|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes: Someone from the pro-'birds grasp language' side of the camp really ought to point out an instance where this occurs. In the context of this topic - distinguishing the human "kind" - I think you're looking at it backwards. All speech is a response to stimuli. The question remains: Is there a fundamental difference between the way humans respond to stimuli and the way some animals respond to stimuli? If animals - and some people, e.g. children - respond in only a rote way, how is that a fundamental difference? “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels ------------- Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes: That I can make up willy-nilly any sentence I want is proof of 'linguistic creativity' and severely dents your argument that 'language' is just response to stimuli. Unfortunately, your ability to make up willy-nilly sentences doesn't seem to be matched by an ability to read language. I didn't say that language is "just" respose to stimuli. I even bolded the "all" for you to make it plainer. All speech is response to stimuli. In mature humans, there's more to it than that - it isn't "just" response to stimuli. But in immature humans and in some animals, the response to stimuli is all there is. What I asked you, and what I don't see you addressing, is: Where do you draw the line? When does response to stimuli become "true" speech in children. How would you tell the difference? If we did a Turing test, allowing you to communicate with somebody or something behind a screen, how would you tell if your counterpart was using "real" language or "just" responding to stimuli? How would you tell the difference between a computer and an educated human and an uneducated human and a developmentally-challenged human and a human child and a talking parrot. Please be specific. Tell us how. When you can do that (and keep the smarmy bullshit to yourself), you'll be one step on the way to understanding what "speech" is. “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels ------------- Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: quote: The line is: when the said stimuli does not result in human speech. 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"? (Isn't it ironic that your posts probably wouldn't pass the test for "speech"?) “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels ------------- Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes: quote: Actually, I did answer that, and will do so again. 'Response to stimuli' becomes 'language' when it stops being 'response to stimuli'. You're misunderstanding (or avoiding) the question. I'm asking how you would literally make the distinction. I'm asking you to design an experiment. You're on one side of the curtain amd somebody (or something) is on the other side. What specific questions would you ask to determine what that enitity was. How, specifically, would you interpret the answers to determine if they were "true speech" or just "response to stimuli"? Assume that you can't identify the subject by way of accent, tone of voice, etc. How would you distinguish, by words alone, between human and animal? Between mature human and immature human? Between human and machine? Until you can demonstrate empirically how you would make the distinction, all you have is a schoolboy hypothesis. “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels ------------- Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
IamJoseph writes: quote: 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. I'll remind you that you haven't told us yet what the test is. Please post a list of questions that you would ask an unseen subject in order to determine whether that subject was human or non-human. Tell us how you would interpret the various anticipated responses to distinguish speech from non-speech. “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels ------------- Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes: When will you give it up? When you explain to us, in detail, how you would distinguish between a speaker and a non-speaker - from communication alone, without foreknowledge if it was human or non-human. “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels ------------- Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes: ... the bird's trainer is clear to point out that it's not language. Dr. Pepperberg is reluctant to call Alex's vocalizations "language". Isn't the issue as much about the understanding of language as about the vocalization of language? He might not be able to speak complex sentences, but if he can understand complex sentences, isn't he using language? “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels ------------- Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes: This will be about the fifth time I've given such a similar example. That should be your first clue that you're not answering what's being asked.
It's not my job to prove their is no grammar... it is your job to prove that there is. First, you seem to be under the impression that I'm disagreeing with you and therefore have to provide some "proof" that you're wrong. I'm just asking you to support your position. I haven't taken any particular position of my own. Second, it really isn't about grammar at all. It's about how to distinguish speech from non-speech. If you choose to use grammar as the be-all and end-all requirement for what makes speech, that's fine. But I'm looking for an empirical distinction, not a hypothetical one. As an exercise, how about coming up with a speech/non-speech test that doesn't rely on your favorite definition of grammar? “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels ------------- Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes: Mere understanding and response doesn't = language. We're trying to determine a way to distinguish human "kind" from other animals. Are there not apes, etc. whose "mere understanding and response" is better than that of some humans? As long as there's overlap, it's not a difference of "kind" but of degree. “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels ------------- Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes: quote: First, you say you don't want a hypothetical, now you say you want a hypothetical. No, I don't want a hypothetical. I want a specific test for speech (and note that RAZD has ruled that language != speech) that doesn't depend on a specific grammar. A grammar can be any set of rules that governs the meaning of groups of words. Alex's grammar doesn't have to be the same as your grammar, even if you're using the same words to describe the same concepts. The test you proposed smacks too much of a test for "proper" grammar. Edited by Ringo, : Corrected grammar. “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels ------------- Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes: You tell me just what kind of a test you want that wouldn't 'smack too much of a test for "proper" grammar.' For example, in Message 161, you said:
quote: The only essential point of grammar is that "green" modifies "block". If Alex can distinguish objects by colour and a child can distinguish objects by colour, how do you distinguish Alex from the child? You also make a big issue of infixing words, as if anybody should be able to recognize a word by it's grammar. That would be an unfair test for many humans too. The challenge is to devise a test to distinguish humans from other animals. It can't be a test that humans like IamJoseph would fail. “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels ------------- Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes: Can you demonstrate that the bird knows 'green' is a modifier of 'block'? Why is 'green' a modifier of 'block'? You're going at it backwards. If you want to make a distinction between the bird and a human (in terms of speech), you'd have to demonstrate that he doesn't know. You'd have to demonstrate that a human (i.e. all humans) can do something that no bird can do. “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels ------------- Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes: The burden of proof rests on the prosecution. The prosecution here is claiming that humans can be distinguished from other animals by speech. So prosecute. Present your evidence.
And you won't let me use my tests, because you know that they would prove you wrong. Let's see you predict the specific results of your tests. Will an illiterate coal-miner be able to understand your grammatical distinctions? Will a two-year-old? For your test to be valid, it would have to produce the same results for all humans and for no other animals. “Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels ------------- Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024