On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:25:44 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 10:06:37 PM UTC-4, Gabriel Bodeen wrote: >> >> >> But all the forms of language do share a common logical basis, according >> to many linguists. How is it relevant to the logic of a language that it >> can be expressed in different modalities? >> > > It's not relevant to the logic of the language, its relevant to the > overall nature of language. If language were logical, then they would be > universally modality-independent, but what the evidence seems to indicate > is that pure logic or information is not the relevant aspect in developing > language. What matters is the aesthetic engagement. It's about touching and > feeling, not knowing and believing. >> >> Why would a logical language have to modality-independent? My language developed, presumably, because my brain had sensory data and reward signals it could use to form associations between useful sensory coincidences. It formed increasingly high-level associations between bundles of sensory data, eventually also combining sounds and vocal behavior into those associations. There's nothing obviously intractable about describing such data input and analysis in computational terms.
> Since only humans have evolved to create an abstraction layer that cuts >> across aesthetic modalities, >> > > That appears untrue. I know birds, mammals, some molluscs, and some fish > can reason abstractly about motor behaviors and achieve the same goal with > very different kinds of motor behaviors. > > You'll have to argue with the Wiki about that... > > "Animal communication systems routinely combine visible with audible > properties and effects, but not one is modality independent. No vocally > impaired whale, dolphin or songbird, for example, could express its song > repertoire equally in visual display. Indeed, in the case of animal > communication, message and modality are not capable of being disentangled. > Whatever message is being conveyed stems from intrinsic properties of the > signal." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_speech > > 'Intrinsic properties of the signal' = aesthetic texture. > > Craig > Ah - You didn't specify at first that the "abstraction layer" had to be about communication. It looked like you were intending to make a general point about aesthetic modality and information content. As a general point it's untrue. Lots of animals reason abstractly in certain circumstances. But I could believe it's true or nearly true about communication. There are some cases even then that, even if not strictly counterexamples, stretch the humans-only claim to the breaking, and lead me to be doubtful of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpTG3bgHLjk : dogs will communicate their desire for attention vocally and visually, depending on the situation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iGkpLq5L5Y : Koko the gorilla is controversially claimed to understand certain signs, images, and spoken words, and to produce signs and point to pictures to communicate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSjqEopnC9w : dolphins apparently can express and learn from each other via squeals what they learned from humans via signs, which similarly requires abstracted communication skills -Gabe -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
