Is there a major objective difference between our species and every other animal?

nomadologist said:

I am mostly making a "devil's advocate" argument about bird language here, because I think it's interesting that there's even enough evidence for something like bird grammar to make it a feasible subject of debate.

Click to expand...

One last time and I will shut up. The people who should know about it--the linguists, who it seems you don't trust --don't think there really is enough evidence to make it worth debating. It seems to me closer to the Eskimo 8 zillion words for snow error: not exactly true, and even if it was, blown all out of proportion (well, if there was evidence that birds had something like a syntax, then this would be much more significant.

I really don't know whether I think they will ever proove it, but it does seem to make sense to me intuitively--why wouldn't other species have something like language?

Click to expand...

And, again, it makes perfect sense. Other species would and do have something LIKE language--various kinds of communication systems. They just show a number of real qualitative differences from human languages: human languages can do many many things they can't. For whatever reason. Presumably evolutionary.

nomadologist said:

Linguistics is interesting formally, but I doubt biologists would allow linguists to claim to "discredit" their research into a given species' capacities...

Click to expand...

I don't get what you mean here, how would linguists try to do that?

If you have in mind some case where a biologist who knows little or nothing about the structure of human languages claims other species have the same kind of system, this is as absurd as a formal linguist making claims about human or other animal neurobiology. No one should be expected to take either one seriously just because of their status as a member of some profession.

Eric said:

One last time and I will shut up. The people who should know about it--the linguists, who it seems you don't trust --don't think there really is enough evidence to make it worth debating. It seems to me closer to the Eskimo 8 zillion words for snow error: not exactly true, and even if it was, blown all out of proportion (well, if there was evidence that birds had something like a syntax, then this would be much more significant..

Click to expand...

I don't agree with this at all. I don't think linguists--who study the HUMAN systems of language--should be the ones to go to if you want to learn more about what happens in the animal kingdom. They're probably the last people whose "authority" I would look to for answers in this respsect.

And once again, if you would actually cite some of these linguists, instead of just insisting they exist, I might think you actually had a point here.

I brought up language in other species not to bring up some sort of argument about whether it exists, but in the service of answering Mr. Tea's initial question. Of course, I don't understand the point of the question at all if Mr. Tea asked it already firmly believing that the differences between humans and other animals are so great that they're obviously "objectively" different--I think language is probably going to be the crux of any argument about "objective differences" between humans and other species.

Eric said:

I don't get what you mean here, how would linguists try to do that?

If you have in mind some case where a biologist who knows little or nothing about the structure of human languages claims other species have the same kind of system, this is as absurd as a formal linguist making claims about human or other animal neurobiology. No one should be expected to take either one seriously just because of their status as a member of some profession.

Click to expand...

A biologist is going to study human language or at least interpret it functionally in a very different manner than a linguist would. If, in biological terms, a biologist can show me that several species have something like "language" that functions similarly with respect to the survival of that species (but also demonstrate parallels in how language evolved in that species and for what purpose) I would listen to that person with interest.

If linguist tries to say that other species languages are not sufficiently "complex" to compare to that of humans, I would probably ask him to spend a lot more time studying the languages of other species before I would take that claim at face value.

Metatool use by New Caledonian Crows

Language, blah blah... technology is more interesting, and these chaps are catching up fast:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/aug/17/1

Perhaps some humans just know that they are different, this is an example of why humans are different.
This decision making process is not reason or instinct, it is a thing that is experienced and has attached with it an emotional sense of importance.
To experience what is not 'real' maybe has benefits -i.e. creative thought. Is this what make us different?
Communication could be part of this as complex languages facilitates kinds inner dialog that are also complex.
......
perhaps we do have souls after all

I don't reckon.

swears said:

I don't reckon.

Click to expand...

a) that we are different?
b) we are different because o our language skills enables us to imagine the experience of something being right or wrong
c) because of a tingly sensation in my little left toe?