...the lexical layer, eg found in bees. — RussellA

In this context, does lexical layer refer to a range of movements bees can make?

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

I'm experiencing a natural impulse to balk at construing by-product-of-evolution as being a broadly inclusive, natural phenomenon. In your example of bird feathers being engineered by evolution for warmth, I think of bird legs. They accommodate walking very poorly. It seems to me birds have but minimal adaptation to life upon the ground. 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. If evolution targeted warmth through wing design for birds, it's strangely indirect and inefficient, as a heavy coat for warmth scarcely needs wing design, a specific, aerodynamic form. However, walking on feeble, unarticulated legs, even with a warm coat, offers little promise of survival on the ground. It seems arse backwards to supply wings for slow, wobbly walking, making flightless birds easy pickings for predators. Evolution appears more on point for supplying wings as a survival mechanism through flight.

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

:smile: Alright. We're on the same page re: grammar_logic_(intentional) communication.

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?

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?

I pose these two situations in an effort to assess the degree of interweave between grammar_logic_(intentional) communication.

If we're looking at a permanent triad of interlinked co-functions, then it feels reasonable to conclude language permeates the entire animal kingdom.

This conclusion leads us to the following comparison:

Language = (intentional) communication via signifiers

Entire Animal Kingdom -- grammar_logic_(intentional) communication via signifiers

Humanity -- grammar_logic_(intentional) communication via signifiers_abstract_(intentional) communication via abstract signifiers

Humanity alone (apparently) possesses sufficient cerebral processing power to decode abstract signifiers, both spoken and written. Only humans can produce objective recordings of experience that, via abstract signifiers, communicate lengthy, complex narratives (books, movies, etc.).

In this context, does lexical layer refer to a range of movements bees can make? — ucarr

The article How human language could have evolved from birdsong differentiates between the expression part of language and the lexical part of language. For example, given the lexical components of subject "John", verb "to see" and object "bird", many different expressions may be created. Such as: "did John see the bird?", "John saw the bird", "you say that John saw the bird", etc. This is syntax and the semantics.

The article proposes that the foundations of the expression part of language and the lexical part of language were pre-existing in various non-human animals prior to human language.

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.

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

Birds 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…”

It has been suggested that feathers had originally functioned as thermal insulation, as it remains their function in the down feathers of infant birds today, prior to their eventual modification in birds into structures that support flight.

It is considered probable that many, if not all, non-avian dinosaur species also possessed feathers in some shape or form. For example, the coelurosaurs were a small, slender bipedal carnivorous dinosaur with long forelimbs, believed to be an evolutionary ancestor of birds. I cannot picture the Tyrannosauroidea, a member of the coelurosaur family, flying, even though it probably had feathers.

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

Perfect! And that reminds me of DANIEL KAHNEMAN's explanation of fast and slow thinking. Actually thinking requires huge amounts of energy and most of the time we are running on automatic to conserve energy. That is running on memory and reacting, not in-the-moment intentional thinking. And even if we are trying to intentionally think through something, we are not very good at it unless we have learned the higher-order thinking skills. Add to that, without life experience our understanding of life is not enough for a good understanding of most things. That is why children must learn to diagram sentences and the rest of the rules of grammar and math, If you are interested there are videos and books explaining all these things and why we are prone to making bad decisions, even if we know the skills and have life experience.

Campaign ads and commercials come from years of research and experience in how to hook our attention and influence our thoughts and sense of desire.

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. Every second of the day our brains with flooded with information from all sense receptors and memories, many memories that are also associated with feelings.
As you said grammar is about connections so is logical thinking. The cortex orchestrates these connections, and in the left and right brain battle for dominance, the cortex suppresses this thought or that one, so rational will dominate over desires and urges. I think at times we have all thought "I would like to beat him to a bloody pulp" but immediately that thought is followed by a stern warning that that is not acceptable behavior and will have bad consequences. :rofl: The baboon does not have the intelligence of a chimp because it has poor memory and acts on impulses like the Three Stooges.

The baboon does not have the self-control chimps have. Neither does a person with right frontal brain damage have the self-control of a normal person. PTS and a bad childhood can also exaggerate reptilian responses to life, meaning the right brain and emotions are dominant, not the left brain and logic. For this reason, and because learning the rules of grammar and math strengthen the left brain functions and can make it dominant, SCHOOLS MUST FOCUS ON THE CHILDREN LEARNING GRAMMER AND MATH, AND STOP PASS THEM TO HIGHER GRADES UNTIL THEY DROP OUT OF SCHOOL , LABELED WITH BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS AND UNWORTHY OF THE TEACHER'S TIME.

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

I have zero understanding of why you say that. Language has nothing to do with the animal world. They do not think of God and go about life as though a god will take care of them and help them win wars. Neither do they have romantic notions of love and live as though love will resolve all problems in a relationship if only s/he would be the perfect lover. With language, we imagine what should be and then take action to make things as they should be. Animals don't do this. They do not live by language as humans do.

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

Since I agree with the above, I think you and I are walking the same path in our journeys through this conversation.

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

With the above, we come to the gnarly question of teleology vis-a-vis natural processes operating on a life-bearing planet.

Now I ask myself whether arguing existence of a foundation for modern, human, verbal language that predates humanity contains some flavor of the teleological POV re: evolution.

I'm gawking at the formidable switch at the center of a highly-charged, long-standing debate:

Explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve Vs explanation of phenomena in terms of the cause by which they arise

As I gawk, I'm reminded of Goethe's claim that interest lies embedded within the switch between conflicting claims, both of which are true. This is a handy guideline for steering a course towards non-binary thinking, another principal inflamed by debate.

I'm also reminded of a super-gnarly concept of my own: origin boundary ontology. It's an attempt to plot a metaphysical course of action touring the terrain of the chicken/egg question.

Just now, I'm leaping over that bog.

How about this question: If a process is logical, is it necessarily teleological? If logic is motion that's ordered and specific, and thus directional rather than random, how can it not have a purpose? From here we move on to asking, "Are natural processes logical, or random collisions? We know from chemistry that two specific elements combine in specific ways? In this situation, does specificity look like intention and purpose?

Even if two specific elements can be proven to have combined by random chance, as in the case of a highway accident wherein a truck carrying chlorine collides with a truck carrying sodium and the result is a flood of sodium chloride spilling across all four lanes. Since the two elements are highly specific in their chemistry, can the production of sodium chloride by accidental collision be legitimately deemed random?

Does earth evolution example natural logic?

Let's suppose a situation of totally random collisions between elements inhabiting a cosmic gas cloud spanning several galaxies worth of volume. The end result, after eons, produces coalescence into a new star. Since the new star will subsequently produce elements that, dispersing, eventually coalesce into planets orbiting the star, thus forming a solar system that, eventually, produces a life-bearing planet, can we assert the counter-intuitive conclusion that randomness sometimes transitions into logic that, in turn, transitions into life and therefore into purpose?

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

Too bad the Hebrews and then the Christians gave us a different understanding of creation and the Christians went on to kill and exterminate the pagans and heathens and destroyed the pagan temples which were places of learning, throwing us into the dark ages. But then Zeus did fear that mankind would learn all the technologies and turn their backs on the gods. For this reason, he gave Pandora a box full of mercies to slow man's progress and delay the inevitable. Christianity sure did slow our progress and I am not sure we would have recovered if old documents did not lead to the renascence and the church had not used Plato and Aristotle to justify its power and authority.

No other animal creates its reality around such notions, nor kills its own species with the notion they are doing the will of God. Bird sounds and language are not the same thing.

:chin: Can birds read each other's minds and communicate with the dead and spirit world? Around the world and throughout history birds represent many things and they are also messengers from God. Let's see if they spell the power of the word. Spell a sound with supernatural power. The spoken word and creation. How far in this direction do we want to go?

The following is a link.... https://worldbirds.com/bird-symbolism/
Bird Native American Symbolism
Native American mythology and folklore speak profoundly of different kinds and species of birds serving as a connection between the human world and the spirit one. The divinities charge these winged creatures with duties like delivering messages from the Creator to us. Although the messages and the methods of delivering these messages are neutral; however, the nature of the message casts birds in different roles. This explains how some bird meanings in Native American folklore vary from villainy and jealous competitors to heroes and wise advisors.


Different Native American tribes also designate birds as their clan animal. While some clans decide to relate themselves to a specific type of bird, like the raven clan or the eagle clan, others choose to follow a more generalized approach. These clans include the following:

The Fusualgi clan or fuswvlke bird clan also known as the bird clan of the creek
The anijisqua bird clan or antisiskwa clan also known as the bird clan of the Cherokees
The feather clan of the Mi’kmaq tribe
In addition to the tribes solely dedicating themselves to these creatures as their clan animal, we can also see various bird spirit animal and bird totem crests in most northwest coast tribes. To this day, the bird totem poles proudly display artistically, creatively, and culturally significant carvings of birds like eagles, thunderbirds, and ravens, among many others.


The descendants of many Native American tribes and clan members also recall enchanting tales, legends, and stories about different species of birds. Almost all tales end with a moral conclusion to teach the value of life to their young members.

Bird Christianity Symbolism
Tribal recognition of bird symbolism is the living embodiment of what many religious scripts and leaders tell us. In other words, birds are so much more than hollow bones and feathers; they are living representations and symbols of hope and strength. Even throughout the bible, the significance of these creatures is incredibly dominating. They appear again and again, from the start till the end, sometimes as nothing but an exemplary reference while other times they play a vital role in the formation of history.

The question comes down to, what do birds symbolize in the bible?

Birds symbolize mercy, hope, and divine intervention, among other things. It is a bird that carries the Israelites to safety on her wings. It is also a bird that brings back the olive branch to Noah, signifying the end of the legendary flood. A bird also accompanied Jesus on his first temple visit. They bring bread to the prophets when they are hungry, hope when they feel defeated or alone, and relief when they feel anxious.

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

I should have written, "sustains damage to the brain's speech component..."

I think the gist of the argument of RussellA and me (apologies if I misrepresent RussellA) is that language_general has a long run up to language_verbal, which latter requires abstract thinking, such as what you and I are doing when we read and interpret, via abstract thought, the symbolic marks displayed on our computer screens. We're arguing the entire animal kingdom participates in language_general, with various examples given. The crux of our argument is that the boundary line between animal kingdom and humans is not non-language/language but, rather, language_general/language_verbal. Only humans speak, write and read words, which is to say, comprehend abstract symbols that signify specific experiences of the natural world. The animal kingdom does not appear to have the cognitive processing power necessary to navigate symbolic word signifiers abstracted from experiences of the natural world. The animal kingdom is thus non-verbal and non-literate. That's a long way, in our view, from saying the animal kingdom is non-linguistic.

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? 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

Out of interest who says crows don't have language? — Benj96

My response to @ucarr presented a hypothetical, not my belief that crows don't have language.

@ucarr had previously written: "Language and logic are synonyms. This boils down to saying you can’t practice cognition outside of language".

If it is true as I believe that the crow is using cognition, and if it is true as @ucarr wrote that it is not possible to cognize outside language, then it would follow that crows must have language.

Bird sounds and language are not the same thing. — Athena

There is language and Language

Lakna Panawala's article What is the Difference Between Humans and Animals Brain makes sense to me.

She wrote:
1) The main difference between humans’ brain and animals’ brain is that humans’ brain has a remarkable cognitive capacity, which is a crowning achievement of evolution whereas animals’ brain shows comparatively less cognitive capacity.
2) Humans are more intelligent due to their increased neural connections in the brain while animals are comparatively less intelligent due to fewer neural connections.
3) 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.

I find it hard to believe that there was a magical moment when one day there was no language and the next day there was language. Surely, language has developed over a long period of time.

Lakna wrote that humans have more ability of complex processing than non-human animals, not that non-human animals don't have any ability of complex processing. She wrote that complex processing includes conscious thought, language and self-awareness.

@ucarr used the division language-general of non-human animals and language-verbal of humans. Another terminological division could be between language of non-human animals and Language of humans, where language with a capital L is defined as language practised by humans. If this were the case, then I would agree that non-human animals don't have Language, although I would still argue that non-human animals do have language.

Every living thing communicates in some way. To be able to communicate requires a means of communication. Language is a means of communication.

Non-human animals communicate using non-verbal signals, bees dance, hummingbirds use visual displays, etc. Humans communicate using both non-verbal and verbal communication, smiling, crying, speaking, writing, etc.

The Britannica defines human language as a system of conventional spoken, manual (signed), or written symbols by means of which human beings, as members of a social group and participants in its culture, express themselves.

Wikipedia defines animal language as communication using a variety of signs, such as sounds and movement.

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.

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

Excellent addition to the discussion. We can push what you said further by discussing the democratic behavior of animals. Making group decisions involves communication. However, they are not making logical arguments to persuade others to vote but physically influence the decision. I enjoyed this link

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

We can imagine two Tyrannosaurus rex competing for a kill and physically telling each other they are the biggest and meanest and the other one better back away. We hardly think of this creature as being logical. The OP is about grammar and its role in logic. I am not sure the communication skills of animals are the same subject as what learning the rules of grammar has to do with learning to be logical thinkers. This matters because our schools are not preparing our young to be logical thinkers. We are assuming all humans are working with logic and that just is not true. Most of the time we are reacting with as little thought to our behavior as a horse gives to his behavior. We need to be real about this and not confuse animal communication with human logical thinking.

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. Our disagreement is not about the communication skills of animals, including the human species. Our disagreement seems to be about what logic has to do with thinking foolishly or logically. Man, oh man, humans can do some really stupid things because they hold false beliefs and tend to be more emotional than logical.

I am stressing this because it has such important educational and cultural consequences. The US democracy could fall if we do not get this right.

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

:smile: :up:

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

At an early point in this conversation - I think before your entrance - some correspondents - now dropped out - attacked my claim that logical thinking does not occur outside of language. From there, the argument went to a possible refutation of my argument via example of animal behavior deemed possible logical thinking outside of language (the crow displacement video). Henceforth, the conversation centered on a debate whether non-humans practice language.

I now have some agreement, I think, to the effect that the entire animal kingdom practices language, logical thought and behavior, whereas humans alone also practice verbal language: spoken and written.

...our schools are not preparing our young to be logical thinkers — Athena

I've been mulling over the question whether logical thinking is taught in the schools. I think I can deduce that some measure of such is being taught because I see no way to teach anything without lessons based in logical thinking. I think it true that lessons in logical thinking need to be much more robust, especially in the primary grades. This would ensure that students immediately set about building a strong foundation for becoming life-long learners in all endeavors.

This has been the goal of formal education since the beginning. That's why primary schools are also known as grammar schools. The problem is not the mission, but the execution of it.

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.

Alas, with respect to grammar lessons, mass media entertainments are the enemy.

Our disagreement seems to be about what logic has to do with thinking foolishly or logically. — Athena

Grammar introduces all speakers to logic — ucarr

I don't agree with this statement:
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.
2) A lot of things are based on or connected to and use logic. Grammar is just one of them.
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.
(I don't remember --and I don't think in general-- that in school grammar is learned with any kind of specific connection or reference to logic.)

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

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).

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

Yes. I agree that the logical operations of the mind enacting goal-oriented behavior begins in toddlers who lack verbal language.

"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. 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. Aside from prodigies, toddlers don't operate at the cognitive level of verbal expression via conscious intention.

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

Right. 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.

Now that I'm getting my conscious bearings in the grammar of my native tongue, I see myself paving a path to further study in symbolic logic. I take this to be a general truth for humanity.

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

I put your closing, parenthetical statement in bold because it places you on my side of the aisle re: the debate. Yes. Communication of information is not language in the sense of verbal language that uses symbolic signs and thus requires abstract thought for decoding. Indeed, as I've never seen an animal reading a book, it's safe to say verbal language is exclusive to humans.

Even if all language is communication of information, it doesn't follow that all communication of information is language. — Janus

This claim is a bit more tough to judge. Let me venture the claim that if communication of information is intentional, as, for example, a growling dog warning a postman away from his yard, then it is language, albeit non-verbal language. If, on the other hand, I'm standing at the base of a hill when, suddenly, a boulder dislodges from its position and rolls down the hill and smashes into the ground near my parked car and I race off in my car, having concluded my previous location was unsafe, then that's an example of communication that's not language because there was no intention motivating its occurence.

If we acknowledge that most behavior is either goal-oriented, or makes some kind of sense, as opposed to being completely random, then I say that all cognitive beings infuse some level of logic into their animation, oftentimes this coupled with intention to signify meaning to other cognitive beings via modulated animation. This is a way of saying being alive and conscious is synonymous with being linguistic.

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.

The study of the other animal forms of communication involves different domains of investigation, for example ethology and animal cognition, as I see it.

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

You're right.

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.

It's well established that "communication" is the word to be used when referring to transfer of information that's non-verbal.

I'm wondering if language_general can work as a term for the intentional, non-verbal communication of animals whereas language_verbal can work as a term for human communication. Communication would apply to both modes of language; vocabulary, syntax, grammar and linguistics would only apply to verbal language.

I make these suggestions because language, in my thinking, conveys intention (appropriate for all of the animal kingdom) whereas "communication," feeling subject neutral, does so to a lesser degree.

"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

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.)

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

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.

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

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.

I see myself paving a path to further study in symbolic logic. I take this to be a general truth for humanity. — ucarr

Nice.

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

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? I think you and I have agreement that humans need to learn logic. That means logic is something that is different from instinct, right? To perceive danger and react is instinctive.
Mammals instinctively care for their young. Instincts are hard-wired into the brain and this is passed on from generation to generation. Some birds learn to speak, but is it logic? I think not. Imitating another is not using logic. Exactly what is logic?

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

It might be beneficial to follow all those similar subjects. When we get to the computer explanation we are talking about programming. When we say an animal behaves in a certain way because it is hard-wired to do so, we are speaking of programming. Now we might consider is programming equal to logical thinking? I think not, AI can not think as a human thinks. And when it comes to humans, memorizing a lot of facts is not equal to logical thinking. Memorizing facts is perceiving and reacting, like a computer. If this, then that. What makes a human different is the ability to question if this and that is the only possibility. Now we have logic. There is a degree of imagination in logic.

The human difference- why is experience a better guide to this than deductive logic? What makes the human experience different from other animals and computers?

By the way, humans are not programmed for logical thinking. They only have the potential and might I say the dark ages were dark because the pagan temples that taught the rules of logic were destroyed and religion replaced logical thinking, leaving humans with instincts but not reason. At least the US is slipping into a dark age and perhaps the rest of the world as well.

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

Right, but although I'd say 'linguistic' is commonly used to refer only to spoken and written symbolic language, 'language' itself, although it shares the same etymology, is more widely used: "body language", "computer language", "sign language" and so on. Also the visual arts and music are often referred to as languages.

So, I have no problem with saying that animals have their own kinds of languages; languages of sign, though, not of symbol.All symbols are signs, but not all signs are symbols.

So, I have no problem with saying that animals have their own kinds of languages; languages of sign, though, not of symbol.All symbols are signs, but not all signs are symbols. — Janus

I agree with this. :up:

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

Interesting 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.

— RussellA

That cartoon is excellent!

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

Do you think animalslearn logic? What does it mean to learn logic?

I so wish everyone would watch this videoIt explains why most of our thinking is not logical but reactionary like an animal perceiving and reacting.

Our understanding of animals was incorrect. The notion that animals communicate is new. The notion of animals having feelings and feelings involving hormones was non-existant. We held the belief that humans were a special creation of a god, and not like animals. As we learn more we have to resolve a lot of conflicts between old and new thinking. But I don't think we should take this so far as thinking animals are as logical as humans, in complete deinial about how the cortex makes human thinking different.

On the other hand, dogs have a sense of smell far superior to the human sense of smell, and through smell, they access a lot of information that is outside of our awareness. Insects can be superior to humans in specific ways and different animals can be superior to humans in their way. But none of them will use math and science to learn more about reality. They will not concern themselves with learning the rules of grammar.

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

When you put your hand onto something hot and it burns you, you yank your hand away. Many call this a reflex without conscious thought. I call it high speed, low res processing, or gross thinking. If I throw a rock into a burning fireplace, it doesn't jump out in pain. No processing, thus no logical processing. I say all processing is logical. This is to say cognitive processing is bound up in continuity and acts accordingly. If a bug tries to fly into my eyeball, I jack-knife away in the continuity of action/reaction. All logic is action/reaction; in parallel, all cognitive processing is, likewise, action/reaction. When my reflexes keep me from burning up, or being blinded, these actions make sense, don't they? When a beast is getting cornered and it either attacks or flees, that makes sense doesn't it? Our reflexes aren't always correct? Are they ever irrational?

...I don't think we should take this so far as thinking animals are as logical as humans,... — Athena

I, RusselA, Janus, Alkis Piskas and others don't disagree with you. We never have. None of us claims animal reasoning is equal to human reasoning. We're just saying the divide between animal/human isn't no-reason versus reason. Instead, we're saying the divide is between low-res reason versus high- res reason.