Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind

quote:

---

Thanks for making that distinction between your position and science.

---

Its not so derogatory to be in the company of scientists like Chomsky in this instant. Whatever do you mean by 'science': only those things which have been fully solved - if so, we should not include the BBT, only a theory, in the science sector.My position was and is, that we have no understanding of what speech is from a scientific premise - which makes steering from its definition a reasonably coherent position.

So you are saying you cannot have speech without language, fair enough, but are you saying you also cannot have language without speech (being so "alligned")?Note example: a frenchman and an italian converse in english. Do they need their respective native languages? Do they need complete knowledge of the english language?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.

Dsiagree here. This is not the premise behind the scientists quoted in many articles which agree with genesis in 'this' instant - regardless of other derived conclusion variances. Nor does the factor of speech make humans different by itself, to an anicnet humanity's views: they could have concluded speech just a human communication [another language], or that speech may be seen in other unencountered life forms far away.It is not sufficient to separate humans from this one factor alone, as it is for this generation to do - the later is due to retrospection backed by advanced and new knowledge in many areas not privy to ancient peoples. If anything, the reverse logic applies with ancient man, who believed in animals as deities which understoof mysteries and had great powers.To a large extent, the lack of full acceptance of this stat in genesis is alligned with an apprehension, and it is a legitimate one: it does pose some problems. Additionally, there are too many other factors in genesis which negate the fluke, chance or commonsense reasonings conclusions.

A better example would be an ape and an italian. The two you used would have no problem with or w/o the language variances and deficiencies, and would use compensatory improvisations based on the principle of logic. Some foreign travelers carry translation dictionaries or other modern gadgets to cater for the ethnic diversities. The operative factor is that both speech and languages are unique human traits - making the lack of one a muted point.

If it was shown that you do not understand what "theory" means in the field of science would that make any difference?Care to point out a field of science that graduated a theory to "fully solved"?

The prosecution here is claiming that humans can be distinguished from other animals by speech. So prosecute. Present your evidence. 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

What? They could have, yes. That is kind of my point, they had a limited amount of information and they tried to form conclusions from that information. That their limited amount of information turned out to representative of reality does not give credence to their conclusions. I still don't see it as particularly interesting that some people decided not to believe in animism or polytheism or how this demonstrates that their observation of humans and the conclusions they drew from that are valid. It poses no problems. Genesis could have said that humans walk upright, don't have a load of body hair, have opposable thumbs and fashion tools. That wouldn't make everything else they say true. Not really.

DAMN YOU LITTLE TROLL!You let me argue this whole time that you thought speech to be language, when clearly you don't!What is 'speech' to you? Because tons of animals have the ability to speak. Cats purr when they're happy”sounds expressing emotion”, and that bird responds to hearing 'green' and 'block' by adding them together”sounds expressing thoughts. Multitudes of other animals have been shown to have the ability speak.Didn't you watch the video? What is the parrot doing? While I'm quite convinced that it ain't language, I'm damn well sure it's speech. What? Are you drunk? Have you ever tried talking to someone who didn't speak your language? The ability for two humans to effectively communicate without speaking the same language is almost completely absent. If they do make sense of one another, they certainly will not have 'no problem' doing it.JonEdited by Jon, : TROLL

What is a 'cause factor', and why does it pose so much problem in a 'finite universe'. You make no sense. You would say that, wouldn't you?Jon

Can the participants in this thread point me to IaJ's definition of speech?It is a requirement for him to avoid more suspensions after the short warning one.

Are calling fellow humans apes now? I specified two humans so we could see where the language distinction from speech is relevant. So you are in effect saying that the frenchman and the italian do not need a common language to speak together? Do you mean that they could develop a pidgin language to speak with or do you mean that they could speak by the use of mimicry, and pantomime or by "mimicry of sound repitition (SIC) combined with the action"^[1] eh?Enjoy^[1] last quote from Message 61 ...

---

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.

Well there is this from Message 22 early on: But nothing of late, and nothing of use. We did get this tidbit from Message 192 though: Looks like a refusal to present a definition. Or ... a realization that anything he put forward would necessarily be a tautology (human speech = speech by humans) that begs the question OR that it would apply to animals and show a difference in degree and not in kind.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : Or ...Edited by RAZD, : .

---

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.

What is the definition of life and shall we stop mentioning it? Make sure you ask all the scientists in the links submitted who hold the same intelligent view about the definition of speech. Better, since you claim to 'KNOW' - why not make a splash!

quote:

---

What is a 'cause factor', and why does it pose so much problem in a 'finite universe'.

​

You make no sense.

---

The reverse is the case with making sense. In a finite universe, there is cause and effect. There's no such thing in science as effect by and of itself. Not so in an infinite uni - here pigs can fly too. So genesis becomes more demanding - unless you omit its opening preamble!

quote:

---

That speech is unique to humans is first declared in Genesis.

​

You would say that, wouldn't you?

​

Jon

---

And you would not - is more applicable. If you called genesis a myth, then why be shy of also accreditising the same with its mythical premises, two of which were debated here: the first declaration of a 'finite' universe, and speech being unique to one life form. FYI, it means science is inclined to genesis territory in both these instances, and any postulations made in the guise of science - must obey those two factors - else your not talking science but sci-fi. FYI, the factor of humans being a different 'kind' is also a valid scientific premise.If this thread was not quagmired in the blatant, we could have examined a host of other myths.

quote:

---

Are calling fellow humans apes now? I specified two humans so we could see where the language distinction from speech is relevant.

​

The two you used would have no problem with or w/o the language variances and deficiencies, ...

​

So you are in effect saying that the frenchman and the italian do not need a common language to speak together?

---

What I said was simple and clear. Humans can improvise when faced with different languages - same as they do with dif skin colors and accents. French and italians can - apes cannot perform that trick.