What makes homo sapiens "human"?

But we don't know that since we cannot yet decipher their language.For all we know they may say something like, "You guys wait near the tree that looks like a pink pelican and we'll drive these sons-of-a-bitches straight to you fastern' a greezed pig. Then you guys jump on them like white on rice."

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

But we don't know that since we cannot yet decipher their language.

---

I am of the opinion that there isn't a language to decipher. I am not saying that we should stop researching the possibility, but it seems rather improbable. Even among single celled bacteria there is cell to cell communication, but I would hardly claim that bacteria could be communicating abstract thoughts through a language that we have yet to decipher. Short of totally deciphering the grunts of our ape cousins, we should also look at the roots of human consciousness and how our brain copes with communication. I think it is through this route that we can rule out abstraction in our cousins at least, and possible apply the same rules to more distantly related mammals including carnivorae and cetaceans. Of course, I could be totally off my rocker and I really don't have that much to back me up.

This may be a case of we haven't figured it out yet, as opposed to 'never.' I also don't know that we've "seen" animals communicating, "you go there, I'll stay here, you scare prey," although it appears that it is happening... In captivity, unguided apes paint objects that are not around them, such as birds or flowers, then use signs to "name" their paintings as such - I'm not sure if this fits the bill of abstract thinking in your mind.In the wild, at least one chimp group is known to regularly wear "necklaces" made out of vines, a practice that has been passed through generations. The concept of ornamentation seems abstract to me, as well.

What makes homo sapiens human is religion IMO.
In addition, humans make decisions not based merely on instinct but also based on emotions such as empathy. Humans are also sentient. But humans are animals therefore there is no distinction from animals other than being nuerotic apes. LOL.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

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?

Firstly I'm not sure how you can claim that language-using animals never use abstraction when language itself is abstraction.Moreover a google search on "animal language" turned up some illuminating examples:

quote:

---

The New York Times
June 6, 1995, Tuesday, Late Edition - Final

​

Chimp Talk Debate: Is It Really Language?

​

By George Johnson

​

PANBANISHA, a Bonobo chimpanzee who has become something of a star among animal language researchers, was strolling through the Georgia woods with a group of her fellow primates -- scientists at the Language Research Center at Georgia State University in Atlanta. Suddenly, the chimp pulled one of them aside. Grabbing a special keyboard of the kind used to teach severely retarded children to communicate, she repeatedly pressed three symbols -- "Fight," "Mad," "Austin" -- in various combinations.

​

Austin is the name of another chimpanzee at the center. Dr. Sue Savage-Rumbaugh, one of Panbanisha's trainers, asked, "Was there a fight at Austin's house?"

---

from No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.santafe.edu/~johnson/articles.chimp.html"Mad"? That sure sounds pretty abstract to me.The researcher in the article goes on to criticize linguists for ignoring developments in animals that they recognize as language precursors in human children. It sounds a little like some of that is going on here.Humans have an amazing affinity towards making and speaking languages. Languages have an amazing ability to be spread from brain to brain. I don't think it's outrageous to suggest that an animal brain can learn to use language, since brains can learn to do just about anything given enough training. Steven Pinker suggested that so-called "animal language" is nothing more than the animal learning which buttons to press to get the funny hairless apes to give out M&M's, but there's really little evidence that human language is any different.

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.

There's a difference, though, between being capable of language and having language.Nobody would argue that an average human is without the capability for language. But if you take that human and raise them without language, guess what? They don't learn a language.After a certain age they never really pick up language - for instance they never use it for the abstract ideas you're talking about.That suggests some very meaningful things to me, like that language is not an inherent ability of the human brain, but rather, a capability of brains in general for which the human brain has evolved to be especially proficient at.Animals may not come up with languages on their own, but humans usually don't, either. But chimpanzees who have been taught human language have been observed teaching it to others in the wild. So it spreads from brain to brain. I don't think that the fact that humans thought of language first, or have a brain specifically adapted to it, is an unbridgable gap - no more than a brid's wings, specifically adapted for flight, constitute an unbridgable gap.

No, but language is abstraction. Abstraction is the assoication of lexical objects with physical ones - like names.Names are an abstraction. If animals are using names, then they're using abstraction.

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