Kurs - Material
Stichwörter-Liste

 

Wann, warum und wie haben wir Menschen das „Sprechen“ gelernt? Wie ist aus der Körpersprache-Kommunikation der ersten Zweibeiner die Symbol-Kommunikationsform „SPRACHEN“ enstanden. Wie können wir diesen Prozess der Sprachentstehung beschreiben? In diesem Kurs entdecken wir die Ursprünge unserer sozialen Intelligenz und ihre 6 Millionen Jahre dauernde Geschichte.



MATERIALIEN:

Heinz von Foerster

...Verwiesen sei auch auf die paradoxale Logik, die George Spencer Brown in seinem Buch Laws of Form präsentiert. Spencer Brown stellte die Entstehung dieser neuen Dimension, die jeweils gerade das Gegenteil von dem erzeugt, was sie soeben generiert hat, zum ersten Mal formal dar. Es geht nicht um etwas Statisches, sondern um ein dynamisches Eigenverhalten. Auch die Arbeiten von Lars Löfgren möchte ich nennen, er befasste sich ausschließlich mit selbstreferentiellen Propositionen und sprach von Autologik.

B. P. Können Sie ein Beispiel geben für eine solche autologische Aussage?

H.F.. Nehmen Sie nur die Frage: Was ist Sprache? In dem Moment, in dem man diese Frage stellt, wird Sprache erzeugt. Sprache lässt sich nicht ontologisch und mit dem Hinweis auf irgendein merkwürdiges Organ, von dessen Existenz der Linguist Noam Chomsky ausgeht, erklären, sondern nur ontogenetisch. Sprache ist nicht, sie geschieht. Die Frage "Was ist Sprache?" beantwortet sich selbst, indem sie ausgesprochen wird. Das ist eine Art logischer Purzelbaum, eine autologische Struktur! Auch hier finden wir wieder das Prinzip der Zirkularität.

B. P. Darf ich zusammenfassen? Sie haben zu Beginn dieses Gesprächs die zirkuläre Kausalität als kybernetisches Grundprinzip beschrieben, auf die Zirkularität allen Erkennens hingewiesen und die Konturen einer Kybernetik der Kybernetik skizziert. Schließlich kam die Frage nach einer neuen Logik auf, die die selbstbezüglichen Aussagen der zweiten Ordnung nicht verbietet, sondern gestattet. Immer ging es darum, die Idee der Zirkularität mit all ihren Konsequenzen zu bedenken.




Rodney Brooks

Over time there's been a realization that vision, sound-processing, and early language are maybe the keys to how our brain is organized and that everything that's built on top of that makes us human and gives us our intellect. There's a whole other approach to getting to intellectual robots if you like - based on perception and language - which was not there in the early days.
Rodney Brooks



Humberto Maturana / Berhard Pörksen
Vom Sein zum Tun
Die Ursprünge der Biologie des Erkennens

Carl Auer 2002
http://www.uboeschenstein.ch/texte/maturana_erk84.html
Wie sich geschlossene Systeme begegnen
PÖRKSEN: Aber bislang haben wir doch allein über einsame Systeme gesprochen. Daher liegt der Gedanke nahe, dass wir uns eigentlich permanent missverstehen und uns zumindest dauernd wechselseitig über das eigengesetzliche, das autonome Benehmen des anderen ärgern müssten. Aber das passiert nicht, das geschieht nicht. Wie ist es möglich, diese Einsamkeit zu transzendieren? Wieso können wir uns - als geschlossene Systeme - gleichwohl unterhalten und sogar versuchen, zusammen ein Buch zu schreiben?
MATURANA: Als die Menschen und Säugetiere, die wir sind, haben wir nun einmal die Eigenschaft, dass wir die Gesellschaft eines anderen genießen; Gespräche und gemeinsames Handeln erfreuen uns - und deshalb kehren wir in unserem täglichen Leben immer wieder zu diesen vergnüglichen Formen des Miteinander zurück.
Im Bereich der Interaktionen ist die Tatsache, dass wir beide geschlossene Systeme sind, unwichtig; wir bleiben zwar innerlich einsam, aber kreieren gemeinsam einen Bereich, in dem sich unsere Begegnungen ereignen: Unsere Gespräche vollziehen sich im Fluss der Interaktionen und damit in einer Domäne, die von unserem Inneren zu unterscheiden ist.

...das Phänomen der Sprache basiert seinerseits auf einer besonderen strukturellen Kongruenz, die sich aus der Geschichte der Interaktionen ergeben hat. Wenn man betrachtet, was gegeben sein muss, damit man von dem Vorhandensein von Sprache sprechen kann, dann sieht man: Es muss eine Koordination der Verhaltenskoordinationen vorliegen.


Michael Tomasello
Constructing a Language
A Usage-Based Theory of Language Aquisition
Harvard 2003
pg 1: INTENSION-READING - THEORY OF MIND - CATEGORISATION - GRAMMATICALISATION
pg 8: THE ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE

Michael Tomasello
The Cultural Origins of
HUMAN COGNITION
...human beings evolved a new form of social cognition, which enabled some new forms of cultural learning, which enabled some new processes of sociogenesis and cumulative cultural evolution. This scenario solves our time problem because it posits one and only one biological adaptation - which could have happened at any time in human evolution, including quite recently. The cultural processes that this one adaptation unleashed did not then create new cognitive skills out of nothing, but rather they took existing individually based cognitive skills - such as those possessed by most primates for dealing with space, objects, tools, quantities, categories, social relationships, communication, and social learning - and transformed them into new, culturally based cognitive skills with a social-collective dimension. These transformations took place not in evolutionary time but in historical time, where much can happen in several thousand years. Michael Tomasello

Michael Tomasello
The Cultural Origins of
HUMAN COGNITION
Harvard Univ. Press 2000


Robin Dunbar
The Human Story
A new history of mankind's Evolution
faber and faber 2004
pg 43
http://www.uboeschenstein.ch/texte/dunbar43.html
...children's developing abilities for inferring the mental states of others. They represent a critical Rubicon in the process of child development because they demarcate the moment at which children can begin to engage with an imaginary world that is not physically present. They can now begin to engage in those forms of pretend play...
...philosophers interested in the nature of minds coined the term 'intentionality' to refer to the kinds of mental states that we have when we are conscious of holding some kind of belief, desire or intention. The term refers collectively to mind-states like knowing, believing, thinking, wanting, desiring, hoping, intending, etc. It refers to the state of being aware of the contents of your own mind. Intentionality can be conceived of as a hierarchically organised series of belief-states. In this scheme of things, computers are zero-order intentional entities: they are not aware of the contents of their 'minds' Some living organisms such as bacteria (and perhaps some insects) may also be zero-order intentional beings. Most organisms that have brains of some kind are probably aware of the contents of their minds: they'know' that they are hungry or 'believe' that there is a predator under that bush over there. Such organisms are said to possess first-order intentionality. Having a belief about someone else's beliefs (or intentions) constitutes second order intentionality, the criterion for theory of mind (or, as it is more often known in the technical literature, ToM). Jane believes that Sally thinks her ball is under the cushion. Jane has two belief states in mind (her own and Sally's), so theory of mind is equivalent to second-order intentionality...zero-order intentionality to fifth-order intentionality

Steve Grand
CREATION
Life and How to Make it
Phoenix 2001
....tangible assets are apparently good things to have, while the intangible ones a somewhat inferior. Even the word "matter" is pejorative, follows a definite underlying assumption that matter is real and good while the relationships between these material things are somewhat not, and this bias is deeply embedded in our linguistic heritage.
Language provides an important part of our toolkit for conscious thought. For many of us it is very difficult to think consciously without speaking words in our head. Without the right tools, it is very difficult to do an effective job. We can sometimes find it very difficult, if not impossible, to think certain thoughts, simply because words were certain things either don't exist or carry inappropriate baggage with them. The reason why we esteem the material world more than we do the intangible one is fairly obvious - it is the world that our senses tell us is really "out there". Our eyes see physical things, also we like to believe (but remember that we see only the effects of visible radiation emitted or reflected from what we take to be solid objects; we don't really see the objects themselves). On the other hand, we do not have any direct sensory confirmation of intangible things. We don't have poverty sensors, we cannot touch a society, and our only evidence for the existence of other people's minds is the visible or audible motion of their physical bodies. Consequently, we come to believe that the things we can directly sense are a real, while the things we cannot sense are more like figments of our imagination or convenient labels, rather than anything absolute independent and genuine. And yet despite all this, the things we really care about while largely intangible. "Life" is an intangible concept, as is "mind".
pg 31
....our ability to reason is conditioned by our language, which in turn is conditioned by the evidence of our senses. It is hard to break free from our innate respect for "stuff", yet until we do this we shall never understand life, because life is an intangible thing.
pg 36
...to understand life and mind we have to learn to let go of our natural tendency to divide the world into discrete chunks. Living organisms are systems in flux, their constituent stuff changing from moment to moment; minds are not really things in the conventional sense at all. But then, nor our clouds. All these things are shifting, blurred, interacting eddies in a single stream.
pg 39
.... to see yourself as a persistent phenomenon, when the subset from which you are made is in constant flux, is to begin to understand life, and more than just life. Life is not the magical, of fluid substance, but neither is it simply a convenient label to attach to certain combinations of material substances. In fact, material substances themselves are not even as substantial as we have been led to believe.



Memetik
Mirror Neurons
Semiotik
Evolution der Sprache


HOME | SAL | TEXTE | BOE