That Language is utilized for certain aspects of cognition does not mean it is utilized for all aspects; and that it may not be utilized for all aspects does not prevent it from being utilized for some.
And Mentalese, if even accurate, is only meant to explain propositional thoughts, not simple awareness of the world in general.
If Mentalese really is the means by which folk process and manipulate propositional thoughts, then I'd say it is doubtful that human newborns and mentally undeveloped infants possess such a giftand I'd extend that doubt to many animals as well.
Re: Which Came First - The Concept Or The Linguistic Expression of the Concept?
Whether expressed or not how is a any concept ever anything other than "a selection of neurons firing inside your head".
Surely that is what a concept (practically by definition) is?
Let me say it this way, can you come up with an abstract concept in your head without some-kind of internal dialogue? (Some-kind of verbal communication, internal/in your mind, between you and yourself.)
I can't. For me, and I would assume every other human, it needs to be expressed, even in my head, with inner dialogue.
Is it still confusing or did I explain it better?
Can you prove that I can't?
I'm not the one making the claim. The burden falls on you does it not?
Are you saying that any creature unimbued with the ability to go through purely linguistic descriptive prose in it's head is incapable of conceptualising anything?
I don't think 'prose' is the right word here. I would say more of an inner dialogue is needed for conceptualising abstract thoughts.
Even if they are capable of abstract thought, how can we determine what it is they are thinking without direct communication?
It is still early in it's conception, but they are working on neuro probes than may be able to read our minds, or create the image being formed in our head (not literally) using just our neuron firings. Short of something like that, I agree, we are shit out of luck.
Let me say it this way, can you come up with an abstract concept in your head without some-kind of internal dialogue? (Some-kind of verbal communication, internal/in your mind, between you and yourself.)
This has been my point, and I've been trying to come up with ways around it.
Take a very primitive man with no language. He's next to a river. The source of the river is unknown.
He could form an image in his mind of a possible source for the river. Say, a giant weeping eye whose tears fill the river (I purposefully avoided using a penis here ).
I think Straggler would call this a "religious belief", and I think it can be arrived at without language.
He could form an image in his mind of a possible source for the river. Say, a giant weeping eye whose tears fill the river (I purposefully avoided using a penis here ).
Well done, sir. I commend you for that. I would have totally gone with penis.
I think Straggler would call this a "religious belief", and I think it can be arrived at without language.
I think I would too. Or at the very least, belief in the supernatural.
But I don't think it could be arrived at without some-kind of internal dialogue though. Just the fact that they were trying to find a source for the river, IMO, is evidence of introspective thinking.
"What do I feel feel about this river?" - "What do I think the source of this river is?" - "What else do I know of that also produces water?"
I just don't see how a person could ask such complex questions without some-kind of inner, verbal communication. A language of some sort. Early, primitive, not as complex language, but still much more complex than anything we've seen (in nature, not some lab) from our primate cousins. This isn't refering to yourself in the third person, as I've seen with apes who have been taught sign-language.
Which, even in a lab, I still think it's mimicry and not a learned language.
But I don't think it could be arrived at without some-kind of internal dialogue though.
The whole point was that it could. He sees the river, and no source, and produces an image in his mind of water flowing out of a huge pen-...er eye.
Just the fact that they were trying to find a source for the river, IMO, is evidence of introspective thinking.
"What do I feel feel about this river?" - "What do I think the source of this river is?" - "What else do I know of that also produces water?"
No, no, no. He has no language to think like this with. All he has is mental images. He's looking at a river. He imagines an eye filling it. That is all.
Possible? Religious belief?
Which, even in a lab, I still think it's mimicry and not a learned language.
You'd probably be surprised. Try finding some youtube videos about it. Share anything cool (I'm at work so I don't wanna go surfing youtube).
Sorry, I thought the point was you think he could. So I was just saying that I don't think he could.
Heh, well I was trying to just have him picture the eye without him using words and then the first thing you did was ascribe words to his thoughts
The point was for him to not use words...
Ok. Na I wouldn't call that religious belief. Just the easiest conclusion from what he/she knows.
I wouldn't call it religious belief either. On one side, religious beliefs that I'm aware of are more complicated than that, i.e. more than a simple image or concept. Also, simply imagining something isn't really a "belief".
On the other side, if that IS gonna be called religious belief then its not gonna help us much with actual modern human religious beliefs.
quote:If we broadened the definition of superstition to the point where it contains the kinds of thoughts that I think chimps are capable of, then I think it loses any value as being something to be compared to modern humans' superstitions and/or religious beliefs.
Now, if he/she started to worship the eye, drew images of the eye, presented gifts to the eye...then I would call it religious belief.
Sure, but then I think he would have to have more abstract thinking and thus, require a language to do it in.
Did I do better this time?
Yes!
I'll get back to this.
I risked it... Here's a video of Kanzi being impressive. It certainly can associate the icons with certain words so that might be somewhat of an abstraction, I'm not sure.
Here's another one, but I haven't watched it yet:
It looks to be a little more in depth.
Let me know if you find anything else that's good.
Look at this one, though:
Near the end when she says to put the water on the jelly, the chimp is grabbing the jelly before she gets to that part so it looks like it might just be mimicry, I dunno.
Near the end when she says to put the water on the jelly, the chimp is grabbing the jelly before she gets to that part so it looks like it might just be mimicry, I dunno.
Yes; a lot of the supposed demonstrations of animal language use are nothing but hoaxes. I am not aware of any that have stood up to scrutiny.
The videos you linked to looked about as impressive as a dog playing dead.
Yes; a lot of the supposed demonstrations of animal language use are nothing but hoaxes. I am not aware of any that have stood up to scrutiny.
Not true at all. Chimps absolutely can learn and use language. This is from the Chimp and Human Communication Institute.
quote: Under double-blind conditions, we have found that the chimpanzees communicate information in American Sign Language (ASL) to human observers. They use signs to refer to natural language categories: e.g. DOG for any dog, FLOWER for any flower, SHOE for any shoe, etc. The chimpanzees acquire and spontaneously use their signs to communicate with humans and each other about the normal course of surrounding events. They have demonstrated an ability to invent new signs or combine signs to metaphorically label a novel item, for example: calling a radish CRY HURT FOOD or referring to a watermelon as a DRINK FRUIT. In a double-blind condition, the chimpanzees can comprehend and produce novel prepositional phrases, understand vocal English words, translate words into their ASL glosses and even transmit their signing skills to the next generation without human intervention. Their play behavior has demonstrated that they use the same types of imaginary play as humans. It has also been demonstrated that they carry on chimpanzee-to-chimpanzee conversation and sign to themselves when alone. Conversational research shows the chimpanzees initiate and maintain conversations in ways that are like humans. The chimpanzees can repair a conversation if there is misunderstanding. They will also sign to themselves when alone and we have even observed them to sign in their sleep.
They're not Milton or Shakespeare, but they are communicating using language. You can read the book Next of Kin for a detailed account.
Not true at all. Chimps absolutely can learn and use language. This is from the Chimp and Human Communication Institute.
quote: Under double-blind conditions, we have found that the chimpanzees communicate information in American Sign Language (ASL) to human observers. They use signs to refer to natural language categories: e.g. DOG for any dog, FLOWER for any flower, SHOE for any shoe, etc. The chimpanzees acquire and spontaneously use their signs to communicate with humans and each other about the normal course of surrounding events. They have demonstrated an ability to invent new signs or combine signs to metaphorically label a novel item, for example: calling a radish CRY HURT FOOD or referring to a watermelon as a DRINK FRUIT. In a double-blind condition, the chimpanzees can comprehend and produce novel prepositional phrases, understand vocal English words, translate words into their ASL glosses and even transmit their signing skills to the next generation without human intervention. Their play behavior has demonstrated that they use the same types of imaginary play as humans. It has also been demonstrated that they carry on chimpanzee-to-chimpanzee conversation and sign to themselves when alone. Conversational research shows the chimpanzees initiate and maintain conversations in ways that are like humans. The chimpanzees can repair a conversation if there is misunderstanding. They will also sign to themselves when alone and we have even observed them to sign in their sleep.
I do not believe I've seen any of this stuff demonstrated; and your source is undoubtedly biased.
).
Well done, sir. I commend you for that. I would have totally gone with penis.
™ Version 4.2