Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2019 6:56 AM
27 online now:
caffeine, Heathen, marc9000 (3 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,575 Year: 9,611/19,786 Month: 2,033/2,119 Week: 69/724 Day: 1/68 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
161718Next
Author Topic:   Science and Speech in Determining "Human" Kind
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1838 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 211 of 268 (425169)
09-30-2007 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Jon
09-30-2007 2:40 PM


Re: Troll!
quote:
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.

IMHO, this too is incorrect. Language is the medium, speech is the tool. While it would be more difficult with different languages, it is not the same as with not having speech. This applies even where there is no problem with languages but limited to not knowing certain word meanings only.

If one does not know the meaning of a word - he basically cannot think in the instant of that word's meaning; one can confront another in the same language, using a complex assembly of technical words and intricate thoughts - and the other will not understand what was said.

The same does not apply with non-humans. Language is an effect of speech, and when the latter is missing, a different language becomes a mute point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Jon, posted 09-30-2007 2:40 PM Jon has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by bernerbits, posted 10-12-2007 10:31 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 212 of 268 (425171)
09-30-2007 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by IamJoseph
09-30-2007 9:38 PM


another rest for IaJ
Since you insist on posting utter junk in science threads and since you don't seem to grasp the obvious need to define what you are talking about you can have two days to work on it this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by IamJoseph, posted 09-30-2007 9:38 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 213 of 268 (425174)
09-30-2007 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by IamJoseph
09-30-2007 10:00 PM


Relevancy is more Conducive to Debate
two of which were debated here

There's nothing being debated here because you have not said anything. You've combined words in random orders to make up theobabble nonsense. You go from speech to language to Genesis to astronomy to biology, generally all within the same damn sentence. We could make a separate topic out of everything you say, because nothing you say is relevant to any of the other things you say. It's all just a mish-mash of unrelated material. You put in random dashes and punctuation as if you think it makes you look intelligence, and instead you just come off as a senseless ignorant, Biblical Christian.

I'm sorry... but you are generations behind even Alex the bird.

Jon

Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Edited by Jon, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by IamJoseph, posted 09-30-2007 10:00 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19877
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 214 of 268 (425266)
10-01-2007 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by IamJoseph
09-30-2007 10:06 PM


for when you get back from suspension for not providing a definition of speech ....
French and italians can - apes cannot perform that trick.

The problem is how can you tell without first knowing that the french an italians are human?

Let's say it is a blind test -- you have a list of questions you can pick from to ask an intermediate, they take it into the next room and ask the subject, then return to you with the answer: how do you tell that the subject is human?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by IamJoseph, posted 09-30-2007 10:06 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Jon, posted 10-01-2007 10:18 PM RAZD has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 215 of 268 (425358)
10-01-2007 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by RAZD
10-01-2007 3:32 PM


Re: for when you get back from suspension for not providing a definition of speech ..
...you have a list of questions you can pick from to ask an intermediate...

What is the nature of these questions?

How much 'translation' is performed by this intermediate?

how do you tell that the subject is human?

What do we know of the other subjects possible? Are they birds? Apes? Cats? Fruit flies?

Also, simply because someone cannot see the difference does not mean that the difference isn't actually there. What's the cliché? Looks can be deceiving.

Jon

Edited by Jon, : Added paragraph.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by RAZD, posted 10-01-2007 3:32 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by RAZD, posted 10-02-2007 7:29 AM Jon has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19877
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 216 of 268 (425403)
10-02-2007 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Jon
10-01-2007 10:18 PM


Re: for when you get back from suspension for not providing a definition of speech ..
What is the nature of these questions?

How much 'translation' is performed by this intermediate?

Does it matter? Remember that the subject could be a human that does not understand the language at all, but communicates by other means.

What do we know of the other subjects possible? Are they birds? Apes? Cats? Fruit flies?

Does it matter? The purpose is to show that "speech" can be distinguished as a uniques human trait, so some animal subjects would be needed.

Also, simply because someone cannot see the difference does not mean that the difference isn't actually there. What's the cliché? Looks can be deceiving.

But we're not using looks, we're using speech, and the purpose is to distinguish speech as a uniques human trait.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Jon, posted 10-01-2007 10:18 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 217 of 268 (427252)
10-10-2007 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by IamJoseph
09-22-2007 11:04 PM


speech is not a result of the mind or any body organs

Perhaps you'd care to explain then why certain types of brain injury render a previously speech-endowed person incapable of speech if it's not a function of mind?

Single cell amoebas also recognise their offspring

What study are you quoting?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by IamJoseph, posted 09-22-2007 11:04 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 218 of 268 (427253)
10-10-2007 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by IamJoseph
09-22-2007 11:11 PM


Genesis' vindicated science speech is a unique factor with humans
Give me a break. The bible says that snakes and donkeys can talk. That doesn't sound like scripture backs up uniqueness of human speech to me.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by IamJoseph, posted 09-22-2007 11:11 PM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 219 of 268 (427256)
10-10-2007 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by IamJoseph
09-23-2007 12:31 AM


This is further backed by a parent not teaching a child to speak, but rather clicking on a switch - and the speech becomes automatic and involuntary
Oh bull SHIT. Of course a parent teaches a child to speak. Why do you think children born to Spanish-speaking parents speak Spanish and children born to English-speaking parents speak English? Because they learn from observation and mimicry, not because God flips a switch and turns on their ability to speak.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by IamJoseph, posted 09-23-2007 12:31 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 220 of 268 (427258)
10-10-2007 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by IamJoseph
09-23-2007 3:52 AM


WHY IS THE LAST KNOWN, MOST RECENT LIFE FORM SPEECH ENDOWED?
(1) Humans are neither the last known nor the most recent. New species of bacteria and virus (among others) are evolving into existence constantly. (2) Recency has little to do with evolving. It's not like one thing turns into a better thing turns into another more better thing. Evolution isn't a straight line. It's a tree with many dead ends and many more branches. (3) Your only argument thus far has been that humans are the only speech endowed creature and that proves that humans are the only speech endowed creature when presented with evidence to the contrary.

Honestly, as someone who has studied linguistics I could make a far stronger case FOR creationism based solely on speech and language than you've done so far.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by IamJoseph, posted 09-23-2007 3:52 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by IamJoseph, posted 10-12-2007 3:10 AM bernerbits has responded

    
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 221 of 268 (427263)
10-10-2007 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Vacate
09-23-2007 3:56 PM


would you be convinced it is a human speaking when koko is creating new signs and original sentences? You should, if it is speech or even a kind of
So you've gone and applied the Turing Test to animals now? If that's the case, ELIZA must be "kind of speech endowed" despite any comprehension or understanding while Koko and Alex are not.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Vacate, posted 09-23-2007 3:56 PM Vacate has not yet responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1838 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 222 of 268 (427577)
10-12-2007 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by RAZD
09-29-2007 10:57 PM


Re: possible equivocation, moving goalposts, and denial ... take two
Why do you think prominent and non-creationist scientists [specially biologists] state that speech, aside from it not being a subsequence or extension of communications seen in all life forms, is a problem in defining speech?

I understand that in order to agree or disagree, a definition of a motion's premise is a required preamble: but so do those scientists know this fact. It seems they are indeed the correct and relevent rocket scientists in this issue, and if anything, would be unbiased, effected only by their inclination away from creationism. IOW, there is no shying away from the declaration speech is formidable to describe in technical terms, and it may be a correct, honest and relevant reality. Is there another way of discussing this issue?


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Modulous, posted 10-12-2007 3:41 AM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 226 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2007 8:39 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded
 Message 229 by bernerbits, posted 10-12-2007 10:36 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1838 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 223 of 268 (427580)
10-12-2007 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by bernerbits
10-10-2007 5:16 PM


Humans ARE the last life form embedded with speech. And however one looks at it - even that viruses mutate and are alledged as new species - the speech and humans compact remains a unique premise, undented by a zebra also being unique by its particular stripes. This premise only becomes dented when and if other life forms evolved to render speech not unique anymore - by possessing it.

That this does not happen or will not happen, is varied from a zebra not expected to attain speech, nor a human not expected to attain zebra stripes. The unique aspect of one life form came post other life form traits, and appears to have factored in variances in degrees, which a zebra's markings fall under. Speech is thus an epochial and transcendent difference, one which changes the universe. Such a difference is not subject to reductionism of a zebra's stripes, a virus mutation or finger prints. So there is denial and contrivings perpertrated in this issue, while there is no doubt that admitting the motion of speech's unique position being a formidable factor for ToE: a statement declared by many scientists [as has been posted in this forum].


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by bernerbits, posted 10-10-2007 5:16 PM bernerbits has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by AdminNosy, posted 10-12-2007 3:21 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded
 Message 227 by bernerbits, posted 10-12-2007 10:25 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 224 of 268 (427581)
10-12-2007 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by IamJoseph
10-12-2007 3:10 AM


Bugableblab?
IaJ, you are the one making claims for something called "speech". You refuse to define your terms. You have another 24 hours to try.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by IamJoseph, posted 10-12-2007 3:10 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 225 of 268 (427583)
10-12-2007 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by IamJoseph
10-12-2007 2:52 AM


definitions
Why do you think prominent and non-creationist scientists [specially biologists] state that speech, aside from it not being a subsequence or extension of communications seen in all life forms, is a problem in defining speech?

A three second stint with google gave me a working definition:

quote:
Speech is voice modulated by the throat, tongue, lips, etc, the modulation being accomplished by changing the form of the cavity of the mouth and nose through the action of muscles which move their walls.

Source. Wiki gives me another, similar definition:

quote:
Speech can be described as an act of producing voice through the use of the vocal folds and vocal apparatus to create a linguistic act designed to convey information.

I wouldn't confuse your ability to craft a definition, with the ability of biologists.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by IamJoseph, posted 10-12-2007 2:52 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by IamJoseph, posted 10-14-2007 12:07 AM Modulous has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
161718Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019