We cook. Of course, that implies the use of fire or at least heat.
n/m I’m a little drunk
That is complete, ignorant nonsense. No they do not. A few warning cries, sexual signals, and the like do not constitute a language. No animal can come close to putting together or understanding so much as a single indicative sentence (or if any can we certainly know nothing about it). Every human being who is not either an infant or a very severe mental defective can do so easily.
Crows can say human with a gun/human without a gun. And I seem to remember hearing about some crows living by a farm who could distinguish between humans dressed up to get in the car and leave and humans dressed to walk about in the fields and woods. Mind you crows do rather a lot of things that push the boundaries.
Things like this were part of the discussion we were having.
From what I’ve read any claims of animal communications have to be checked very carefully. The people involved are obviously proponents of the idea and they may consciously or unconsciously be finding evidence that isn’t really there.
But that’s not really the main issue. Even if it’s possible to teach an animal to recognize some abstract quality that’s still a skill it’s learning from a human. What I said was that a dog wouldn’t come up with the idea of an object possessing some abstract quality that existed independent of the object. Humans, however, do this all the time. We invent categories - at most, an animal might be taught to see a category.
-D/a
There’s a mushroom that grows in the woods around here, the slippery jack. It’s got a spongy yellow underside and a thick layer of mucus on top, but that mucus can be peeled off in a single disgusting layer.
I guarantee that if I presented you now with two mushrooms, one of which was a chanterelle and the other of which was a slippery jack, you could point to the slippery jack. (This is assuming you’ve never heard of the mushroom before–if you could, of course it’s not a good example).
That’s the kind of thing we can do with our language. I can see something novel and put some words together to describe it to you such that you can imagine it and recognize it later solely based on my description.
That’s very different from saying, “That one thing you’re familiar with? Yeah, that’s different from that other thing you’re familiar with.”
Again, bullshit and ignorant, sentimental, mushy minded nonsense. Just because a pop-science magazine calls something a language does not mean it is a language of the sort that all humans have, a language capable of expressing arbitrarily complex thoughts about an unlimited range of topics. (Yes, unlimited: although not all languages have words for everything, all are readily extensible to encompass new concepts. It would be possible to talk about nuclear physics in Sanskrit or Apache. In whale song? I very much doubt it. In monkey warning cries? Definitely not.)
These scientists’ discovery (if correct) is that the whale auditory signaling system is more syntactically complex than previously realized, nothing more. Syntactic complexity (and even emotional expressivity, although I doubt whether it is even known whether whale song is expressing emotion), is not sufficient to make something a language. Symphonic music is syntactically complex and emotionally expressive but it is not (except metaphorically) language. You cannot use music to say "I am wearing a blue shirt, " or “Pass the salt please,” or “Where are you going?” You can use language to say these and a myriad other things, both simple and complex, and to express emotion too.
I concede that it is not inconceivable that whale song, or some other animal signaling system, is a real language, but we certainly do not know that it is one, and unless and until we can actually understand it enough for us to have a conversation with a whale (or other animal), a free exchange of ideas and opinions, we will not even be able to know that it is one, pop science hype notwithstanding. Clearly we cannot now hold a conversation with a whale - not even one of the simple sort you can have with a small child - and I will not be holding my breath for the day when we can. (Breath holding, I will leave to whales.) All the evidence we have about animal behavior suggests that none of their signaling systems are true languages, capable of expressing even a single indicative or interrogative sentence. There is no evidence, and no reason to think, that a whale is capable of saying even anything as simple as “The squid is under the iceberg,” let alone of expressing the much more complex thoughts, questions, commands, suggestions etc. that are easily expressed in all human languages.
Generally speaking (with perhaps a few rare, nutjob exceptions), the scientists in question will not actually be making such claims, not in the scientific literature. The claims that animals have language (and teh “translations” offered) are simply the dumbed down and hyped up version of whatever they think they have really discovered, fed to the general public in the hope that it will sound comprehensible and interesting enough that their funding will not be cut off.
that they are right and everyone else is wrong.
How to multiply (ie, 5x8)
how to blow their noses at will to remove excess snot
Haven’t spent any time around pigs, have you?
I doubt any animals know the earth revolves around the sun.
Fiction or storytelling. Novels, movies, tv shows, etc. Can any other animal communicate fabricated information (i.e. complex lies) through language . . . and then pass down that information to future generations?
Other than that, I think what sets us apart is our tendency toward extremism. Chimps use simple tools, we build space stations. Birds build nests, we build cities. Whales have a language of sorts, we have Shakespeare. Monkeys throw feces at enemies, we have nuclear warheads. Bonobos are obsessed with sex, we build entire industries around it. There’s absolutely nothing we do that we don’t carry to extremes. That’s what makes us unique.
And I doubt any animals can look up at stars, and have any idea what they’re looking at.
Sheep can recognize and retain up to 10 human faces for 2 years.
From personal experience, horses can recognize distinct individual (humans) at a distance. I can’t say it is face specific, but they do recognize (and respond to) specific individuals that they haven’t seen in over two years.
So we are agreed then? My point is that we don’t know jack shit, and it is hubris to think we do.
It’s theoretically possible that aardvarks have an advanced tool-making society on another planet and that the aardvarks we see here are Earth are just political prisoners dumped naked on this planet after being lobotomized.
But there’s no evidence this theory is true so we should assume aardvarks are just what they appear to be.
Well, if you are going to throw all evolutionary theory out the window, then sure.
The point is this. There is no evolutionary reason why intricate communication would just suddenly appear in one singular species and that species only. It is selected for.
There’s also no evolutionary reason why intricate communication wouldn’t just appear in one species. It’s selected for, but some of the traits that make it possible (e.g., ginormous heads at birth, making birth difficult and dangerous; brains that require a tremendous amount of energy) are selected against. Evolution doesn’t move toward goals; rather, when it randomly comes across something good, it keeps it.
Language is a highly successful adaptation, but it appears only to have appeared once so far.