Language is the very root of complex societies.

The opposing side is close but hasn't gotten to the root.

The root of complexity in natural terms, naturally speaking, not speaking in what could be beyond the natural world but within it, is thought, the mind.

Naturally speaking it starts with the mind, the thought, the thought process before........ getting to audible language. You see.

An epitome thinker and author of the United Independent compensatory code system concept, wrote a textbook workbook for THOUGHT..............speech, which is what the opposing side is arguing as the root, it is the textbook workbook for thought , speech and or action for victims of white supremacy.

It's all about having a code. A codified reaction to what the books call the system of white supremacy. It's called by those books a counter racist code which is codified by thought, speech and or action to solve problems.

These are the problems of a society dominated and run by an unjust system . An uncivil system in which to counteract to it, have a code that causes civility.

So it starts with thought to get to language and or action.

So we're talking about a complex society where this is code in all areas of people activity.

These are the areas as follows.

Economics

Education

Entertainment

Labor

Law

Politics

Religion

Sex

War

Each one of them take root in the mind. It starts from there to construct intricate planning, goals, tactics and everything to even form languages. Once again, speaking on the natural side of things.

"The debate is:

"Can highly complex civilization exist without symbolic language?" "

I like the opposing side to explain and or demonstrate that this means the same thing as : "Language is the very root of complex societies."

Right now I don't see the correlation but I won't be hasty to make any charges of fallacies ........just yet.

"In order to form complex societies, there has to be a form in which individual minds become a collective intelligence."

This is the first I've seen a debate started by the opposing side and ended by the opposing side in the first round.

Key term: "minds"

Thus the following is backwards.

"This can only be done through symbolic language ; abstract thinking cannot oper properly if you remove symbolic, as it is what links individuals into a collective intelligence. The only way to make abstract thinking a collective ground is through language."

Complexity comes from a complex mind to case ideas of symbols and languages and to teach symbols and language, minds have to be reached, the root. It is in the mind, where understanding has to be obtained to come into existence.

The United Independent compensatory code system CONCEPT, is a collective of minds in teaching ideas, concepts and lessons.

"Language is the very thing that enables laws, éducation and administration."

All starts in the minds of people. Education, laws, all areas of people activity starts as a mental process. The judicial system, the barter system, monetary system, prison system, enslavement system, the "white" supremacy system, all systems come out of the mind. Which gives credence to creationism but that's another subject.

"Without language as the main pillar, knowledge falls apart and each generation has to start over again."

Backwards again. Without knowledge, language doesn't exist. Knowledge comes before language.

"What makes civilization and culture is memory.

And without language, there can be no transmission ; memory without substitute is dead"

Here again , keyword: " memory"

Memory is of the mind. No memory, no anything to store a file of language at all.

"Complex societies depend on things that do NOT physically exist ; money, laws, human rights, contracts, citizenship...

For example, a 10 dollar bill only works because people share the same idea/concept through language (value, trust, ownership..)"

A mind, an idea, a concept are non physical things. Languages are an exception to being physical such as written or bodily-anatomically or any other physical structure such as braille.

In regards to dependence, it's a shared equation.

There are isolated situations at least indirectly where language isn't used between people for any dependency factors at all.

"My conclusion

Without language, humans may still form tribes ; but they never build civilization.

Civilization is not built merely by human brains, but by brains connected through language."

Here you're talking around the obvious factors of my case. Without language or before language is communicated, tribes are formed.

It's erroneous to say tribes aren't civilized. That's the nature of a tribe. To collect into a people group off the basis of some criteria can range from simplicity to complexity.

So brains, or minds start it off. That would be what a root does. Even in your case you can't help but posit the mind , the brain as a starting point because it's true.

Civilizations are built in the mind, then in turn are communicated through other means, whether speech and or action.

The key is root.....root.....root. The starting place. Not the tandem ancillary process through broaching "merely by " which would be "merely alone" but the kickoff point is what we're looking to solidify here.

I yield.

" A mind can exist alone. A civilization cannot. "

Let's see if the opposing side will duck these questions as well.

Where does civilization come from ?

If the opposing side says language, then I ask where does language come from?

"What your argument proves is that language depends on minds. Never argued that."

Uh-huh, so next question, which is the root, language or the mind?

"But it fails at showing that societies depend primarily on minds rather than language.

That's a main misconception."

You have a misconception of the point. The point is the root .......the root.....the root.

A garden is not just a batch of roots. But a garden is an offspring that's sprung off the roots.

We're not saying that language has nothing to do with anything. We are saying you and I because I have you quoted of omission, where civilization or society starts. It's a concept. Like America or any nation is a concept.

"The debate is about collective complexity, not isolated cognition."

So which is the root of complexity? Is it language or the mind? Is it the mind that thinks of complexity or the language that takes it into existence and from what ?

"A thought inside one brain is not yet law, science, economics, or civilization.

Civilization begins when thoughts become transferable, stable, and collective."

Does this really make sense?

If civilization doesn't exist in thought, then that means you can't or it's impossible to think of civilization at all. Anything from a rule, law , policy, regulation , socially speaking begins as a concept.

Thought, speech and or action.

Thought, speech and or action.

Thought, speech and or action.

You have to think that the particular thoughts you transfer will give rise to civility.

You have to think it first. That's why the axiom, think before you act or move exists.

You oughta give up this proposition pal. Just give it up.

"Indeed ; saying "The mind is the root of civilization because language comes from thought" is like saying:

"Electricity is not the root of the internet because electricity itself comes from physics."

It is nothing but an analytical mistake."

It is a mistake on your part not to mention you already omitted that it starts with the mind.

"Thought may create ideas, but language is what turns ideas into civilization."

There is no "may create". If ideas aren't thoughts, you have the onus of proving where ideas come from. An idea of civilization is civilization. If it's not civilization, what else is it? Civilization starts as an idea, a thought process, in the mind.

I reiterate from the opposing side's omission in omitting form as forming something would be creating it. I reiterate the following:

"In order to form complex societies, there has to be a form in which individual minds become a collective intelligence."

Key term: "minds"

"An isolated insight inside one brain is not a civilization. Civilization requires cumulative transmission of knowledge.

Knowledge that cannot be transmitted collectively is not civilization-building knowledge."

Civilization begins as a thought. Bottom line. Anything of organization, you have to think about how , where, when, what to organize first.

"Language, again, is what allows memory to survive across generations (written or oral transmission)."

This here also doesn't make sense. I have memories that I've never spread or communicated about. Of course my memories have survived. I still have them. Whether I communicate them or not. If I communicate them or pass them down to people that died off, me passing them down didn't help them survive.

Not only that, we have the chance of distortion by communicating the memory or thought, effectively destroying the actual truth of the memory making a false narrative destroying the memory in the process as opposed to surviving it especially if I can no longer vouch for the memory if I no longer exist.

This point made by the opposing side is too variable and subjective and the only universal absolute rule for the survival of a memory is in the mind itself. Particular in the mind of origin.The memory survives on its own in a healthy functioning mind .

Not only is the mind is all that is required for survival in the interim, it still doesn't disprove that the mind is the root of where memories or thoughts used as such to form complex civilized societies derive.

"I have to recenter the debate here.

The debate is not whether humans can form groups without advanced symbolic systems.

The debate is whether highly complex institutions, science, law, administration, and civilization-scale coordination can exist without language."

Or else every animal pack becomes "civilization" and the subject is loosing any analytical sense.

A tribe can be highly complex and an institution based on science, laws and in the administration it's administered.

Every animal pack is a civilization to themselves my friend. Just to satisfy you, they also have their own languages ....you know...just to satisfy your "civilization parameters ".

You shot yourself in the foot several times over this subject not analyzing carefully like you should have.

I've been on center trying to keep you on center constantly reiterating it's about the root......the root ...the root ...the root because it's in the topic.

I still haven't seen you tie correlation between what broached last round:

"The debate is:

"Can highly complex civilization exist without symbolic language?" "

I like the opposing side to explain and or demonstrate that this means the same thing as : "Language is the very root of complex societies."

Right now I don't see the correlation but I won't be hasty to make any charges of fallacies ........just yet."

We have reached "yet" and at this time I move to charge the opposite side of moving the goalpost. That is the verdict reached in this trial and the evidence for this case is the constant challenge to disprove the root and the opposite side has failed to prove language comes before thought. The plant does not come before the root.

I guarantee, every point the opposing side has made concerning a mind or brain, the order of sequence is always a mind or brain forming something and or connecting to language. The opposing side never starts with anything else first which is the factual reality of what we know. It is the mind.

What the opposing side is doing is trying to say "but this too"...."not merely"....."but this too". Trying to argue what is and not enough.

Ok. Ok. Ok. BUT.......WHAT ......IS ...... FIRST?..

Whichever is first is.....the .....root!

"Con repeatedly references systems, codes, education, and institutional structures ; all of which require language (to exist collectively).

The very "code" Con talks about cannot exist as a social system unless it is linguistically transmitted and collectively understood."

Just notice the opposing side stays away from declaring what the root is. What is the root? What is the root? The opposing side, "well it's not merely......"

....... Hold it, what is the root?

" Well uh, this and that, well , these can't exist without....."

......Hold it, what is the root?

Very simple. That very simple question. People. Stops these folks in their tracks.

"And because the debate is about "is language the root of complex society?"

I am properly adressing complex societies. Con is adressing individual thoughts."

No, you're improperly dealing with this. To correct you, I've addressed the root. You're simply trying to talk around it or "address" everything else around it because it's an obvious refutation you're facing in your flawed topic.

Which came first or comes first, the mind or language? Does mind control and articulate the language or the language to the mind?

Whichever is first is the root. Give it up. Give up the proposition.

"Minds create thoughts.

But, language is what allows thoughts to escape individual brains and become collective, global, civilizational.

A brain can produce an idea alone indeed.

Only language tho, can turn these very ideas into institutions, science, law, and civilization."

Here again in conclusion, the opposing side is indirectly admitting what the root is without explicitly saying it because we're reading what .....starts ..... first. That's all . We're not arguing about what else it takes or whether there has to be an ancillary process.

First of all, science is inapplicable. Science is an objective language of its own in and of itself to explain natural laws of nature aside from the personal ideas of laws which would be social laws. So science is irrelevant. We observe things and collect information in the mind. We don't form it subjectively in and or to the mind. Outside of that, what the opposing side has to understand, is that civilization begins as a thought, so the root of it is still the mind. So I agree the mind creates it by creating the thought.

"Thought may be the origin of language"

Look at this. Look at this "may be the origin".

This is saying thought may be the root. Trying to play around the obvious again and has already omitted as positing the mind or brain first.

The topic should of incorporated in it somewhere, "is language required", not "is it the root".

This debate is as good as over

"What is necessary for any human activity whatsoever? "

"What is the root mechanism of complex societies? "

Those are not identical."

Not only are they not identical but the topic is having to do with asserting that language is the root.

"Yes, minds are necessary for language. But the motion is not: "What is required for a human being to think?"

-> Con says that by admitting mind is necessary for language, i am basicaly giving him the point. That was never the case.

The motion is: " Language, is the very root of complex societies."

So the relevant question is not (which is what he is answering to): "What exists first biologically inside one person? " "

Totally making strawman fallacies this round.

Which is the root, language or the mind? The opposing side is cleverly staying away from this point to avoid obvious refutation.

I believe the opposing side ducked all my questions .

"What i'm saying is:

Chronological or biological dependence is not enough to establish the explanatory root of civilization.

If scientists or historians were thinking like you, everything would collapse to the origin of the universe.."

All we have to declare is which is first. Not what's enough. So because the opposite side knows what's first, the opposing side is filibustering with what is enough and what is needed besides something which is not the topic.

The case has been closed several rounds ago.

"According to this very argument of yours, the big bang would be the actual root of complex societies? enormous category mistake."

My point has always been which is first. I specify and the reason I do is to not keep the line of causation going on and on and on. So you missed the point in that. All I have to do is argue an element that technically and factually comes before yours which you omitted anyway. So thanks.

You were to specify which one, the mind or language.

I'm going to skip things that are just circular from you to keep me from being circular. Also you're not countering but just regurgitating. So that tells me you have no rebuttal. Repeating yourself is not a rebuttal.

"But thoughts existing privately does not explain civilization."

This is more foolish nonsense. The reason why a courthouse or courtroom I'm in is civilized is because of thought. Somebody thought of how to civilize it. I thought of how to civilize my household. So thoughts in the mind are explanations stored in the mind ready to be explained verbally. How do you think people form explanations? They explain their thoughts and formulate explanations by their thoughts. Hence the often phrase after explaining something "just a thought". "Food for thought".

The thought(s) of civilization are already computed in the mind first. Otherwise, how does it go from intangible to tangible? It starts as a thought to implement or manifest. Your mind is so far in a box, you can't even credit where these things actually form first. You actually believe these things don't exist until manifestation. It's like saying lyrics to a song don't exist until you actually sing them. They start and formulate in the mind. Again , the root.

"One person can think privately forever and never create"

Yes your problem is , you haven't understood that things are first created in the minds of people. It's like you don't believe in intangible creations. It's like saying we can't create ideas and concepts.

"The point is: ideas alone are insufficient.

An isolated idea is not civilization."

Not the topic. Not about insufficiency or sufficiency for the 1 billionth time. I keep saying the root and the opposing side is posturing like the opposing side is on the same page but really trying to save face.

Second sentence is just circular. I've addressed it over and over.

"Again: this confuses cognitive origin with social origin.

Yess: ideas originate cognitively.

But civilization is not merely the existence of ideas."

The opposing side is confused with how to separate "merely"..."sufficiency".... origin.

The root ..... people....the root...the root. I can why the opposing side is hung up in this flaw. The opposing side can't even realize the conflations.

"Civilization is organized collective structure."

Which starts in the mind. I have to think of civility prior to it being. I can do anything I set my MIND to. Another solidifying axiom that doesn't come out of nowhere. It's the truth. It starts with mindset, therefore it is the root.

Now if the opposing side wants to argue, there's a root before the mind, the opposing side has the honors of showing where the original thought of civility came from naturally speaking. Perhaps some other time. The debate is over.

"The moment the debate concerns:

laws,

administration,

economics,

institutional continuity..

historical accumulation....

The decisive factor instantly becomes symbolic communication."

You and I can decide all this in our minds .

"The question is: Can civilization preserve knowledge across populations and generations without symbolic transmission?"

I already answered this question. You ignored it. The bottom line is again the root. I've tried to keep you at the goalpost but you move it to sufficiency to preservation, survival and anything else you ad hoc.

"True ! But distortion does not negate transmission....

Also, Science can contain errors ; that does not mean science ceases to exist at all."

So being that you agree it's true, it killed your whole point on that which was rather irrelevant. We're not talking about preservation or what keeps civilization going but again for the 100th time........................... the ...........r-o-o-t.

That word is so worn out, both those letters of "o" are bald like bald tires.

"If every animal grouping counts as "civilization", then the term "complex society" becomes analytically meaningless."

Let me give you a perspective shift to try to help your mind out of that box. It's understood that we're all classified as animals. So we're all animal packs and tribes. Some tribes or packs deem other packs meaningless, less sophisticated and not even completely human. So much so that some tribes have enslaved other tribes because of it. So just because you or a so called superior or high horse high and mighty tribe may look at themselves as the ONLY "pure civilization" and everyone else are just meaningless non sophisticated beings, doesn't actually eliminate that this is a subjective bias take. It's that type of a take as bias as it is, it doesn't cancel out or rule out the value that exists to others and to themselves.

Again, think outside yourself, outside the box. I'm sure the opposing side couldn't even argue irrefutably so, what makes a civilization better than another.

"A wolf pack is not equivalent to a modern civilization simply because both involve social organization at all?"

We don't need equivalency. We just recognize to each their own civilization and the level of complexity to each their own business.

"That collapses the debate into vagueness."

You collapsed into conflation and goalpost moving.

"That still does not prove that minds are the root mechanism of civilization.

Again! Neurons also come before language. No one therefore argues: "neurons are the root of civilization." "

Lesson here. Don't assert things you can't prove saying "No one" like you know all people and what their arguments would be.

If minds are not the root, then you're foolishly saying it's impossible to have a thought of civilization and to think it up at all.

We think, then act, we think , then act.

We think, then act, we think , then act.

We think, then act, we think , then act.

You oughta know this by now. Every point you put down was a thought first. You civilizing your points was a civilized point of thought(s) in your head.

"First in sequence does not automatically mean: most fundamental explanatory mechanism."

First is all there is to prove the point. Glad you acknowledged it.

"Likewise: thought may precede language biologically"

There is no "may". You try to avoid conceding saying "but this" , "but that" and "along with".

All we need to solidify is what is first and by saying the word "root" , you totally mishandled the topic. I seen this right from the beginning when initially reading that topic statement.

"Simply irrelevant.

Humans control roads too.

That does not mean roads are unnecessary for transportation infrastructure...."

Utter foolishness on your part.

"The debate is not:

"Does language originate from minds? "

The debate is:

"What allows civilization to function at scale?"

Con systematically fails at disproving this. They didn't for two rounds, so except if they change their whole argument, it will not be convincing for either me or the judges."

Judges, readers, people, we can see the opposing side has moved from the goal post from "Language is the very root of complex societies." to "What allows civilization to function at scale?"

The opposing side is hereby disqualified.

"Science depends fundamentally on:"

Irrelevant. The topic I have to remind you that you came up with "Language is the very root of complex societies."

So the topic statement, my response is...it is not . It is an incorrect statement. The mind is the root because the mind produces the language. Case closed.

"Yes !!And that still does not defeat my case.

Thought being the origin of language does not imply that thought is the root of civilization."

Right, it doesn't imply it. Instead it just means exactly what it reads. Origin is the root. Do we get it now? You just admitted it again which refuted you.

Everything after this is circular points from you and goalpost moving.

Case closed .