What makes homo sapiens "human"?

Pinky,I would say no. Obviously we don't need a bible, or even religion, to delve into the field of metaphysics - which is the profound extension of our self-awareness as a species.Also, I think our tool use and language capabilities should not be so casually compared to other species. Using a stick to dig for termites, or building a hive is not the same thing as terraforming a continent, creating satellite communications, or sending probes into outerspace.Being able to communicate where food is located or basic emotions and sensations such as fear, hunger, pain is not the same thing as writing a sonnet, or Catcher in the Rye, or an episode of Knight Rider where KIT has to save Michael from the clutches of an evil international organization - ok, maybe it is the same as the last one, but you get my point.

But your claim would be erroneous. There is a multitude of evidence that native English speakers can and do become proficient in tonal languages such as Vietnamese, Thai, and Chinese. ONE example is the Defense Language Institute of Monterey, CA where non-native speakers are taught, especially during the sixties and seventies, to be Vietnamese linguists and interrogators.I think you are confusing pronunciation and accent with ability to communicate. While I may never master a tonal language such as Vietnamese to the extent that I sound like a native, that does not mean I can not learn it to the extent that I can communicate with a native Vietnamese speaker on all sorts of difficult and abstract subjects.This message has been edited by custard, 06-28-2004 07:13 PMThis message has been edited by custard, 06-28-2004 07:13 PM

Evidence please. I think it was already stated that many of the researchers in these types of studies are notorious for their anthropomorphism of their subjects. I tend to agree unless you have compelling evidence to the contrary.I've seen elephants paint. I've seen their handlers 'interpret' the paintings. Needless to say, their interpretation of what marks the elephant has made on the paper could be anything.I also think that (loudmouth? Mr Jack?) has a good point that communication is not language. I'm open to any evidence anyone might have that shows otherwise, but I know of no compelling evidence that other species than man can communicate abstract ideas. The Lucy data is interesting, but I don't know enough about the hard data to convince me that it isn't mostly interpretation - much like my mother explains how she knows what my dog is thinking.Also, the 'just because we don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't language' argument holds about as much water as 'just because you don't see leprechauns, doesn't mean they don't exist.'Humans are pretty smart. We're able to learn each other's languages - which can be extremely complex - quite well. We've had animals such as dogs, porpoises, elephants, horses, and birds in captivity and under study for many years. Wouldn't SOME prospective Doctor Doolittle have arisen by now if animals were truly capable of language?This message has been edited by custard, 06-28-2004 07:14 PM

Interesting. Although don't many species of birds adorn their nests with ornamentation? Does that mean they are capable of abstract thought?

No, we're claiming animals don't use language. Communication does not equal language. If it does, as per (Mr Jack?)'s point, even cells use language since they can communicate using chemical interaction.

I'm not so sure. Is an emotional or physical state such as 'mad,' 'happy,' 'hungry,' 'horny' really an abstract concept?I looked up the definition of abstract:

quote:

---

abstract (b-strkt, bstrkt)
adj.
1-Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept.
2-Not applied or practical; theoretical. See Synonyms at theoretical.
3-Difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract philosophical problems.
4-Thought of or stated without reference to a specific instance: abstract words like truth and justice.
5-Impersonal, as in attitude or views.
6-Having an intellectual and affective artistic content that depends solely on intrinsic form rather than on narrative content or pictorial representation: abstract painting and sculpture.

---

It doesn't appear to me that 'mad' is an abstract concept. Not like 'truth' or 'justice.' My dog gets mad or frustrated when he can't reach his toy so he barks. Is he using language? He may be communicating his mental state, but is that abstract thinking?Another chimp in Bobo's situation, that doesn't know sign language, might just throw a fit and scream. I submit that Bobo is only demonstrating his emotional state through the form of expression it was taught is appropriate. That only shows chimps can be taught how to express themselves to a limited degree. I taught my dog to ring a string of bells when he wants to go outside. I don't see the difference.This message has been edited by custard, 06-28-2004 07:51 PM

So, by extension, if an animal understands its name, is it capable of abstract thought? My dog knows his name, does that mean he understands or can use language - in your opinion?

Really? I was under the impression that there was evidence to the contrary. Do you have a link or anything that supports that statement? After what age is a human no longer able to 'pick up' language?

From crash's article: and This article really doesn't demonstrate anything new. Even bobo's ability to string several lexigrams together doesn't impress me that much. My dog knows at least twenty different 'tricks.' I have seen him put dissimilar tricks together in order to try to obtain a food reward from me.Look at this from the article: Don't you see the human interpretation there? This strikes me more as 'What's that Lassie, Timmy's in trouble?' than actual communication. What about all the times Bobo communicated absolute nonsense or the researcher didn't interpret Bobo correctly? How many articles were published on that? It's too subjective.Again, I don't dispute that animals are capable of communication; but I refer to a much earlier post of mine in this thread - language is more than 'me hungry,' 'me mad;' when a chimp can write a haiku I'll be more convinced that it can understand and use language.And this part of the article addresses this (and is similar to my dog going through his tricks analogy): And the conclusion of the article you cited is most telling, and supportive of my claim that animal 'language' is anthropomorphism: This message has been edited by custard, 06-28-2004 08:01 PM

Not to sound too glib, but what is the most in depth conversation you have had with your parrot?I humbly suggest that your parrot has merely learned when to make these sounds through trial and error and observation. My dog has similar behaviors. He will often go to his crate when he sees me preparing to leave (shower, put on clothes, shoes, etc) without prompting. Is he psychic?No, he has simply learned that when I put on my shoes, I'm getting ready to leave. He knows I command him to go to his crate before I leave and that he will probably get a reward for going to his crate.Also, are you sure your parrot NEVER says anything inappropriate? It NEVER says 'hello' for no reason, or 'good morning' after 11 AM? NEVER? I also suggest you may be guilty of selective memory - i.e. remembering the times the parrot said something that seemed appropriate and forgetting the times he said things what were not appropriate.People do this all the time. We focus on the hits because they seem extraordinary and discount the misses because that is what we expected. That's why psychics and fortune tellers still con folks into believing ESP through cold reading.I would be interested to see if you tracked what he said for an entire week, and when he said it. That would be great data to support your position.I don't mean to suggest animals aren't smart, they are. I just haven't seen evidence for their ability to use language.This message has been edited by custard, 06-29-2004 12:03 AM

Good question. Actually many of my friends have children between ages 2 - 4, and frankly I'm amazed how well kids can communicate when they want to. They can tell you the most fantastic stories, relate actual events, and are capable of understanding abstract ideas such as 'truth' and 'fair.'Do you have kids? Ever heard a three year old try to explain to you why he didn't break the glass in the kitchen? Or who really ate the last cookie?And how about Santa as an abstract idea? Would an animal be capable of understanding what a fat man in a red suit flying around on a sleigh pulled by magic reindeer is doing distributing presents each year? Three year olds have told me why he does these things.Or Jesus. I've had three year olds give me their versions of baby Jesus. They are able to understand that Jesus is a sort of concept and not a real person they will see when they go to church.My point in relating all this is I think people get too impressed by the limited communication animals are capable of performing. There is a massive gulf between people, even children, who use language and an animal that understands some commands and the name of a few objects.Like the linguist I quoted earlier said (paraphrase)"if a child were to communicate like even the best chimp, we would consider him disturbed."

Hmm. The concept 'mad' may be abstract - e.g. what does it mean to be mad? - but learning the name for a series of actions (e.g. tantrums, screaming, etc) 'mad' is not the same thing. There is nothing in your article to indicate that the chimp is aware of the difference. What I got after re-reading the article yet again, was that the human was the one who interpreted the chimp's meaning and actions. She/he took 'waa waa waa' to mean affirmation of the question she repeated back to the chimp? Why? Why didn't Bobo just sign 'yes?' What's with the 'waa waa' crap. If that is Bobo's vocalization for 'yes' why doesn't it say that in the article? Why write 'which he took to mean..' at all?Look, do you really think a chimp can tell the difference between a concept and a word its been taught to associate with an action or object? Don't you see how there is no comparison between the ability of a child to communicate thoughts, feelings, ideas, and abstractions and a chimp? The critics in your article certainly do, and they say so quite eloquently.Go back and re-read the entire article. It already has far better criticism of your claim, and by far more learned individuals, than anything I can offer.

No offense, but re-read the article. The criticism specifically states that name recognition or assigning a name to an object is not abstract thought. Again, my dog knows what the names of his toys are. Is he capable of abstract thought?As for the death argument, yeah, I hear that all the time. I hear it about cats and dogs too. It doesn't convince me they have any notion or understanding of the concept of death.Look, if you have more articles or data indicating otherwise I'm all ears; but Chicken Soup for Your Pet's Soul stories aren't convincing (e.g. I heard chimps who can do this, I heard whales who can do this, my parrot understands language because he says hello).This message has been edited by custard, 06-29-2004 01:20 AM

No it isn't. That is object recognition. Abstract thought would be if your cat Muffy understood what it meant to be 'Fluffy' not that the other cat who lives in this house is called 'Fluffy.' Muffy doesn't understand Fluffy is a type of animal different from an animate object like a robot or car.Look here is a better example from a PBS program regarding the same chimps from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/chimp_5-6.html: Sorry if that is long, but it illustrates what I am trying to say. Communication does not define language. Word-object association does not mean abstract understanding.This message has been edited by custard, 06-29-2004 01:37 AM

hey, I added a link and excerpt to my previous post that covers this.