(cw) Then what do you mean by control all of nature if string THEORY has free will? Am I not part of nature?
The advantage of all these discussions is that one is challenged to search for the common denominator(s) connecting all the seemingly contradicting claims re: life and consciousness. The real challenge is to reconcile what appears ontologically and epistemologically counter intuitive, yet it seems entrenched in the historical human experience. Then, why not join the best experimentally testable perceptual evidence and the best conceptual probability logic that sentential/symbolic mathematical tools can muster into one hybrid ‘Epistemontological’ unit of existential reality. This approach will generate an infinity of probable models/ interpretations (MWI) for us to test and confirm/discard in a changing environment. Because of the well known resolution limitations of the human perceptual/conceptual cognitive tools, we will need to impose restrictions to eliminate micro subPlanckian and Cosmological infinities that escape linguistic tools apprehension. If we adopt this anthropocentric proposition, it should be easier to see how language communication (sentential, symbolic, geometrical/topologic, body language, mind reading, etc.) occupies center stage. This is so because we need to elaborate an inner living brain language of communication to distinguish the observer/narrator from others.
We should accordingly spend more time reconciling the apparent differences between the innate Universal Grammar of Noam Chomsky-Steven Pinker (see The Language Instinct, etc.) and the ‘language myth’ Sapir Whorf claimed as linguistic ‘relativity’ (See “The Language Myth”, Vyvyan Evans). We need to find out what is common to both abstract propositions. Individuals (humans & subhuman) form collectives as an united front in behalf of their biological survival imperative. Based on the combination of their subconscious Chomskian inheritance and their Sapir Whorf acquired resources each narrator of a mesoscopic existence perceive and conceptualize their early and late experiences in their turf/vital environment accordingly; thereby shaping up their individualized frame of references reality filters. Recent neurophysiological measurements from fMRI suggests both arguments in favor of both the innate and the acquired propositions. Which one is correct? The winner is the one whose predictive explanations become validated/confirmed by testable observations and\or measurements as supported by metaphysical logic, Occam’s razor and Bayesian arguments. If anyone wishes to contest this interpretation on a cognitive basis, I suggest reading first Piaget’s “The Development of Thought.”, etc. or “Altered Egos”, Todd E. Feinberg, (Oxford Press) a lucid account on how the living brain creates the subjective self (‘I’)
If Chomsky’s wishful thinking about a ‘single’ mutation in a human gene creating the characteristic structural/functional details of the vocal chords was incomplete, so is the argument about Neanderthals similar anatomy being able to develop a language. Human anterior-posterior pectoral anatomy, like mammalian birds, is not a guarantee of human unaided flights. Neanderthals have not left any historical accounts of their linguistic ability to speak, detailing the grammar, syntax structure, etc.. But, it is fair to say, the inherent proposition sustaining the existence of an human ‘inner language’ as the result of an introspective search into self that made possible the Fodor’s ‘language of thought’ spelling out the difference between ‘self and others’ is also incomplete. The overwhelming evidence considers all aspects of subhuman communication efforts as being reflexly generated as an exclusively subconscious, neuro-humoral control activity. You can find more at “A Treatise on The Neurophilosophy of Consciousness.” Penguin/Trafford Publishing, Inc.
Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra, Esq. In Deltona, Florida.