You claimed passing wind is non-linguistic so I refuted this claim. Same goes for rocks. — Hallucinogen

You really have a bone to pick it seems. Unfortunately for you the Philosophy Forum doesn't give out participation awards. Or any awards. Must be the leftist idealism.

What I'd really like here, I suppose, is to help avoid a descent into pseudo-science. Linguistics, like any other science, has certain principles that ought to be recognized. I've seen in similar threads before a temptation to try to treat discussions on language as if the science of linguistics didn't exist at all or was invented yesterday and everything's up for grabs. It wasn't and it's not, just as with Physics or Chemistry. I'm not saying @ucarr is doing that just that I've seen these discussions deteriorate before because so many people have a theory of language that's based more on intuition than study.

If you follow the point of contention, you'll better be able to determine whether such interjections are helpful/necessary/relevant. I'll try to be as precise as I can with my phrasing.

Came up with a name for this cartoon. Monkingfish.

I don't know whether ucarr is saying that logic or language came first. — RussellA

I think language and logic are contemporaneous co-functions. I intuit this because, in my experience, a healthy, functional brain cannot long operate illogically. Environmental forces soon put illogical behavior in check along the axis of survival. The purposeful individual, being conscious, must proceed under guidance of some degree of foundational common sense, otherwise death. There is no viable intent apart from a foundation within logic. Translated broadly, this means an individual must move about with purpose within his-her environment. Within the crucible of survival, logic and language are forged jointly as co-equals. As such, both logic and language emerge as non-random animation.

Homo sapiens differs from the rest of the animal kingdom not in terms of a quantum leap forward from non-language to language, but rather from non-verbal langue to verbal langue.

In its broadest generality, langue_logic is motion organized by need_intent_purpose.

It's the degree of supportable abstraction that separates non-verbal langue from verbal langue. The animal kingdom, although linguistic, is non-verbal, therefore non-literate. It uses the language of purposeful animation within the immediate context of personally physicalized expression of intent. Unlike homo sapiens, it cannot record complex, intricate motion-with-intent as a continuity of abstract signification i.e., a book. It cannot take a book and, via internalized motion (which is a good definition of the operation of intellect) reanimate, via the imagination, complex signification of same.

...if we are to take it that language evolved over time, we ought to make conceptual room for a theorised primitive proto-language. — Baden

Okay. Here's your recognition of upwardly developmental language across a continuum.

there is no serious consideration given in academic linguistics to incorporating crow behaviour or tea-making behaviour under even the broadest umbrella understanding of language. — Baden

lin·guis·tics | liNGˈɡwistiks |
plural noun [treated as singular]
the scientific study of language and its structure, including the study of morphology, syntax, phonetics, and semantics.

__The Apple Dictionary

One of the foundational reasons I'm making my claims herein is the desire to make the following change to the above definition,

the scientific study of ^ verbal ^ language

So, yes. In reference to the non-homo sapiens animal kingdom, language is more properly the study of psychology than academic linguistics.

:smile: :up: :100:

That's animal communication not language. Conveying information is not a high enough bar for language.
— Baden

What is language for if not conveying information ? — RussellA

Exactly. No conscious individual in possession of information needful of communication exits without simultaneous possession of language.

I'm trying to follow along here a little, but I don't understand any of this. What could logic have to do with spacetime, for instance? The OP speculates people are introduced to logic through language, and thus logic and language are irreducible. They then must have developed alongside each other from some proto-language, and for some reason this means that spacetime is the ultimate conjunction between ... ? — ToothyMaw

Yeah. My attempt at reasoning herein lies sprawled across a long block chain of (supposedly) connected ideas. See below where Hallucinogen does an excellent job of compacting the block chain into a short paragraph, with links to articles that elaborate.

The nature of spacetime must ultimately be language, since language is the most general algebraic structure. For something to obey rules it's got to conform to the rules of language otherwise it's unintelligible. In spacetime you've got objects, these correspond to nouns, you've got time, which correspond to verbs and functions and you've got space which is prepositional. There isn't anything in spacetime that isn't describable in language. Notice how all attempts to unify the sciences involve trying to boil them all down to one language within a unified grammar. The thoughts we model reality with must also be continuous with that reality and continuity implies shared structure. In the CTMU this is called the metaformal system and it couples that which you describe the universe with that which structures it.

https://ctmucommunity.org/wiki/Principle_of_Linguistic_Reducibility
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTIv4GiDGOk - language of spacetime
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXvUyrhAaN8 - reality is a language — Hallucinogen

The sentence "come here" doesn't contain any preposition, yet signifies a spatio-temporal relation.
— RussellA

Yes, and can form a "complete thought" due to the fact that it fulfils at minimum the necessary requirements of a clause, i. e. it contains a verb and everything necessary for the verb in its syntactical context (its complements). And a clause whether singularly acting as a sentence or doing so in conjunction with other clauses, forms the most important semantic building block of language. Here again, the verb is central, and prepositions peripheral. — Baden

"Come here," being a command, contains the implied subject "you." If we're stretching definitions here, then I say that a better characterization is the claim that the verb "come" is a complement of the implied subject "you," as it makes (an implied) claim about the subject: you are a conscious individual who can obey my command.

The main point, however, is that "come here" is only a complete thought because of both the verb and the subject. Verb_Subject is the building block of grammar, unless you can cite a language that lacks one or both of these.

As to the peripheral status of prepositions, can you cite a language that never signifies spatial and temporal relationships between nouns? RussellA's Chinese quote (somehow) signifies the preposition; I suppose it's implied.

↪ucarr

Maybe try to be a little more focused? My problem has always been what appears to be yours: profundity. You or I might be smart, but it is difficult to write profoundly all the time. I find that I get the best product if I stay down to earth and then expand on what I'm writing.
20 hours ago — ToothyMaw

I agree with this. It's good advice. Plain English is the best approach and I'm working on it.

Anyone who wants to label me profound is welcome to do so, as I consider it high praise. Thank-you.

If, by chance, by profundity you mean obscurity, then yes. That's a profound fault, as it means my attempts at communication are failing fundamentally.

Even so, intuitive leaps are a permanent part of my mental landscape. Even as I work towards plain speaking, I accept this part of myself. Moreover, folks (including me) are always complaining about narratives that aren't simple as pie. As for writing populist philosophy, that's a tall order, but striving for the impossible is an item on my to do list.

What I'd really like here, I suppose, is to help avoid a descent into pseudo-science. Linguistics, like any other science, has certain principles that ought to be recognized. — Baden

Speculation Vs Scholarship > Your cautionary alert is appropriate and good. Of course we rabble come to public forums to cluck cluck like roosters having a little bit of fun. Maybe more a than a few hot breezes circulating the public houses have prevented more than a few wars, no?

:chin: Well, it beats your poetry, I guess. :cheer:

@ucarr

I appreciate your open and engaging investigation but I can't help but feel you are making stuff up on the fly as it suits you, redefining terms in your own idiosyncratic way and so on. Anyhow, I'll leave you guys to it and may jump back in later if you settle on a coherent set of definitions and some kind of recognizable theory.

It seems that the crow is using cognition. If the crow has no language, then it is using cognition outside of language. — RussellA

The crow will never explain the universe nor construct a society dependent on technology. Animals can not know logos because they do not have the complex language as humans have complex languages that can express reasoning. Animals can communicate but that is not the same as conceptualizing and reasoning which are dependent on language. Now if they can teach each other sign language or evolve to have language such as humans have, then they be able to conceptualize as humans do. That ability is dependent on language, and our ancestors may not have had language.

Our problem here is language. Does logic mean the ability to respond correctly to stimulus or does in it me the ability to conceptualize and communicate concepts to others?

Animals do not have gods and neither did early man because a god is a concept, and is not manifested in nature. We need terminology that distinguishes the difference between figuring out how to get food or evade a predator, and figuring out how to create and use technology. Language is essential to the conceptual reality we have created for ourselves.

Not all languages can lead to manifesting the technology we have, but suspect they can all manifest a concept of god. Sumerians could never have the technology we have today because they did not have the necessary concepts and words for classifying trees are different from bushes and something living is different from being inanimate.

I consider your OP to be one of the most important subjects for us to discuss. Nothing is more important than education and education for technology is not giving us the education we need to be civil and logical human beings.

Hello, Athena,

Animals can not know logos because they do not have the complex language as humans have complex languages that can express reasoning. — Athena

Animals do not have gods and neither did early man because a god is a concept, and is not manifested in nature. — Athena

What about pets? Out of the whole animal kingdom, about 150 species can be domesticated for life alongside humans in friendship.

We're told humans have dominion over animals. Maybe pets receive God's presence through humans? When a pet takes instruction from human to do a good deed, or when a pet, on its own initiative, does a good deed, such as save an endangered human, is that not a pet_God connection?

The gist of my argument herein comes down to the following pithy claim:

logic = motion + intent

The scope of this claim is broadly inclusive. It begs the question of how the academic disciplines are inter-related.

Let me address this question.

My arguments have lead me to an all is motion point of view. I know this is a trap baited by the lure of panacea found. Let me protect my ego with a strong dose of skepticism towards ultimate Eureka! moments.

All is NOT motion. I know. I’m digressing, as usual for my mind, a rambling forager. Alright, but just a quick moment for this:

The sciences examine motion existentially; the arts and humanities examine motion qualitatively. In short, the former measures things; the latter munches on those measurements. There. That’s how I address the begged question of how the academic disciplines are inter-related under the rubric of,

logic = motion + intent

So now, if you be cognitive individual, you practice motion + intent. Speaking in the vernacular, we call this finding food, shelter & fire. Following closely upon the tail of the basic three come the secondary three: finding love, family & community. The lotus in the garden of the magic seven is, finally, finding cosmos, which means, colloquially, practicing unselfish love for others.

All cognitive individuals possess language because, as you know, all cognitive beings seek the magic seven listed above and, as you know, none of the above happen outside of language games.

Language and its inherent logic are cerebration of motion, which is intelligence.

Consciousness and its emergent property, intelligence, are the two greatest creations of our universe.

So now, as you might surmise, I speak to the great, cosmic love-in: The Big Bang Animation, an all-inclusive universal narrative. This narrative, the voice of God, operates so broadly inclusively, it easily contains, even if paradoxically, our community of theists_atheists. That’s right. Theism & atheism are sub-divisions of one source, the universal narrative. I digress.

The Big Bang Tango, universal background radiation, headwaters the lines-of-force motion that cognitive individuals are sourced from and bound unto.

Well now, the night is late, the campfire bright and the claim uttered: We are motion!

Chatter, anyone? Some chatter before bedtime?

“We are motion? What is motion?”
“No! E-motion. We are E-motion.”
“Now wait a minute. I think –"

Animals can not know logos because they do not have the complex language as humans have complex languages that can express reasoning — Athena

The crow must be cognisant of the following concepts in order to gain the food:

Causation = putting a stone into the water will cause the water level to rise.
Negation = not putting a stone in the water will not cause the water to rise
Time = because putting a stone in the water in the past caused the water level to rise, putting a stone in the water in the future will cause the water level to rise
Space = the stone is spatially separated to the water
Logic = the water level will rise if a stone is put into the water. If the crow puts a stone into the water, then the water level will rise
Open-endedness = the stone the crow uses may be different in size and shape to the stone observed by the crow in the past
Concepts = the crow cognizes the glass beaker is not the stone
Relations = the crow must cognize that the food is on top of the water
Reasoning = the crow is observed to act in an ordered and rational way
Hypotheticals = the crow must reason that if a stone is put into the water, then the water level will rise.
Displacement (things not present) = the crow must cognize that the food will rise up the beaker if a stone is put into the water
Open response = the crow cannot predict how many stones are required to sufficiently raise the water level, but continues until it has reached its goal.
Questioning = the crow examines its environment in order to discover what tools are available for it to reach its goal.
Concrete nouns = the crow can distinguish between the beaker and the stone
Abstract nouns = the crow's hunger determines its course of action
Verbs = the crow cognizes that movement of the stone is required
Prepositions = the crow must cognize that the stone is outside the beaker.
Simile = the stone the crow uses may be different in size, colour and shape to the stone previously observed.
Conjunction = the glass beaker is not the stone, meaning that there is a glass beaker and a stone.
Adverb = the crow cognizes that the stone must be moved carefully and deliberately
Adjective = the crow cognizes that the colour of the stone is not relevant to its task.

IE, pre-language, the crow has the necessary concepts required for language.

Animals can communicate but that is not the same as conceptualizing and reasoning which are dependent on language — Athena

How human language could have evolved from birdsong

The article suggests that human language is a by-product of evolution rather than an evolutionary adaptation, in that that human language combines two forms of communication already found in the animal kingdom. There is the expression layer, the changeable organisation of sentences, such as birdsong, where learning plays a role in song development as it does in language development. There is the the lexical layer, such as the communicative waggles of bees. At some point between 50,000 and 80,000 years ago, humans may have merged these two types of communication.

IE, human language is not of a different kind to animal communication, but rather, human language has built on what already pre-existed.

IE, human language is not of a different kind to animal communication, but rather, human language has built on what already pre-existed. — RussellA

:up:

We're told humans have dominion over animals. Maybe pets receive God's presence through humans? When a pet takes instruction from human to do a good deed, or when a pet, on its own initiative, does a good deed, such as save an endangered human, is that not a pet_God connection? — ucarr

That depends on one's definition of God. I really hope this thread stays focused on scientific facts and logic. The only thing that clearly separates humans from other mammals and social animals is the ability to come up with a concept such as the concept of gods, and behave as though this intangible reality is a tangible reality. No other animal would do that.

So now, if you be cognitive individual, you practice motion + intent. Speaking in the vernacular, we call this finding food, shelter & fire. Following closely upon the tail of the basic three come the secondary three: finding love, family & community. The lotus in the garden of the magic seven is, finally, finding cosmos, which means, colloquially, practicing unselfish love for others. — ucarr

Yes, all animals including humans are preprogrammed for those things, however, there are some differences between reptiles and mammals. Mammals have more parenting instincts than reptiles and among the mammals, some are better programmed for social behavior than others. Bonobos are more like humans than chimps and chimps have a better memory than baboons, leading to chimps having better social instincts than baboons.

Being a human with cognitive abilities does not necessarily mean thinking conceptionally and only that ability separates humans from the rest of the animals. I work with cognitively challenged people so I am seeing language is not enough for conceptual thinking and you begin with an argument about reasoning. Our ability to reason is very low when we are children and improves with age. However, brain damage can also prevent us from having the ability to reason, so reasoning is more than having language. If we can not grasp complex concepts, we can not reason well. This is certainly true for those with right frontal brain damage and those suffering from dementia.

IE, human language is not of a different kind to animal communication, but rather, human language has built on what already pre-existed. — RussellA

Sure everything about being human is built on what already existed. But not all humans can reason, as I explained. Being able to reason through complex concepts is unique to humans, and there are humans who function at the level of animals, incapable of reasoning.

Grammar introduces all speakers to logic. This is my central claim. — ucarr

Yes, Grammar introduces logic. And if people do not learn grammar they do not learn good logic. Math is also an important path to logical thinking. Children should learn the rules of grammar and math if we want them to grow up with the skills for logic. Teaching grammar and logic to the masses was not possible before the twentieth century. Since mass education, humans have been on a different path than the religiously controlled path they were on, because now they hold many different concepts as true and important.

Being a human with cognitive abilities does not necessarily mean thinking conceptionally and only that ability separates humans from the rest of the animals. — Athena

So, in your view, mental manipulation of abstract concepts is the marker distinguishing humans within animal kingdom.

However, brain damage can also prevent us from having the ability to reason, so reasoning is more than having language. — Athena

Are you suggesting, with the above, that negative effect on reasoning can sometimes occur without negative effect on language?

Being able to reason through complex concepts is unique to humans — Athena

It depends on where the line is drawn between a complex concept and a simple concept

My belief is that human language is a by-product of evolution rather than an evolutionary adaptation. IE, human language is not of a different kind to animal communication, but rather, human language has built on what already pre-existed (using the term animal to refer to non-human).

It is true that the ability of animals to reason and conceptualise is very limited compared to humans, but this is a difference in quantity not quality. After all, if animals were not able to reason and conceptualise, then humans would have had nothing to build on.

There are many professionals who believe that animals can reason and conceptualise

For example, as regards reasoning:
Planning for the future by western scrub-jays
Animal cognition
Do animals have reflective minds

As regards conceptualising:
Many animals can think abstractly
Analogical reasoning in animals
Ability of animals to think abstract concepts

Such a conclusion would not be surprising, as humans are animals. I am sure that even the crow has a basic understanding of the concept "on top of" (what we call a preposition), in that the crow certainly perceives that the food is on top of the water. Though I am sure other articles may be found concluding the opposite.

IE, pre-language, the crow has the necessary concepts required for language. — RussellA

Hypotheticals — RussellA

Reacting to our environment is not equal to logical thinking. Reacting to a warning cry is not equal to thinking, as we can observe in dogs that bark at every sound regardless of how much it is punished for this behavior. Some dogs do not distinguish between a thief and a mailperson. They are not thinking, only reacting.

Perhaps some experiments will help in understanding thinking. If you have some time try thinking about hyohamous and tell me the meaning and value of it. Do you understand hyohamous as well as you understand Hypotheticals, or is your ability to under one and the other different? Now grab an electric wire and ten minutes later grab the wire again. Was the experience the same both times? What changed? An alligator will endure an electric shock once its teeth get hold of meat but if it does not have the taste of meat, it will pull away from the shock. It can take several shocks before the alligator stops its attempts to get the meat. What concepts does the alligator understand?

Do you understand hyohamous... — Athena

Can you provide a definition of "hyohamous"?

Are you suggesting, with the above, that negative effect on reasoning can sometimes occur without negative effect on language? — ucarr

Several areas of the brain are involved with the ability to use language. However, right frontal lobe brain damage really messes up a person's ability to reason, and I don't think this necessarily means a loss of language. It is more along the line of connections between different parts of the brain and it is the frontal cortex that separates us from animals. Animals can make sounds that communicate alarm, a call for a mother, sexual attraction, excite calling everyone to come and eat. That is not conceptual thinking nor equal to human reasoning which is a matter of making associations, what happens in the cortex. This is what makes your statement "Grammar introduces all speakers to logic." so true.

Frontal Lobe Syndrome - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelfhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › books › NBK532981
by L Pirau · 2021 · Cited by 21 — Frontal lobe syndrome is a broad term used to describe the damage of higher functioning processes of the brain such as motivation, planning, ...
‎History And Physical · ‎Differential Diagnosis · ‎Enhancing Healthcare Team... — Letitia Pirau

The importance of a healthy brain able to connect signals from different areas compliments what you said about the importance of the connections made with grammar and knowing how a word fits into a sentence.

Reacting to our environment is not equal to logical thinking. — Athena

Where did human language, logic, reasoning, conceptualisation and consciousness come from if not from pre-existing non-human animal abilities ?

Humans are animals. Today, the human animal has a particular ability as regards language, logic, reasoning, conceptualisation and consciousness that non-human animals don't seem to have.

Animals evolved about 750 million years ago, yet human language, etc is relatively recent, possibly within the last 30,000 to 100,00 years.

I can understand human language, etc as a by-product of evolution rather than an evolutionary adaptation, in that whilst feathers evolved for warmth, as a by-product could be used for flight. I can understand human language as combining two existing forms of communication, the expression layer, eg found in birds, and the lexical layer, eg found in bees.

However, if that is not the case, I cannot understand the mechanism that originated human language, etc totally independently from any pre-existing non-human animal ability.

My question is, what is the mechanism that enabled the origination of human language etc
totally independently of any pre-existing non-human animal ability.

An alligator will endure an electric shock once its teeth get hold of meat but if it does not have the taste of meat, it will pull away from the shock — Athena

Sounds very human to me.

Let me try this again. Reacting to the environment is not logical thinking. What we need here is a better understanding of what logic is and what makes the human brain different from a reptilian brain or a baboon's brain.

The logical side of the left hemisphere includes:

Logic;
Facts;
Details;
Patterns;
Strategies;
Words;
Language;
Order;
Perception;
Past & Present;
Practicality;
Safety;
Comprehension;
Logical Thinking Is Not an Inborn Talent, But Something You Can Learn and Practice
Enhancing logical reasoning is simply learning to pay a closer attention to details. Therefore, there are a few easy techniques to help you overcome thinking obstacles and really focus.

Stop Viewing Things from Your Own Perspective Only
To advance logical thinking process, it is crucial to differentiate established facts from personal observations.Concentrating on the environment and your senses is just individual perception, which mustn’t be confused with logic. — Vladimir Zivanovic

.

However, if that is not the case, I cannot understand the mechanism that originated human language, etc totally independently from any pre-existing non-human animal ability. — RussellA

Let us look at different animal brains. The following link has pictures and explanations.

Moreover, the size of the cerebral cortex is also a difference between humans' and animals' brain. Humans' brain has a disproportionately large cerebral cortex, accounting for more than 80% of the total brain mass, while the cerebral cortex of the animals' brain is comparatively small.May 7, 2019

What is the Difference Between Humans and Animals Brain — Lakna

We must understand humans do not think alike, most of our thinking is learned and few humans have developed logic skills. That is why this thread is so important! We can not understand what democracy is without learning the principles and reasoning of democracy, any more than a person could be a Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist without learning and being indoctrinated.

All social animals also do a lot of learning and have the ability to transmit information, so it is not just one chimp who washes the sand off the food but the whole troop will learn to do so. We can see the logic of doing that, but imitating others is not a function of logic. To repeat the first link..
.Concentrating on the environment and your senses is just individual perception, which mustn’t be confused with logic.

The Egyptians were experts at measuring and math, however, they were not exactly logical. We make a big deal out of the Greeks because they took math further to proving what a triangle is and this moved them from superstition to science. Greek thinking was unique. They brought us to rule by reason rather than a god authority over the people. However, I can not think of math without also thinking of India and the zero. Interestingly India's math stayed superstitious believing such knowledge was given by a god, instead of holding a secular understanding of proves and logic. Believing a god gives us language or math and made humans from mud is not exactly logical thinking.

Can you provide a definition of "hyohamous"? — ucarr

There is no such word. I was making a point about the importance of words to our thinking. When we do not have a word for our thought we can't think that thought, we can not communicate that thought to ourselves or others. Or if we have a word but not a definition which is also words, we have no understanding of the word. The point is animals are capable of human logic because they do not have the necessary words. We can not discuss quantum physics without the vocabulary.

Animals do not have the brain structure nor the vocal structure for language and surely not for logic. But they have what comes before our large cortex and ability to speak a language. The human difference has evolved but perhaps today more and more humans are being pushed out of mainstream society because they do not have the IQ's for advanced education and high-tech jobs? I am also concerned that education for technology is not adequate for all humans because we must learn how to be good citizens and we can not rely on religion for moral training because religions are not compatible with science and logical thinking.

What is the Difference Between Humans and Animals Brain — Lakna

I agree with the Lakna article, where she wrote:
1) Humans are more intelligent due to their increased neural connections in the brain while animals are comparatively less intelligent due to fewer neural connections.
2) Humans’ brain has the ability of complex processing such as conscious thought, language, and self-awareness due to the presence of a large neocortex while animals’ brain has a less ability of complex processing.
3) Humans’ brain produces a high cognitive capacity with complex processing including conscious thought, language, and self-awareness............animals show less cognitive capacities.
This agrees with what I previously wrote in that "It is true that the ability of animals to reason and conceptualise is very limited compared to humans, but this is a difference in quantity not quality."

I agree with you when you wrote that i) reacting to the environment is not logical thinking, ii) imitating others is not a function of logic, iii) perception must not be confused with logic.

I agree with you when you wrote that believing a god gave us language is neither reasonable nor logical. Society needs reason and logic.

Though I disagree with you when you wrote that i) most of our thinking is learned, ii) logical thinking is not an inborn talent but something you learn.

Is thinking learnt
Cognition is a higher level function of the brain and manipulates concepts used in reasoning, logic and language. Cognition requires thinking, but thinking does not require cognition, ie, I can think about my observation of a fact in the world without of necessity cognizing about it. IE, as thinking doesn't require cognition, it is innate and does not need to be learnt.

Is logical thinking an inborn talent or learnt
The Lakna article makes the point that it is not that humans are intelligent and cognitive whereas non-human animals are neither intelligent nor cognitive, rather he makes the point that both humans and non-human animals have some degree of intelligence and cognitive ability. IE, as cognition is present in both humans and non-human animals, cognition and thereby logical reasoning is part of the evolutionary process rather than something solely learnt by humans - though of course humans can improve their innate logical reasoning through subsequent learning.