|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind | |||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: If one talks cosmology, or about evolution - there can be two universes being considered: a finite or infinite one. The conclusions for each is markedly different. With a finite universe - one cannot omit a cause factor - which becomes far more demanding of science.
quote: That speech is unique to humans is first declared in Genesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3626 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
That speech is unique to humans is first declared in Genesis. Not true. Genesis also ascribes speech to God (not human) and snakes (not human). Thank you for playing, Mr Joseph. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Yes, humans are said to have this Gd-like feature of speech ['In His Image'] - the first speech [*said* let there be light] was ascribed to the creator. Genesis also says, speech is unique to humans - in this physical universe. Grammar requires you take the only possible opening in the path of what it means.
The reading of 'serpent' depends on your textual comprehension: it is metaphorically given this human trait in the setting described, at all times subject to it being set in a realm other than the physical one. The text also says, to make it blatant, re-entry was barred, with angelic beings hurling firey swords every which way at the gates. So in the metaphorical analogy [there are no talking serpants or angels with swords in the physical universe - Adam was cast down here from someplace else/the text]- the applicable factor is about the impacts of speech, not contrived, base semantics. Genesis is heavy stuff - harbouring much hidden cadence above MC2. I know your laffing now - been there, done it. I advice to thread with caution at this deceptively simple disney story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3626 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
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.'' Jon: It's quite clear that those working closest with the bird do not feel what he's done to be 'language'. False characterization. Her statement is that she avoids the issue and makes no claims. It is bias to the point of blindness to say she has stated a 'clear' position on the matter that agrees with your own. Her clear intention is to state no position at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3626 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
IaJ: The reading of 'serpent' depends on your textual comprehension: it is metaphorically given this human trait in the setting described, at all times subject to it being set in a realm other than the physical one. Thank you for telling us Genesis is not a scientific document. You say it employs metaphors that deal with spiritual rather than physical phenomena. It follows that Genesis cannot set the parameters of what we may logically conclude from the results of valid scientific research. The subject of surreal images in ancient literature is off topic here. Thank you for playing, Mr Joseph. ___ Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Metaphors, expressionisms, symbolisms and analogies are hardly unscientific premises, whereas I pointed out an error in texts and its decipherings. Science, in almost all areas, have developed via the metaphoric and hypotheticals: what does 'GD DOES NOT PLAY DICE' mean, and where has this led science? The first utterence in Genesis is dualist, 'LET THERE BE LIGHT', meaning both a scientific and expressionist premise. Science is more than numbers, angles and lines. The thought is the pivotal here.
This does not mean there is a lack of scientific, mathematical or historical evidences in a document. Genesis is brimming with all of these, and we are discussing some of its stats as we speak. The Adam story you referred to, which follows the creation chapter and is multi-leveled, is one which has captured the imaginings of all generations of mankind, w/o any loss of continueing impact. I believe the debate here and now relates to two of Genesis' stats, namely that speech is a unique human phenomenon, and whether, subsequently, the categorising of humans as a separate 'kind' [similar to a macro, big pic view of species/life forms, predating ToE] is appropriate and legitimate from scientific and logical views. Here, I should remind, respectfully, that another POV from an atheistic science view, does not render Genesis unscientific by that reason. Genesis is positing a science too, one which requires deliberation when variance is seen from other science views.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I believe the debate here and now relates to two of Genesis' stats, namely that speech is a unique human phenomenon, and whether, subsequently, the categorising of humans as a separate 'kind' [similar to a macro, big pic view of species/life forms, predating ToE] is appropriate and legitimate from scientific and logical views. Possessing a unique trait is one of the pieces of evidence that science looks at when determining categories for life. Humans are certainly a 'kind' in the sense that they are in a category of their own (they are in effect, a species). There is some debate over whether they are alone in their genus, Homo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Article below represents more relevent scientific positations, which state that aside from being a unique human trait, speech appeared suddenly and in an already advanced state [a contradiction of ToE]; compounded by the positation the uniqueness of speech is not explainable, reducable to [equalisable] or repeatable by, any other life form.
The aspect of a sudden and already advanced trait is an anomoly and mystery, and a reason why it is not explainable for even prominant scientists today. With regard Genesis, the document which introduced this enigma for science, it also appears to be alligned with this mystery: it too seems to have appeared suddenly and in an already advanced state of language, in its grammar, being the first alphabetical 'books' [as opposed manuscripts and picure writings], in its exclusive and introductory historicity stats, and other factors - with no equavalence of such writings a 1000 years before or after. Perhaps someone can input on this, but w/o using the M [myth] word, and hard copy against hard copy instead - does anyone here know of such telephone-sized alphabetical books, prior or near the Genesis date setting - or even the dead sea scrolls, for that matter - as a hard-copy evidence? Is this an important factor or irrelevent, even if it is inexplicable?
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. Yet you have not demonstrated that. Nor have you demonstrated a great understanding of IamJoseph:
Message 177 No... language has been well-defined. You're wrong. Well, you can't just break them up like that. Then we could get 'non-dog communication' and 'dog communication'. Message 178What? This all seems wrong. Message 179What? What source? What are you talking about? Especially... what does this mean? It also doesn't look like IamJoseph is agreeing with you (is anyone agreeing with you?), ergo it looks like your version of his position OR your version of the OP is a strawman that you have invented. The OP does not assume what his position is for the simple reason that he had not stated it in any defined way at the time (and still hasn't), it talks about what the definition of the term speech is and asks how that can be applied to determine "speech enabled" to distinguish humans:
quote: IamJoseph's response is basically that it is not speech because it does not come from a human. This lead to the demonstration that his argument was a trite tuatology involving begging the question in his definition of speech as human speech. He has not presented any qualifications for the term speech other than it comes (uniquely) from humans.
Of course. We need a 'system of rules' to have language. But we don't need to demonstrate grammar to have rules, just syntax. Again, as I pointed out in Message 143 ZD 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 says Alex has simple syntax.
quote: 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. You seem to be looking for a whole complete and entire language with a complete lexicon and wholly formed grammar in the conversation of two beings, and this is just irrational no matter which two beings you include, and how long and intellectual their discourse. To demonstrate speech - vocal communication of ideas and feelings - at a minimum from one individual to another all you need is a rudimentary vocabulary and a simple syntax. Where individuals come from different cultures and languages (each with different lexicons and grammar) you sometimes need a pidgin language to translate those ideas and feelings from one individual to the other across the language barrier - a pidgin language with simplified lexicon and syntax. This is still speech (by the only definition of speech we have yet on this thread that is usable). This is the minimal test to distinguish speech. Alex has these. To exclude Alex from "speech endowed" then we would need a different definition of speech with a different test of what is the minimum requirement.
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. I read them, but the issue is not language, seeing as we can have speech between people with two entirely different languages. Your sources, being about language, are irrelevant to the issue of speech. Let me be very clear: until IamJoseph presents a clear usable definition of what he means by "speech" LANGUAGE is off topic. If you want to talk about it start another thread.
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. And yet you have outposted me by over two to one. Alex (and Koko and others) have syntax and vocabulary. Syntax and vocabulary combined into phrases that communicate ideas and feeling. You don't need to demonstrate the whole lexicon or all the rules of grammar in every communication, just the ones necessary to communicate the ideas and feelings. Consider the analogy of human\other species communication to the communication between two people from different cultures and languages -- we know they both have language (lexicon and grammar), but each is totally incomprehensible to the other. Over time, with the use of trial and error testing and retesting they develop a rudimentary lexicon and a simplified syntax (dropped plurals, simplified or eliminated pronouns, adjectives etc) - a pidgin language - that allows communication from one to the other. Can you deny this communication of thoughts and feelings even though you - as a member of one group - have no idea of the language, lexicon and grammar, of the other? Can you distinguish between this speech communication between two such groups of humans and that between humans and animals? Can you deny that Alex meets this criteria for the verbal communication of ideas and feelings? Would you agree that this is just a difference in degree of communication compared to two people who have the same culture and language? Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: IMHO, this gives the point made in genesis full scientific legitimacy, even more than I would have ventured. Had this been the view countenanced by some more participants, we could progress to other subsequent factors. And of course, there are other factors which result from here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Article below represents more relevent scientific positations, which state that aside from being a unique human trait, speech appeared suddenly and in an already advanced state [a contradiction of ToE];
quote: Are you now saying speech == language, that they are interchangeable? If not, what is the relationship between one and the other? We can talk about whether or not it contradicts ToE later.
Message 190 IMHO, this gives the point made in genesis full scientific legitimacy, even more than I would have ventured. Had this been the view countenanced by some more participants, we could progress to other subsequent factors. And of course, there are other factors which result from here. But first you need to demonstrate that the trait is in fact unique. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : msg 190 compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I did present the premise, that there is no equivalence or similarities, as the reason for it. Had there been - the factor of unique would become muted. This appears backed by prominent scientests, listed in articles posted. I correctly steered away from the definition quest, genuinely and coherently seeing this as inapplicable and counter productive in the understanding of the premise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I correctly steered away from the definition quest, genuinely and coherently seeing this as inapplicable and counter productive in the understanding of the premise. Meaning that you kept it untestable and unverifiable. Thanks for making that distinction between your position and science. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: There is no need to get quagmired again in semantics and runaway deflection under the guise of science. If the factors debated mean anything, it is that speech and language are, if not quite the same issue - or so alligned that is falls in a category of two solely unique phenomenons alligned together - with no alternative application. Its like intelligence and scienctific thought are alligned. I;ve no notion of what is speech w/o language: grunts?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
IMHO, this gives the point made in genesis full scientific legitimacy, even more than I would have ventured. I don't see how. The minds behind genesis quite clearly saw humans as being different from the other animals. Special somehow. This is just an observation. You might call this empiricism scientifically valid, but the conclusions they come to are not. And the same logic applies to the other animals. The Leporidae is different from all the other animals so they are somehow special. Indeed, we can point to any family and say likewise. This is why the conclusions they reach (humans are uniquely special and thus especially special) are invalid.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024