4 ms·

Opposable thumbs help an awful lot, too.

maxwell 8y ago
Several other species have opposable thumbs[1], and many mammals have elaborate long-term food storage. Other apes have been observed hunting with spears; basket making and song are also practiced by birds; cetaceans might have more advanced spoken language; sweat and bipedalism aren't common but aren't unique; etc. But no other (non-extinct) species can start a fire. 1. https://srfoundation.blogspot.com/2009/01/other-animals-with-opposable-thumbs.html https://srfoundation.blogspot.com/2009/01/other-animals-with...
- DenisM 8y ago
  Human language is somewhat unique in that it can describe multitude of future outcomes, not just a present state of things. Turing complete if you will. This is a bit of a wild idea I have anyway, don’t judge me harshly. :)
  - fapjacks 8y ago
    How do you know that about the communication of other animals? Or is it just an assumption?
    - DenisM 8y ago
      I’ve been hanging around with linguists, this idea sort of emerged from my eavesdropping. In particular it’s accepted in the field (I believe) that animal languages are not generative, which is to say they do not provide for production of new forms over time. Anything an animal speakes has already been spoken before because the possible set of valid sentences is strangled by lack of variability in the syntax. Intuitively, and this is where I’m going off the rails, I feel that generativity and Turing-completeness are near the same thing - they can describe something that is yet to be. Non generative language can only describe what has already been. That is constructing a new world requires description of the machinery operating that new world, whereas describing an old world you can lean on prior knowledge of the speaker and make do with a much poorer descriptive facility. https://hubpages.com/education/Language-A-Brief-Treatment https://hubpages.com/education/Language-A-Brief-Treatment
      - fapjacks 8y ago
        I am sort of a hobby linguist, though I do have some years of formal linguistics (and computational linguistics) education, which is why I was interested in your wild idea and how it relates to animal language. Are you using the term "generative" to describe your own specific meaning here? I'm asking because the term "generative" has a pretty specific definition in linguistics, and I have heard it used fairly loosely by some, but never in this way. And while I think your idea is interesting, I also think it is picking nits here. That animal language lacks some feature of human language doesn't make it any less true that humans and other animals both use language. I think this would be similar to saying that because animals don't build defensive positions that they aren't actually conducting warfare, and defensive positions are what make human warfare truly unique and thus humans differentiated in the animal kingdom. Purpose-built defensive positions are as fundamental to the most basic definition of warfare, as I am thinking this feature of language you describe is to the most basic definition of language. But nobody would say that chimpanzees do not conduct warfare. And so I would say that because animal language lacks a complex grammar that isn't a language. If that makes sense.
        DenisM 8y ago
        Generative not in the sense of generative grammar but in the sense described here https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-psychology/chapter/human-language/ https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-psychology/chapt... There was a linguist who brought up those five key attributes of human language as being crucial, I can’t find his name right now :( And I did not say that animals don’t use language. Or did I? What I mean to say is that there is a dramatic difference in expressive power, in particular in being able to convey a plan of action. Animal language can convey “there is a tiger south-south-west 15 meters, run for your life”. But it can’t express “if there is a tiger run left, if there are two tigers run to the right” unless the animals have previously encountered that situation and survived unwittingly executing this plan of action. To me this is akin to the difference between Turing complete and subturing languages, in that the expresssive power is so very different.

Several other species have opposable thumbs[1], and many mammals have elaborate long-term food storage. Other apes have been observed hunting with spears; basket making and song are also practiced by birds; cetaceans might have more advanced spoken language; sweat and bipedalism aren't common but aren't unique; etc. But no other (non-extinct) species can start a fire. 1. https://srfoundation.blogspot.com/2009/01/other-animals-with-opposable-thumbs.html https://srfoundation.blogspot.com/2009/01/other-animals-with...

DenisM 8y ago
Human language is somewhat unique in that it can describe multitude of future outcomes, not just a present state of things. Turing complete if you will. This is a bit of a wild idea I have anyway, don’t judge me harshly. :)
- fapjacks 8y ago
  How do you know that about the communication of other animals? Or is it just an assumption?
  - DenisM 8y ago
    I’ve been hanging around with linguists, this idea sort of emerged from my eavesdropping. In particular it’s accepted in the field (I believe) that animal languages are not generative, which is to say they do not provide for production of new forms over time. Anything an animal speakes has already been spoken before because the possible set of valid sentences is strangled by lack of variability in the syntax. Intuitively, and this is where I’m going off the rails, I feel that generativity and Turing-completeness are near the same thing - they can describe something that is yet to be. Non generative language can only describe what has already been. That is constructing a new world requires description of the machinery operating that new world, whereas describing an old world you can lean on prior knowledge of the speaker and make do with a much poorer descriptive facility. https://hubpages.com/education/Language-A-Brief-Treatment https://hubpages.com/education/Language-A-Brief-Treatment
    - fapjacks 8y ago
      I am sort of a hobby linguist, though I do have some years of formal linguistics (and computational linguistics) education, which is why I was interested in your wild idea and how it relates to animal language. Are you using the term "generative" to describe your own specific meaning here? I'm asking because the term "generative" has a pretty specific definition in linguistics, and I have heard it used fairly loosely by some, but never in this way. And while I think your idea is interesting, I also think it is picking nits here. That animal language lacks some feature of human language doesn't make it any less true that humans and other animals both use language. I think this would be similar to saying that because animals don't build defensive positions that they aren't actually conducting warfare, and defensive positions are what make human warfare truly unique and thus humans differentiated in the animal kingdom. Purpose-built defensive positions are as fundamental to the most basic definition of warfare, as I am thinking this feature of language you describe is to the most basic definition of language. But nobody would say that chimpanzees do not conduct warfare. And so I would say that because animal language lacks a complex grammar that isn't a language. If that makes sense.
      - DenisM 8y ago
        Generative not in the sense of generative grammar but in the sense described here https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-psychology/chapter/human-language/ https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-psychology/chapt... There was a linguist who brought up those five key attributes of human language as being crucial, I can’t find his name right now :( And I did not say that animals don’t use language. Or did I? What I mean to say is that there is a dramatic difference in expressive power, in particular in being able to convey a plan of action. Animal language can convey “there is a tiger south-south-west 15 meters, run for your life”. But it can’t express “if there is a tiger run left, if there are two tigers run to the right” unless the animals have previously encountered that situation and survived unwittingly executing this plan of action. To me this is akin to the difference between Turing complete and subturing languages, in that the expresssive power is so very different.