In this context, does lexical layer refer to a range of movements bees can make?...the lexical layer, eg found in bees. — RussellA
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. — RussellA
If you can say it, you can think it. — ucarr
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. — Athena
In this context, does lexical layer refer to a range of movements bees can make? — ucarr
Overall bird design, with its wings, weak legs, lack of arms and beak instead of mouth, suggests a life form engineered by evolution for life in the air. — ucarr
If we suppose a human individual sustains damage to the brain's logical component, might we suppose such person could still make grammatical utterances? However, speaking this way would now be powered by rote memory without comprehension in the manner of a parrot? — ucarr
If we suppose the opposite, namely, that a human individual sustains damage to the brain's language component, might we suppose such person could still think logically and thus form grammatical utterances in the mind's ear? However, thinking in this way would now be lopped off from the ability to voice aloud these utterances, thus requiring the person to write their communications? — ucarr
If we're looking at a permanent triad of interlinked co-functions, then it feels reasonable to conclude language permeates the entire animal kingdom. — ucarr
Animals evolved about 750 million years ago, yet human language only began about 30,000 to 100,000 years ago. Was there a magical spark that gave language to humans? It seems more sensible to believe that human language developed from something pre-existing in non-human animals. — RussellA
Birds being engineered by evolution sounds remarkably teleological. Were feathers engineered by evolution for flight, or did animals having feathers discover they could fly. — RussellA
irds being engineered by evolution sounds remarkably teleological. Were feathers engineered by evolution for flight, or did animals having feathers discover they could fly. As Aristotle said: “…Natural things either invariably or normally come about in a given way; but of not one of the results of spontaneity or chance is this true …it follows that they must be for an end…” — RussellA
If we suppose the opposite, namely, that a human individual sustains damage to the brain's language component, might we suppose such person could still think logically and thus form grammatical utterances in the mind's ear? However, thinking in this way would now be lopped off from the ability to voice aloud these utterances, thus requiring the person to write their communications?
— ucarr
Now you are too focused on language. — Athena
It seems that the crow is using cognition. If the crow has no language, then it is using cognition outside of language.
6d — RussellA
Out of interest who says crows don't have language? — Benj96
Bird sounds and language are not the same thing. — Athena
Out of interest who says crows don't have language? Firstly they're very vocal birds and we don't understand what the purpose of such crowing and cawking means as we don't speak "crow." secondly there's non-verbal communication which interspecially is even harder to discern.
But we know ourselves that we have non verbal communication in abundance as humans:. Smiling, crying, dancing, thumbs up, high fives and the middle finger. We use our body to communicate as we do our voice.
Simply walking with an upright straight posture and chin up suggested confidence and authority while being stooped over, small with shoulders shrugged in and chin down suggests submission and lack of confidence.
I think it's prudent to assume other animals communicate in similar formats — Benj96
Queen bees and alpha chimps aren't voted into office, but that doesn't mean they're despots. Scientists have begun to view many animal species as de facto democracies, where majority rule ensures survival more than tyranny can. Our own species's democratic tendencies date back at least to our prehuman ancestors.
Group decision-making is a hallmark of evolutionary survival that helps maintain stable social bonds among animals. Like with humans, smaller groups of animals can often better achieve a decision-making consensus. While most species don't belabor politics like humans do, our democratic roots can be seen across the animal kingdom — which, in many cases, is more like an animal republic. — Russell McLendon
In summary, both non-human animals and humans communicate using language. Non-human animal language is non-verbal, human language is both non-verbal and verbal. — RussellA
And what does that have to do with learning grammar as a path to learning higher-order logic thinking skills? I could be wrong but I think the discussion has confused language with logical thinking. — Athena
...our schools are not preparing our young to be logical thinkers — Athena
I don't agree with this statement:Grammar introduces all speakers to logic — ucarr
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. — ucarr
1) Logic does not need to be introduced. It permeats all things in the human mind. Even before we learn to speak and certainly before learning grammar. — Alkis Piskas
3) Grammar can be used by both speakers and writers, as an automatic process, i.e. without using logic consciously, even if it's structure --because it consists of other elements besides a structure-- is based on logic. — Alkis Piskas
Even if all language is communication of information, it doesn't follow that all communication of information is language. It depends on what you mean by "conscious", but there are many kinds of animal that communicate information without language (language, that is, in the linguistic, symbolic sense). — Janus
Even if all language is communication of information, it doesn't follow that all communication of information is language. — Janus
This is a way of saying being alive and conscious is synonymous with being linguistic. — ucarr
I pretty much agree with everything you wrote there except the quoted sentence; "linguistic" means "of the tongue", and I would reserve its use for the symbolic languages which are unique to humans. This defines the traditional area of study of linguistics. — Janus
This is very good! Was it applied in your school? Is it applied in schools in general in your country or any other country you now? (If yes, please name it.)"Introduction," as used in my sentence, refers to a classroom situation wherein students are tasked with bringing a fully conscious mind to learning the reasoning behind the syntax of their native tongue. — ucarr
Yes, this process is carried out consciously. But my point was that school grammar is not learned with any kind of specific connection or reference to logic, i.e. explicitly.Learning to speak and write with conscious intention to articulate well-formed sentences, as guided by conscious grammatical manipulation, marks the beginning of conscious logical thought for many, if not all. — ucarr
OK, so if undestand well, you didn't have the experience you referred to in your "introduction", but you mentioned it as an ideal scene. If this is so, I fully support such an idea.Like many, I've spent much of my life speaking my native tongue by ear, without giving much thought to grammatical manipulation towards best communication. — ucarr
Nice.I see myself paving a path to further study in symbolic logic. I take this to be a general truth for humanity. — ucarr
Even if a school caters to low-income students, it can empower such students to success with rigorous grammar lessons because logically thinking students of low income, no less than logically thinking students of high income, can successfully compete in the job market. — ucarr
log·ic
/ˈläjik/
Learn to pronounce
See definitions in:
All
Technology
Philosophy
noun
1.
reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
"experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic"
Similar:
science of reasoning
science of deduction
science of thought
dialectics
argumentation
ratiocination
2.
a system or set of principles underlying the arrangements of elements in a computer or electronic device so as to perform a specified task. — Oxford Dictionary
I've been using "language" and "linguistic" to convey "intentional communication capable."
If "language," by definition, means verbal expression (and it does), then, by current vocabulary standards, I've been wrong to claim all of the animal kingdom possesses language. — ucarr
I think our problem is our definition of logic and I wish others were here to discuss what is logic and do animals have logical thinking? — Athena
nteresting question. What I've worked out for myself, so far, is that logic, basically, is continuity parsed. Whole into parts via analysis and, in reverse, parts reconnected according to strict rules of valid continuity back to whole.
Are the instincts of humans and animals logical? I hope so. If I have survival instincts (and I do) I certainly hope they're viable and thus logical. The difference, as I say, lies between low res(olution) cognition i.e., instinct and high res(olution) cognition i.e., rationation.
We humans want to learn logic to better plan for the achievement of our sincere goals, and thus for our happiness and fulfillment. — ucarr
I wish everyone would watch this video. It explains why most of our thinking is not logical but reactionary like an animal perceiving and reacting. — Athena
...I don't think we should take this so far as thinking animals are as logical as humans,... — Athena
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.