Bragging rights!

[karamazov80]

Interesting story about Koko, I know of her, but didn't know that story. As for ethics, well, I guess that's just one of those things you'll get in most philosophy discussions if you have a variety of perspectives involved. I can imagine you would get the same kind of arguments regarding the definition of scientific "proof," lord knows I've had more than my own share of discussions as to what is considered legitimate scientific study and what isn't.

[Turtle]

My undergrad concentration was in language and linguistics, and complex animal communication came up a lot. Koko is an interesting case... but when it comes down to it, even the most outspoken chimp lacks the physical components needed to generate language. I'm not talking about vocal chords either, but the brain areas. Language is uniquely human, and asking Koko or any other chimp or animal to "talk" is as absurd as asking any person to pick up a log with his nose. The parts just aren't there. Complex communication, sure, Koko has that down with her handler but not ASL. I'm not downing on animals here, but celebrating her for what she is: an animal with a unique ability to communicate with a human, but it's not language and speech. I think we as a species tend to define others by the way we do things, and in that way, asking and expecting Koko to speak is a bit arrogant on our part. Language generation should not be a barometer for measuring an animal's cognitive abilities, soul, or however you want to phrase it. Imo. Ymmv.

[karamazov80]

Well, my mom's old chihuahua clearly would say "I waaaaant it" when he wanted a treat, so. . .there's your scientific proof to the contrary of your argument. Also proof that animals are people.

Edited October 23, 2011 by karamazov80

[Turtle]

Foiled again by that damn chihuahua.

[gambitron]

Way to go! That definitely deserves bragging rights!

[Bob Harris]

Thanks again, folks!

My undergrad concentration was in language and linguistics, and complex animal communication came up a lot. Koko is an interesting case... but when it comes down to it, even the most outspoken chimp lacks the physical components needed to generate language. I'm not talking about vocal chords either, but the brain areas. Language is uniquely human, and asking Koko or any other chimp or animal to "talk" is as absurd as asking any person to pick up a log with his nose. The parts just aren't there. Complex communication, sure, Koko has that down with her handler but not ASL. I'm not downing on animals here, but celebrating her for what she is: an animal with a unique ability to communicate with a human, but it's not language and speech. I think we as a species tend to define others by the way we do things, and in that way, asking and expecting Koko to speak is a bit arrogant on our part. Language generation should not be a barometer for measuring an animal's cognitive abilities, soul, or however you want to phrase it. Imo. Ymmv.

This is a very popular perspective on the whole question. From a differet angle people argue that (at least some) animals develop verbal signs to communicate even in the wild. Vervet monkeys for example use (at least) three different sounds to call their attention to three different natural enemies: an eagle-alarm (all monkeys look to the sky and hide under leaves), a leopard-alarm (all monkeys climb upon a tree) and a snake-alarm (all monkeys all get on their hind legs and look for the snake's movement). Now the interessting part on that is, that the adult monkeys teach those sound to their pups and in the beginning they use the eagle-alarm for everything that's moving in the sky (even falling leaves), so the adults don't just react on the sound, but check the sky. Not before a pup is able to use the alarm sound correct, the other monkeys react on it. And different tribes (?) use different sounds. From a very pragmatic point of view, language could be regarded as the medium to send information to a receiver by converting the "message" (eagle attacking!) into a shared code (eagle alarm sound). So the point here is, can't this be regeraded as a language, maybe a primitive one? Or if not, how do we have to define "language"? And do all humans fall under that definition regarding their individual language skills, so that we can say it's "human"?

I don't have an answer for it and I don't think that this would be my job as a full fledged wizard. :ton But I really like that last sentence opf yours: Language generation should not be a barometer for measuring an animal's cognitive abilities. Very good point.

Well, my mom's old chihuahua clearly would say "I waaaaant it" when he wanted a treat, so. . .there's your scientific proof to the contrary of your argument. Also proof that animals are people.

No further questions your honor.

Edited October 24, 2011 by Bob Harris

[TM2 Dinobot]

I'd love to be a philosophy major. My parents won't let me though. So history major I shall remain.

[buttheadsmate]

I feel a bit intimidated by all you clever bastards & all your edjication & your philosophy but I will mention that my perception of how animals 'think ' & feel has changed since I have lived on a farm . I will also mention that the guy ....many years ago & way before I lived here...who kicked my dog 'Scarlet' purely for his own amusement is unlikely to have forgotten the philosophical way I subsequently dislocated his arm . I philosophically explained to Mr.Terrierkicker that Scarlet was probably in the wrong to wag her tail as we both bade him farewell.

[Turtle]

From a differet angle people argue that (at least some) animals develop verbal signs to communicate even in the wild.

Yeah, and I think there have even been MRI and other brain scans to suggest that a lot of that, at least within chimps and other primates, very closely resembles language patterns in humans which is definitely interesting and gives a lot of weight to that argument. I don't want to hijack your thread with a linguistic discussion, so I'll just say that I subscribe to the concept that language involves an underlying grammar, something more than just signs with definition. That's the critical difference between "Dog bites man" and "Man bites dog"(and I pity the fool that bites BHM's dog). But it's still an active, healthy, and lively debate.

You mentioned the primate tribes- that is a tremendously fascinating occurrence that really demonstrates how advanced they are. I was pretty surprised a couple of years ago to read that ants also engage in some pretty wild tribal (maybe better said nationalistic) tendencies, complete with MEGA-RAGE tribal warfare. Of course, now ants really freak me out, a fear only reinforced a few weeks ago when I was attacked by a colony. My fault for (unknowingly) standing on their hill, but still... there were ants in places ants should never be.

Again, congrats on the degree. More than just the accomplishment, it sounds like this is a field you've got some passion about, and that is a prize.

[blacksun1520]

Congrats Bob!

[nate_studio]

Congratulations, Bob! I have little to no idea what you're talking about... but it sounds smart and like a lot of hard work. How much more to get your PhD?

[Bob Harris]

Thanks again folks!

I feel a bit intimidated by all you clever bastards & all your edjication & your philosophy but I will mention that my perception of how animals 'think ' & feel has changed since I have lived on a farm . I will also mention that the guy ....many years ago & way before I lived here...who kicked my dog 'Scarlet' purely for his own amusement is unlikely to have forgotten the philosophical way I subsequently dislocated his arm . I philosophically explained to Mr.Terrierkicker that Scarlet was probably in the wrong to wag her tail as we both bade him farewell.

Now that just fits perfectly (and in a nice way) to how I imagine you.

From a differet angle people argue that (at least some) animals develop verbal signs to communicate even in the wild.

Yeah, and I think there have even been MRI and other brain scans to suggest that a lot of that, at least within chimps and other primates, very closely resembles language patterns in humans which is definitely interesting and gives a lot of weight to that argument. I don't want to hijack your thread with a linguistic discussion, so I'll just say that I subscribe to the concept that language involves an underlying grammar, something more than just signs with definition. That's the critical difference between "Dog bites man" and "Man bites dog"(and I pity the fool that bites BHM's dog). But it's still an active, healthy, and lively debate.

You're not hijacking!

I'm not sold on what brain scans are actually able to tell us. There's a nice thought by John Dupré who says making the ability to have a language depend on a certain organ is like saying only fish are able to swim, because only they have a specific organ (swimm bladder) for that ability. Now we reply, but we can see other oraganisms swim, so that's not right. And he replys, but we see other creatures talk, why don't we take that serious? Now here's your underlying grammar thought taking effect. (That's Chomsky, right? Or at least it goes in his direction.) There are a lot of linguists objecting to this thought from different positions, but I guess if humans are the only organisms developing that ability, it must have been developed at some point in our evolution. If it developed once, why not twice?

Again, congrats on the degree. More than just the accomplishment, it sounds like this is a field you've got some passion about, and that is a prize.

Thanks and yes, I really enjoy this debate. :tongue:

Congratulations, Bob! I have little to no idea what you're talking about... but it sounds smart and like a lot of hard work. How much more to get your PhD?

Thanks man! Well, it's like I have an M.A. degree in philosophy. The PhD depends on how I'll be able to finance it, but usually it takes between 2 and 4 years. So I'm way behind Brother Karamazov here.