Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 166 of 268 (425004)
09-29-2007 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by ringo
09-29-2007 10:50 PM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
I don't think humans are of a different kind. Language is uniquely human, though.
It's about how to distinguish speech from non-speech.
'Speech' in this thread has become synonymous with 'language'. So, one way I'd distinguish language from non-language would be to do a grammar test.
If you choose to use grammar as the be-all and end-all requirement for what makes speech, that's fine.
But grammar is one of the two key components for language. We know the bird understands block; he has a lexicon. Now we need to test for the second component: grammar.
But I'm looking for an empirical distinction, not a hypothetical one.
Unfortunately, none of the trainers were clever-enough to perform an experiment that tested the second component of language. You asked me:
When you explain to us, in detail, how you would distinguish between a speaker and a non-speaker
I explained to you how I would distinguish language from non-language. What the hell more do you want?
As an exercise, how about coming up with a speech/non-speech test that doesn't rely on your favorite definition of grammar?
First, you say you don't want a hypothetical, now you say you want a hypothetical. Next, you've asked me to use a different definition of grammar than what grammar means. Wikipedia made it clear...
quote:
...grammar, or system of rules, used to manipulate the symbols.
Grammar is the system of rules. How the hell else do you want me to define it? Whatever the word is; we must show that there exists an understanding of 'a system of rules used to manipulate the symbols' if we are to show language. Again... I'll remind you that that 'system of rules' is one of the two key components of a language. The system of rules is separate from the lexicon, and, in humans at least, they are stored in separate areas of the brain as a result.
That should be your first clue that you're not answering what's being asked.
What is, then, being asked?
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by ringo, posted 09-29-2007 10:50 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by ringo, posted 09-29-2007 11:28 PM Jon has replied
 Message 180 by IamJoseph, posted 09-30-2007 5:45 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 167 of 268 (425008)
09-29-2007 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by RAZD
09-29-2007 10:57 PM


Re: possible equivocation, moving goalposts, and denial ... take two
I don't care what games you have been playing with the language issue, the topic deals with speech. You WILL ALSO note that I quoted from Message 1 in the previous post, so it de facto CANNOT be irrelevant to the topic.
Then you are arguing a strawman against IaJ, using a word for a meaning that you know he didn't intend for it to have. If that's the case, the admins need to scold you and shut this thread down.
If you want to argue that the bird 'speaks' as you've defined the word then I have no problem with it. However, as I see the issue, I do not think that is the way IaJ intended for the word to be used. I am convinced he used it to mean 'language' (as people often do, by the way), in which case all the points you're presenting are moot to his point.
I also note that you go down to the 4th definition for grammar to meet your needs, while you ignore others that don't:
Of course. We need a 'system of rules' to have language. Read #166. Read the Wiki article on language. I don't care if you call the system of rules the 'hoobaba-kish', you need the system of rules. I use the word 'grammar' in its linguistic context to denote that system of rules.
But this is just arguing semantics. We're talking about a 'system of rules'. I made that clear in Message 88 that I was talking about a system of rules. It's the rules that are important, what you call them is your own deal.
Any proof the bird grasps a system of rules? Or are you going to not make the argument that the bird has language and just revert back to strawmanning IaJ?
the way of connecting simple concepts into more complex concepts,
We are talking about the system of rules. Period. I call it grammar. I say grammar and mean 'system of rules' Linguists say grammar and mean 'system of rules'. Educated people who talk about language say grammar and mean 'system of rules.' System of rules is required for language. I call it grammar... you call it what you want, but don't take how I use the word and rework it to mean something else. You already did that with poor IaJ when you took how he used speech to mean language and then used the word differently than he intended it to be used and proceeded to build your strawman.
I ain't a crow. And I ain't scared.
As for the rest of what you said...
READ MY SOURCES!
You people reply to my posts in seconds flat. I cannot imagine how you are even clicking on my sources let alone reading the damn things. Most of your misunderstanding of language would be cleared up if you'd just READ MY SOURCES.
be totally impossible if they had no native language of their own and no capacity for one.
*sigh* Language = lexicon (word bank) + grammar (system of rules). You still can't show how any other animal possesses the rules. You are just being an argumentative ass. I'm sorry, but you win... you outposted me. You outdid me in my ability to rebut your same points over and over and over again. Congrats... here's a cashew.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2007 10:57 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2007 10:38 AM Jon has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 168 of 268 (425009)
09-29-2007 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Jon
09-29-2007 11:09 PM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
Jon writes:
quote:
As an exercise, how about coming up with a speech/non-speech test that doesn't rely on your favorite definition of grammar?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 11:09 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Jon, posted 09-30-2007 12:13 AM ringo has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 169 of 268 (425011)
09-30-2007 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by ringo
09-29-2007 11:28 PM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
Okay, wise ass. You tell me just what kind of a test you want that wouldn't 'smack too much of a test for "proper" grammar.'
You ask me to invent the test, then say 'nope, not good enough'. I invent another test and you say 'nope, not good enough.' If you want something specific, tell me what it is. I'm not going to play your damn guessing games.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by ringo, posted 09-29-2007 11:28 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by ringo, posted 09-30-2007 12:46 AM Jon has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 170 of 268 (425016)
09-30-2007 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Jon
09-30-2007 12:13 AM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
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:
... I'd make sure that the meaning of what I was asking was dependent on the presence of grammar, unlike in the questions asked to the bird, where the meaning of 'green block' and 'block green' is the same, and is dependent only on rote memory of the words and their meanings and not dependent on their grammar.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Jon, posted 09-30-2007 12:13 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Jon, posted 09-30-2007 1:14 AM ringo has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 171 of 268 (425019)
09-30-2007 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by ringo
09-30-2007 12:46 AM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
Can you demonstrate that the bird knows 'green' is a modifier of 'block'? Why is 'green' a modifier of 'block'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by ringo, posted 09-30-2007 12:46 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by ringo, posted 09-30-2007 3:49 AM Jon has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 172 of 268 (425031)
09-30-2007 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Jon
09-30-2007 1:14 AM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Jon, posted 09-30-2007 1:14 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Jon, posted 09-30-2007 5:18 AM ringo has replied

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


Message 173 of 268 (425041)
09-30-2007 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Jon
09-29-2007 7:34 PM


quote:
All the studies point to language”what IaJ calls 'speech'”being something which no other creature has been observed to possess, whether naturally acquired or forcefully taught. Humans alone have been shown to have the capacity for langauge; language is a unique kind of communication only possessed by humans.
Is there any problem referring this to its 3,500 year old source? We do this all the time with cyclones - so why not credit what is clearly Genesis' 'non-mythical' and vindicated stat today - else how does one get off the cyclical and put PAID to the myth factor?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 7:34 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Jon, posted 09-30-2007 5:35 AM IamJoseph has not replied

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


Message 174 of 268 (425043)
09-30-2007 5:07 AM


quote:
Jon writes:
Mere understanding and response doesn't = language.
More than honest, this is an intellectual and intelligent statement. Language and speech are not decipherable or defininable by science, well admittedly so in the science community. It is one of the primal enigmas in the known universe - w/o exaggeration. Thus the definition debate should leap ahead of it.
It is also clear, that there are two categories of communication, and this is my compromise to the quagmire, if only for furthering on where it can lead to:
1. Non-human communication
&
2. Human speech.

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Jon, posted 09-30-2007 5:27 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 268 (425045)
09-30-2007 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by ringo
09-30-2007 3:49 AM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
The burden of proof rests on the prosecution. The defence needn't participate but to rebut the evidence given by the prosecution. No one's shown evidence that the bird possesses grammar.
you'd have to demonstrate that he doesn't know.
Bird's dead. Besides, I have no access to the bird to carry out my tests anyway. And you won't let me use my tests, because you know that they would prove you wrong.
This is all the billionth time I've said this. I'm going to bed now. I don't plan to participate any more, unless I see some new evidence. Until then, you're just likely to repeat the same [already] refuted arguments over and over again.
G'day,
Jon
Edited by Jon, : The admins really need to start enforcing forum rules equally to both the creos and evos on this site... they let you lot get away with murder, and the others can't even make a single post without getting banned. But, I don't want to stand up for them, else I might get a week suspension too.

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by ringo, posted 09-30-2007 3:49 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by ringo, posted 09-30-2007 11:33 AM Jon has not replied

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


Message 176 of 268 (425046)
09-30-2007 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by RAZD
09-29-2007 10:57 PM


Re: possible equivocation, moving goalposts, and denial ... take two
Point: Grammar was introduced in the OT, and reaches it's epitomy there. Some of the factors of correct grammar includes:
Context overides chronology.
The less words = the best grammar, which makes the shortest distance between two points subject to less chaos, and requiring the most exacting usage of words.
The less superfluous, the more relevent and comprehensive.
The two factors, of the universe being finite [there was a *BEGINNING*], and that of speech being unique [a different 'kind'], are placed in the preamble of Genesis for potent reasons. These two factors impact all of science, requiring anything posited to either allign or contradict. When it is disregarded, there debate will go cyclical with no redeeming outcomes. Check it out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2007 10:57 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Jon, posted 09-30-2007 5:28 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 268 (425049)
09-30-2007 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by IamJoseph
09-30-2007 5:07 AM


Language and speech are not decipherable or defininable by science, well admittedly so in the science community.
No... language has been well-defined. You're wrong.
It is also clear, that there are two categories of communication...
1. Non-human communication
&
2. Human speech.
Well, you can't just break them up like that. Then we could get 'non-dog communication' and 'dog communication'. You need to break it up as:
1. non-language communication
2. language communication
Then, we can go about grouping the various creatures on Earth into 1, or 2 based on their abilities. We will, of course, find that there is only one creature in group 2: humans.
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by IamJoseph, posted 09-30-2007 5:07 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 268 (425050)
09-30-2007 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by IamJoseph
09-30-2007 5:21 AM


Re: possible equivocation, moving goalposts, and denial ... take two
Point: Grammar was introduced in the OT, and reaches it's epitomy there. Some of the factors of correct grammar includes:
Context overides chronology.
The less words = the best grammar, which makes the shortest distance between two points subject to less chaos, and requiring the most exacting usage of words.
The less superfluous, the more relevent and comprehensive.
The two factors, of the universe being finite [there was a *BEGINNING*], and that of speech being unique [a different 'kind'], are placed in the preamble of Genesis for potent reasons. These two factors impact all of science, requiring anything posited to either allign or contradict. When it is disregarded, there debate will go cyclical with no redeeming outcomes. Check it out.
What? This all seems wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by IamJoseph, posted 09-30-2007 5:21 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by IamJoseph, posted 09-30-2007 5:55 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 179 of 268 (425051)
09-30-2007 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by IamJoseph
09-30-2007 4:54 AM


The Tower of Babble that is Joseph
What? What source? What are you talking about?
Especially... what does this mean?
...how does one get off the cyclical and put PAID to the myth factor?
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by IamJoseph, posted 09-30-2007 4:54 AM IamJoseph has not replied

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


Message 180 of 268 (425053)
09-30-2007 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Jon
09-29-2007 11:09 PM


Re: Language is not mere Speaking
quote:
I don't think humans are of a different kind. Language is uniquely human, though.
Yet, 'differences' and 'unique' depend on each other for their viability. Here, the differential over-rides all commonalities, because the latter is, unlike the former, a variation only in degree.
If asked which is a more 'different' kind, two life forms which exhibit different skeletal frames [eg. feline cat and canine dog] - or - all life forms against one with a unique feature of speech: would you equate a cat as a different kind from a dog - or - a speech endowed human as a dif kind from the cat and the dog?
In the above, the difs between the cat and dog are not unique difs, thus they can be allocated as one kind - notwithstanding any difs in common variations of skelatal frames here, because these constitute non-unique difs of degree only. The same cannot be said with a cat/dog and human with speech - which introduces a unique factor in the equation. The difs between the cat and dog is not unique because it is also shared by humans [skeletal frames], the treshold between what is a dif in degree from kind.
This appears to be the premise of Genesis, and its point of variation from ToE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Jon, posted 09-29-2007 11:09 PM Jon 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