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.
[[Williams says his argument is “based on what [Polanyi]...argued.”]]
“Based on” Not exact- He developed what appears to be a biological reality- Polanyi apparently ignores this biological reality, and asserts that metainfo can arise naturally despite any evidence to show this-
[[Williams also claims that “Polanyi identified this kind of irreducibility as a naturalistic impossibility,”]]
I’ve not read Polanyi’s paper- so I don’t know if htis is true, or if Polanyi did at soem point admit htis, only to later say differently?
[[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]]
Same difference- He’s asserti8gn that metainfo arose gradually, and apparently htinks that a language example transfers to biological systems as well- my examples given in last reply to you on language stand I think- The metainfo had to be present first-