Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: General Battuta on December 08, 2009, 01:45:22 pm
-
Some evidence that monkeys have syntax in their communication, which was previously thought to be a trait only humans possessed. (http://io9.com/5421257/talk-monkey-to-me-monkey-language-contains-simple-sentences)
Unsurprising if it's true - some chimpanzees (which are not monkeys, but are closely related to humans) demonstrate mental competence similar to very young humans and may even be able to generate novel symbol combinations - but still a good step forward. It helps demolish the illusion that humans are somehow set apart from the rest of nature.
What we may be seeing here is the process by which human language originated.
Nonetheless, don't overinterpret the results; a consensus has yet to emerge on syntax in animal communications.
-
Hmm. Can't some birds learn similar methods of communication?
-
They have not been observed to naturally possess syntax, so far as I know. They can be taught structures with syntax but I'm not sure if they generalize it.
-
ooh ooh ooh ooh AAAAAH AAAAH AAAAH!!
-
I heard once that a scientist wanted to do some genetic manipulation on chimps once to give them a more human style voice box as he believed that this was the only thing preventing a chimp learning to speak English.
Of course none of the people who believe humans are somehow special in possessing speech would ever believe he didn't alter the chimps brain too.
-
Of course none of the people who believe humans are somehow special in possessing speech would ever believe he didn't alter the chimps brain too.
Well, considering that linguists continue to argue that language actually did transform our brains-- as opposed to simply arising from a "stew" of pre-existing intelligence-- I'd say that's not an unreasonable point to raise.
EDIT: At the risk of becoming embroiled in something tiring, I will again insist on being the skeptic in this issue. I'd be curious to know what kind of scientists conducted this study. Because biologists have been crying "language" in nature journals for years now, and the linguists have been banging their heads against the wall trying to get their attention and explain why "language" doesn't just mean "sounds that denote specific things." Language in other animals is something that people seem to want very badly to find. Couple that with the fact that people don't seem to appreciate how incredibly complex human language is (or consult the people who do), and you get research that demands very heavy skepticism.
-
ooh ooh ooh ooh AAAAAH AAAAH AAAAH!!
Oooh oooh aaaah, aaah ooh ooh ooh aah?
-
ooh ooh ooh ooh AAAAAH AAAAH AAAAH!!
Oooh oooh aaaah, aaah ooh ooh ooh aah?
Look behind you! A three-headed monkey!
-
Of course none of the people who believe humans are somehow special in possessing speech would ever believe he didn't alter the chimps brain too.
Well, considering that linguists continue to argue that language actually did transform our brains-- as opposed to simply arising from a "stew" of pre-existing intelligence-- I'd say that's not an unreasonable point to raise.
EDIT: At the risk of becoming embroiled in something tiring, I will again insist on being the skeptic in this issue. I'd be curious to know what kind of scientists conducted this study. Because biologists have been crying "language" in nature journals for years now, and the linguists have been banging their heads against the wall trying to get their attention and explain why "language" doesn't just mean "sounds that denote specific things." Language in other animals is something that people seem to want very badly to find. Couple that with the fact that people don't seem to appreciate how incredibly complex human language is (or consult the people who do), and you get research that demands very heavy skepticism.
I don't think we appreciate how complex human language(s) are because we start to learn them pretty much right away. It's entirely a part of our experience right from almost the very beginning. We're wired for it.
-
Anyone who's taken a foreign language (especially English as a second language, yeesh. :ick: I gre up with it, and I can see how convoluted and confusing it is.) knows how complex a language is in practice. Incidentally, trying to come up with a language that is less complex meets with less than stellar results, no matter supposedly easy it should be.
-
Yeah, I didn't mean that statement as any kind of indictment of the "ignorant masses." I just meant that when people go on treasure hunts for language in animals, they tend to forget the incredibly abstract capabilities that language demonstrates.
-
Of course none of the people who believe humans are somehow special in possessing speech would ever believe he didn't alter the chimps brain too.
Well, considering that linguists continue to argue that language actually did transform our brains-- as opposed to simply arising from a "stew" of pre-existing intelligence-- I'd say that's not an unreasonable point to raise.
Which is why he wanted to do it.
It would pretty much settle the debate that was mentioned in the last few posts. If the chimp simply went "Banana! Banana! Banana!" it would mean something very different from "Can you pass me that banana" :D
-
ooh ooh ooh ooh AAAAAH AAAAH AAAAH!!
Oooh oooh aaaah, aaah ooh ooh ooh aah?
Look behind you! A three-headed monkey!
I just had the curse of monkey island delievered to my door this morning!!!! :D :D What a game,
Better than the talaes of monkey island!
On the issue of syntax, it appears that dolphins may also have a form of it, more advanced than land apes. its interesting stuff. Love discovery channel :nod:
-
EDIT: At the risk of becoming embroiled in something tiring, I will again insist on being the skeptic in this issue. I'd be curious to know what kind of scientists conducted this study. Because biologists have been crying "language" in nature journals for years now, and the linguists have been banging their heads against the wall trying to get their attention and explain why "language" doesn't just mean "sounds that denote specific things." Language in other animals is something that people seem to want very badly to find. Couple that with the fact that people don't seem to appreciate how incredibly complex human language is (or consult the people who do), and you get research that demands very heavy skepticism.
Bah. Any scientist (regardless of their field) will tell you that theirs is the most complex and important field in the world, any it's never true. What we're seeing here is that lower primates are capable of evolving a system whereby abstract concepts can be communicated through specific combinations of sounds which do not neccesarily mean parts of the whole message. That's an extremely simple, but still syntaxic (is that a word?) language, and it's probably a useful analogue for how we developed our own language way back when.
-
The word is 'syntactic', and that's a good point to keep in mind.
-
Bah. Any scientist (regardless of their field) will tell you that theirs is the most complex and important field in the world, any it's never true. What we're seeing here is that lower primates are capable of evolving a system whereby abstract concepts can be communicated through specific combinations of sounds which do not neccesarily mean parts of the whole message. That's an extremely simple, but still syntaxic (is that a word?) language, and it's probably a useful analogue for how we developed our own language way back when.
It has nothing to do with linguistics being more complex or important than any other field. You can't just claim to have found language and then, when linguists explain to you why you have no reason to make that claim, just cover your ears. I'm not assuming that's the situation here, but I hope it's not radical of me to expect that people looking for animal language are trained in linguistics, and that hasn't always been the case. Honestly, I have no axe to grind about proto-linguistic structures in animal communication; if that's what's happening then that's what's happening. But as I said, a lot of people seem to want very badly for this to be true, and I think it's created a prime breeding ground for premature, and sometimes uninformed, conclusions.
-
Cannot resist the temptation to post this one:
Mr Burns:
This is a thousand monkeys working at a thousand typewriters. Soon they'll have written the greatest novel known to man. Lets see. 'It was the best of times, it was the "blurst" of times'! You stupid monkey!
Meanwhile in real life, I cannot believe at what lengths people are willing to go to study the above mentioned case. Mathematicians and Physicists are crazy. And Biologists are crazy to have actually tried it with (rather predictable results) six Macaques.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
Do NOT go in there!
-
In 2003, lecturers and students from the University of Plymouth MediaLab Arts course used a £2,000 grant from the Arts Council to study the literary output of real monkeys. They left a computer keyboard in the enclosure of six Celebes Crested Macaques in Paignton Zoo in Devon in England for a month, with a radio link to broadcast the results on a website. One researcher, Mike Phillips, defended the expenditure as being cheaper than reality TV and still "very stimulating and fascinating viewing".[1]
Not only did the monkeys produce nothing but five pages[29] consisting largely of the letter S, the lead male began by bashing the keyboard with a stone, and the monkeys continued by urinating and defecating on it. The zoo's scientific officer remarked that the experiment had "little scientific value, except to show that the 'infinite monkey' theory is flawed". Phillips said that the artist-funded project was primarily performance art, and they had learned "an awful lot" from it. He concluded that monkeys "are not random generators. They're more complex than that. … They were quite interested in the screen, and they saw that when they typed a letter, something happened. There was a level of intention there."[1][30]
i lol'd
-
I wonder if Elephants have got anything?
I mean, they're pretty smart, right? And they're the only other animal with ritualized burial, right?
-
I've created a being far superior to man, A Monkey with four asses!
-
While we're on the subject of clever animals.
Tool use in Octopuses (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8408233.stm)
:D
-
Mwahaha your day is over syntax monkeys!
*closes coconut
-
There was a segment in my local news the other day about a species of octopus that uses coconuts to build shelters with. They are indeed fascinating creatures.
EDIT: Durf, posted before looking at link. It was the same footage.