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

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

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 59.1%
  • No

    Votes: 9 40.9%

  • Total voters
    22
N

nomadologist

Guest
You might try Hockett as the classic reference. He has something to say about differences between human and other communication systems. He proposes some properties of various communciation systems. an example (that incidentally dog `language' seems to lack): displacement, the property of being able to `talk' about objects distant in time or space.


Yeah, so what? I learn to walk much like a cow does but that doesn't mean I have four legs. The same learning system doesn't imply the same content.

Sure, there are differences in our communication systems, but I don't think that precludes other animals from having "languages" of their own.

If birds acquire their system of sound communications like humans, and use it to communicate in the world and survive just like humans do our language, then what is the categorical difference?
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Most people think that what is hardwired is the capacity to learn human language-type systems, and that only. Languages vary more or less at random within certain constraints.

It would be very surprising if (very) different species of birds could communicate amongst each other.


I know that is what is hard-wired, that was my point.

I think it would be interesting to see if birds could learn the language of other species of birds. If baby birds acquire language just like baby humans do, I think there's a possibility it could happen.
 

Eric

Mr Moraigero
at this level of generality probably there is not much of interest left to say. are bats special because of their use of radar? no, every animal has a way to navigate through space. once we get there the conversation is over.
 

Eric

Mr Moraigero
I know that is what is hard-wired, that was my point.

I think it would be interesting to see if birds could learn the language of other species of birds. If baby birds acquire language just like baby humans do, I think there's a possibility it could happen.

yep I was adding to it

that would be interesting to try. wonder if anyone has done such experiments. it would probably be pretty easy to do too.
 

Eric

Mr Moraigero
anyway bedtime for me if I am to work tomorrow, too bad as the conversation is interesting right now ...
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
You have to be kidding. Ever talk to a population analyst or read about overpopulation? Humans have overpopulated the earth by billions, and the effects are obvious everywhere. What about the global climate crisis that our unsustainable lifestyle has perpetrated on the world and every ecosystem in it?

Of course I'm not kidding. Humans have overrun the Earth because we are the biggest success story in evolutionary history. Evolution is about self-replicating and self-propagating DNA - the selfish gene, right? - and your DNA and mine frankly doesn't give a toss about how happy we are or how much personal space we have or how much oil is left or retreating ice caps or any of that. Of course, WE care about those things, because human beings are not identical to their DNA, but I'm not talking about economics or psychology or anything else. I'm talking only about the self-propagation of a genome, and by that criterion, no other species comes close.

(Of course, humans are still outnumbered by ants and termites - and bacteria - but these creatures are far smaller so you would naturally expect an ecosystem to contain far more of them.)
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
No, evolution isn't like American culture--"bigger" isn't always "better." There are times when having too many offspring is too much a drain on the resources that exist, thus lowering all the humans chances of surviving/thriving in that ecosystem--which makes overpopulation an evolutionary MISSTEP.

TONS of other species vastly outnumber humans, so by your logic, we are FAR FROM the most adaptively "great" species.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I did read it, and I think it's ridiculous to think that our way of having or perceiving concepts is a necessary precursor to "language" or even better "true language".

Well what possible things can you convey apart from concepts? Sensations and emotions, right?
If I cry out, it's pretty obvious I'm in pain. If I smile and go "mmmm", it's immediately obvious I'm feeling some kind of pleasurable sensation. If I whimper and cringe, it's clear I'm afraid. This is communication but not langauge, as the responses are hard-wired, even if they may be culturally modified to some superficial degree. They are a direct output of the primitve part of my brain, and are immediately understandable to any other human, regardless of whether they speak my language, and indeed understandable to many other animals too.

Even animals in a group using sound to locate each other, warn of predators etc. are communicating using noises that are hard-wired instinctual stimuli, not conceptual/verbal symbols. A language requires these symbols (i.e. words).
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
at this level of generality probably there is not much of interest left to say. are bats special because of their use of radar? no, every animal has a way to navigate through space. once we get there the conversation is over.

Hmm. I don't know. I think the differences are interesting, but even more so because the basic function is the same across so many species, but still able to reflect such different evolutionary "strategies" if you will.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
No, evolution isn't like American culture--"bigger" isn't always "better." There are times when having too many offspring is too much a drain on the resources that exist, thus lowering all the humans chances of surviving/thriving in that ecosystem--which makes overpopulation an evolutionary MISSTEP.
For the hundredth time, could you please point me to the one place in this thread where I've used words like "good", "better" or "best"? I'm starting to get seriously frustrated at having to repeat myself like this.
The word I have used is 'sucessful', in a very specific and qualified biological sense. Seriously, which species is more successful: humans (pop. 6,500,000,000) or Siberian tigers (pop. a few dozen)?
The only way there could be a 'misstep', from an evolutionary point of view, would be if humans were suddenly faced with a serious risk of extinction, and I certainly can't see that happening any time soon.
TONS of other species vastly outnumber humans, so by your logic, we are FAR FROM the most adaptively "great" species.

Again, you're not listening to me: what other species that is about the same size as a human is as populous? The only ones I can think of are domesticated animals that exist in those numbers only because people have deliberately bred them.
 
Last edited:
N

nomadologist

Guest
They are a direct output of the primitve part of my brain, and are immediately understandable to any other human, regardless of whether they speak my language, and indeed understandable to many other animals too.

"Primitive" part? Do you mean the brain stem? I really hate categories like "primitive" because they're so often used to imply that people who don't live in "Western"-like cultures are "lower like the animals."

"The brain stem is the oldest and smallest region in the evolving human brain. It evolved hundreds of millions of years ago and is more like the entire brain of present-day reptiles. For this reason, it is often called the 'reptilian brain'. Various clumps of cells in the brain stem determine the brain's general level of alertness and regulate the vegetative processes of the body such as breathing and heartbeat.

It's similar to the brain possessed by the hardy reptiles that preceded mammals, roughly 200 million years ago. It's 'preverbal', but controls life functions such as autonomic brain, breathing, heart rate and the fight or flight mechanism. Lacking language, its impulses are instinctual and ritualistic. It's concerned with fundamental needs such as survival, physical maintenance, hoarding, dominance, preening and mating. It is also found in lower life forms such as lizards, crocodiles and birds. It is at the base of your skull emerging from your spinal column."
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
Even animals in a group using sound to locate each other, warn of predators etc. are communicating using noises that are hard-wired instinctual stimuli, not conceptual/verbal symbols. A language requires these symbols (i.e. words).

But that's the whole point of the birdsong articles...I can find more...birdsong is made up of individual sound symbols that are like words!
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
For the hundredth time, could you please point me to the one place in this thread where I've used words like "good", "better" or "best"? I'm starting to get seriously frustrated at having to repeat myself like this.
The word I have used is 'sucessful', in a very specific and qualified biological sense. Seriously, which species is more successful: humans (pop. 6,500,000,000) or Siberian tigers (pop. a few dozen)?
The only way there could be a 'misstep', from an evolutionary point of view, would be if humans were suddenly faced with a serious risk of extinction, and I certainly can't see that happening any time soon.


Again, you're not listening to me: what other species that is about the same size as a human is as populous? The only ones I can think of are domesticated animals that exist in those numbers only because people have deliberately bred them.

I didn't say you'd said "bigger" or "better"!! I don't like repeating myself either. I used the American idea of "more" being ideal to compare it to your idea that MORE humans existing meaning that humans are a MORE SUCCESSFUL species. I don't think that's true at all.

I can definitely see humans facing extinction within the next hundred thousand years. Why does size matter in this determination? Size is also a function of evolution--the fact that insects are small is another reason why they're so populous--because it's more efficient to be smaller. Just another reason why insects and other bacterial organisms are more "successful" than humans.

In the end, many scientists think humans are going to lose out to micro-organisms anyway!

STOP CONFUSING PEOPLE DISAGREEING WITH YOU WITH PEOPLE NOT LISTENING TO YOU.
 

noel emits

a wonderful wooden reason
What's the American idea of 'more'? Supersize?

I'm hungry now - must be my reptilian brain firing up.

But you know, can we really call ourselves successful unless we are truly happy and fulfilled, I mean really, really? :D
 
N

nomadologist

Guest
What's the American idea of 'more'? Supersize?

I'm hungry now - must be my reptilian brain firing up.

But you know, can we really call ourselves successful unless we are truly happy and fulfilled, I mean really, really? :D

everything is. we like everything bigger--trucks, cars, hummer limos, food, anything
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
"Primitive" part? Do you mean the brain stem? I really hate categories like "primitive" because they're so often used to imply that people who don't live in "Western"-like cultures are "lower like the animals."

Oh for goodness' sake, I thought we could have a serious conversation on here without sinking into hyper-PC socio-semantic wankery. Yes, I think lizards are more primitive than people (and I apologise wholeheartedly to any lizards who are reading this and may feel offended); for what it's worth, I also think a society of (for example) forest-dwelling Borneo tribespeople is more primitve than that of a developed Western country. I'm not attaching a value judgement to the words 'primitive' and 'developed', so if you want to do that, it's up to you, but it reflects on your prejudices, not mine. For one thing, there's nothing inherently primitive about the people themselves, in that if you swapped babies from Britain and Borneo, each would grow up in its adoptive culture like a 'native'.

In that people in tribal cultures have lives that are much more at the mercy of the natural world (the weather/climate, food abundances, predation and disease, etc.), live in extended family groups and have very little in the way of technology and complex virtual social constructs like nations and economies, they are closer to living in a (non-human) animal-like state than the average city-dweller.
 
Last edited:
N

nomadologist

Guest
Oh for goodness' sake, I thought we could have a serious conversation on here without sinking into hyper-PC socio-semantic wankery. Yes, I think lizards are more primitive than people (and I apologise wholeheartedly to any lizards who are reading this and may feel offended); for what it's worth, I also think a society of (for example) forest-dwelling Borneo tribespeople is more primitve than that of a developed Western country. I'm not attaching a value judgement to the words 'primitive' and 'developed', so if you want to do that, it's up to you, but it reflects on your prejudices, not mine. For one thing, there's nothing inherently primitive about the people themselves, in that if you swapped babies from Britain and Borneo, each would grow up in its adoptive culture like a 'native'.

In that people in tribal cultures have lives that are much more at the mercy of the natural world (the weather/climate, food abundances, predation and disease, etc.), live in extended family groups and very little in the way of technology and complex virtual social constructs like nations and economies, they are closer to living in a (non-human) animal-like state than the average city-dweller.

You're not attaching a "value judgment" with the word "primitive"? How exactly is that possible?

If more people lived in a "primitive" way, we might not be in the midst of a global climate crisis. Think about it that way!

Edit: of course, even if you make subtle distinctions in your idea of what "primitive" means, most people don't when they use that word. I prefer not to use that category because of the historical suffering that came on the heels of thinking like that. Call me crazy. I really don't care if you don't like it.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
I didn't say you'd said "bigger" or "better"!! I don't like repeating myself either. I used the American idea of "more" being ideal to compare it to your idea that MORE humans existing meaning that humans are a MORE SUCCESSFUL species. I don't think that's true at all.

You'd said ""bigger" isn't always "better"", which sounded very much like you were implying that's what I'd said. I had already by that time that my only criterion for evolutionary success is population, compared to body mass/food chain position. So if you want to quibble with my definition of evolutionary success, what other criteria do you propose? It's like economic success; if a company is successful in proportion to how much money it makes, a company with a £10,000,000 turnover is more successfull than one with a £1,000,000 turnover. How else do you measure it?
 
Top