Human evolution Intelligent Design language

Language is much more complex than once thought

Spread the love

The brain regions that enable it are much more complex too. From ScienceDaily:

In recent years neuroanatomists discovered that Broca’s and Wernicke’s regions actually contain multiple neuroanatomical areas. Also, newly discovered language areas extend beyond the classical areas, even into the parietal lobe, with more connections between these areas than previously thought. Moreover, the traditional areas are involved in language comprehension as well as production. Scientist also learned that other regions of the brain are more important for language than once thought, including the right hemisphere and the cerebellum. Interestingly, language areas also turn out to be somewhat variable. For instance, in people who are born blind, language can spread to the occipital lobe (or visual brain).

Our brains process language with astonishing speed and ‘immediacy’, in a dynamic network of interacting brain areas. All the relevant information becomes available immediately, as we start combining the meanings of individual words, unifying the different sources of information. To speed up this process, our brain actively predicts what is coming next (for instance, we might expect ‘newspaper’ to follow ‘the editor of the …’).

As most utterances are part of a conversation, some information is usually already shared between the speaker and the listener. Speakers make sure that they mark ‘new information’, using the order of the words or pitch to focus the listener’s attention (after hearing that readers of the newspaper did not like the article, one could say ‘the EDITOR of the newspaper loved the article’). Only when relevant ‘new’ information is unexpected or ungrammatical, people’s brains are shown to react. Listeners likely process ‘old’ information in a ‘good-enough’ manner, ignoring some of the details, explains Hagoort, which is why they do not seem to notice unexpected ‘old’ information.

To make matters even more complex, language is often indirect. To know what a speaker really means, listeners need to infer a speaker’s intention. For instance, ‘It is hot here’ could well be intended as a request to open the window, rather than a statement about the temperature. Neuroimaging studies show that such ‘pragmatic’ inferences depend on brain areas that are involved in ‘Theory of Mind’, or thinking about other people’s beliefs, emotions and desires.

Language is a “complex biocultural hybrid,” concludes Hagoort.Paper. (paywall) – Peter Hagoort. The neurobiology of language beyond single-word processing. Science, 2019 DOI: 10.1126/science.aax0289 More.

That’s only the beginning. Glad someone understands.

See also: The real reason why only human beings speak Language is a tool for abstract thinking—a necessary tool for abstraction—and humans are the only animals who think abstractly (Michael Egnor)

and

Can we talk? Language as the business end of consciousness

Follow UD News at Twitter!

4 Replies to “Language is much more complex than once thought

  1. 1
    jstanley01 says:

    Actually, people like E.W. Bullinger (author of Figures of Speech Used in the Bible) and John W.V. Macbeth (author of The Might and Mirth of Literature), who wrote during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, knew how complex language was from their study of figures of speech. It was when modern linguistics forced a Darwinist paradigm down everyone’s throat that the study of language became stupidly simplistic. But now, evidently, in postmodern times, we’re going “back to the future” (or actually that would be “ahead to the past”).

    “Hang on kids!” Lol…

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    Scientists argue for a new model of language, involving the interaction of multiple brain networks. This model is much more complex than the classical neurobiological model of language, which was largely based on single-word processing.
    The capacity for language is distinctly human. It allows us to communicate, learn things, create culture, and think better. Because of its complexity, scientists have long struggled to understand the neurobiology of language.,,,
    Multiple language areas
    In recent years neuroanatomists discovered that Broca’s and Wernicke’s regions actually contain multiple neuroanatomical areas. Also, newly discovered language areas extend beyond the classical areas, even into the parietal lobe, with more connections between these areas than previously thought. Moreover, the traditional areas are involved in language comprehension as well as production. Scientist also learned that other regions of the brain are more important for language than once thought, including the right hemisphere and the cerebellum. Interestingly, language areas also turn out to be somewhat variable. For instance, in people who are born blind, language can spread to the occipital lobe (or visual brain).
    Our brains process language with astonishing speed and ‘immediacy’, in a dynamic network of interacting brain areas. ,,,
    Language is a “complex biocultural hybrid,” concludes Hagoort.

    First off, sticking the label ‘biocultural hybrid’ onto the distinctly human capacity for language still does not come anywhere close to explaining the supposed evolutionary origin, i.e. materialistic origin, of language.

    Secondly, the ‘production’ of language and/or functional information lies at the heart of the debate between ID advocates and Darwinists.

    “It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical.”
    H.P. Yockey “Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory,” J. Theoret. Biol.

    Darwinists cannot even explain where the information for a single modestly sized functional protein, (i.e. 150 amino acids long), of a single neuron came from. Much less can they explain how the trillions upon trillions of neurons in our brain cohere into a single unified whole to produce our ‘beyond belief’ brain:

    Claim: New Proteins Evolve Very Easily – Cornelius Hunter – April 25, 2017
    Excerpt: It is now clear that for a given protein, only a few changes to its amino acid sequence can be sustained before the protein function is all but eliminated. Here is how one paper explained it:
    “The accepted paradigm that proteins can tolerate nearly any amino acid substitution has been replaced by the view that the deleterious effects of mutations, and especially their tendency to undermine the thermodynamic and kinetic stability of protein, is a major constraint on protein evolvability—the ability of proteins to acquire changes in sequence and function.”
    In other words, protein function precipitously drops off with only a tiny fraction of its amino acids altered. It is not a gradual fitness landscape. Another paper described the protein fitness landscape as rugged.
    Therefore it is not surprising that various studies on evolving proteins have failed to show a viable mechanism. One study concluded that 10^63 attempts would be required to evolve a relatively short protein. And a similar result (10^65 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences. Another study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required, and another study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required.
    So something like 10^70 attempts are required yet evolutionists estimate that only 10^43 attempts are possible. In other words, there is a shortfall of 27 orders of magnitude.
    But it gets worse. The estimate that 10^43 attempts are possible is utterly unrealistic. For it assumes billions of years are available, and that for that entire time the Earth is covered with bacteria, constantly churning out mutations and new protein experiments. Aside from the fact that these assumptions are entirely unrealistic, the estimate also suffers from the rather inconvenient fact that those bacteria are, err, full of proteins. In other word, for evolution to evolve proteins, they must already exist in the first place.
    This is absurd. And yet, even with these overly optimistic assumptions, evolution falls short by 27 orders of magnitude.
    https://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/04/claim-new-proteins-evolve-very-easily/

    “Complexity Brake” Defies Evolution – August 8, 2012
    Excerpt: Consider a neuronal synapse — the presynaptic terminal has an estimated 1000 distinct proteins. Fully analyzing their possible interactions would take about 2000 years. Or consider the task of fully characterizing the visual cortex of the mouse — about 2 million neurons. Under the extreme assumption that the neurons in these systems can all interact with each other, analyzing the various combinations will take about 10 million years…, even though it is assumed that the underlying technology speeds up by an order of magnitude each year.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62961.html

    etc.. etc..

    In fact, the ‘production’ of a single sentence of language and/or functional information by humans is, on materialistic terms, to be considered, by all rights, a ‘miracle’:

    This short sentence, “The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog” is calculated by Winston Ewert, in this following video at the 10 minute mark, to contain 1000 bits of algorithmic specified complexity, (i.e. functional information), and thus to exceed the Universal Probability Bound (UPB) of 500 bits set by Dr. Dembski
    Proposed Information Metric: Conditional Kolmogorov Complexity – Winston Ewert – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm3mm3ofAYU

    To clarify as to how the 500 bit universal limit is found for ‘structured, functional information’:
    Dembski’s original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150,
    10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
    10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur.
    10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.
    Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang.
    How many bits would that be:
    Pu = 10-150, so, -log2 Pu = 498.29 bits
    Call it 500 bits (The 500 bits is further specified as a specific type of information. It is specified as
    Complex Specified Information by Dembski or as Functional Information by Abel to separate it from merely Ordered Sequence Complexity or Random Sequence Complexity; See Three subsets of sequence complexity)
    Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information – Abel, Trevors
    http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29

    It is fairly easy to understand why information and/or language will never be a ‘production’ of the material brain. Information is a unique and independent entity that is separate from matter and energy. An entity that is fundamentally immaterial in its foundation characteristic.

    As George Williams, an evolutionary biologist, honestly admitted, “”Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that they work with two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter… These two domains will never be brought together in any kind of the sense usually implied by the term ‘reductionism.’… Information doesn’t have mass or charge or length in millimeters. Likewise, matter doesn’t have bytes…,,,”

    “Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that they work with two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter… These two domains will never be brought together in any kind of the sense usually implied by the term ‘reductionism.’… Information doesn’t have mass or charge or length in millimeters. Likewise, matter doesn’t have bytes… This dearth of shared descriptors makes matter and information two separate domains of existence, which have to be discussed separately, in their own terms.”
    George Williams – Evolutionary Biologist – “A Package of Information”
    https://books.google.com/books?id=V3x1YPgvOJcC&pg=PA43

    Moreover, the fact that functional information is fundamentally immaterial, and will therefore NEVER be compatible with the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinists, is now verified by empirical science. Specifically, non-local, i.e. beyond space and time, quantum entanglement and/or quantum information, which is not reducible to any possible materialistic explanation, is now found to be ubiquitous within life. For instance, Quantum criticality in now found in a wide range of important biomolecules:

    Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules
    Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say.
    That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.”
    The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
    “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?”
    https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552

    Simply put, Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, have no beyond space and time cause to appeal to in order to give an adequate explanation for the massive amount of ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement/information that is now found pervasively throughout molecular biology.

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – October 28, 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” says Nicolas Gisin, Professor at the University of Geneva, Switzerland, and member of the team.
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121028142217.htm

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

    Whereas, on the other hand, Chritstian Theists do have a beyond space and time cause to appeal to to explain the massive amount of non-local quantum entanglement/information that is now found pervasively throughout molecular biology.

    Colossians 1:17
    He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, besides life, immaterial information is also now found to be foundatonal to the universe itself. As Vlatko Vedral, who is a Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, states,

    “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.”
    Vlatko Vedral – Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College – a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics.

    And in the following video, at the 48:24 mark, Anton Zeilinger states that “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information” and then he even goes on at the 49:45 mark of the video to note the Theological significance of the Bible verse “In the Beginning was the Word” John 1:1

    48:24 mark: “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information”
    49:45 mark: “In the Beginning was the Word” John 1:1
    Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ZPWW5NOrw 

    It is hard to imagine a more convincing proof that we are ‘made in the image of God’, than finding that both the universe and life itself are ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and have come to ‘master the planet’ precisely because of our ability to infuse immaterial information into material substrates.

    I guess a more convincing proof that we are made in the image of God could be if God Himself became a man, defeated death on a cross, and then rose from the dead to prove that He was God.

    And that is precisely the evidence and/or proof that is claimed within Christianity.

    Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Hologram – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TL4QOCiis

    Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words ‘The Lamb’ on a Solid Oval Object Under The Beard – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ 

    Verse:

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

  4. 4
    Axel says:

    I find it absolutely incredible – and I mean, ‘literally’ incredible – that there has been all this hoo-haa about dating the Shroud of Turin, when the image on it is a photogrpahic negative ! I mean who would have thought in the days before photography of even TRYING to imagine what a photographic negative, i.e. reversing light and shade on ANY IMAGE, never mind a shroud, would look like?! In a month of Sundays. The way negatives look now, as well as that on the Shroud, surprise me no end. A fault of my imagination, I know, but still and all…. Yet the highest levels of education are evidently no proof against such common, everyday madness. The banality of idiocy makes a nice bookend with the banality of evil, doesn’t it ?

Leave a Reply