What makes homo sapiens "human"?

No. Look, I'm not explaining myself well. Yes, animals can count, but they have trouble with concepts like 'six is more than four.' They don't understand why six is more. Even apes have problems with concepts regarding time and cause and effect such as 'if I do this now, I'll get a reward for it tomorrow.' No it isn't. That is simply the animal's physical relation to the real world. 'Abstractness’ does not deal with the physical world. It's a concept in which one does not take in account a specific value, but any of all possible values related to whatever one is dealing with.The concept of 'fruit' is an abstraction.
Ask a chimp 'what is fruit?' and you won't get a meaningful answer. Like petitbone said, the apes can identify a pear, but they don't understand why it is a type of fruit. If you provided better evidence that would help. You neglect the actual, and valid, criticism of your own evidence.From the same article you just cited in Does Alex, an African Gray parrot, think?: So no, you haven't really presented any convincing evidence at all. In both cases, the body of the articles you cite explain how the animals are not really using language. At best you could say they use elements of language - but that is not the same thing.Here, check this out.From wikipedia:I will say that you and pink (and the data I've found during this discussion) have managed to convince me that animals are capable of using elements of language, but I stand by my contention that comparing this to actual language is the same thing as comparing a termite stick to a suspension bridge: The gulf between them is so large that I do not think they are in the same class.I'll refer you once again to the Noam Chomsky quote: Is it?(good discussion btw guys, I've learned some good stuff)This message has been edited by custard, 06-29-2004 02:46 AM

What support is needed? He just described what the bird was doing. Of course that is valid criticism. Because you don't agree with him doesn't make it less valid, it just means you don't agree. You are making my point for me. The concept 'under' is an abstraction. Now show me where Alex demonstrated he knew what the concept 'under' means and that he is not simply responding to a command.I have taught my dog 'on your blanket,' and he'll go sit on his blanket, but he has no comprehension of the concept 'on.' Please show me where there is any indication that Alex is doing something different than what I have described. You can't. All the article said was that Alex

quote:

---

was learning the concepts of "over" and "under."

---

What the hell does that mean? That's not evidence. Dude, I never said 'I know animals don't use language,' I said I have yet to see compelling evidence that they use language.And yes, frankly, if the definition of language is such that something must fulfill all, not one, not a few, but all of the criteria to be considered language, then something that does not fulfill all of said criteria is not language. It might be similar to language, it might contain elements of language, but it is not the same as language. Communication does not equal language.I'm not equivocating - you seem to think I am - because I have no vested interested in maintaining human 'superiority' over animals. If the definition of something is that it meets 100% of the criteria, then anything that is 50% is not the same thing.That is why birdsong is not 'language.' That is why bee dances are not 'language.' Are you arguing that if a form of communication uses any element of language, then it is considered language? Bee dances and Shakespeare are actually comparable? But dude, that's one of the main criticisms animal language proponents keep bumping into: animals do not use all the exact same elements. And as for grammar and syntax, which many linguists consider key components of what comprises language, animals have yet to successfully demonstrate this ability.This message has been edited by custard, 06-29-2004 03:34 AM

I think you are splitting hairs here. He was asked, based on the bird's behavior, if it demonstrated the ability to think: [quote] But is Alex thinking? "I would say minimally," Dr. Terrace responded. "In every situation, there is an external stimulus that guides his response." Thought, he said, involves the ability to process information that is not right in front of you."It shows Alex is a smart bird," he said. But if you take away Alex's ability to vocalize in a way that seems human, he went on, it would not seem as impressive: "The words are responses, are not language." [/qs]Secondly, and I can't believe I missed this, even Dr. Pepperberg HERSELF says the bird isn't using language!

quote:

---

Dr. Pepperberg refuses to call Alex's vocalizations "language." "I avoid the language issue," she said. "I'm not making claims. His behavior gets more and more advanced, but I don't believe years from now you could interview him." She continued: "What little syntax he has is very simplistic. Language is what you and I are doing, an incredibly complex form of communication."

---

Funny that you ascribe linguistic abilities to the animal that its trainer won't even venture. But then, you go on to state that bees communicate using language. You are either ignoring ,or just don't agree with, the definition of language I presented. Saying bees have language pretty much puts you in the position that almost any kind of communication is language.I could not disagree with you more in this regard, and in my opinion I have presented enough evidence for why I do not agree with you. You are confusing being able to understand grammar and syntax, with its application. I don't recall making that claim. Well, before I respond, let me remind you that I challenged you to present evidence to support this claim the first time you made it. What evidence do you have, or have you at least seen, that supports this position?I read something tonight that referred to children who were not exposed to language early on had difficulty being able to master 'normal' language, but it didn't describe what 'normal' was, and it certainly didn't compare them to chimpanzees.This message has been edited by custard, 06-29-2004 04:40 AM

No they are not. The man is not flying, the airplane is. It is not a subtle distinction. Putting a person, a horse, or a toaster on an airplane does not imbue it with the ability to fly.

At first glance I agree. And not to belabor the point, but to make a real comparison, I would have to see juxtaposed examples of what they consider 'simple grammar' for a feral child and what the ape langauge researchers would consider 'simple grammar' for an ape.It's too easy to read what you want (either way) from such a paucity of data.

Here is another link to animal communication and reasoning studies:http://www.ahs.cqu.edu.au/...22/readings/pdf/lect11b.prn.pdfIn short, while Dr. Premack taught several chimps to read and write using magnetized plastic tokens (similar token language as used by Kanzi the wonder chimp) when posed the question whether this form of 'language' deserves the term language in the human sense: [quote]Many researchers, including Premack himself, doubt that it does. One reason advocated is that chimpanzees seem to be unable to learn a richly structured system of rules for putting words together. Such a rule-system, or syntax, is characteristic of human languages, and the fact that chimpanzees seem unable to acquire anything like it suggests that languages is specific to humans alone (Gleitman, 1986).[/qs]Oh, and about that airplane flight is the same as a bird flying analogy: you are comparing apples to oranges. One is a machine, the other is an organism. You can put anything on a plane, but at the end of the day, a man is physically incapable of being able to fly. I could stick a processor in a monkey's brain which could do all sorts of calculations, but the monkey still wouldn't be able to learn algebra.

Exactly, that's the point. That's why linguists think it is nonsensical to try to teach chimps 'language.' Yeah, and if a chimp were a human, he could talk. So what? You can keep doing these linguistic twists and turns to try to avoid the fact that your analogy is bankrupt, but at this point it has become so tangential to the topic, I suggest we drop it.This message has been edited by custard, 06-29-2004 01:50 PM

I feel like I've been dominating this thread, so I'll back off a bit after I offer these two things:1- Rather than delve into the debate of 'what is abstract,' I'm fine to keep using this simple list of criteria of what distinguishes 'language' from animal communication (from wikipedia.com). And I'll add SYNTAX to this list since everything I read consistently maintains that syntax is a distinctive feature of 'language.'Show me which animal communication fulfills all of these criteria. If, as crashfrog seems to maintain, you maintain that only some of these criteria need to be met for a form of communication to be considered 'language,' please indicate which/how many you think must be met. 2-I think self-awareness is not necessarily a requisite for language as defined above. Also, relating to the original questions of the thread, I think self-awareness has been demonstrated in enough animals that this attribute is not unique to humans - although it may not be as prevalent as one might suspect.For example, there is a self-awareness test where the animal is made unconscious and a mark is put on the animal's face or body. When the animal regains consciosness, it is placed in front of a mirror and observed to determine whether it recognizes that the animal in the mirror as itself, and whether it understands that the mark on the animal in the mirror is also the mark on itself.I read that gorillas tested succeeded about 50% of the time (except Koko the wonder ape who aced it), while Organgs and chimps scored much higher.I was surprised gorillas did so poorly. There was also data on porpoises, etc. I'll see if I can find this paper.

No. I wouldn't agree that human language evolved from trillobytes either. You are redifining 'language' to mean any form of communication whatsoever. I think we all understand non-humans communicate with each other, some in more complex ways than others. We are discussing whether this communication meets the criteria of language. It does not. I have listed some of these criteria as an aid (twice).

Yes humans are related to apes. Dude, the same way we humans have a monopoly on a thing called the opposable thumb.Does an ape, by virtue of being related to us also have a thumb? So why should it have the ability to use language? Especially if guys like Chomsky are correct and language is only possible because of the way our brains have developed.

If so, then we have all the evidence we need to prove apes can use language in Every Which Way But Loose.

OK, you got me... but can apes do this? This message has been edited by custard, 06-30-2004 02:48 AMThis message has been edited by custard, 06-30-2004 03:08 AM

case closed. Here's a picture of an even less evolved primate using language and tools: Homo StillerensusThis message has been edited by custard, 06-30-2004 01:40 PM

Do you have a link to more detail? I'd be better able to understand what their definition of 'refused to participate' and 'respond negatively' is if I could see more details of what the test(s) were, how many monkeys were involved, etc.

Conversation is a misnomer here. I don't see a conversation. I see the parrot repeating its request over and over. No offense, but I don't see how this is significantly different than my dog licking my face until I feed him; or him ringing his bell because he wants to go outside.The parrot seems to be simply running through request actions, in this case sounds he has memorized, in order to get back into the car.The parrot doesn't demonstrate that it has any idea what 'we don't have a car' and 'I can't get a car' means. Even a child would ask 'why can't you get a car?' The parrot doesn't make this leap. It just keeps repeating its demand. Communication, yeah; but not language.Finally, I'd have to actually see & hear the tape before I believe the parrot's syntax is anywhere near as good as this. I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm just saying I'm a skeptic so I need more than hearsay. Do you have any links to this conversation?