I have often thought that man is presumptuous, perhaps arrogant in asserting that he is the only mammal with the gift of meaningful language.
The distinct alarm, contact and song calls of birds are clearly analogous means of communication and function. Dogs and cats emit sounds, which almost certainly have meaning and form a vocal communication within their species. It's only that we are unable to understand most of these sound patterns we hear, and probably many in other animals in frequencies beyond our hearing.

It's of interest that in the current National Geographic , [IMG] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/monkey-sentence.html [/IMG] there is reported a current paper in Nature of a 'discovery':
In the Ivory Coast, putty-nosed monkeys use two loud calls, usually referred to as "pyows" and "hacks." They use a series of pyows to warn of a leopard threatening the group and a string of hacks to indicate the presence of crowned eagles. The authors, Zuberbühler and Arnold found that male monkeys often combine the two calls into a kind of simple sentence that they call a "pyow-hack."
They show evidence that combining calls increases the variety of messages that monkeys can communicate. But does this mean the monkeys are actually putting together a kind of language? The author, Zuberbühler, cautions that analogies to human language are not always helpful in understanding the utterances of animals.

Why do we assume that the human, large vocabulary and inordinately complex languages are necessarily "superior" to the varied sounds of other animals, which we fail to understand?
It's a huge topic on which one has unconfirmed ideas.
Any linguaphile interested?

quote:

Why do we assume that the human, large vocabulary and inordinately complex languages are necessarily "superior" to the varied sounds of other animals, which we fail to understand?

Whether it's a good thing or not is debatable, but the success of the human species, unequalled by any other measured by the way it has modified its environment, must in large measure be due to its ability to convey abstract concepts in language - essential for planning major projects - which ability is present in no other species to the same extent.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
the success of the human species, unequalled by any other measured by the way it has modified its environment, must in large measure be due to its ability to convey abstract concepts in language - essential for planning major projects - which ability is present in no other species to the same extent.

Possibly true Richard, but since we have no present way of understanding, how do we know? In many highly evolved skills, simplicity is of greater advantage than a more vulnerable complex system. It is feasible that a few different barks from a canine might achieve a diversity of communication equal or superior to a human with a Shakespearian vocbulary. And, how slight is our knowledge of animal sentiment and cognition. We simply don't know.

quote:

We simply don't know

I think we can infer that no animals' cognition is as godd as humankind's based on the evidence of the results of our ability to understand abstract concepts.

If dogs had the cognitive ability of a human then we would see tangible evidence of it.

Sorry, but I have to agree with Richard, Pearce. I just don't see the same sort of communication and cognition in non-human animals as in the human ones. It could be a serious fault on my part, but if it is, why hasn't any animal pointed it out to me, as any human would. Perhaps, if an animal were to sit down with me and discuss it in a rationale manner, I might be inclined to accept your proposition. Otherwise, no.

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

quote:

Originally posted by zmjezhd:
I just don't see the same sort of communication and cognition in non-human animals as in the human ones. It could be a serious fault on my part, but if it is, why hasn't any animal pointed it out to me, as any human would.

Sorry chaps, I am trying to be provocative, but not dogmatic. I started saying
: Why do we assume that the human, large vocabulary and inordinately complex languages are necessarily "superior" to the varied sounds of other animals, which we fail to understand?
You confirm my view that this is a common assumption. Of course we can't say with certainty that animal communication is equal to, or better than ours. Equally, we can't deny that it is a possibility.
But, we can no more expect 'an animal to sit down with me and discuss it in a rationale manner,' than expect man to sit down and talk intelligibly to the animal, in Dr Doolittle style.
A major problem is that man judges other animals anthropomorphically, and if the behaviour or speech observed doesn't fit the man's limited spectrum of understanding, it is unscientific to dismiss other possible worlds of experience, values and communications.

Regardless of whether or not it is as sophisticated as Human speech, I do find the language of Chimpanzees, etc, fascinating. There was a book published several years ago, that I see has been reprinted in the UK in 2000, How to Speak Chimpanzee. It is a great book and shows body movements and gives the phonetic spellings of Chimp noises so that you could, ostensibly, learn the language and communicate with Chimps. I used this book as a read-aloud with older Elementary and Middle School students, and it was always a big hit!

I just now skimmed this essay and found it very interesting, too.

We recently had a similar discussion here. Of course that was starlings versus monkeys, but the question was similar. Stephen Anderson, a linguist from Yale, cautions against over-interpretation of these sorts of studies.

Isn't animal communication directly involved with animal cognition? Dogs smell better than we do; cats see better than we do, etc. I suspect that communication depends on environment and perceived need. As environment changes, need changes, and comunication evolves.

quote:

Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:
Dogs smell better than we do

I assure you, I bathe quite regularly!

quote:

Originally posted by Caterwauller:
I just now skimmed this essay and found it very interesting, too.

Thanks. It's a good essay, but notice how the teleological needs/ requiring creeps in:
"The orangutan lives a fairly solitary life, not requiring such calls, while the slow-paced life of gorillas does not perhaps need cries to coordinate the action of the band."

Asa says :
"… Dogs smell better than we do; cats see better than we do, etc. I suspect that communication depends on environment and perceived need. As environment changes, need changes, and comunication evolves."
But we habitually insert value judgements. Dogs smell better may or may not be true; better is related to the dogs' environment and ability to react to it (for survival), which is not the same environment nor the same survival demands as humans face. Hence the danger of translating the human world and communciation and other behavioural facilities to the animal world. If man had the dogs' 'better smell' it might be better or worse for his function and survival. We might run a mile at the most distant whiff of Chanel No.5.
Similar notions apply to language and communication.

quote:

Similar notions apply to language and communication.

Sorry, I don't buy that. You can't extend the fact of the obvious (and observable)olfactory superiority of canines to prove the possibility of a similar superiority (or even equality) in language and communication.

Successful species are successful because they adapt themselves to their environments better than do their competitors. The canine sense of smell is very good because that is part of their adaptation to their particular environment and lifestyle.

Humankind is uniquely successful because of the way in which it adapts its environment to itself and the hugely sophisticated liguistic abilities of our species are one of the adaptations we have made to ourselves which allow us to think in abstract and conceptual ways - and thus to plan and implement changes to our environment in a manner unequaled by any other species.

For what it's worth, as a dedicated nihilist I have to agree with pearce, in that nothing is entirely anything, while everything is partly something else. Thus all dogmatic assertions are false, including this one

asa: I've heard that cats that haven't lived near humans don't meow

quote:

Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:
...Dogs smell better than we do...

Asa, I gotta disagree on this one. If you ever got a whiff of one of my English setters after a day in the bogs chasing snipes....Oh!....that's not what you meant.....SORRY!

"Humankind is uniquely successful because of the way in which it adapts its environment to itself and the hugely sophisticated liguistic abilities of our species are one of the adaptations we have made to ourselves which allow us to think in abstract and conceptual ways - and thus to plan and implement changes to our environment in a manner unequaled by any other species."[/QUOTE]

Richard, you are simply proving my point. You show that we are far too smug and pleased with ourselves. How can you possibly know that higher mammals and primates can't think in abstract and conceptual ways. And how do we know that they don't think in ways undreamt of by homo sapiens. Like many cleverer than I, you are being anthropomorphic.
Perhaps we shall have to agree to differ.

quote:

How can you possibly know that higher mammals and primates can't think in abstract and conceptual ways.

As much as is is possible to "prove" any fact by evidence, it is possible to prove that animals do not think in the same conceptual ways as does humankind. The evidence of humankind's thinking abilitity is all around us; our species is unique in the way that it has been able to modify its environment - all due it our planning and conceptual abilities.

Even the most highly developed primates cannot approach us in this respect. Where are the Chimpanzee cities? The great works of Ape fiction? The glorious symphonies of Orang Utangs? Where are the dog railways; the mouse shipping fleets; the horse airlines?

The fact that we can't talk to animals and discuss the finer points of creation does not disprove the abundant evidence that they simply do not think in the way that we do.

I think the point is, Richard, that you are judging in human terms and that it might be possible that the gorillas look at us and say how little intelligence we must have to waste our time always building and making things. It's a pretty old sci-fi idea and one I'm sure you have encountered.

We can't ever know what goes on inside an Orang Utan's head because we aren't Orang Utan. Just because they do none of the things we consider marks of superior intellect it doesn't mean that they don't feel the same way about us.

I don't believe any of that of course, just trying to clarify what I think is pearce's point.

quote:

We can't ever know what goes on inside an Orang Utan's head because we aren't Orang Utan.

Indeed. And we can't know what goes on inside of another human's head - unless we use the wonderful gift of language. But even without language we can infer much. I don't speak a word of Japanese, but it is clear from the evidence that the Japanese have the same kinds of abilities that we do in planning and constructing. It is equally clear that orang utan's do not.

And neither do dogs, cats, fleas or bacteria. We would all readily agree that an amoeba doesn't have the cognitive ability of a human; we aould also agree that there is a continuum of cognitive ability amongst animals, with mice being smarter than amoeba, dogs smarter than mice and gorillas smarter than dogs. So why can't humans be smarter than gorillas? The answer is, of course, that we are - and the fact that we can't chat to the nearest amoeba, mouse, dog or gorilla to discuss this matter doesn't alter this obvious fact. It's nothing to do with arrogance and all to do with the blindingly obvious.

We attended an Omnimax movie about dolphins yesterday. The narrator stated that had we not been terrestrial, we might have been something akin to dolphins. Anthropomorphism to be sure, yet it seems clear to those who study them that they show rational intelligence, show emotion, and aren't above a fight with their own kind.

Humans have the ability to reason abstractly, and the desire to understand first causes. However, fear seems to propel us toward simplistic god theories, negating our intellect.
We also ignore the words credited to our gods when it suits our personal gain. Consider that every creature modifies its environment to some degree, but except for man, I know of no multicelled creature that destroys its environment to its own destruction, as we clearly are doing. We even ignore the bit in Revelation about god bringing to ruin those who ruin the Earth. Yet we call ourselves RATIONAL!?!? Bah, humbug!

I agree 100%. I never tried to suggest that the modifiactions we make to our environment are all beneficial. However, it is our ability to make such massive modifications that distinguishes us. Many animals modify their environment to their detriment or even destruction, but only humankind realises what it is doing - which is the one hope we have for our survival.

I didn't mention religion in my postings but I agree again. It is ironic that many people believe in their chosen religion - to the extent of dying for their beliefs - but the facts to support religion, any religion, are vanishingly small.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
… mice being smarter than amoeba, dogs smarter than mice and gorillas smarter than dogs. So why can't humans be smarter than gorillas? The answer is, of course, that we are - and the fact that we can't chat to the nearest amoeba, mouse, dog or gorilla to discuss this matter doesn't alter this obvious fact. It's nothing to do with arrogance and all to do with the blindingly obvious.

"smarter". But I suggest only smarter n human terms as judged by human values. How smart is it for humans to destroy their own environment and their grandchildren's future? Maybe, other animals have alternative creative and cognitive skills commensurate with their lifestyles. We don't understand them and should not judge them by our own values.
I am keeping away from the virtues and follies of human religion whether or not you think that is smarter than animal deities—if they have them. But then we simply would not know.

quote:

Maybe, other animals have alternative creative and cognitive skills commensurate with their lifestyles. We don't understand them and should not judge them by our own values.

Bravo!

I've been reading this thread with interest and I'm with pearce and Asa on this one. My thoughts:

1) I agree that destroying one's environment by over'adapting' it and ruining it for everyone else cannot be called 'intelligence'. Arrogance, lack of foresight, yes, but intelligence, no. It's more than likely too late for us now that we've almost reached peak oil, but hopefully Nature will find a way, with or without us. If we make ourselves extinct, fair enough, but I hope the other life forms on this planet will have a chance to continue to thrive.

2) Language schmanguage. You introduce two horses of pretty much any species from any two parts if the world and put them in a field together, and they'll almost instantly be able to understand each other. Whether they get on or not is up to the two individuals, but they'll each know what the other horse is communicating to them.

Put two humans from different culture and languages together and do you get the same effect? No. My language is your gibberish. We may be able to rely on gestures but culture can get in the way: one man's handshake is another mans's aggressive gesture. Let's face it, even if we do speak the same langauge we can't always understand each other! In some ways we've made things too complicated for ourselves.

3) There are different types of intelligence, even amongst humans and it is indeed arrogant to assume that ours is superior. I don't see many gorillas dropping dead of a heart attack while in their prime with the stress of keeping up mortgage payments, school fees and juggling a 60-hour working week with an equally hectic (and not always enjoyable) social life. Without humans wrecking their environment, most gorillas relax, eat and play for much of the time, with the occasional fight for resources/supremacy etc (no lifestyle's perfect ). The point I'm trying to make is, if an objective observer were to look at both lifestyles, who would they say was the most 'intelligent'? Again, although there are some wonderful things about being human, I'd give it all up for a simple life in which I didn't have to worry about not looking like Angelina Jolie or how I'm going to afford to live when I retire since I don't earn enough to save an adequate amount to see me through.

I'm not saying that animals are more or less intelligent than us, as I couldn't possibly know - none of us can at present. I am saying that there are different ways of looking at things, and I prefer to keep an open mind.

I think we're confusing two meanings of intelligence here. One is smarts and the other is the ability to learn, reason, and communicate. Some non-human animals can learn, but others are captives of their genetic behaviors. Some non-human animals can communicate, but, so far, none to the degree of abstraction that humans do. Also, no non-human animals communicate in the absence of the "speaker" as humans do. So, I'd say we're different from the other species. Given the chance, some non-human animals will overgraze an area and cause their population to decrease. (We, at least some of us, can recognize that some of the things we're doing are exactly right or maintainable.) This is possible with human animals, too. We just may naturally extinct ourselves. The two horses or the gorillas cannot reason with one another. They have a certain set of behaviors, and the alpha male will prevail. It's communication of a sort, but give me Hamlet or an episode of The Simpsons any day of the week instead. Neolithic humans didn't work as many hours per day to maintain their lifestyle, but we live a longer and more pleasant life than many neolithic people. I never suggested that humans are superior, just that we have and use language, have more control of ourselves than is coded into our DNA or is available in the environment, and are different from the non-human species we share the planet with. As I don't grant animals language, I also would be hesitant to grant them "lifestyles".

The human species is not the only one that destroys its own environment. Indeed, I would say that such destruction is very common amongst many species. The difference is that:

1. The degree of destruction is less and usually limited to a sufficient amount to stop population growth and thus environmental destruction. Leave a pair of rabbits in a favourable environment with no predators and they will increase their population exponentially until they run out of resources.

2. Unlike other animals, humankind is aware of the effects of its destructive behaviour before it is directly affected. Another plus for abstract thinking.

And I am sorry, I do not agree that all animals are equally intelligent, judged by any standards at all. They might be successful (house flies are hugely successful in their own niche) but that does not prove that they are more clever or more intelligent than humankind - it just proves that they are more successful in living on rotting meat.

quote:

I'd give it all up for a simple life in which I didn't have to worry about not looking like Angelina Jolie

That is certainly not something you should concern yourself with, Cat ;-)

You DON'T look like Angelina Jolie!?!!?? GOOD!!! One of her is quite enough! BTW, what I've seen from your photos suggests you've got nothing to worry about regarding appearance! However, agreeing with me may well cause friends to forsake you.

"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English - up to fifty words used in correct context - no human being has been reported to have learned Dolphinese."

Carl Sagan

quote:

"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English - up to fifty words used in correct context - no human being has been reported to have learned Dolphinese."

Maybe not - but the sounds that the handlers use in dolphin shows are certainly not English and are certainly understood by dolphins.

True, Richard, but since I found Sagan's quote in a magazine I was reading, I tossed it in to see what would happen. I suppose that when he said it, it wa true, but not quite true today.

Incentivize the resources to grow their bandwidth to your end-state vision. Don't open the kimono until you ping the change agent for a brain dump and drill down to your core competencies....--Dogbert

Thus, pearce, I'm not sure that we do have a meaningful language

Asa: Dolphins are indeed very intelligent. Incidentally, in addition to sounds, they sometimes communicate by symbolic means, eg to show affection

One dolphin trainer felt something brush across his leg whenever one of his charges passed by. After several such encounters he realized it was the creature's penis

quote:

I didn't have to worry about not looking like Angelina Jolie

It's all in the eyes of the beholder. She, and the father of her child (are they married? I forgot and really don't care), are ugly in my mind. You have it all over Angelina.

I want to preface my comments with my experience with animals. I know a fair bit about animals. I was raised on a farm, which had lots and lots of animals because my grandfather loved animals. (Many of his grandchildren and great grandchildren inherited that from him.) At various times we had many holstein cows, 1 horse, 14 ponies, bunches of rabbits, tons of cats, always at least 1 dog, Canadian geese, peacocks, and my grandfather housed all sorts of exotic birds. I have seen animals born and animals die. We took our rabbits and cows to the fair. Yet, in all those years of working with all those animals, I never noticed anything out of the ordinary with animal communciation or other intelligence skills.

I have to agree with Richard and Zmj, here. It sounds to me like there are underlying passions (politics, environmental policies, etc.) that are clouding the facts. Humankind is not all good. [Heavens, neither are animals. Have you heard of all the "attack deer" lately?] However, that doesn't have anything to do with the evidence of our communication abilities or our intelligence. Indeed, look around the world at what people have accomplished. Look at the art, the music, the architecture, technology, medicine, science, literature, etc. While animals may have accomplished things that we don't know of (such as internal hospitals in their own habitats, though I find that highly unlikely), nothing they've accomplished has affected us. Yet, much of our progress, such as knowledge of veterinary medicine, has improved the life of animals. I also acknowledge that our progress has affected the lives of some animals negatively.

I suspect that Richard's comment about animals being successful in their own niche is about as far as animals can go. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalleh:
[QUOTE]I didn't have to worry about not looking like Angelina Jolie

Don't all laugh at once, but Who is this Angelina Jolie? Perhaps a fim-star, a pop-idol, or some famous senator's bit on the side???

I suspect I would prefer not to know

Au contraire, mon ami. I think you would very much like to know more about Angelina. She is the extremely sexy star of Lara Croft Tomb Raider and Mr. and Mrs. Smith, both very fun action movies. There are numerous fan sites you might like to peruse, as well.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Caterwauller:
Au contraire, mon ami. I think you would very much like to know more about Angelina.

Thanks CW. Your advice has provoked an interest I thought I was incapable of. There's hope for us all. Well, dreams anyway.

CW, my daugther just pointed out that imdb Web site. It's great, isn't it? She has a high school friend who has been in some NY plays and "Law and Order" episodes, and sure enough her picture is on that site. How fun! You can also find out some trivia about movie stars there, such as Meryl Streep (a favorite of mine) having a deviated septum which she refuses to have fixed. (Directors work around it by avoiding straight-on close-ups.) BTW, can't wait to see Streep in "The Devil Wears Prada" when it comes out.

Pearce, with CW's links about Angelina Jolie, one aspect is missing. Angelina had an affair with Brad Pitt as they were both filming a movie. Brad was a married man at the time, and Angelina was the "other woman." Now, of course Brad's and Jennifer's marriage might have broken up anyway, but the affair certainly didn't help things.

I just found out that Angelina and Brad aren't married. That shows how much I know about these movie stars!

If they have a son, should they name him Edmund?

quote:

Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:
If they have a son, should they name him Edmund?

Edmund Blackadder?

Wouldn't it be Edmund Pitt-Jolie?

I was thinking of the Earl of Gloucester's bastard son in King Lear. But Blackadder's a right worthy bastard too.

quote:

Originally posted by zmjezhd:
Wouldn't it be Edmund Pitt-Jolie?

Armand Pitt would be a nicely odiferous name.

quote:

Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:

quote:

Originally posted by zmjezhd:
Wouldn't it be Edmund Pitt-Jolie?

Armand Pitt would be a nicely odiferous name.

Or Jolie-Pitt ( in an odourproofed singlet)

Originally posted by pearce:

quote:

Or Jolie-Pitt ( in an odourproofed singlet)

Si la "pitt" est vraiment jolie!

Reviving a thread...
We had a spirited discussion here about human-like abilities of monkeys.

This article provides more evidence that there's a lot we don't know about chimpanzees. How sweet that these chimps seemed to understand that their little friend was disabled. Likewise, the video of the chimp tricking her 9-year-old son in the forests of Guinea was intriguing because it showed that maybe chimps do have what psychologists call a "theory of mind" or the knowledge that individuals see the world in different ways. However, the most amazing example was of the memory feats chimps have. In one task they randomly put a sequence of 9 numbers on a computer screen. Though the numbers appeared for less than a second, the chimp always accurately pointed to where each number had been on the screen. Humans can only remember about 4 or 5 numbers. This is probably because, in the wild, chimps need to remember where each member of the group is at all times.

The conclusion of some of these researchers was somewhat similar to what some argued in this thread. That is, "The Chimpanzee is not a subset of the human mind. The chimpanzee has its own universe, as do humans."

Speaking of animals...I recall a time (25+ years ago) on a river rafting trip. We were on the "off" day (Not on the river), and were hiking around. I stopped to play my guitar, and after a while, a herd of cows came around the hill to stand and listen. They stayed there until I finished, at which point, they wandered back over the hill.

The cows clearly DID appreciate the music - for whatever reason.

Bob