Can it be established that the primary source which has perpetuated itself into the human condition is language? When considering the most intelligent animals on earth, they all have the shared trait of language. The complexity of an individual language reflects the ability one has to effectively communicate complex and/or abstract ideas by using that language. This is the reason for growth. For when there is a new idea that has no accurate descriptive terminology within a language, the language grows to accommodate.

Human language(s) very well may be the only language(s) which contain words that are riddled with presupposition and moral/ethical implications.

Is this not the difference between us and other life on earth?

We judge.

Indeed, human language is complex

como?

no habla

Firstly, I disagree that humans are the most intelligent life form/animal on Earth.

Secondly, language....verbal? I suspect we are by far the least intelligent when it comes to language...very few, when considering the total populace, are capable of discerning CLEARLY non-verbal cues, ie; body language...or psychic, (although an over-worked term, in it's truest form, of being able to comunicate through thought)..the human populace falls far short of MOST other life forms on this planet.

As an example.... right now, this very minute, there is a category 5 cyclone bearing down on us here, this section of coastland, in Queensland, (cat 5 is the biggest number we have on our scale)...most humans in this area are complacent, apathetic, an attitude of 'it won't happen to us', even with the volumes of bombardment of forms of communication, radio, tv, internet, phones....whereas, the animal kingdom? It is currently 6.33 am, here, Sunday, and dawn was an hour ago, it is eerily quiet.... there is not a bird, a bug, an ant to be seen anywhere... I have walked through my village this morning to the beach, and there is a noticible absence of animal life. Not a wallaby anywhere, usually there are at least 40 to 50 in close proximity to where I walk.

Not a seagull wheeling in the sky, not a kookaburra greeting the dawn....communication? Intuition? Perhaps a MUCH more sophisticated CONNECTION to air pressure?

We humans have EVERY warning system in place.... but I still prefer to take my cues from the animal kingdaom.... their communication is NOT loaded with moral precepts...

Instint my dear jess.
It took an intelligent mind to notice and connect that into such an eloquent observation.
Actually, you just exhibited the same instinct as the wildlife. You noticed an unusual change in the environment around you.

Me, thousands of miles away and feeling your fear through your words, is written communication.
Intelligence!!
A bug cant do that.
The bugs here have no idea what the bugs in Australia feel.

How do you know, Fanta?

Do you 'speak' bug?

(My emoticons aren't working, so add a wink, and a flower here...)

Lee writes...



I agree??? I did not realize that it seemed as if I had wrote something to the contrary.



Yes...mainly, although I suppose that signing would be included.



With the success of our spoken language, there has been less and less of a "need" for the instinctual cues. Perhaps we never had them. Perhaps we lost them over time. Perhaps we developed language as a necessary replacement.



Animals seem to "know" things like that.



We humans can voluntarily reason what we believe the liklihood of harm is, or will be, whereas the animals just involuntarily respond.

We judge that there is or there is not immediate danger.

I agree to a certain extent. I believe instinctual, non verbal, sensory and extrasensory communication happens more often then we are consciously aware. Some people are more aware of these communications then others are.

I also believe that the communications between animals on this planet is more than we are aware of in observation.

I don't know, Fanta...

I mean, we think, that animals can not communicate, can not understand each other...

But we are bound to judge by means available to us. If we didn't have an observation to the contrary, we would likely be sure that no animal can fly.

Yo Bro, other life on earth judges. Think of wolves whining trying to make the decision to go into that situation that "just doesn't smell or feel right" or go around the long way. They're very body language speaks volumes if you just listen using different means and take the time to test it out.


P.S. Good to see you!!!!!

Well, I think a necessary precondition is that the processing center that can handle these complex ideas such as abstraction be formed.

Then we develop the full use of these processing centers by creating novel uses, such as language. Language, much like math, much like emotion is a function of these processing centers. We add extensions onto these centers by creating formalisms such as language.

I think its in two parts. First comes the processing center, then the developmental formalism to make best use of said processing centers.

Language has a lot of role beside communicating with each other. Languages also stimulate the brain to be more logical and have reasoning. Don't forget, harder, more complex langagues and/or knowing more languages not only let you speak to others, but also reinforce/stimulate your logical thinking.

And the more complex language you go for the more "stimulus" your brain receives. The difficulty of learning another language and evaluating which language is hard to learn depends on your native tongue.
..just saying..

Hmmm... Seems to be a semantics problem here.

The American Heritage dictionary defines intelligence as "The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge."

Thus, the measure of intelligence would be a measure of how much knowledge can be acquired and applied.

I know of no other living thing that can acquire and apply as much knowledge as humans. (But then I've never met any aliens. They may have a much greater capacity.) And there may even be life forms on earth that have a greater "capacity to acquire" knowledge, but nothing else on this planet has come anywhere near close to matching the application of knowledge that humans have demonstrated.

But all that is based on the given definition of "intelligence." If one does not agree with that definition, then ... well ... one wouldn't agree with any of the rest of it either I guess.

Good responses...



It seems that some believe that animals actually understand one another, and I would not disagree. However, there is a huge difference between knowing something, and knowing that you know something.

Our inference capabilities combined with our ability to conceive of and understand abstract concepts, such as right and wrong/good and bad, creates a foundation upon which humans can develop our language.

I firmly believe that language is but unspoken thought, therefore I also believe that there are many animals which have a language. So it is not just that we do have a language capability, but it also needs to be kept in mind that we are also capable of knowing this. Are we not the only animals which supply our own morals and ethics, which are entirely language based? Would these things not be a product of the collective sense of ought, which also happens to be language based?

Is there any evidence whatsoever that other animals have this?

A pack or heard ostracizing one who is different as in white wolves having a hard time joining or remaining in a pack. Being driven out or killed is much more common than not.

Lionesses who have a tendency to kill their young. This behavior is not tolerated by the pride.

It may not be a set of morals or ethics we agree with or can understand, but to them, it appears highly important. Yes, you can tell me this is instinctual behavior, which apparently during high grief times has been documented to be overcome. Interestingly, these animals are usually not in their natural environment. You might also be able to surmise pack behavior is a learned behavior - "tradition" type mentality, with humans exhibiting that same trait the world over.

Both instances have to do with survival of the pack/herd if you think about it. Survival, ethics, and morals - how closely are they all really tied together do ya think? hmmmmm

Language does not give rise to survival instinct, it does however, give rise to ethics and morals(judgment).

Words which label things without having nor referring value assessment exist without judgment.

80% or more of our communication is non-verbal. so do we really need language?
Probably not.
The fact it makes our life easier means that we have evolved to use a set of muscles to generate a sound that can be distinguished and evaluated by another group of people.

All animals use body language - we are no different.

If I cross my arms across my body when you are telling me something I dont like it means something.

If I tilt my head when I am listening to you then that also means something.

There are animals that use different sound forms to express pain, pleasure and intent.

Being a diving instructor the undersea world fascinates me.
It takes away my ability to talk very much. But I can communicate my needs very well using my hands.

Dolphins and whales have voices, but it's a lot different from most other mammals. The limited visibility under water made sounds and hearing very important for them. The sounds of the whales are not produced with their mouth/beak but only inside their blow-hole. They also use frequencies that reach far beyond our hearing capabilities. Of course they can also hear these higher frequencies.

Just as we, whales use sound to communicate. Large whales can communicate over very large distances (several hundred kilometers!) using very low frequencies. Dolphins usually use higher frequencies which limits the distance.

Tooth whales use sound not only to communicate, but also to "see". Similar to bats they send out sounds and listen to the echo that comes back from objects (like fish or rocks). This kind of SONAR (SOund NAvigation Ranging) works very well. Even in complete darkness they can find their way through the ocean and also find their food.

When you listen to the sounds you will usually hear two kinds of sounds. One that sounds like whistling (high pitched sounds) and one that sounds like a rattle or clicking. In general the whistles are for communication and the clicks is the SONAR.

So, no, we dont need verbal language!

Atlantis wrote...



This is a very good point, one of which I had previously not directly addressed, though I had intended to. If a speaker is able to effectively articulate a line of thought which is unfamiliar to the listener, then the said speaker is able to add perspective to another's level of understanding, providing the listener is capable of grasping the entirety of the expressions.

On a physiological level, language stimulates intellectual development.

On a human level, our use of judgment in language plays an inherently vital role in our ability and/or capability to improve upon our own existence. The fact that humans have these wants and desires to be in a better place also distinguishes us from other animals. As one pursues greater things, the need arises for s/he to be able to make an assessment of what is greater. To consciously and purposefully improve one's own existence, in whatever aspect be chosen, one must necessarily do comparative value assessment, one must judge between knowns.



Belushi wrote...



I disagree with the percentage claim.

Do we "really need" language? Well, the answer to this question depends completely upon how and/or what one deems as an acceptable existence. We do not need language to survive on a rudimentary level, however, one would be very hard pressed to find the ability to exist as we do without needing the use of language.



Just how would one go about explaining these notions to another without the use of verbal or written language?

The actions described in these examples could mean many different things to many different people. Without a verbal or written confirmation regarding exactly what those gestures meant, the possibility for a miscommunication is greatly increased. If verbal or written clarification is absent, then the meaning is completely contained within the observer, which may or may not be an accurate judgment.



Hand gestures which replace previously understood written or verbal expressions are but an extrapolation of those things. The issue arises when one considers the limited nature of pure physical gesture, especially when compared to the limitless ways one can reformulate a well established written language. Language is alive and can cover a much broader range of material than just physical gestures alone, without verbal or written skills.



The fact that many other animals have developed an audible means of communication reinforces the notion of it's need, does it not?



I would guess that there are countless child psychologists and neuroscientists who would attest to the personal and biological importance of verbal language in the intellectual development of humans.

...