Deacon, Incomplete Nature, and Ambiguity: p 418: This means that not only is there an historical origin for the normative property of this interpretive process, there is also an ahistorical and immediately effacious normative property as well. And this need not be consistent with its evolved function. In fact, this possibility is a necessary condition for evolution, since essentially every adaptation has evolved from prior forms and mechanisms that often served very different adaptive functions (such as feathers originally evolving as a form of insulation). Deacon as usually is exceptionally wordy here, but hes also very correct. Ambiguity is needed for evolution. Only if the meaning of some DNA string (the proteins and body structures and interaction with the environment it codes for) is ambiguous can it evolve. The genes for feathers help primitive birds stay warm but will help later birds fly. And this isnt limited to biological evolution. It applies to language too. We use the same word for a variety of situations -- every dog is unique yet we can use a single word dog for them all -- and the ambiguity of terms allows our language to evolve. If we come across a thing which does not fit our preconception -- if we find a black swan -- we do not have to invent a new word for it. We can stretch the existing word to cover it and change what we mean by it. Those who would prohibit all ambiguity in language are thus prohibiting intellectual development!
Posted on: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 16:27:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015