[[The fact that the effect of a higher principle over a system under dual control can have any value down to zero may allow us also to conceive of the continuous emergence of irreducible principles within the origin of life.]]
Polanyi’s ‘thoughts’ do not matter- the scientific reality does- He claims reducing the levels shows it emerged, and that simply is not so scientifically- Wallace wasn’t ‘misrepresenting’ anything- The impossibility still exists, and Wallace went on to explain in more detail why it does in his paper- Polanyi can personally beleive anythign he likesm, but if somethign is naturialistically biologically or chemically impossible, it is just that- Impossible! and no opinion can undo that fact
Polanyi goes on to suggest that learnign to speak shows somehow shows emerging complexities- however, what he is leavbing out aas far as I understand Wallace’s claims, is that the person is endowed already with the METAInformation already that allows the emergence of language
[[Polanyi also says, by the way, that “The principles additional to the domain of inanimate nature are the product of an evolution the most primitive stages of which show only vegetative functions.”]]
This is scientifically not true- what we find are an explosion of fully ofrmed creatures, and nothign ut hypothesis beyond that point- what was once htought to be ‘primitive worm tracks’ in the ‘precambrian age’ is now, beleive it or not, thought to be grape tracks that rolled across the mud
Williams says his argument is "based on what [Polanyi]...argued." I think that makes his thoughts relevant to a discussion of Williams' article, which is what this is supposed to be. Williams also claims that "Polanyi identified this kind of irreducibility as a naturalistic impossibility," whereas his own writing indicates no such thing. By the way, I didn't say that Williams misrepresented him, but now that I read that part again, I guess he really did.
Regarding language, Polanyi didn't say he was referring to a child learning to speak, and neither did I. He didn't address the origin of language; I was talking about the evolution of language in humans, not language acquisition by an individual.