indiefoot Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 Does the one who defines the catagories get to exclude himself if he chooses?
Guest MikeG Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 please show me a conversation between a human and a dolphin, using speech, where both know what is being communicated, without learned tricks. Why? Why would dolphins evolve a language which was understandable by humans? Isn't it just a tad anthroprocentric to define language as something humans can understand? For a start, we can't even hear some of the noises that dolphins make. And again, it is a huge "so what" whether they can "speak" or not, whether we can understand them or not. You know that dolphins have individual names for each other, so recognise individuals and talk about them? As I said, though.......what has this got to do with the price of eggs? A human is an animal. A special animal, but an animal. We are made of exactly the same stuff as every other mammal on the planet, evolved in exactly the same way, and don't have a single class of attribute that isn't to be found in some form elsewhere in the "natural" world. What on earth is the difficulty in accepting the obvious? Mike
Guest Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 Mike, since you want to continue to answer my question to TexasTracker, how about not giving me a lesson in dolphin behavior and just answer the question and making the obvious argument that yes, humans are animals. The question was, what other animals utilize speech/language. Speech is the vocalized form of human communication. Language may refer either to the specifically human capacity for acquiring and using complex systems of communication, or to a specific instance of such a system of complex communication. Granted, some animals can communicate with each other to a limited extent. Their communication with each other and with us can be extended with training. My dog barks at me when she wants to go outside. It isn't speech and it isn't a language. It is a bark. A form of communication. I trained her to do it.
Guest MikeG Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 OK, I apologise for the crossed wires in answering a question I didn't know was directed at someone else. However, I am really battling to understand what is going on here. Why are you trying to differentiate between speech and language and other lower forms of communication? What difference does it make? Speech is specifically human, you say? So if two little green men from a moon of the planet Zog were vocalising in a complex manner it wouldn't be speech? Even if it could be translated such that we could understand it? I'm really just not getting your point. What are you trying to say? What is it about speech, language, whatever, that pertains to the question of Sasquatch being a hairy human, or humans being a form of animal? Mike
southernyahoo Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 I think some people get defensive about their unique "human" abilities when they can no longer use them to distinguish themselves from what they consider to be an animal with no sentience. JMO.
Guest Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) Mike, TexasTracker made a statement that I asked him to clarify/backup. It really was a simple request. I can't help you if you can't understand that. I did not ask him the question to open up a debate concerning animal communication between species, trained communication between humans and animals or even a hypothetical scenario with little green men. The question pertains to this discussion of sasquatch/bigfoot because of the question of whether or not sasquatches/bigfoot use speech/language. I would imagine that some folks would like to use that ability to differentiate whether they are human or ape. I have heard sounds that I believe were made by bigfoot like creatures, as some other people on this forum claim. Nothing in the sounds that I heard could be mistaken for speech. Just whoops, growls, mimics and whistles. Now, there was no doubt in my mind that the creatures were communicating........with each other and sometimes with me. And I believe the communications with me were telling me to get the hell out of there. SY, First, I don't get defensive about anything that gets posted on these forums. Second, I do distinguish my self from bigfoot creatures. Third, I do believe bigfoot creatures has sentience, as well as other animals. I just don't believe that any other creature in the animal world (that's for you, Mike) has the ability of speech. Edited June 21, 2012 by Splash7
Guest wudewasa Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 Oh yeah, sagittal crests and mid tarsal breaks are common traits exhibited by the majority of modern humans living today... NOT!
Guest Kronprinz Adam Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 Oh yeah, sagittal crests and mid tarsal breaks are common traits exhibited by the majority of modern humans living today... NOT! I also share this viewpoint....
Guest wudewasa Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 DNA isn't the end all, it's really how those genes are EXPRESSED! Those EXPRESSED genes are exhibited in observable characteristics called PHENOTYPES, which are then described by morphometric analysis as well as biochemically. http://laelaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/try_science_shirt_300.jpg
Guest Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 What I saw did not look human. Do I care if it is a human or animal? No, it does not matter. I just want it documented.
Guest Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 Sorry TF......humans are a subset of animals. If not, this is your choice: Animal Mineral Vegetable Mike OK. Allow me to state the obvious. When most people refer to "animals" in common colloquial conversational syntax, they are typically referring to a living creature other than a human.Again, stating the obvious, a Sasquatch is obviously neither a mineral or vegetable.
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 Splash, why are you focusing on the issue of whether or not other animals can communicate with a human centric language? That would be like someone in Tibet saying how superior they are to you because you don't speak Ladakhi. On the flip side of that Americans speaking English louder doesn't help them understand. Every band of humans develops a different language. Every species communicates in a different way, and some species have communication that likely rises to the level of language. I have no problem with that concept. As Mike pointed out many species communicate in ways we can't even hear or see. Would we expect that all humanity, let alone all species, to develop our own personal centric language to make it easier on us?
Guest Twilight Fan Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 @ Splash - Macaws and parrots can learn to speak some words in human language. Some birds have even learned to sing full songs and answer questions with words. Also, not sure if this counts...gorillas "talk" to humans through sign language. It's as close as they can come to speech. Koko knows over 1000 words and more in spoken english. But I know what you meant. No animal can ever speak to us in the same way we speak to eachother.
Guest wudewasa Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 Well JC, that's because some folks say that there are different types of bigfoot creatures.
Guest Posted June 21, 2012 Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) Splash, why are you focusing on the issue of whether or not other animals can communicate with a human centric language? I'm not, but it would appear others in this thread are. I just asked a simple question. That would be like someone in Tibet saying how superior they are to you because you don't speak Ladakhi. BF, is that the best example you could use to argue that no other animals except humans have speech? On the flip side of that Americans speaking English louder doesn't help them understand. Neither does French speaking French louder, or Italians speaking Italian louder, or Swedes speaking Swedish louder......an on and on. I think you get the picture. Why in the world you use Americans as your example? Speech is speech no matter what the spoken language is, right? Now, before you read me an excerpt from "The Ugly American", just let me tell you that there is nothing uglier than having a Frenchman screaming at you because you dared to speak to him in your own pathetic broken French. Every band of humans develops a different language. Every species communicates in a different way, and some species have communication that likely rises to the level of language. I have no problem with that concept. As Mike pointed out many species communicate in ways we can't even hear or see. Yeah, I think I acknowledged that animals produce some form of communication amongst their own species and can be trained to communicate to some degree with humans. I just asked TexasTracker if he could point out any other animal besides humans that speaks. Would we expect that all humanity, let alone all species, to develop our own personal centric language to make it easier on us? Please point out where I stated that or even inferred it. Humans speak using various languages that are known or can be learned by other humans. I was looking for another animal, besides human, that can do that. I thought I was being pretty clear about it. @ Splash - Macaws and parrots can learn to speak some words in human language. Some birds have even learned to sing full songs and answer questions with words. Also, not sure if this counts...gorillas "talk" to humans through sign language. It's as close as they can come to speech. Koko knows over 1000 words and more in spoken english. But I know what you meant. No animal can ever speak to us in the same way we speak to eachother. Thanks Twilight Fan. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I was negating mimicry, like parrots and macaws. Koko, and other sign language gorillas repeat signs taught to them by humans. They didn't develop and teach sign language to humans. Edited June 21, 2012 by Splash7
Recommended Posts