How did human language originate?

[untermensche]

If you have a human language capacity you can create and understand infinite expressions.

There is something that you have not been making very clear. What do you mean by infinite expressions? Do you mean mathematically infinite or a very large finite number? Can you give us an example of what you'd consider an infinite expression?

I mean without end.

What kind of limit do you propose?

Do you think the number of possible human expressions has a limit?

Or do you propose the capacity has a limit? That after X number of expressions it stops being able to make sense of them?

 

[lpetrich]

There is something that you have not been making very clear. What do you mean by infinite expressions? Do you mean mathematically infinite or a very large finite number? Can you give us an example of what you'd consider an infinite expression?

I mean without end.

Like how? Can you show us what you consider an infinite set of valid sentences or noun phrases or whatever? You don't have to list them, only give some rule for constructing them.

 

[fromderinside]

It is a system of understanding infinite phrases.

The mantra continues to be mouthed with hand waving the facts that birds and humans interact appropriately with human language. Its all the more impressive that this happens because birds have little of the brain of man, has little of the experience of man, but, when taught, can render appropriate responses to human queries and commands with human language. Humans certainly don't do as well with birds.

So now I've constructed two exceptions to your fantasy. First the human cerebellum is as remarkably changed over the period from the time our predecessors left trees as is the cortex. Now birds with little in common with man can be trained by man to learn words and thought, then demonstrate those capabilities in conversations with men while possessing little of the capacity of humans in brain size and complexity.

You need to develop another rational for your superiority complex.

 

[untermensche]

I mean without end.

Like how? Can you show us what you consider an infinite set of valid sentences or noun phrases or whatever? You don't have to list them, only give some rule for constructing them.

You have to present some kind of logical limit to claim it is not without end.

Are you claiming there is a limit to the number of words that could exist?

Are you claiming there is a limit to the number of phrases?

Are you claiming that after a brain understands X number of phrases it will somehow stop understanding?

What is your logical limit?

Without one it is without end.

 

[untermensche]

It is a system of understanding infinite phrases.

The mantra continues to be mouthed with hand waving the facts that birds and humans interact appropriately with human language. Its all the more impressive that this happens because birds have little of the brain of man, has little of the experience of man, but, when taught, can render appropriate responses to human queries and commands with human language. Humans certainly don't do as well with birds.

So now I've constructed two exceptions to your fantasy. First the human cerebellum is as remarkably changed over the period from the time our predecessors left trees as is the cortex. Now birds with little in common with man can be trained by man to learn words and thought, then demonstrate those capabilities in conversations with men while possessing little of the capacity of humans in brain size and complexity.

You need to develop another rational for your superiority complex.

You merely show again and again you have no idea what human language is.

Or what actually using it is.

What we are doing here is using human language.

Are you claiming some bird can do it too?

 

[fromderinside]

No. I'm saying birds can converse in human language with humans.

Open systems are without end.

 

[untermensche]

Open systems are without end.

What does that mean?

Is the number of symbols a chimp can comprehend without end?

 

[lpetrich]

Like how? Can you show us what you consider an infinite set of valid sentences or noun phrases or whatever? You don't have to list them, only give some rule for constructing them.

You have to present some kind of logical limit to claim it is not without end.

I don't. It's you who has the burden of proof here. It's your claim that it's an actual mathematical infinity rather than a very large finite number.

Are you claiming there is a limit to the number of words that could exist?

Many formal grammars can easily be proved to have such limits. That's what you claim for every species but us, as far as I can tell.

Are you claiming there is a limit to the number of phrases?

No, only that you have not proved your position.

Are you claiming that after a brain understands X number of phrases it will somehow stop understanding?

How would that follow from finiteness?

What is your logical limit?

Still more shifting of the burden of proof.

 

[untermensche]

You have to present some kind of logical limit to claim it is not without end.

I don't. It's you who has the burden of proof here. It's your claim that it's an actual mathematical infinity rather than a very large finite number.

Again, to have a limit there must be some rational limit.

If there is no rational limit I can't prove a negative.

Many formal grammars can easily be proved to have such limits. That's what you claim for every species but us, as far as I can tell.

Then prove it.

 

[lpetrich]

untermensche, the burden of proof is on you, not on me. One can "show" that a dog's barking is infinite, because a dog that could live infinitely long could bark an infinite number of times.

 

[fromderinside]

Open systems are without end.

What does that mean?

Is the number of symbols a chimp can comprehend without end?

Since the inputs and outputs of chimp aren't numbered (limited in some or many domains) it is very likely chimp is an open system.

 

[untermensche]

What does that mean?

Is the number of symbols a chimp can comprehend without end?

Since the inputs and outputs of chimp aren't numbered (limited in some or many domains) it is very likely chimp is an open system.

No, the number of symbols a chimp can learn is finite.

This has been demonstrated over and over.

 

[untermensche]

untermensche, the burden of proof is on you, not on me. One can "show" that a dog's barking is infinite, because a dog that could live infinitely long could bark an infinite number of times.

Yes, a single bark repeated forever is an infinite amount of the same thing.

With human language we are talking about an infinite amount of unique phrases that the human has never heard before. The ability of infinite comprehension.

You can't somehow subtract the comprehension part and pretend dogs can do anything close.

If there is no logical limit then it is without end.

Most likely you have never seen this sentence before but you can comprehend it without trouble. That is not luck.

You have a system that gives you the ability to understand infinite unique phrases.

 

[lpetrich]

No, the number of symbols a chimp can learn is finite.

This has been demonstrated over and over.

Since we don't have an infinite memory capacity, that is also true of us.

untermensche, the burden of proof is on you, not on me. One can "show" that a dog's barking is infinite, because a dog that could live infinitely long could bark an infinite number of times.

Yes, a single bark repeated forever is an infinite amount of the same thing.

At least we are getting somewhere.

With human language we are talking about an infinite amount of unique phrases that the human has never heard before. The ability of infinite comprehension.

Is it a mathematical infinity or a large finite number? untermensche, the burden of proof is on you.

 

[fromderinside]

No, the number of symbols a chimp can learn is finite.

This has been demonstrated over and over.

There are real problems with amateurs using data about other species generated with human presumptions. Just as dogs can identify in indefininte number of odors and odor combinations so can apes, especially chimps, treat symbols important to them in numbers without apparent bound. Geez. A guy invents a paradigm and imposes it on beings completely unlike us and a 'science' reporter says something stupid. Any wonder scientists prefer to write their own science articles and restrict readership to other professionals.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Since the inputs and outputs of chimp aren't numbered (limited in some or many domains) it is very likely chimp is an open system.

No, the number of symbols a chimp can learn is finite.

This has been demonstrated over and over.

The numbers of symbols we can learn is also finite. But we can learn abstract concepts and symbols for them. But so can chimps. A symbol is in itself an abstract concept. Just the fact that a creature can learn a symbolic language always means that what they can express is infinite.

 

[untermensche]

No, the number of symbols a chimp can learn is finite.

This has been demonstrated over and over.

Since we don't have an infinite memory capacity, that is also true of us.

Yes. But that is ALL the chimp can do. Use individual symbols.

It has no innate human grammar or innate human intelligence to form infinite unique sentences.

It can place one or two symbols together.

But humans can understand infinite expressions despite only being able to remember a finite number of symbols.

Is it a mathematical infinity or a large finite number? untermensche, the burden of proof is on you.

I can't prove a negative.

Despite your insistence.

I can't prove something with no logical limit doesn't have one.

 

[untermensche]

No, the number of symbols a chimp can learn is finite.

This has been demonstrated over and over.

There are real problems with amateurs using data about other species generated with human presumptions. Just as dogs can identify in indefininte number of odors and odor combinations so can apes, especially chimps, treat symbols important to them in numbers without apparent bound. Geez. A guy invents a paradigm and imposes it on beings completely unlike us and a 'science' reporter says something stupid. Any wonder scientists prefer to write their own science articles and restrict readership to other professionals.

You are no professional.

You have very little ability to logically deal with ideas.

You have ignorant prejudices like, reading Marx is a sin. Educating oneself is a sin.

You have no argument here.

Nothing but hand waving.

The key word you seem to be missing is EXPRESSIONS.

Symbol recognition is not a human expression in language.

To not comprehend that is to remove oneself from consideration as a professional.

 

[lpetrich]

Is it a mathematical infinity or a large finite number? untermensche, the burden of proof is on you.

I can't prove a negative.

Despite your insistence.

I can't prove something with no logical limit doesn't have one.

untermensche, a mathematician would laugh at you. Mathematicians have no trouble working with infinite sets. In fact, they recognize an infinity of different sizes of infinite set.

Also, some negatives can indeed be proved. It can be proved that there is no highest number. untermensche, can you prove that?

 

[untermensche]

I can't prove a negative.

Despite your insistence.

I can't prove something with no logical limit doesn't have one.

untermensche, a mathematician would laugh at you. Mathematicians have no trouble working with infinite sets. In fact, they recognize an infinity of different sizes of infinite set.

Also, some negatives can indeed be proved. It can be proved that there is no highest number. untermensche, can you prove that?

Actually that is proving a positive.

There can always exist a higher number.

And there can always be another sentence the human can comprehend.

How do I prove that?

Again some logical limit has to be at least suggested. A hypothesis how the system of comprehension could somehow just suddenly stop.

If your claim is that the number of sentences is finite.

Words are created from absolutely nothing. They have conceptual understandings but a new word can always just be invented.

What would stop it?