|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind | |||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: It has nothing to do with ToE. Nor has golf. ToE is a theory, not a fact - and the theory itself is dysfunctional, dependent on unscientific assumptions which have no evidence back-up anywhere, and is unrelated to this issue in a fundamental and focused way. It is becoming clear, the alligning of a logic, one which can dislodge certain premises of ToE, are being cast as a sub factor of ToE: because independently it is a stumbling block.
quote: You have not stated it. The qualification - as other organisms - is superflous. Nowhere in ToE does the aspect of human speech proved as a sub-set of all other communication, one of its standout errors is categorising humans by skeletal divisions only. Thus speech, which is non-negotiably unique to humans, is cast in the same bag with superflous and contrived reasonings.
quote: It is, seeing all life forms possess brains and communication traits. I know that humans exclusively wear clothes and engage in porn: no other life forms do that - but these are applied traits, not born traits. Humans also carry weapons sometimes. This does not impact on their speech.
quote: And cheeters run fast only as cheeters - else they do not - is that logic still with us? Each finger print is only unique as that person's finger print: does it mean it cannot be a unique fingerprint? Water is wet - but only as wet water - else its bone dry. I asked if crocs are anticipated to possess speech soon - because it is only a change in degree - and was told this need not impact here. So degrees too are selective factors, as with the term unique.
quote: You agree, but this is what you are saying, and I am opposing.
quote: Irrelevent, and this has no impact on a unique factor. Special is a subjective term.
quote: This is not related here, but your wrong about that assumption.
quote: It requires no qualification - else it becomes non-unique in all senses and views. Unique but = not unique.
quote: More importantly, it is not subsequent to the laws of ToE, as opposed it is not a requirement. It is ubsurd to think that cheeters could have adapted to speech given some circumstances: this is disproven by the fact all life forms did not - despite all time benefits for adaptation. Obviously, something else from evolution is happening here, and its not related to millions of years of retrovirus impacts. ToE does not mention the host seed either - as if it is not relevent. In fact, the seed is manifestly responsible for 100 offspring transmissions, and ToE can only be evidenced in the absence of the seed factor. A seed represents an output of the parent host.
quote: Why not say human intelligence is a form of intelligence of all life forms, thus not unique? Is it not an extension only?
quote: This does not effect the issue.
quote: The unique quality of one stands. Else the aspect ofunique becomes negated. if there is only one red marble, it remains a unique condition. Regardless of many unique conditions elsewhere. Speech is not unique because there are many other unique conditions - it is unique because it is by and of itself. What you are trying to say is, one's child is unique to the mother only and not unique as ageneralisation. But I never made such a premise. Speech is unique because it is a one of a kind, and all forms of communications are different in kind. This is my point, and this is what Genesis is saying. It is vindicated and correct. It is not half-correct or subject to qualifications - the antithesis of a unique quality. quote: The answer is in your question. Cheeter velosity is a difference in degree, unlike speech and communication, and the reason such a superflous statement is not made in Genesis. its a document of wisdom - by impact, period of time and in relation to any other document. Anyway, cheers, and its food for thought.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Vacate Member (Idle past 4629 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
I intentionally put animals which communicate. I did notice that.
If I put a list of different colored marbles - your arguement would be notorious, but can still be applied to show since all colors are changes in degree only - all the marbles can be any one color. Yes and different forms of speech from different species is still speech. We blend it all together and call it speech.
This is the desperation of the situation here. Take a breath, relax, and it won't be so bad.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ihategod Member (Idle past 6058 days) Posts: 235 Joined: |
Even without speech communication is possible, physically with animals. I have a dog, and when it craps on the floor, I give it a single look, and it KNOWS that it is in trouble. Couldn't identifying and relating mannerisms be classified as a form of speech? And if so, wouldn't this suggest that almost all animals in some way recognize certain patterns of communication?
This link isn't scientific by any means, however energy work is universally recognized in every culture.Page not found Furthermore, this would suggest that all animals can pick up "vibes" just like when we walk into a room and can sense discomfort. IMO, it is because of the vibrational state of unease that combines, resonates and amplifies within a group. Which could suggest a form of communication through vibrational emotional states when applied to pack animals, or any animals. A question to IamJoseph: There was a talking serpent in the Garden of Eden; why wouldn't animals be able to communicate thoughts and ideas? Commonality doesn't always point towards the ToE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
OK, let's try and find out what your points are here.
Yet I stated in fairly straightforward terms that I agree that humans possess traits that are unique to them - as do other organisms. You have not stated it. Thought the first problem is that you don't seem to be reading what I am saying a lot of the time - not helping our communication at all. I have stated it. I've said "...many things have unique traits, so possessing unique traits is not unique to humans.", "I do agree that the degree of intelligence we have is a unique trait" and "we could ask the same of any unique attribute that homo sapiens possess. However, many species have unique traits - not just humans." are just some examples of me saying in rather straightforward terms that I agree that humans possess unique traits.
It is, seeing all life forms possess brains and communication traits. I'm not sure how much simpler I can put it if you are having difficulty with such a concept. Nevertheless let me try once more. Humans have unique traits, I do not believe that 'speech' is necessarily one of them. Hopefully, you can now understand the point I was making: I do think humans have unique traits and just because I disagree with you about what those traits might be does not mean I disagree with you about whether humans have unique traits.
And cheeters run fast only as cheeters - else they do not - is that logic still with us? Each finger print is only unique as that person's finger print: does it mean it cannot be a unique fingerprint? Water is wet - but only as wet water - else its bone dry. Right. So we agree your position is pointlessly tautological then?
You agree, but this is what you are saying, and I am opposing.
So what do we conclude about unique traits then?
Irrelevent, and this has no impact on a unique factor. Special is a subjective term. So, that leads to - what is your point about unique traits? If there is nothing inherently 'special' about them (I agree), why do you bring them up? Is there something we can conclude about life forms with unique traits?
This is not related here, but your wrong about that assumption.
I am wrong to assume creationists believe in a six-day creation?
t requires no qualification - else it becomes non-unique in all senses and views. Unique but = not unique. So which is it? Tautologically unique to humans or not unique to humans? You'll have to provide a definition that is neither if you want to plead neither.
More importantly, it is not subsequent to the laws of ToE, as opposed it is not a requirement. I'm not sure how 'subsequent' is relevant. Consequences are more relevant to discuss surely?
It is ubsurd to think that cheeters could have adapted to speech given some circumstances: this is disproven by the fact all life forms did not - despite all time benefits for adaptation. It probably is absurd, since if circumstances were so different with regards to the evolution of cheetahs we wouldn't have cheetahs at all. As it stands, the common ancestor of cheetahs and humans could not speak, and circumstances of one lineage lead to speech, another lineage went to fast felines.
Obviously, something else from evolution is happening here, and its not related to millions of years of retrovirus impacts. Why is something else happening here? Because speech is a unique trait? I thought we had agreed that many life forms have unique traits and therefore the same thing is happening there.
ToE does not mention the host seed either - as if it is not relevent. The ToE does involve 'seeds', but either your concept of 'host seed' is irrelevant or it has a different name. Either that or you have made a massive breakthrough.
A seed represents an output of the parent host. Don't we normally call the output of the parent 'offspring'?
Why not say human intelligence is a form of intelligence of all life forms, thus not unique? Is it not an extension only? We could do, if you'd like. Then suddenly we have no unique traits in all of nature. So our discussion ends. Unless you can justify your position that speech is an exception - which I doubt you can.
This does not effect the issue. Though it does demonstrate that a certain brain is needed for speech, yes?
The unique quality of one stands. Else the aspect of unique becomes negated. if there is only one red marble, it remains a unique condition. Right - and if we had a red marble and a blue marble and a green marble, they are all unique in colour. As far as colour goes - uniqueness is common in our pool of marbles. The question is - what special status does red have?
What you are trying to say is, one's child is unique to the mother only and not unique as ageneralisation. Not at all. What I am saying is that, since you agree that lots of (or even all) life forms possess unique traits, that unique traits are common. That isn't to say any given unique trait is common to all, just that possessing a unique trait is quite normal.
Speech is unique because it is a one of a kind, and all forms of communications are different in kind. Right, but many of those different forms of communications are themselves one of a kind. Thus there are many unique types of communication. Are you suggesting that no other life form has a unique form of communication? Are you suggesting that communication is special and that other unique traits are irrelevant?
This is my point, and this is what Genesis is saying. It is vindicated and correct. It is not half-correct or subject to qualifications - the antithesis of a unique quality. If the writers of Genesis ever said something like "Speaking like a human is a unique trait of humans" or even "Speech is unique to humans" then they have simply made a zoological observation. It might be right or wrong (in this first case, they are almost tautologically right). As it stands - the theory of evolution doesn't state that entity x has unique trait y - but that is because the theory of evolution is explanatory not descriptive in nature. Natural history is descriptive and it says that the human ability to communicate is fairly unique (though other homo species probably 'spoke') and it developed as such...[insert science paper here].
The answer is in your question. Cheeter velosity is a difference in degree, unlike speech and communication, and the reason such a superflous statement is not made in Genesis. So, if humans only knew two words - we'd still be speaking and that would vindicate Genesis (if we were able to understand it!). Speaking two words and speaking 50,000 words is not a difference in degree? Other animals can communicate with words - though not using the same parts of the body in the same way using the same language, so I thought you must be speaking of a quality that is in degrees. So, your position then is this: Speech is completely unique to humans. No animal partly speaks. In fact, partly speaking is not possible it's either or. Pigs don't speak. Snakes don't speak. This vindicates Genesis. Other unique traits of humans or other life forms do not suggest anything important. And if I'm right - all I can see you saying is that the people who wrote Genesis saw that other animals don't talk and wrote that observation down. They also observed women have painful labours and wrote that down. Surely this isn't interesting? Anyway, in case you have some killer point somewhere I'd be keen on you defining speech in way that doesn't lead to circularity in your argument. I'm thinking: P1: Speech is doing x.P2: Humans and humans alone do X C: Humans uniquely have speech. Rather than: P1: Speech is how humans communicateP2: Humans and humans alone speak. C: Humans uniquely have speech. Do you think you're up to that challenge?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Right. So we agree your position is pointlessly tautological then? So which is it? Tautologically unique to humans or not unique to humans? You'll have to provide a definition that is neither if you want to plead neither. IamJoseph has consistently defined speech as something that only humans do, and replied that any examples of animals speaking do not qualify because they are not human, not because they are not speaking. He might just as well argue that the human big toe is a unique trait that can be used to distinguish humans from all other animals because only humans have human big toes. Yes it is a total tautology and it begs the question whenever applied. The issue of organism uniqueness is also being dismissed for other animals because it does not apply to humans. This amounts to a special pleading fallacy that such a characteristic of uniqueness only applies to his argument.
Anyway, in case you have some killer point somewhere I'd be keen on you defining speech in way that doesn't lead to circularity in your argument. I'm thinking: P1: Speech is doing x.P2: Humans and humans alone do X C: Humans uniquely have speech. Plus supporting evidence that shows Humans and humans alone do X ... Good luck. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : subtitle compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Allow me to go further on this issue. There is no similarity or mere progression in degree, even in non-human life form communications: one of the factors used [namely, speech is a difference in degree as opposed kind]. The notion a bird adapted communication from a fish or a different species, or that a zebra begat it from ancient crocodiles - even allowing for all the twists and turns expressed in ToE - defy the evidences tended. What appears the case, is each communication mode is focused only on small groupings focused fastediously in their own immediate surrounds, negating the view only a variance of degree applies. In fact an epochial shift from sameness [degree], namely a drift from the previous or any similar adjacent example, is the case. All life form groupings communicate in a language not shared by another - often in polar contrasting modes of another, negating any semblance of similarity of thread subject to degrees. These differences are far from similarities seen in the varied languages in humans. And when this is better considered, it appears not just logical, but leaves no sustaining plausability for the notion of elevationary communication skills by degrees. Apes are not learning tricks from mosquitoes from way back when; mosquitoes were never examining how apes communicate - there is no thread of connectivity or common relevence factors here. IOW, all life form groupings have their own, particular and unique communications, without this being effected by some commonality factors: the differences are more impacting than the commonalities, in the rendering of unique factors. There is a treshold, which when surpassed, the base commonalities have no impact; otherwise there would be not only no such thing as unique, but also no differences in differences per se. With the latter, it means, even mathematically, 2 will not equal 2: how does one know both 2's are the same in every manner? And this is what I see the merit of atheistic science has seccumbed to for its credibility. That all matter can be seen as academically inter-connected ultimately, as the reasoning for speech not being unique but part of communication of all life forms, is hardly credible - but this appears all there is to this arguement. I have pondered it awhile, and find that: 1. Unique status is not negated because we are all contained in the same finite universe. 2. There is no applicable commonality factors anywhere - by reason of [1] alone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The issue is not about commonalities but differences. Communication is common to all life - and only one life form has speech. The latter is not negated by the commonalities, but is made more pronounced by it. Talking serpent. This requires better comprehension of texts, as one would do with numbers in a mathematical treatise such as MC2. The metaphorical story of adam and eve is set in a realm outside and varied from this physical earth, contextually, and must be factored in. It says clearly, the first couple were cast down [to this earthly realm, from a different realm], and re-entry was barred by angels with firey swords turing every which way to guard the gates. While christianity and islam did brilliant jobs in spreading the OT around for 2000 years, some deficiencies are also operative, due to lost in translation, etc. The Disney-like depiction of Abraham sacrificing an 8 year old youth, for example, requires adjustment: the youth was 37 years old, changing the factor who was being tested most here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: The notion a bird adapted communication from a fish or a different species, or that a zebra begat it from ancient crocodiles - even allowing for all the twists and turns expressed in ToE - defy the evidences tended. Of course. That's why nobody I know thinks that birds adapted communication from fish or zebras learnt it from crocodiles. But then, birds didn't adapt flying behaviours from fish either, and zebra didn't learn how to walk by watching crocodiles. Those behaviours are passed through genes and modified by evolution. No memes involved. The only learnt factors are what call to associate with distress and what calls to associate with asserting dominance etc. Even those are heavily influenced by instinct, even in humans. What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: There is something else more immediate than genes, which does not take millions of years, and evidential as the transmitting factor of all transmissions. It is found in an output of the host parent, and can even be termed as a 'seed'. Conversely, in the absence of the seed - nothing happens. It means speciation and its adaptation can be safely pointed to an internal factor, which is an immediate one, as opposed external factors such as pre-historic genes and/or environmental impacts. Unless of course, the seed factor did not exist. It means a lion does not eat meat not because of environmental factors but a pre-disposed seed factor. This remains the more plausable despite a generic connectivity of all components in the universe, which can be tracked to one point or source. Adaptions such as a polar bear having greater cold defensive skins, are also not gene based factors, but environmental defense mechanisms based on environement impacts - these are reversable with environmental changes, negating the gene premise! That adaptation is limited to a point of its activity and impact well after a life has emerged, as opposed by an ancestral gene factor, is evidenced by some commodities do not change [Hydrogen; carbon; quarks; etc]; and while those that do show changes and commonalities only emulate their immediate host parentage. A deformity or talent, for example, may be determined in the dna as a gene factor: but this is also limited to the immediate paranetal genes only - perhaps limited to four generations.ToE is only evidential where the seed factor is absent. Edited by IamJoseph, : spell
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
There is no such thing as a meme: tracking down its inception will find it had no previous historical thread condusive to a meme, but in fact emerged suddenly and by a compulsion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 865 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
IAJ writes: Adaptions such as a polar bear having greater cold defensive skins, are also not gene based factors, but environmental defense mechanisms based on environement impacts - these are reversable with environmental changes, negating the gene premise! This sure sounds a lot like Lysenkoism to me. Haven't you heard the news? Lysenkoism is as dead as the millions who starved under its grip. Edited by anglagard, : forgot sig Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
IamJoseph responds to me:
quote:quote: Huh? You are aware that Koko is a gorilla, yes? Since what she is doing is identical to what humans are doing, why it is "speech" when it's us but not so when it's her? What is your definition of "speech"? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
quote: Allow me to go further on this issue. Of making completely silly self-delusional arguments that have no useful or intellectual validity? You certainly can (and have).
All life form groupings communicate in a language not shared by another - often in polar contrasting modes of another, negating any semblance of similarity of thread subject to degrees. These differences are far from similarities seen in the varied languages in humans. IOW, all life form groupings have their own, particular and unique communications, In other words, what makes human speech special is that it comes from humans. Thus we can use it to distinguish humans from all other animals, because we can determine whether or not the speech comes from a human, and then, if it does come from a human then the speech shows us the human is human, but if it does not come from a human then the speech shows that it is not a human. Unfortunately you are using the human being a human first to determine that it is human and the issue of speech is totally irrelevant at that point. This is not science, logic or rational conclusions. It is self-delusion. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
IaJ writes: It means speciation and its adaptation can be safely pointed to an internal factor, which is an immediate one, as opposed external factors such as pre-historic genes and/or environmental impacts. Ok, so you're saying that genes have nothing to do with speciation? Back to Evolution 101 for you! And also, acclimitization (an individual animal growing longer fur when it moves to a cold climate) does have little to do with genes. But that is not how speciation or evolution work.
IaJ writes:
Back to Zoology 101 for you! (although perhaps your double negative has thrown me here)
a lion does not eat meat IaJ writes:
And how, exactly, does a mutation have such a generation limit? What makes it revert once this limit is up? And how does it know what it used to be so that it can revert accurately? A deformity or talent, for example, may be determined in the dna as a gene factor: but this is also limited to the immediate paranetal genes only - perhaps limited to four generations. Back to Genetics 101 for you! Edited by Doddy, : quote tags What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3697 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Better, if it is speech, it comes only from a human. It is not just unique to humans, but a unique phenomenon.
quote: There is good and poor science, and before you get to good - the preamble must be right.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024