Jake_Ellison Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 I hadn't thought of it that way. I'll have to rethink things, but I never thought of rights as something one must demand. They're not something one must demand, but one must be able to make rational decisions, based on an understanding of the concept, if one is to have them. Animals don't, they would just kill each other while acting on instinct, no matter what rights you try to assign to them. You have to understand why rights are necessary in a human society in the first place, to understand why they don't apply to animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragtime Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Maybe the basic equipment for making concepts is actually identical for both man and animals. What if concepts are formed automatically? A concepts represents something that has changed "in the back of the mind." The change then causes us to see the outside world in a different way. If this is true, what would distinguish men from animals? What allows humans to go beyond a certain level in their conceptual development is language. Language allows us to consider and build further on concepts built up in the minds of our predecessors, instead of having to start from scratch. If "reasoning" means mearely identifying (even "non-contradictorily identifying") what is in the conceptual structure "in the back of the mind," animals can obviously do this too because that seems to be the whole purpose of having a mind in the first place. Animals too can perceive (Identify) and act on new information in their minds. For a suggestion of how concepts are formed automatically, see www.shhtract.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Maybe the basic equipment for making concepts is actually identical for both man and animals. ...Language allows us to consider and build further on concepts built up in the minds of our predecessors, instead of having to start from scratch. Since animals don't have language, animals lack the basic equipment for making concepts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllMenAreIslands Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Since animals don't have language, animals lack the basic equipment for making concepts. David, why do you say that animals have no language? It isn't necessary and is misleading to say that language use is the key to determination of the issue of rights. Animals do have "languages," but their languages are those of a perceptual consciousness, rather than of a conceptual consciousness. Examples include the variety of animal noises - birds "singing" is actually bird language, chirping of insects, barking, meowing etc etc - would all qualify as animal language. I also include bee dances as another kind of language, used to convey information visually as to the location of pollen bearing flowers. The ability to understand the dance may be inherent, or it may be learned - but it's still a system of conveying information from one member of the hive to the rest of the group (or the members who need to know.) Thus, I conclude the use of auditory and/or visual symbols & sounds & images qualifies as a rudimentary kind of language. What truly separates humans and animals isn't the fact of making use of sounds and/or sights to convey information, but of the kind of consciousness that each species has, which is what truly sets the bar for the kind and level of complexity of language that can be developed and utilized by the species in question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SapereAude Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 My short-take on it has generally been that humans have and id, ego and super ego whereas animals would appear to have only id and ego. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 David, why do you say that animals have no language?Because they don't. That's a scientific question.It isn't necessary and is misleading to say that language use is the key to determination of the issue of rights.I did not at any point claim that language use is the key to determination of the issue of rights.Animals do have "languages," but their languages are those of a perceptual consciousness, rather than of a conceptual consciousness.I'm afraid that you don't understand what language actually is. Not every form of behavior is "language". Unfortunately, I'm out the door and gone for the next two weeks so I'm sure this point will just expire of old age, but "language" has a specific meaning. You may use the term "behavior" to include birds chirping, snakes hissing, fish turning color, trees emitting toxins and various forms of inorganic behavior such as rusting -- language is a specific kind of behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllMenAreIslands Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Because they don't. That's a scientific question.I did not at any point claim that language use is the key to determination of the issue of rights.I'm afraid that you don't understand what language actually is. Not every form of behavior is "language". Unfortunately, I'm out the door and gone for the next two weeks so I'm sure this point will just expire of old age, but "language" has a specific meaning. You may use the term "behavior" to include birds chirping, snakes hissing, fish turning color, trees emitting toxins and various forms of inorganic behavior such as rusting -- language is a specific kind of behavior. So the various dictionaries are wrong? The three I've checked so far include a reference either directly to "animal languages" or to something that could be used to support the idea. e.g.: 1. a system of spoken sounds or conventional symbols for communicating thought 2. the language of a particular nation or people 3. the ability to use words to communicate 4. any other means of communicating: body language 5. the specialized vocabulary used by a particular group: legal language 6. a particular style of verbal expression: rough language 7. Computers See programming language [Latin lingua tongue] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 1. a system of spoken sounds or conventional symbols for communicating thought 2. the language of a particular nation or people 3. the ability to use words to communicate 4. any other means of communicating: body language 5. the specialized vocabulary used by a particular group: legal language 6. a particular style of verbal expression: rough language Other than #4, all of the above definitions refer to humans (see bolded words). #4 reminds me of discussions I've seen elsewhere on this forum in which DavidOdden and others have described the difference between "communication" and "language". I would say that "body language" is a euphism, since the bulk of the behavior described as such is unconscious. "Body communication" would be a better term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllMenAreIslands Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 (edited) Fair enough. Is the fact of communication enough to put them on the same continuum, even though human means of communication is exponentially more advanced? Or is animal communication carried out, as you said, unconsciously, meaning it is done blindly, automatically and so should not even be considered in any way at all to be a kind of language even of the most primitive kind? I was thinking that animal communication was simply the very primitive form, completely concrete-bound. Without the ability to form abstract concepts or to question itself or its lot in life, animals cannot develop the kind of language we can. But they still communicate both with each other and us, albeit in the most rudimentary way. It seems that I was giving too much credit to them. Would it be fair to say that the relationship between the body communication of animals and the language communication of humans is like the relationship between religion and Objectivism, as in, the first is a primitive type, the second is the advanced developed type? Edited June 17, 2009 by AllMenAreIslands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Would it be fair to say that the relationship between the body communication of animals and the language communication of humans is like the relationship between religion and Objectivism, as in, the first is a primitive type, the second is the advanced developed type? Would it be fair to say that the relationship between falling and flying is like the relationship between religion and Objectivism, as in, the first is a primitive type, the second is the advanced developed type? It would be fair to say that forcing that comparison is like performing a piece of music and suddenly hitting a wrong note. Human language must have had its origin in animal communication, but it is not just more of the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 Other than #4, all of the above definitions refer to humans (see bolded words). #4 reminds me of discussions I've seen elsewhere on this forum in which DavidOdden and others have described the difference between "communication" and "language". I would say that "body language" is a euphism, since the bulk of the behavior described as such is unconscious. "Body communication" would be a better term. Yes, I would agree that most body language is not conscious. But using hand gestures probably should also be called body language, because symbols are represented by the body. However I don't see how #1, "a system of spoken sounds or conventional symbols for communicating thought ", doesn't apply to some animals. Some animals make a certain noise to indicate an incoming threat. That certainly would require some evaluation of the threat. The sound is used to communicate a thought (a concept more specifically?). Language seems to be used as the term to just describe "human communication", so it seems that whatever I say to suggest language is used by animals is wrong by definition. I'm not exactly sure where communication becomes language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 I'm not exactly sure where communication becomes language. Communication becomes language when what is being communicated is an abstraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllMenAreIslands Posted June 20, 2009 Report Share Posted June 20, 2009 (edited) Human language must have had its origin in animal communication, but it is not just more of the same thing. Absolutely. It is exponentially different, just as our brains are vastly different because of the exponentially larger capabilities we possess. Communication becomes language when what is being communicated is an abstraction. Ok. Now I see where I went wrong in calling animal communications "language." Thanks Grames. Edited June 20, 2009 by AllMenAreIslands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts