Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 268 (424859)
09-29-2007 2:24 AM


It is a Difference of Kind ” sorry to say
I'm sorry, but I have to agree with IaJ on this whole matter. What that bird does with its vocalisation and what a human does with language are things that are of a different kind.
As to whether that's evidence for special creation, well, I think you know where I'd stand on that issue. But, I'm nevertheless convinced that all of you have failed to show that what the bird does is anything more than response to stimuli. Even the bird's trainer doesn't agree with you that it's 'language'. I really think you all need to give the point a rest.
Humans have language.
Alex the pea-brained bird does not.
Jon

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by IamJoseph, posted 09-29-2007 3:08 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 268 (424861)
09-29-2007 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by ringo
09-28-2007 9:55 PM


Are you all just testing my response to your stimuli?
How do you expect me to reply to you when you keep making dumbass claims like:
All speech is response to stimuli.
All language isn't a response to stimuli. Lot's of language is creative. Being creative is what makes it language as opposed to a response to stimuli.
Where do you draw the line? When does response to stimuli become "true" speech in children.
Actually, I did answer that, and will do so again. 'Response to stimuli' becomes 'language' when it stops being 'response to stimuli'.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by ringo, posted 09-28-2007 9:55 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by IamJoseph, posted 09-29-2007 3:01 AM Jon has replied
 Message 151 by ringo, posted 09-29-2007 10:48 AM Jon has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 123 of 268 (424863)
09-29-2007 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by ringo
09-29-2007 1:20 AM


quote:
The questions is: When precisely does a child's "non-speech" become speech. How do you distinguish? What is the moment when the sounds coming out of a child's mouth begin to be "speech"?
Its like learning to walk. In both cases there is a unique inherent wiring which makes this happen once triggered. It does not happen indiscriminately or by the input of the parent or the child absolutely. A hovering factor impacts here - there is intergration.
quote:
(Isn't it ironic that your posts probably wouldn't pass the test for "speech"?)
I think whoever did not select the human kind from a list of all other life forms as possessing a unique factor would fail the test. Logic, science and maths is preemtively based on honesty.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
Which Joseph Goebbels - the one which said work will set you free?
I prefer:
'MAN SHALT NOT LIVE BY BREAD ALONE'.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by ringo, posted 09-29-2007 1:20 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by ringo, posted 09-29-2007 10:55 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 124 of 268 (424864)
09-29-2007 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Jon
09-29-2007 2:37 AM


Re: Are you all just testing my response to your stimuli?
quote:
All language isn't a response to stimuli. Lot's of language is creative. Being creative is what makes it language as opposed to a response to stimuli.
Good insight there. Ironically, the stimuli does not bump the same result in other life forms but one. It means either the stimuli is very selective - or that it is in turn bumped by an impacting factor, rendering it a conduit at best.
Stimuli have different meanings, based upon its application. For sure, stimuli does not denote a random bump - else it would have no impact per se. A stroke of lightning can be termed as a stimuli - but it won't necessailly beget speech. Here we see, one must look past the conduit - and the result affirms only a hovering control factor applies. This is true even when their own premise is countenanced: that the stimuli creates variances to allign with the object it impacts - signifies its control factor!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 2:37 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 3:11 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 125 of 268 (424865)
09-29-2007 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Jon
09-29-2007 2:24 AM


Re: It is a Difference of Kind ” sorry to say
Its not my knowledge - I saw it in genesis. For sure, it need not require the condoning of everything else you don't accept.
However, I will say one thing: the issue of speech and of the categorising of life forms by 'kinds' based on vegetation, water, air, land - and speech, as declared in genesis - has greater significance than first imagined. It is epochial, and the reason deliberated by so many forums and scientific papers today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 2:24 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 3:16 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 268 (424866)
09-29-2007 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by IamJoseph
09-29-2007 3:01 AM


Re: Are you all just testing my response to your stimuli?
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what it is you are getting at.
A stroke of lightning can be termed as a stimuli - but it won't necessailly beget speech.
Huh?
Here we see, one must look past the conduit - and the result affirms only a hovering control factor applies.
Err...
Also
Stimulus
Stimulus = singular
Stimuli = plural
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by IamJoseph, posted 09-29-2007 3:01 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by IamJoseph, posted 09-29-2007 3:44 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 268 (424867)
09-29-2007 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by IamJoseph
09-29-2007 3:08 AM


Re: It is a Difference of Kind ” sorry to say
It is epochial, and the reason deliberated by so many forums and scientific papers today.
I'm sorry, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any serious scientific papers that are meant to address 'taxonomy according to Genesis'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by IamJoseph, posted 09-29-2007 3:08 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by IamJoseph, posted 09-29-2007 3:39 AM Jon has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 128 of 268 (424872)
09-29-2007 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Jon
09-29-2007 3:16 AM


Re: It is a Difference of Kind ” sorry to say
The provision of classifying life forms by order of their existentialism and primal design [in water or in the air], is transcendent of the sub-set imprints of their skelatal and biological imprints.
Consider if you were witness to a new planet emerging with all its different life forms, what would strike you first: that some are strictly air borne and some ocean borne - or whether some had protruding jaws and others had shorter legs. This is the vista of Genesis, and it constitutes correct taxamony. It does not render the ToE subset divisions wrong. This is also the reason humans constitute a difference in kind, uneffected by the sub-set allocations but despite it, and the error in ToE.
Regardless, I do not have to find too many scientists too fearful - or worse, to condone the blatant - only a few good men will suffice, and there is no problem here either. I see Genesis as a deceptively simple but brilliant observation here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 3:16 AM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Vacate, posted 09-29-2007 4:25 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 129 of 268 (424873)
09-29-2007 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Jon
09-29-2007 3:11 AM


Re: Are you all just testing my response to your stimuli?
Stimulus = singular
Stimuli = plural
Jon
Spellcheck in instant reponse forums too - nahhhhhhh!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 3:11 AM Jon has not replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 130 of 268 (424877)
09-29-2007 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by IamJoseph
09-29-2007 3:39 AM


Brilliant?
transcendent of the sub-set imprints of their skelatal and biological imprints
You claim its transcendent, but the sub-sets contradict your claims.
This is the vista of Genesis, and it constitutes correct taxamony. It does not render the ToE subset divisions wrong.
Correct, both are viable methods of organizing life.
Consider if you were witness to a new planet emerging with all its different life forms, what would strike you first: that some are strictly air borne and some ocean borne - or whether some had protruding jaws and others had shorter legs.
First impressions could be wrong. Further study of these life forms may show that crossing these arbitrary kind barriers is done on a regular basis.
I see Genesis as a deceptively simple but brilliant observation here.
But you have not shown it to be brilliant. The categories that you have presented are completely inadequate to explain the varied life seen on Earth. As I have pointed out in the thread Problems of a different "Kind" your methods, though not incorrect, are not a viable tool for learning. Thus far you have attempted to show that a bear and a bacteria are the same thing while claiming that Genesis is "deceptively simple".
If your theories made it to the textbooks, how do you suppose to get past these gradeschool level (at best) observations? Genesis is simple, explain why biology should revert back to simplistic explanations when we know so much more than the authors of the bible. How will you convince these children that chickens are air born, bears are creapeths, cats are ground things, and a crab is a fish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by IamJoseph, posted 09-29-2007 3:39 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by IamJoseph, posted 09-29-2007 6:00 AM Vacate has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 131 of 268 (424882)
09-29-2007 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by IamJoseph
09-29-2007 1:11 AM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
IOW, nothing happens by two particles jitterbugging with each other by themselves; H does not meet O and valla we have water here on earth, and which is critical for life, and life just happened to welcome water and flourish.
I know nothing of this 'jitterbugging' theory of yours. If hydrogen and oxygen burn, then voila we have water - this is just a function of the structure of these atoms/molecules. It isn't a special 'key' and 'lock' type affair, it's just chemistry.
Speech?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by IamJoseph, posted 09-29-2007 1:11 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by IamJoseph, posted 09-29-2007 6:11 AM Modulous has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 132 of 268 (424887)
09-29-2007 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Jon
09-28-2007 7:06 AM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
Jon responds to me:
quote:
If you think someone who's memorised Webster's front to back and nothing else”grammar, inflections, syntax, etc.”can be said to possess 'language', then you rightly are an idiot.
But that's just it: Alex did have grammar and syntax. That they were not as sophisticated as an adult human's grammar and syntax merely shows a difference in degree, not kind.
It comes down to that: Did Alex have grammar and syntax? You say no. All the linguists who worked with Alex say yes.
I seriously doubt we're going to get beyond that.
quote:
Sure, because people who play fetch with their dogs always make sure to throw the items in the exact place, each time...
Hmm...seems you don't know that the word "fetch" has multiple meanings. Does that mean you are incapable of nothing more than "stimulus/response"?
"Fetch" does not necessarily mean I'm throwing the ball.
quote:
That parrot possesses no greater capacity for language than the dog
Why not? The parrot has grammar and syntax. Oh, that's right. You keep saying it doesn't though it displays every example of what we would call such were it being spoken by a human.
You say no. Every linguist who has worked with Alex says yes.
I doubt we'll be able to get past that.
quote:
You have yet to show his positive evidence of understanding grammar.
What part of recognizing a question isn't grammar? It's simplistic and small, yes, but it is grammar.
quote:
That the trainer in the video does not inflect 'block' should be evidence that she is just trying to fool people
Why? Children don't inflect "block." Are they not "speaking"? Do they not have grammar? There are some languages where the entire concept of inflection to indicitate plurality DOES NOT EXIST. Does that mean it doesn't have a grammar? It's only grammar if it inflects for plurality?
We're back to the sticking point. You say no. All the linguists say yes.
I don't think we're going to be able to get past that.
quote:
Sure... the auxiliary term is part of the grammar
But there are some langauges that don't even have that. No inflection of any kind. The concept of plurality simply does not exist. Does that mean there is no grammar? The only way to have grammar is to have plurality?
quote:
Because the bird doesn't have grammar.
Says who? You? Why should we believe you? All the linguists who worked with Alex contradict you. Why should your opinion count for more than those who worked with Alex?
We're back to the sticking point. You say no. The linguists say yes.
I don't think we're going to be able to get past that.
quote:
Again, you can communicate with the child using proper grammar
But the child doesn't respond to you using the same grammar. Instead, the child responds using a different grammar. The only reason that we can understand what the child is saying is because we are sophisticated enough users of language that we can translate the child's grammar into our own.
So Alex cannot translate our grammar. Why does that mean he doesn't have any?
quote:
they all have a grammar of some kind, else they are not languages.
And Alex has grammar. Ergo, he has language.
But, we're back to the sticking point. You say no. All the linguists who have worked with Alex say yes.
I don't think we're going to be able to get past that.
quote:
Because, plurality is part of the grammar of English
Who said Alex spoke English? There are languages that don't have any plurality in their grammars. Does that mean they're not really languages? If not, why does Alex's lack of plurality mean he isn't using language?
Who said Alex spoke English? Not that long ago, English wasn't nearly as analytic as it is now. The reversal of syntax that is so iconic of Yoda from Star Wars was commonplace because word order wasn't that important. Things have changed. The grammar has changed. Even though a lot of the words are the same, the rules for how to construct statements have changed. In a very real sense, it's a different language.
Who said Alex spoke English?
quote:
As it is, there's no indication that the bird understands grammar
...except for the linguists that worked with him.
We're back to the sticking point. You say no. All the linguists who worked with Alex say yes.
I don't think we're going to be able to get past that.
quote:
Besides, most people are not taught their grammar
Oh, yes, they are! In the very act of teaching the language, you teach the grammar. Listen to any parent as they talk to their child, correcting the mistakes so the child learns how to say things correctly. Oh, it's not a formal teaching session with chalkboards and essays, but it's teaching just the same.
quote:
That the bird has not been taught grammar, nor has acquired it through being in the presence of his trainers is rather conclusive evidence that he lacks the capacity to understand grammar.
Except that the bird does have grammar. It's just different from ours.
We're back to the sticking point. You say no. All the linguists who have worked with Alex say yes.
I don't think we're going to be able to get past that.
quote:
You yourself have used them as synonyms in this very post.
I know, but that's because I know what those terms mean.
IamJoseph, on the other hand, seems to think that when one is using sign language, one is not "speaking." All linguistic references I have ever seen to sign language do call it "speaking," even though it isn't transmitted via sound. It's a "verbal" method of communication even though it is transmitted manually rather than vocally.
quote:
Making sounds is not language(/speech), even if they sound like words.
True, but you need to take the next step: Even if the words sound like English, that doesn't mean it is.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Jon, posted 09-28-2007 7:06 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 5:37 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 133 of 268 (424889)
09-29-2007 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Jon
09-28-2007 2:13 PM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
Jon writes:
quote:
One of the base components of the English grammar is plural inflection.
Who said Alex spoke English? Just because the words sound like English doesn't mean it is.
quote:
He was not shown to understand plural inflection.
That simply means his grammar doesn't use plurality. There are languages that don't. Why are you assuming Alex is using English grammar? Just because the words sound like English?
Who said Alex spoke English?
quote:
Will you please show me how what the bird is doing is any different than what a dog can do?
You were already shown. Alex is responding to the grammar and syntax of the question with the appropriate answer.
If you put a group of balls in front of a dog, some nubbly and some not, and say, "Fetch second nubbly ball," the dog isn't going to know what to do.
Alex, on the other hand, can tease out the meaning because he has grammar and syntax.
quote:
Will you present evidence of the presence of an understanding of grammar in this bird?
What part of understanding a question isn't grammar?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Jon, posted 09-28-2007 2:13 PM Jon has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 134 of 268 (424892)
09-29-2007 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Jon
09-29-2007 2:17 AM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
Jon writes:
quote:
Mere ability to give the trained stimuli response is not an indication that the bird has grasped grammar.
But that's just it: It isn't "mere ability to give the trained stimuli response." Why? Because there isn't any trained response. If I give a stimulus for which there is more than one possible reaction but only one of which is correct, then it is not a trained response.
Alex could have made any particular noise. That is, after all, the trained response. But there is only a specific noise that is appropriate and it cannot be gleaned simply because a stimulus has been provided. That is, there is no one-to-one connection between the stimulus is and what Alex is supposed to do.
If it were stimulus/response, then "how many green block?" would always get the same response. Instead, Alex gives a contextually accurate response.
quote:
Is that what you'd say of a dog who rolls over when given the command to 'sit'?
Actually, I'd need to know more. Why? Because when my parents' dog was told to sit, she'd lie down. Why? Because we had only taught her two tricks: Sit and lie down. And guess what? Right after "sit" always came "lie down" and "lie down" never came first. She eventually figured out that when we said "sit," we wanted her to lie down so she did.
The question is, does Alex always do that or only sometimes? Because the dog tends to do the same response to the same stimuli no matter the context. Alex, on the other hand, gives contextually accurate responses.
Ergo, Alex is doing something beyond stimulus/response.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 2:17 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 268 (424893)
09-29-2007 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Rrhain
09-29-2007 5:02 AM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
All the linguists who worked with Alex say yes.
If you aren't going to present this evidence, then this debate will not continue. The consensus by the linguistic community is that what the bird does is not language.
That they were not as sophisticated as an adult human's grammar and syntax merely shows a difference in degree, not kind.
...
...though it displays every example of what we would call such were it being spoken by a human.
Explain to me how this isn't contradictory.
What part of recognizing a question isn't grammar?
The part of recognising a question. There's no grammar. Not even the trainer thinks it's language.
So Alex cannot translate our grammar.
Not the point. The bird doesn't have grammar. 'Block' and 'blocks' are as different to him as 'hello' and 'goodbye'. It's simple, really, he doesn't possess the brain parts required for grammar, and this is displayed in his lack of grammar.
quote:
Dictionary.com
4.Generative Grammar. a device, as a body of rules, whose output is all of the sentences that are permissible in a given language, while excluding all those that are not permissible.
The bird does not recognise a 'body of rules' that can form 'all of the sentences that are permissible in a given language'. You have yet to demonstrate to the contrary, and you have yet to present your astonishing list of 'linguists' who agree with you.
Until you can tell me how the bird's behaviour represents his understanding of grammar”merely responding to the stimuli doesn't constitute grammar”and can present the evidence by these 'linguists', I think your argument has no basis.
If you don't present those, of course, I'm not going to waste my time discussing something with someone who can't even be bothered enough to bring forth his evidence.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Rrhain, posted 09-29-2007 5:02 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Rrhain, posted 09-29-2007 6:09 AM Jon has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024