Every single word in the English language has many different definitions and each is expressed in words that also have many definitions. You do realize also that everybody has his own unique definitions for every word and a long list of connotations for words? It is always each person's job to try to deconstruct the meaning of a sentence. Trying to understand why I chose a specific word is your job and not mine. If you can't deconstruct a sentence so it makes sense why don't you ask for clarification? This is what we are supposed to be doing here; conversing and not looking for key phrases to attack in one anothers posts.
But there is no evidence that people that used languages of fewer words with more limited choice in definition all pictured the same definition when associating the symbol with their internal meaning.
I am not an ancient and I don't speak AL. I am the only individual who understands AL but this is because I've modeled it in my mind. I've created a set of "beliefs" about how the language works so I can process it and derive the meaning. I think linearly just like you and everyone else because I had to unlearn AL as a baby and grow a broca's area just like you.
There were many ancient languages. You keep speaking as if there were one, but there is no evidence to claim that. We cannot say that 100,000 years ago, there was a spoken language, whether it was just one or many. There is no record of the sounds. All that can said of ancient languages is in examination of the written word that first came into the record some 5,000 to 6,000 years ago.
Yes, it's true that I already thought like an Egyptian in some ways but this is because I taught myself generalism (nexialism). The perspective of seeing reality in terms of logic and all science is similar to thinking in AL though there are tremendous differences such as I know that I am conscious because I experience it. They did not experience consciousness so they had no words for "thought" or "believe". Of course they knew they were alive because all life knows it's alive and this is the very basis of language and survival. Instead of trying to see my perspective or understand the words your cursory glance will lead you to say I'm contradicting myself. You could be trying to deconstruct the words to understand my thoughts but you already know I'm wrong and you're right so you won't.
Your perspective is belief and you are asking us to believe with you about many things that you cannot demonstrate to give us reason to believe with you.
As I've said before there is no such thing as "intelligence" as we define it. Well... ...some individuals think faster than others and this will lead more often to correct answers, more knowledge (beliefs), or new insights but this is a tiny part of what creates the event I call "cleverness". There is no condition that we call "intelligent". The belief in "intelligence" is an artefact of confused language that we share.[/QUOTE]That is your opinion. It does not mean that it is a fact. I see evidence that intelligence exists on different levels and some of that intelligence exists with consciousness, but some does not appear to exist with consciousness.
You are ignoring the evidence. You can't see it. People are blind to things that don't fit their belief systems and you believe anything with the word "science" in front of it is gospel and anything with "gospel" in front of it is the musings of sun addled bumpkins. This is your reality and it is the reality shared by large numbers of people who have no clue about epistemology and metaphysics. Indeed, even those who do understand such fields still believe even in untested hypotheses of Look and See Science because they don't realize that perspective and definitions are also relevant to our understanding of everything.
If you cannot see evidence, then it cannot be ignored. Which is it?
I have a belief system. Many on this thread do not. Yet, we can see the same things and understand them. We do it regularly here with regards to issues of science.
I am merely presenting ALL the evidence and a logical means of interpreting it that is consistent with scientific theory. It is wholly inconsistent with most Look and See Science but it is consistent with physical evidence and theory. This offends sensibilities so badly that you can't even deconstruct my meaning from any sentence. You start with the assumptions I'm wrong, confused, and lying and deconstruct them to support these assumptions.
You have presented your belief system. I have seen little evidence, except statements that are factual, but not objective evidence corroborating your belief.
I see nobody responded to my contention that the ability of an individual to survive is more closely correlated to its "tastiness" than its "fitness" or ability to "adapt". Darwin was nonsense in the 1880's and it's nonsense now. Darwin led us down a dark path and used Look and See Science to do it. Now you can't even see the evidence stacked up against it and the continued lack of experimental justification.
I have no idea what you mean. Are you trying to say that an organism has a greater chance to survive because they do not taste good to another organism that would otherwise eat it? That can easily be explained by natural selection and evolution. A random mutation that results in a quality of distaste to a potential predator would increase the fitness of the individual expressing that mutation. The natural selection would preserve it and more offspring on average would result for that line and the mutation would become fixed in the population.
Examples exist in the monarch butterfly and the viceroy. They have the ability to sequester environmental toxins in their tissue so that predators find them distasteful. This is coupled with bright color to warn predators of this quality. Not all Lepidoptera have this ability.
