Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 136 of 268 (424896)
09-29-2007 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Vacate
09-29-2007 4:25 AM


Re: Brilliant?
quote:
Correct, both are viable methods of organizing life.
You are making it superfluous, so I cannot agree. While the ToE has its merit, it does not apply in the transcendent premise. Thus I analogised witnessing a planet and life form emerging. If you were darwin and witnessing the scenario from inception, you'd record in your diary first as per Genesis, then later on would you look closer and record that some land based and air borne life forms have marked subtle variances. Genesis is correct - without any denting from ToE.
The ToE variances is a never ending process, and further breakdowns of differences can be found the more life forms are scrutinised more closely. One kind of poodle is different from another 10 other kinds of poddles, ensuring a never ending treshold of variations across the life form menus. It does not effect Genesis at all, both are not right - as the first level of categorising.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Vacate, posted 09-29-2007 4:25 AM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Vacate, posted 09-29-2007 6:46 AM IamJoseph has not replied

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


Message 137 of 268 (424898)
09-29-2007 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Jon
09-29-2007 5:37 AM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
Jon responds to me:
quote:
The consensus by the linguistic community is that what the bird does is not language.
Incorrect. The exact opposite is true.
Do not confuse people who are commenting upon Alex but who never worked with him to be "the linguistic community."
That is akin to saying that we should trust the governor of New York to discuss the actions of the governor of California since they are both governors. Never mind that the governor of New York has never had to deal with the California Assembly. He's a governor! Of course he knows!
But you're right. This debate probably won't continue.
You say no. All the linguists who worked with Alex say yes. Somehow, I don't think we're going to be able to get past that.
quote:
quote:
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.
Because children are human but don't have the sophisticated grammar and syntax of adults. If the children are considered to be "speaking," then why isn't Alex?
You're invoking the logical error of special pleading.
quote:
quote:
So Alex cannot translate our grammar.
Not the point.
Incorrect. That is precisely the point. You're trying to force your grammar on him and then, when he fails to live up to your preconceived notion, claim that he doesn't have any grammar.
And yet, there are myriad langauges that don't follow the grammar of English. You seem to think they're languages, so why does the fact that Alex doesn't follow English grammar mean he doesn't have any?
Who said Alex was speaking English?
quote:
The bird does not recognise a 'body of rules' that can form 'all of the sentences that are permissible in a given language'.
Yes, he does.
Who said Alex was speaking English?
quote:
Until you can tell me how the bird's behaviour represents his understanding of grammar
Already done. What part of comprehending 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 135 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 5:37 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 6:26 AM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 138 of 268 (424899)
09-29-2007 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Modulous
09-29-2007 4:50 AM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
quote:
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.
Does it mean there's no H and O on Mars? Does it mean if H2O were put on Mars - life would result? The latter must have been experimented by space missions, or they should have.
Now if one says, the critical conditions are only present on earth, then there goes your adaptation, life from the inanimate, survival of the fittest, etc, etc. Afer all, adaptation is not about adaptation only on the critical conditions on one blue planet: it is adapting to any critical conditions. Else it has no particular meaning, and requires devasting qualifications - applicable only to planet earth!
My conclusion: a hovering, external factor applies. Nothing to do with the subjective particles of matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Modulous, posted 09-29-2007 4:50 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Modulous, posted 09-29-2007 11:33 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 268 (424900)
09-29-2007 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Rrhain
09-29-2007 6:09 AM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
You did not present the evidence. Your position has no support. This debate is finished.
{ABE}
You haven't shown that the bird understands.
You haven't shown that understanding = grammar.
You haven't presented the list of linguists agreeing with you.
0 for 3, mate.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Rrhain, posted 09-29-2007 6:09 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Phat, posted 09-29-2007 7:07 AM Jon has replied
 Message 158 by Rrhain, posted 09-29-2007 8:35 PM Jon has replied

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


Message 140 of 268 (424902)
09-29-2007 6:42 AM


The term 'kind' described in Genesis, is a correct and comprehensive devision of life forms. There is a greater significance and more underlying commonality factors in a 'kind' of water based life forms, and a kind of land based life forms, encumbent within that category 'kind', than limited to those enumerated in ToE.
When this is properly contemplated it is very logical and manifest: there must be a distinction between a salmon fish and a bear - intrinsically, which allows one to do what the other cannot, and did not for millions of years. These appear as hidden differences, and not limited to skelatal imprints. This is also significant of the premise why only humans have speech. This is not a rejection of Darwinism or lessening its importance, but an elevation of what he made us aware of. Nor is it a contradiction of Genesis, but which atheists have thus far used as a tool to suit their cause - eronously.
After all, Darwin would not have been privy to everything and all knowledge in these subjects, being from an earlier time. IMHO, if anything, Darwin will prove Genesis by default. It is similar to Newton and Einstein. Both made epochial contributions relative to their spacetimes. this assessment shows, from a scientific POV, that within the 'kind' category described in Genesis, there is hidden commonality factors which allow cross-speciation within one 'kind' of life forms, predating Darwin by 3000 years, as does Genesis also with the correct chronological order of life forms:
quote:
Creationists have long pointed out that the biblical “kind” was broader than today’s “species”. Sorting and loss of the already existing genetic information has resulted in all the “species” we have today (this is not evolution, which requires new genes and new information). The article Ligers and Wholphins: What Next? (Creation 22(3):28-33, June-August 2000 ) covers the extent of the biblical “kinds” in more detail. This article shows that many so-called different species and genera can actually interbreed and produce fertile offspring, showing that they are really a single polytypic biological species. And animals that can hybridise, at least up to fertilisation, are members of the same created kind.

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Vacate, posted 09-29-2007 7:26 AM IamJoseph has replied

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


Message 141 of 268 (424903)
09-29-2007 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by IamJoseph
09-29-2007 6:00 AM


Re: Brilliant?
You are making it superfluous, so I cannot agree.
It (Genesis) is superflous. You have not given me any information to think otherwise.
While the ToE has its merit, it does not apply in the transcendent premise.
Right. It does not say that there is some type of barrier to evolution. You are saying there is a barrier and then dictating how to make the distinction - regardless of all the species that contradict your distinction.
Genesis is correct - without any denting from ToE.
True (in regards to kinds), yet this is somewhat pointless isnt it? We cannot advance our knowledge using your method. Right or wrong its useless.
The ToE variances is a never ending process, and further breakdowns of differences can be found the more life forms are scrutinised more closely. One kind of poodle is different from another 10 other kinds of poddles, ensuring a never ending treshold of variations across the life form menus.
Now you understand! What good is it then to simply say - ground kind in an attempt to explain the 10 types of poodles? Good example, I hope that I can come up with an almost never ending list of them.
Please don't use the word kind in this context. Based on your definition the use of kind is incorrect, I would prefer that you use type or some such variation to avoid confusion. Unless you are now trying to put forward that there are actually ten kinds of poodles that need to be added to the list instead of included in ground kinds.
It does not effect Genesis at all, both are not right - as the first level of categorising.
Levels?? You have not suggested that kinds are tier based. Any sub grouping defeats the purpose of having kinds in the first place.
I would prefer to leave this to RAZD's 'kind' thread as its offtopic here and I try to keep under moderation radar. As a whole I am pretty satisfied with Jon's clarification on speech, as such I am finding it difficult to remain on topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by IamJoseph, posted 09-29-2007 6:00 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 142 of 268 (424909)
09-29-2007 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Jon
09-29-2007 6:26 AM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
Jon, I have a question. Do we or do we not know what the conclusion of Alex's handlers/researchers actually was? This is important in deducing the extent of Alex's capacity to develop a sort of a language or to just have rudimentary pattern recognition/response.
I would think that these questions that you asked Rrhain are important to providing an answer.
Are we debating whether or not a bird can evolve...into a public speaker?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 6:26 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 7:22 AM Phat has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 268 (424910)
09-29-2007 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Phat
09-29-2007 7:07 AM


The Final Conclusion
Are we debating whether or not a bird can evolve...into a public speaker?
Of course we are not debating that at all.
Do we or do we not know what the conclusion of Alex's handlers/researchers actually was?
Yes, they made it quite clear in the report. I shall quote it again:
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.''
It's quite clear that those working closest with the bird do not feel what he's done to be 'language'.
Jon
__________
A Thinking Bird or Just Another Birdbrain?
Edited by Jon, : Bad grammar... but still.. grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Phat, posted 09-29-2007 7:07 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2007 7:59 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 184 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-30-2007 7:24 AM Jon has not replied

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


Message 144 of 268 (424912)
09-29-2007 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by IamJoseph
09-29-2007 6:42 AM


There is a greater significance and more underlying commonality factors in a 'kind' of water based life forms, and a kind of land based life forms, encumbent within that category 'kind', than limited to those enumerated in ToE.
I have asked you many direct questions regarding the commonality of water kinds and land kinds. As it stands there is no apparent way to distinguish between the groupings. You have already shown in the kind thread that any understanding of what constitutes water kind or land kind is not readily apparent. I had no idea for example that a bear and a bacteria where the same kind until you pointed it out. I still have no idea why, and therefore I believe its important to outline the criterea for such groupings before 'kind' could ever be considered a valid concept.
there must be a distinction between a salmon fish and a bear - intrinsically, which allows one to do what the other cannot, and did not for millions of years.
There is a difference. ToE does not ignore this difference. Toe has not been around for millions of years.
These appear as hidden differences, and not limited to skelatal imprints.
Could you outline these hidden differences between a salmon fish and a bear? Feel free to ignore the skeletal differences, I am curious to know the ones that biologists are unaware of.
After all, Darwin would not have been privy to everything and all knowledge in these subjects, being from an earlier time.
Darwin came after the bible not before. This could be the source of your confusion.
predating Darwin by 3000 years
Or not. Your a hard man to make sense of.
there is hidden commonality factors which allow cross-speciation within one 'kind' of life forms
Am I safe to assume that you can identify the hidden factors that allow bacteria to become bears but do not allow reptiles (with feathers!) to become birds?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by IamJoseph, posted 09-29-2007 6:42 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by IamJoseph, posted 09-29-2007 7:59 AM Vacate has not replied
 Message 147 by Vacate, posted 09-29-2007 8:02 AM Vacate has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 145 of 268 (424915)
09-29-2007 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Jon
09-29-2007 7:22 AM


Re: The Final Conclusion
Yes, they made it quite clear in the report. I shall quote it again:
And just before your quote the part you ignored:
quote:
She continued: ''What little syntax he has is very simplistic.
She says Alex has simple syntax.
syn·tax -noun 1.a. The study of the rules whereby words or other elements of sentence structure are combined to form grammatical sentences.
- b. A publication, such as a book, that presents such rules.
- c. The pattern of formation of sentences or phrases in a language.
- d. Such a pattern in a particular sentence or discourse.
2. Computer Science The rules governing the formation of statements in a programming language.
3. A systematic, orderly arrangement.
(American Heritage Dictionary )
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.''
It's quite clear that those working closest with the bird do not feel what he's done to be 'language'.
Or those working with him don't think the language he's learned would be enough for an interview conversation. Meanwhile they aren't making conclusions one way or the other.
You can, on the other hand, interview Koko. It's all a matter of degree.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 7:22 AM Jon has not replied

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


Message 146 of 268 (424916)
09-29-2007 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Vacate
09-29-2007 7:26 AM


quote:
Your a hard man to make sense of.
Here's a counter scientific responsa to some of the factors debated here. The most relevent factors are quoted in preamble:
Unique: The evidence conclusively implies that humans were created with the unique ability to employ speech for communication.
Re.Evolutionists' distortions to pose speech as another communication extention: Design implies a Designer; thus, evolutionists have conjured up theories that consider language nothing more than a fortuitous chain of events. Most of these theories involve humans growing bigger brains, which then made it physiologically possible for people to develop speech and language.
No non-human languages exist: In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, editors Jones, Martin, and Pilbeam conceded that ”there are no non-human languages,’ and then went on to observe that ”language is an adaptation unique to humans, and yet the nature of its uniqueness and its biological basis are notoriously difficult to define’ [emphasis added]
No pre-6000 speech: In fact, in the Atlas of Languages, this remarkable admission can be found: ”No languageless community has ever been found’.[5] This represents no small problem for evolution.
Speech emerged suddenly, not via evolution: But there is a single, common theme that stands out amidst all the theories: ”The world’s languages evolved spontaneously. They were not designed’ [emphasis added].[7]
The Origin of Language and Communication
© 2003 Brad Harrub, Ph.D., Bert Thompson, Ph.D., and Dave Miller, Ph.D. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduced by Permission from TJ, Answers in Genesis
By age four, most humans have developed an ability to communicate through oral language. By age six or seven, most humans can comprehend, as well as express, written thoughts. These unique abilities of communicating through a native language clearly separate humans from all animals. The obvious question then arises, where did we obtain this distinctive trait? Organic evolution has proven unable to elucidate the origin of language and communication. Knowing how beneficial this ability is to humans, one would wonder why this skill has not evolved in other species. Materialistic science is insufficient at explaining not only how speech came about, but also why we have so many different languages. Linguistic research, combined with neurological studies, has determined that human speech is highly dependent on a neuronal network located in specific sites within the brain. This intricate arrangement of neurons, and the anatomical components necessary for speech, cannot be reduced in such a way that one could produce a “transitional” form of communication. The following paper examines the true origin of speech and language, and the anatomical and physiological requirements. The evidence conclusively implies that humans were created with the unique ability to employ speech for communication.
Introduction
n 1994, an article appeared in Time magazine titled ”How man began’. Within that article was the following bold assertion: ”No single, essential difference separates human beings from other animals’.[1] Yet, in what is obviously a contradiction to such a statement, all evolutionists admit that communication via speech is uniquely human”so much so that it often is used as the singular, and most important, dividing line between humans and animals. In his book, Eve Spoke, evolutionist Philip Lieberman admitted:
”Speech is so essential to our concept of intelligence that its possession is virtually equated with being human. Animals who talk are human, because what sets us apart from other animals is the “gift” of speech’ [emphasis in original].[2]
In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, editors Jones, Martin, and Pilbeam conceded that ”there are no non-human languages,’ and then went on to observe that ”language is an adaptation unique to humans, and yet the nature of its uniqueness and its biological basis are notoriously difficult to define’ [emphasis added].[3] In his book, The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain, Terrance Deacon noted:
”In this context, then, consider the case of human language. It is one of the most distinctive behavioral adaptations on the planet. Languages evolved in only one species, in only one way, without precedent, except in the most general sense. And the differences between languages and all other natural modes of communicating are vast.’[4]
What events transpired that have allowed humans to speak, while animals remain silent? If we are to believe the evolutionary teaching currently taking place in colleges and universities around the world, speech evolved as a natural process over time. Yet no one is quite sure how, and there are no known animals that are in a transition phase from non-speaking to speaking. In fact, in the Atlas of Languages, this remarkable admission can be found: ”No languageless community has ever been found’.[5] This represents no small problem for evolution.
In fact, the origin of speech and language (along with the development of sex and reproduction) remains one of the most significant hurdles in evolutionary theory, even in the twenty-first century. In an effort “make the problem go away,” some evolutionists have chosen not to even address the problem. Jean Aitchison noted:
”In 1866, a ban on the topic was incorporated into the founding statutes of the Linguistic Society of Paris, perhaps the foremost academic linguistic institution of the time: ”The Society does not accept papers on either the origin of language or the invention of a universal language.’[6]
That is an amazing (albeit inadvertent) admission of defeat, especially coming from a group of such eminent scientists, researchers, and scholars. While remaining quiet worked well for a while, evolutionists now realize that they need a materialistic answer for this problem.
The truth of the matter is, however, that the origin of human languages can be discerned”but not via the theory of evolution. We invite your attention to the discussion that follows, which demonstrates conclusively that humans were created with the unique ability to employ speech for communication.
Evolutionary Theories on the Origin of Speech
Many animals are capable of using sounds to communicate. However, there is a colossal difference between the hoot of an owl or the grunt of a pig, and a human standing before an audience reciting Robert Frost’s ”The Road Not Taken.’ This enormous chasm between humans and animals has led to a multiplicity of theories on exactly how man came upon this unequaled capability. Many researchers have focused on the capabilities of animals”sounds and gestures”in an effort to understand the physiological mechanism underlying communication. But there is a single, common theme that stands out amidst all the theories: ”The world’s languages evolved spontaneously. They were not designed’ [emphasis added].[7]
Design implies a Designer; thus, evolutionists have conjured up theories that consider language nothing more than a fortuitous chain of events. Most of these theories involve humans growing bigger brains, which then made it physiologically possible for people to develop speech and language. For instance, in the foreword of her book, The Seeds of Speech, Jean Aitchison hypothesized:
”Physically, a deprived physical environment led to more meat-eating and, as a result, a bigger brain. The enlarged brain led to the premature birth of humans, and in consequence a protracted childhood, during which mothers cooed and crooned to their offspring. An upright stance altered the shape of the mouth and vocal tract, allowing a range of coherent sounds to be uttered.’[8]
Thus, according to Aitchison, we can thank ”a deprived physical environment’ for our ability to talk and communicate. Another evolutionist, John McCrone, put it this way:
”It all started with an ape that learned to speak. Man’s hominid ancestors were doing well enough, even though the world had slipped into the cold grip of the ice ages. They had solved a few key problems that had held back the other branches of the ape family, such as how to find enough food to feed their rather oversized brains. Then man’s ancestors happened on the trick of language. Suddenly, a whole new mental landscape opened up. Man became self-aware and self-possessed.’[9]
Question: How (and why) did that first ape learn to speak? It is easy to assert that ”it all started with an ape that learned to speak’. But it is much more difficult to describe how this took place, especially in light of our failure to teach apes to speak today. In his book, From Hand to Mouth: The Origins of Language, Michael Corballis stated:
”My own view is that language developed much more gradually, starting with the gestures of apes, then gathering momentum as the bipedal hominids evolved. The appearance of the larger-brained genus Homo some 2 million years ago may have signaled the emergence and later development of syntax, with vocalizations providing a mounting refrain. What may have distinguished Homo sapiens was the final switch from a mixture of gestural and vocal communication to an autonomous vocal language, embellished by gesture but not dependent on it.’[10]
The truth however, is that evolutionists can only speculate as to the origin of language. Evolutionist Carl Zimmer summed it up well when he wrote:
”No one knows the exact chronology of this evolution, because language leaves precious few traces on the human skeleton. The voice box is a flimsy piece of cartilage that rots away. It is suspended from a slender C-shaped bone called a hyoid, but the ravages of time usually destroy the hyoid too.’[11]
Thus, theories are plentiful”while the evidence to support those theories remains mysteriously unavailable. Add to this the fact that humans acquire the ability to communicate (and even learn some of the basic rules of syntax) by the age of two, and you begin to see why Aitchison admitted:
”Of course, holes still remain in our knowledge: in particular, at what stage did language leap from being something new which humans discovered to being something which every newborn human is scheduled to acquire? This is still a puzzle.’[12]
A ”puzzle’ indeed!
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Vacate, posted 09-29-2007 7:26 AM Vacate has not replied

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


Message 147 of 268 (424918)
09-29-2007 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Vacate
09-29-2007 7:26 AM


I realize I may have misquoted you on two accounts. First:
When this is properly contemplated it is very logical and manifest: there must be a distinction between a salmon fish and a bear - intrinsically, which allows one to do what the other cannot, and did not for millions of years.
I assumed when you said "allows one to do what the other cannot" you meant ToE vs. Creation. I see that its possible you really cannot identify the differences between a salmon and a bear. For millions of years the two have had distinct differences, but they are not hidden. In fact they are exceedingly obvious. If in addition to the obvious differences you are saying there are also hidden ones - how do you reach this conclusion? Have you identified these differences?
The other possible misquote:
After all, Darwin would not have been privy to everything and all knowledge in these subjects, being from an earlier time.
I assumed by this that you meant the common assertion that the true author of the bible was all knowing; and therefore Darwin pre-dated the bible. I see now that you may be saying that Darwin pre-dates modern times and that we are 'privy to everything and all knowledge in these subjects'. If this is the case I suggest that you are not mistaken but completely wrong.
If I have misquoted you I am sorry. It was not my intent to twist your words. Feel free to clarify my mistakes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Vacate, posted 09-29-2007 7:26 AM Vacate has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 148 of 268 (424924)
09-29-2007 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Jon
09-29-2007 2:17 AM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
I'm quite convinced that neither bird nor dog would be able to pull this off.
Your conviction is admirable, but irrelevant to the issue and counterproductive if you are wrong.
Their ability only goes as far as single sound recognition, which is not language of itself.
No. You are confusing the answer with the question. The question is not a single sound. To go back to your example above:
Now, s'pose you taught your bird that 'key' = (what a key is) and that 'find' = (what find is) and got the bird when you said 'k-find-ey' to go get the 'key'. If you taught the bird what 'stick' was, do you think the bird would go get the stick when you said 'st-find-ick'?
If you are going to argue that the input is a "single sound" then we need to take the whole question as a "single sound" and using this logic we can apply your above scenario:
(1) what color key = 'k-find-ey'
(2) what color block = 'st-find-ick'
and we also have:
(1) what material key &ne 'k-find-ey'
(2) what material block &ne 'st-find-ick'
(3) what material green &ne 'k-find-ey'
(4) what material blue &ne 'st-find-ick'
And your "grammar" test hasn't even gotten to the complexity needed for the answer to "how many green block" - a question that is a quantum level more complex than "what color block" ...
Either way your point is falsified that it is a response to a single sound. Clearly Alex understands the different parts of the question as different words, and understands the words to reach the correct answer.
It is also clear that Alex can count up to three, which is another quantum difference from recognizing the difference between blocks and toy cars.
Again, you're placing more significance on this than on what a dog can do simply because the bird is able to vocalise the sounds as a trained reaction to its particular stimuli. Now, you still need to answer my questions, or I suppose, you forgot about them?
Because the response from the parrot is more complex than the response from the dog doing simple responses to verbal commands.
If the dog were able to point to or in any way indicate an answer to the questions that Alex can answer then you might have a point, because certainly a dog can be trained to respond to stimulii. I am not aware of any such capability, are you?
And I am also unaware of a dog that can properly respond to the question "bring me three green blocks" from a jumble of assorted toys, are you?
To requote your first source:
quote:
When the trainer uses words in context, Alex seems to relate some sounds with their meanings. This is more than simple imitation,...
More than simple imitation ... relates sounds to meaning ... ie more than mimicry and response to simple stimuli.
And from your second source (again):
quote:
She continued: "What little syntax he has is very simplistic. ..."
Syntax is not a part of learned response to stimuli, it is grammar. Being able to participate in an interview is more a matter of vocabulary in this regard: you would be limited to converse within that limited lexicon, as these studies do.
Is that what you'd say of a dog who rolls over when given the command to 'sit'?
It is a possibility. Or the dog is doing what the dog wants to do rather than respond to the verbal command. Alex is also able to communicate that he wants a nut and that he wants to go back to his cage. Do you think he doesn't understand the meaning of those phrases?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : &ne symbol code

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 2:17 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 9:34 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 150 by IamJoseph, posted 09-29-2007 10:12 AM RAZD has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 268 (424928)
09-29-2007 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by RAZD
09-29-2007 8:49 AM


All Tests are NOT Created Equal
'material' = noun.
'blue' = adjective.
The grammar test can be reformatted depending on what questions you plan to ask.
We could could say that adjectives get infixed with nouns. So, if we showed the bird what 'material' was, and then showed him what 'blue' was, and then showed him what blue material was, and told him it was 'matbluerial' Then did the same thing with several other colours, such that he had been given the following:
Blue + material + matbluerial
Green + material + matgreenrial
Pink + material + matpinkrial
And we were able to, out of a group of three objects of different materials and colours”pink wool, blue leather, green flannel”ask him 'what matpinkrial?', we should assume that he will say 'wool'. Now, we teach him a new colour: 'red'. We teach him ONLY that red is the colour that it is. We run the tests again, this time”pink wool, blue leather, red plastic”ask him 'what ----- ?' (you know what word goes in here, because you have grammar, to demonstrate that, I'm going to leave it blank). Will the bird recognise what you have said? That's the testing that must be done to show grammar.
Teaching in English makes it too difficult to tell, since the grammar is so syntax-based. And often (especially with just adjectives and nouns) those rules can be completely ignored without changing ANY meaning. We know that 'green block' = 'block green', even if the other is 'ungrammatical'. Even 'hill went up the Jack' can be seen to mean 'Jack went up the hill', showing that the meaning (understanding) is not always dependent on the grammar, which is point 2 I gave to Rrhain:
quote:
You haven't shown that understanding = grammar.
Thus understanding is not always dependent on the grammar and so just because he deciphers the meaning does not mean he has the grammar stored away in that little bird brain of his. Clearly, we do not use grammar to get meaning from 'block green' because the grammar isn't correct”i.e., it's missing”; our understanding comes solely from knowing 'green' and 'block'. Therefore, when grammar is NOT REQUIRED for there to be MEANING/UNDERSTANDING, showing that the bird understands (if you've even done that much), will NOT show his possession of grammar. To test this, we have to come up with instances in which meaning IS dependent on grammar, such as I've done above.
Plain!
And!
Simple!
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2007 8:49 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2007 11:37 AM Jon has replied

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


Message 150 of 268 (424930)
09-29-2007 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by RAZD
09-29-2007 8:49 AM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
quote:
Clearly Alex understands the different parts of the question as different words, and understands the words to reach the correct answer.
Its called 'association'; which is more inclined with instinct; animals depend on this trait for their lives constantly, and can perform exceedingly well here. A rat, for example, can adapt here quicker than a human. Human speech is not an extension of this trait, and operates independently of it, even when in inactive mode.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2007 8:49 AM RAZD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024