Re: Altruism: hardwired

[Doyle Saylor <doylesaylor@xxxxxxx>]

Greetings Economists,
On Jun 5, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Matthijs Krul wrote:

> This same theory of language is interesting because Habermas uses it
> explicitly to argue against Marx and in favor of Kant; see

Doyle;
That is where Habermas is working in metaphysics.  His work as far as I
know is not grounded in physiology.  Within metaphysics it is hard to
prove anything about language.

Whereas, we have a lot of computer experience, and neuroscience
experience to better ground what we are talking about in reference to
language.  Much as I disagree with Chomsky, linguistic theory of noun
phrases, and verb phrases summarize a certain sort of physical
experience.  I.e. we see something distinct we name it, it does
something we explain the movement that is how the thing did something.
Which follow from visual physiology.

These observations have correlates in neuroscience, and that's where
Habermas has no influence.  Here is the link to Wikipedia essay on
Mead.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mead

One interesting discussion in this area is in the book "The Invisible
Sex, Uncovering the True Roles of Women in Prehistory", Collins, 2007,
J.M.Adovasio, Olga Soffer, Jake Page.

pages 103 to 113 ending  with the observation based upon how speech is
present in both hemispheres of most human females that females invented
language.  In the past Brocas and Wernicke's areas were considered left
brain only which may reflect male bias about language.
Doyle