From ancient times, religion and philosophy have regarded language as a faculty bestowed uniquely and suddenly on our own species, primarily as a mode of thought with communication as a byproduct.
This view persists among some scientists and linguists and is counter to the theory of evolution, which implies that the evolution of complex structures is incremental. I argue here that language derives from mental processes with gradual evolutionary trajectories, including the generative capacities to travel mentally in time and space and into the minds of others. What may be distinctive in humans is the means to communicate these mental experiences along with knowledge gained from them.
I can’t read the article until this evening.
So get my bias out of the way, stop thinking about it and read it later.
I can’t quite understand the introduction. Religion, philosophy and some scientists have shared the same static model of thought. Which science is now going to demonstrate is incorrect?
Is this a claim about science in contrast to religion or philosophy? What is it about religion, philosophy and some scientists that makes them decide to give up living in time and make the decision to become ahistorical creatures of thought instead?
Not sure if failing to grasp evolution as a concept allows you to escape from history or why the development of ideas in historical perspective appears to stand in contradiction to the gradual, incremental trajectory of evolution?
Clearly something about time- traveling scientists that I don’t understand.
Is this an attempt to skip and sing ‘oh what a beautiful morning’ at the same time?
A traditional form of activity?