How did human language originate?

[untermensche]

As with other great ape language experiments, the extent to which Koko has mastered and demonstrates these signs was disputed in a study published in 1999.[4] But it is generally accepted that she does not use syntax or grammar, and that her use of language does not exceed that of a young human child.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla)

A lot of the so-called evidence in the case of the gorilla named Koko is merely the claims of the person who taught her.

What the case shows is that in spite of the great effort, a gorilla could not be taught to comprehend human language.

It's innate abilities of animal communication, not human language, could be extended with great effort however.

And in terms of young children there is evidence they understand a lot more than they can express. It is doubtful this gorilla had even a very young child's ability to comprehend language.

And Neanderthal had intelligence. What it lacked was the ability to innovate that you would expect to see in an animal with language.

 

[DrZoidberg]

As with other great ape language experiments, the extent to which Koko has mastered and demonstrates these signs was disputed in a study published in 1999.[4] But it is generally accepted that she does not use syntax or grammar, and that her use of language does not exceed that of a young human child.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla)

A lot of the so-called evidence in the case of the gorilla named Koko is merely the claims of the person who taught her.

What the case shows is that in spite of the great effort, a gorilla could not be taught to comprehend human language.

It's innate abilities of animal communication, not human language, could be extended with great effort however.

And in terms of young children there is evidence they understand a lot more than they can express. It is doubtful this gorilla had even a very young child's ability to comprehend language.

This is a difference in degree. It's not different from us in any fundamental way

 

[untermensche]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla)

A lot of the so-called evidence in the case of the gorilla named Koko is merely the claims of the person who taught her.

What the case shows is that in spite of the great effort, a gorilla could not be taught to comprehend human language.

It's innate abilities of animal communication, not human language, could be extended with great effort however.

And in terms of young children there is evidence they understand a lot more than they can express. It is doubtful this gorilla had even a very young child's ability to comprehend language.

This is a difference in degree. It's not different from us in any fundamental way

A lack of innovation is not a difference in degree.

It is a difference in ability.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This is a difference in degree. It's not different from us in any fundamental way

A lack of innovation is not a difference in degree.

It is a difference in ability.

What are you talking about? All primates are highly innovative

 

[untermensche]

A lack of innovation is not a difference in degree.

It is a difference in ability.

What are you talking about? All primates are highly innovative

Innovation, as human language permits, is to continually build upon something. It does not turn off.

Primates have intelligence and the can stumble upon things and remember things and learn what others are doing.

But they cannot innovate.

 

[fromderinside]

Don't forget that dog on 60 minutes that could retrieve over 120 different stuffed animals after hearing it's assigned name.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What are you talking about? All primates are highly innovative

Innovation, as human language permits, is to continually build upon something. It does not turn off.

Primates have intelligence and the can stumble upon things and remember things and learn what others are doing.

But they cannot innovate.

I started by googling it, but quickly realized that there's so much out there. Have you tried googling it?

 

[fromderinside]

I started by googling it, but quickly realized that there's so much out there. Have you tried googling it?

I used google science inputting keywords "primate inventiveness" and I got 15600 articles in 0.06 seconds.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=primate+inventiveness&btnG=&as_sdt=1,38&as_sdtp=

 

[untermensche]

Innovation, as human language permits, is to continually build upon something. It does not turn off.

Primates have intelligence and the can stumble upon things and remember things and learn what others are doing.

But they cannot innovate.

I started by googling it, but quickly realized that there's so much out there. Have you tried googling it?

Just like some call the meager communication between non-human animals "language", some call the meager ability to stumble upon one step solutions "innovation".

 

[DrZoidberg]

I started by googling it, but quickly realized that there's so much out there. Have you tried googling it?

Just like some call the meager communication between non-human animals "language", some call the meager ability to stumble upon one step solutions "innovation".

That is innovation. Even among humans. It's always one tiny improvement on something else. Every example I can think of is due to accident.

 

[untermensche]

Just like some call the meager communication between non-human animals "language", some call the meager ability to stumble upon one step solutions "innovation".

That is innovation. Even among humans. It's always one tiny improvement on something else. Every example I can think of is due to accident.

It's not an improvement.

It is stumbling onto something and being stuck with it.

Not seeing how it could be improved.

 

[DrZoidberg]

That is innovation. Even among humans. It's always one tiny improvement on something else. Every example I can think of is due to accident.

It's not an improvement.

It is stumbling onto something and being stuck with it.

Not seeing how it could be improved.

Ok, fine. But then you are wrong.

 

[untermensche]

It's not an improvement.

It is stumbling onto something and being stuck with it.

Not seeing how it could be improved.

Ok, fine. But then you are wrong.

We look around at the human world and clearly see what language provides. We watch the pictures coming from a machine moving on the surface of Mars.

And we go deep in the jungle and see what the lack of language provides.

The difference is stunning and clear.

Don't tell me I'm wrong.

Your ideas are clearly ridiculous.

The lack of language produces certain behaviors and the presence of language produces completely different kinds of behavior.

Not different in measure. Different in kind.

The difference between using a thin branch to get at deep termites, making a small change to something in the world, and building an axe, putting parts together by following some pre-planned design.

The difference between discovering something and planning something.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ok, fine. But then you are wrong.

We look around at the human world and clearly see what language provides. We watch the pictures coming from a machine moving on the surface of Mars.

And we go deep in the jungle and see what the lack of language provides.

The difference is stunning and clear.

Don't tell me I'm wrong.

Your ideas are clearly ridiculous.

The lack of language produces certain behaviors and the presence of language produces completely different kinds of behavior.

Not different in measure. Different in kind.

The difference between using a thin branch to get at deep termites, making a small change to something in the world, and building an axe, putting parts together by following some pre-planned design.

The difference between discovering something and planning something.

I don't think language has anything to do with any of that. I think it's down to other instincts all together.

Thomas Metzinger summed it up pretty well in the Ego Tunnel. Humans are never happy. We're constantly driven to desire things beyond our reach. We have an instinct to think that whatever it is we desire, will make us happy. But then, when we get it, it doesn't. And then we start to desire the next thing. None of the other primates are remotely wired like this. For them it's all about eating or fucking. We can, as Lacan would put it, sublimate our sexuality, and use that same drive onto other things. Some like to think of it as humans having the capacity to put off self-gratification. While true, it's got nothing to do with self control. It's just an instinct, like any other. And we're slaves to it like any creature. This instinct does allow us to do and create things that no other species have been able to. Very likely sexually selected for. Having worked on some intricate piece of art, perhaps got the chicks horny and hot. That would explain women's attraction to musicians. I mean... when the apocalypse comes, the guy with the guitar will be the first to go. That's one part.

The other part is our instinct to tell and hear stories. Humans love stories. We love stories weaving plots of intricate politics. We even love hearing stories we know is complete bullshit. We love news stories about places far away. We love stories that are not about eating or fucking. Other primates don't. If you're going to get an ape to watch TV. It better be about food or sex, or it won't care. It's this instinct that makes our language so intricate and well developed. Probably it was just sexually selected for. This is like peacock feathers. Good story tellers got laid more. I think politician is probably the worlds oldest profession.

So two completely different instincts, I think, are the reason why we got more toys than other creatures and are such advanced communicators. I don't think humans are that much more intelligent than other creatures. There's quite a few with comparable brain power. We just use ours differently, because we are propelled by different instincts. Accidents of nature.

Remember that humans were hunter gatherers for a damn long time. Tens of thousands of years with zero innovation. How does your theory explain that?

 

[untermensche]

I don't think language has anything to do with any of that. I think it's down to other instincts all together.

It's not just language. It is the totality of human "intelligence". But language is a huge part of that "intelligence".

Thomas Metzinger summed it up pretty well in the Ego Tunnel. Humans are never happy. We're constantly driven to desire things beyond our reach. We have an instinct to think that whatever it is we desire, will make us happy. But then, when we get it, it doesn't. And then we start to desire the next thing. None of the other primates are remotely wired like this. For them it's all about eating or fucking. We can, as Lacan would put it, sublimate our sexuality, and use that same drive onto other things. Some like to think of it as humans having the capacity to put off self-gratification. While true, it's got nothing to do with self control. It's just an instinct, like any other. And we're slaves to it like any creature. This instinct does allow us to do and create things that no other species have been able to. Very likely sexually selected for. Having worked on some intricate piece of art, perhaps got the chicks horny and hot. That would explain women's attraction to musicians. I mean... when the apocalypse comes, the guy with the guitar will be the first to go. That's one part.

This is speculation about human motivation. A huge topic.

But humans are products of their cultures and times.

Many humans living in modern day consumer societies are indoctrinated on a daily basis that some worthless thing or another will make them happy. The next iphone will make them happier.

It is a phenomena of easy, even if not meaningful, survival.

The other part is our instinct to tell and hear stories. Humans love stories. We love stories weaving plots of intricate politics. We even love hearing stories we know is complete bullshit. We love news stories about places far away. We love stories that are not about eating or fucking. Other primates don't. If you're going to get an ape to watch TV. It better be about food or sex, or it won't care. It's this instinct that makes our language so intricate and well developed. Probably it was just sexually selected for. This is like peacock feathers. Good story tellers got laid more. I think politician is probably the worlds oldest profession.

The language capacity is what allows humans to tell stories.

But there is no evidence that telling stories is a stronger sexual attraction than "nice" eyes. Or a properly shaped back side.

Remember that humans were hunter gatherers for a damn long time. Tens of thousands of years with zero innovation. How does your theory explain that?

It is not my theory. It is A theory that exists in the world. The gradualist theories have not explained the incredible lack of innovation in all animals compared to humans. They believe large jumps can't exist so they are somehow blind to the huge chasm between human innovation and the so-called "innovation" of every other species on the planet.

Most humans are incredibly creative. As demonstrated by their creative use of language.

But it is work to innovate. It is something done by the few.

And in the case of moving from hunter gatherer to the domestication of livestock, that was an innovation seemingly beyond the capacities of most humans. It took a rare genius, probably several of them, to see it.

It is hard for us to imagine since we sit on the shoulders of many rare geniuses that innovated to give us our present understandings and capacities.

The language capacity does not change, but ideas expressed grow and change.

 

[fromderinside]

Theories are theories and for evolution its everyone's boat they actually float in. Humans don't punctuate whilst the other species graduate. Its amazing you have this scotoma about innovation. The tunnel vision is yours sir. Its as if you've gone back to Descartes and explained humans as being different because they stand upright, their heads rotate upon their spines making them different from other animals.

Your view is language explains humans and language is the explanation. BS presented any other way is still BS. How do you take into account tool making before language, a more or less steady progression of tool making given physical inconstancy. Why did humans and not other apes come out of the trees five or six million years ago and why do dolphins have larger more complex brains than humans. Your entire argument is based on a human conceit and human blindness to the amazing capabilities of other species. Why are Canadian wolves on the cusp of becoming sea animals. Apparently smell is pretty fundamental and humans are no where near the top in that regime, Nor are they even close to fishes and some predatory birds in vision. It goes on and on and on. Single cell animals make over half of animal biomass for instance. Hell, humans can't navigator by making use of magnetic variations as many other species seem able to accomplish.

Your cherry picker is out of control.

 

[untermensche]

Humans don't punctuate whilst the other species graduate.

Nothing punctuates.

But every species is a punctuation.

Its as if you've gone back to Descartes and explained humans as being different because they stand upright, their heads rotate upon their spines making them different from other animals.

Human language clearly differentiates humans from all other species.

No other species has it, or can make sense of it.

It is not an extension of crude animal communication.

And if we open our eyes we can see the clear difference between what animals with the capacity can do and what their cousins without it can do.

Like night and day.

A difference of kind not merely degree.

 

[fromderinside]

In spite of it all you still persist in cherry picking. Use the following as a litmus before you allege difference in kind. Birds speak appropriate human phrases in context with human questions.

 

[untermensche]

In spite of it all you still persist in cherry picking. Use the following as a litmus before you allege difference in kind. Birds speak appropriate human phrases in context with human questions.

Birds can mimic sounds.

But they cannot speak with human language. Or understand it.

Or even come close.

Dogs can be taught to make sense of a few human sounds too.

But they do not understand human language either.

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

We can easily understand expressions we have never heard before without end. Excluding dementia and death.

If you are limited to a few labels or even a few hundred you do not have the beginning of a human language capacity. It is much more than a crude understanding of labels.

It is a system of understanding infinite phrases.

 

[lpetrich]

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?