Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Nov 20, 2025 12:51 pm
popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 20, 2025 4:12 am
Belinda wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 6:18 pm
If meaning were dependent upon symbolic language, I don't believe most organisms would have survived; certainly feelings are more primordial than that of thought, and your premise is no doubt true when considering complex concepts. Meanings are the understood experiences of the body of an organism, and are the property of that organism; they do not really belong to the world. Meaning is what experience means, though understanding to the body.
If someone asked me, "What do you mean by scalding your dish towels? " I'd answer, "To kill germs." If they asked me, "What do you mean by replying to Popeye?" I'd answer " To satisfy my curiosity as to why biology is a true answer, but is insufficient."
Each of those answers is biological in the sense that only a living thing can ask the question and answer the question. But to be a living thing is not sufficient to be able to do so. Only a living thing with human language can do so.
Animals have their own languages and can inform each other where the bananas are, and inform themselves of dangers approaching. Consciousness is not the sole property of humanity; the differences are in degree, not of kind. Any meaning whatsoever is biologically dependent, for biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, and other creatures relate these meanings of their kinds. I just disagree with your statement that only humans can ask a question and/or answer one. Do you believe plants are conscious? There is actually no doubt about it now that the science is there.
Besides humans, there is no known species that has meaningful symbolic language.
The human species would not have survived unless it were adaptable. Other species aren't as adaptable as humans; other species are faster, have more dangerous dentition, longer and sharper claws for defence or digging, can move on four legs, better at tree climbing, superior size for their self-defence, fur to keep their body temperatures regular, hooves to kick with, and tails to lash with.
Adaptation is wholly dependent upon linguistic ability for coordinating individual behaviour. Think about how a few weak humans could bring down a huge, dangerous auroch. an impossible feat unless they had language to express to each other what they would do if---and if---- and if---
We agree that humans are the most adaptable of animals, but what drives adaptation is a changing environmental context, one that grows in complexity. The Earth and the local environment are agents of biological development; if a local niche does not change, then neither will the organism. First, we came down from the trees and created agriculture. The societies we thus created, though once removed from nature, grow more complex by the day, and so do our adaptive tendencies-very stressful. It should be appreciated that the environmental context is the agent in altering our plasticity, for all organisms; the Earth is the cause. The Earth, you could say, is necessity to which every part contributes and receives, part to part, part to the whole, and the whole to each of its parts.
Meaning is a biological function; meaning is what happens to the body and the mind's conscious understanding of what that means. It does not belong to anything but the subjective consciousness. You say, only humans have meaningful adaptive languages, but it is a matter of degree, not kind. The simpler and unchanging the environment is, the organism's present state is in proportion with its environment. Animals have some similar behaviours to, for example, many animals hunt in packs, which takes coordination and strategy. One could do an evolutionary study of how the environment is the agent of evolutionary adaptability in a timeline study done on a computer. I agree with most of what you say, just wanted to state it's a matter of degree, not of kind, when looking at our behaviours and those of our animal cousins.
[/quote]
I agree with most of what you write above, especially the first paragraph.
I disagree that human language is different only in degree from the languages of other species. I claim the difference is one of kind(quality), not degree.(quantity) [/quote]
So the quality of kind. I am not denying the wonders of human language. I am just saying that, however, that came about was totally dependent upon the changing environment, for environment is the number one agent here, even in the once-removed environment of societies.
.
In particular, you say "many animals hunt in packs". There are scientific studies of bee and ant language, which, besides being extremely sophisticated and suited for purpose, are not capable of infinite adaptation, as is human language. [/quote]
As you've stated, adequate for the niche they inhabit. Nothing is surprising or unknowable about how the human language came about. It was the agency of the environment; for most animals, their environment didn't change as drastically as the human habitat, requiring new adaptabilities. It is always the environment, even where adaptations are a death sentence or the code to continued existence. So I am not really arguing with you about how remarkable the human language is, just that it was an unusual coincidence, a happenstance, a feather in the wind. That happenstance pushed humanity into a greater realm of adaptations; there simply is no other possibility. The species resonates with the changing whole. One cannot really say what the Earth's environment is capable of; the Earth is plastic, and so are its organisms. I say this knowing the Earth is not a closed system.
Steven Pinker – The Language Instinct
Terrence Deacon – The Symbolic Species
Michael Tomasello – Origins of Human Communication
Derek Bickerton – Adam’s Tongue
Marc Hauser – Wild Minds
[/quote]