🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Feb16.220511.27647@Neon.Stanford.EDU> arm@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Alexander d Macalalad) writes:
>I don't know too much about the brain, but I think there is evidence
>for special areas in the brain dedicated to speech, and any damage in
>these speech centers could severely impair a person's ability to talk
>and/or understand.  Further, a person has to be exposed to language by
>a certain age, or else it will be next to impossible to learn any
>language.  Please correct me if I have these facts wrong.

At least one couter-example to this would be Helen Keller.  
Studies show that if the left hemisphere of a brain is damanged
after the appearance of language but before the age of 8 or 9, the
child nearly always recovers language in a period ranging from a few
months to three years [note: this is not a "understood" phenomena.]

You'll recall that the region of one's brain named after Paul Broca
(located in the frontal lobe above the lateral fissure) seems to be
closely related to speech.  If this region is destroyed speech becomes
slow and hesitant and the sounds of languages are badly produced.
This area along with the area named after Carl Wernicke seems to
be the most imporant areas as far as one's linguistic abilities
are concerned.  But, as always, there are other areas invovled
as well -- nothing is so simple and finite.  For example, there 
are bundles of nerve fibres (called tracts) which connect the language
areas to each other and to other parts of the cerebral cortex on
the same or the opposite side of the brain.

The idea that one can definitely identify a corresponding
physical parts of anything that is non-physical seems to
be also based on the same old Cartesian model of world view;
everything has to be clearly categorized, labeled and analysed
to the littlest components.  There is always a clear distinction
between things material and things spiritual.

Unfortunately this types of thinking hinders further progress
in many disciplines of studies.  As Newtonian physics was blinded
by the basis established by Descartes, current sciences are
terminally handicapped by the followers of the Cartesian philosophy.

As I've mentioned several weeks back and some others more
recently, Searle's entire argument is based on the premise that
there are in fact two distinct components -- syntax and semantics
which are naturally separate and cannot be reconciled.  This
assumption is taken without any investigation.  I dare you to
find any attempt by Searle, in many of his redundant articles
on this tiresome Chinese Room nonsense, to re-evaluate this
basic condition of his argument -- is it truely appropriate
for us to insist on this division between syntax and semantics
in our search for the understanding of the mind?  Everything
is connected at a certain level.  One cannot safely 
assume any division of any abstractions.  Quantum physists
certainly feel better at ease with this lack of
fine lines -- as in, "it seems to be both wave and particle at
the same time."

The mind seems to be both syntax and semantics at the same time.
-- 
Hwa Jin Bae (hwajin@wrs.com)
Wind River Systems