic changes came early and before current language usage.

dhw: I’m in no position to argue with them or with you about the anatomical details. My comments were based on what the researchers have told us, and if they are correct, then there is no point arguing that human language was made possible by changes to the larynx, tongue and lips. If they are wrong, then you will stick to your divine preparatory dabbling, and I will stick to my cell communities responding to the need for new sounds.

DAVID: To protect your favorite theory, you persist in ignoring facts I present to you. In his book, The Ape that Spoke , Mc Crone discusses vocal tract changes in pre-sapiens human fossils million of years before modern language appeared. He describes what H. erectus speech might have sounded like, before modern language appeared. And if they needed it, why did ape and monkey cell communities fail to develop their brains for speech since you make it sound so simple whenever you call it into play.

Once again, I can only judge by what the experts tell us. I assume that McCrone shares your belief that certain changes were essential to the appearance of what you call “modern language”. The new research tells us they were not, and that monkey vocal organs are not as restricted as we thought they were. Did McCrone know that? He is of course welcome to imagine what homo erectus’s speech might have sounded like. We have already discussed what you mean by “modern language”. I proposed that early humans communicated with limited sounds, just like their fellow animals, but these gradually became more complex as their enhanced consciousness required more and more of them. No “modern language” as such – just a step-by-step evolution of sounds and structures, in precisely the same manner as languages continue to evolve today, though we now have the written word as well. The only new factor we have now is the suggestion that early humans didn't need specially developed voice mechanisms to begin this process. As regards the "failure" to develop the brain, you have ignored my earlier comment, which was that this new research does not explain our enhanced consciousness. That is one of the great mysteries which enable me to accept the possibility of divine intervention, though perhaps you have forgotten that I am an agnostic.

DAVID: Don't jump to conclusions. We are not 'both wrong'. It is true this research shows monkeys could speak if they had the brain power. But in human evolution marked changes in the anatomy of the vocal tract preceded the use of language as the brain enlarged. One must pay attention to the sequence of evolutionary events.

QUOTE: "Monkeys and apes are unable to learn new vocalizations, and for decades it has been widely believed that this inability results from limitations of their vocal anatomy: larynx, tongue and lips. But an international team of scientists, led by Tecumseh Fitch at the University of Vienna and Asif Ghazanfar at Princeton University, has now looked inside monkeys' vocal tracts with x-rays, and found them to be much more flexible than thought before. The study indicates that the limitations that keep nonhuman primates from speaking are in their brains, rather than their vocal anatomy.”

dhw: I’m in no position to argue with them or with you about the anatomical details. My comments were based on what the researchers have told us, and if they are correct, then there is no point arguing that human language was made possible by changes to the larynx, tongue and lips. If they are wrong, then you will stick to your divine preparatory dabbling, and I will stick to my cell communities responding to the need for new sounds.

To protect your favorite theory, you persist in ignoring facts I present to you. In his book, The Ape that Spoke , Mc Crone discusses vocal tract changes in pre-sapiens human fossils million of years before modern language appeared. He describes what H. erectus speech might have sounded like, before modern language appeared. And if they needed it, why did ape and monkey cell communities fail to develop their brains for speech since you make it sound so simple whenever you call it into play..