On Aug 2, 8:13 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jul 31, 6:05 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jul 30, 1:50 pm, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 30, 6:56 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>> Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jul 29, 5:40 am, Dutch > wrote:
> >>>>>> [..]
> >>>>>>>>> What would it take for the capability not to be there? This idea of
> >>>>>>>>> the ability being somehow "inherent but not operative" is totally
> >>>>>>>>> obscure to me. You either have an ability or you don't.
> >>>>>>>> Do you understand having wings but not being able to fly?
> >>>>>>> Yes, that's fine.
> >>>>>> It's exactly like that. Such an animal has the capability of flight but
> >>>>>> not the ability.
> >>>>> Well, on that basis it sounds to me as though having the capability
> >>>>> involves having a structure present which in normal contexts gives one
> >>>>> the ability.
> >>>> Right
> >>>> So I would say the issue of whether neonates, fetuses, or
> >>>>> radically cognitively impaired humans have the capability for
> >>>>> linguistic competence, moral agency, and so forth, is a matter for
> >>>>> scientific investigation, not something that can be inferred from
> >>>>> everyday observation.
> >>>> I disagree. Although it is difficult to generalize about which abilities
> >>>> any particular impaired person may retain, it is readily observable that
> >>>> young at any stage do develop human abilities, thereby confirming that
> >>>> they had innate capabilities.
> >>> Above you said the test was whether there was a structure present that
> >>> provided the ability in ordinary context. Now you seem to be saying
> >>> that the test is whether there is reason to think that the ability
> >>> will eventually develop under normal circumstances. Those are two
> >>> different tests.
> >> And? Is there a rule that there can be only test to verify something?
> >> It's pretty difficult, at least for a lay person to understand
> >> neurological mechanisms, but it's quite easy to observe that B follows
> >> A. Both are true.
>
> > If you're going to have more than one test, you need to say something
> > about what happens when they give different answers.
>
> It won't happen, there is only one result.
>

The tests you've provided give different answers.

> >>>>>>>> Do you
> >>>>>>>> understand having the capability of speech but not being able to talk?
> >>>>>>> Well, this could use a little more elaboration. You mean someone with
> >>>>>>> laryngitis?
> >>>>>> That would be one possible example, there could be many others, infants
> >>>>>> for example,
> >>>>> I don't think you'll find many people will find it plausible to say
> >>>>> that infants have the capability of speech.
> >>>> You're talking about "ability", not capability.
> >>> There's no distinction in ordinary usage.
> >> But we're not talking about ordinary usage here, that was already agreed
> >> on, long ago.
>
> > If you're going to introduce a non-standard usage, you need to explain
> > what it is, and in my view you haven't done that adequately yet.
>
> It's been done to death, you're stalling.
>

You really are a tiresome prat.