Lionspeak

[Iiex]

I was watching Avatar the other day and it reminded me of something that I had heard. As it was told to me (and they could be wrong) a philosopher once said that even if a Lion could speak English we couldn't understand it. That seems somewhat contradictory because if a Lion could speak English, then well, we'd understand it, right? Similarly, what if *somehow* we could translate Lionspeak into English, could we understand it? This philosopher argued no: our language is shaped by how we live, by our bodies, by our environment, by our culture. To make a comparison, imagine if you were invited to a class on some esoteric branch in physics. The points of reference to you, as someone totally unfamiliar with that branch, would be be almost unintelligible, but even that would eventually be understandable and learn-able. With a lion the only way we could truly understand them would be to be one of them. Otherwise anything which we would 'translate' would essentially be modifying what they have said to make it meaningful to US, in which case it would anthropomorphizing the creature, i.e. attributing to an animal human mentality or motives.

[Meridian]

The philosopher who said it was Wittgenstein. The reasoning was that to understand a language is to understand a form of life.

I am sure someone else could elaborate as I got to go now. :thumbup1:

[Dean]

Otherwise anything which we would 'translate' would essentially be modifying what they have said to make it meaningful to US, in which case it would anthropomorphizing the creature, i.e. attributing to an animal human mentality or motives.

I agree with everything but the last part. Take the following example:

A lion says "I see a deer!" in whatever "English" terminology he knows. For us, the presence of the deer is not as significant - a novelty, or maybe a threat if we're driving. But for the lion, the presence of such fauna its a valuable point of reference for the furtherance of their own eating habits.

Clearly there is different relevance and function, but the gulf between humans and lions is not so great to form an alternate form of reality. They see and respond to their surrounds, as do humans. What would make such simple statements "unintelligible"?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, Wittgenstein did not mention "English". His point was that if a lion came out with what sounded like words, we would have no basis on which we could translate them into a human language.

This is not so with lost tribes we might come across who have an as-yet-untranslated language.

You will find an echo of this in Quine's doctrine of the Indeterminacy of Translation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminacy_of_translation), but applied to non-humans -- except Wittgenstein would not have approached this on an empiricist basis, like Quine.

On this, see:

H-J Glock, (2003), Quine And Davidson On Language, Thought And Reality (Cambridge University Press).

[Raúl Duke]

Wittgenstein and a bit of coke.

Rawr!

lol :thumbup1:

I'm not an expert...but lets assume that me and a lion speaks English...

The connotations for certain words will absolutely differ between the lion and me; due to differences in experiences and culture.
But what of denotative meanings? I'm guessing we could still both understand that.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

And where and how did this lion learn to 'speak English'?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I was watching Avatar the other day and it reminded me of something that I had heard. As it was told to me (and they could be wrong) a philosopher once said that even if a Lion could speak English we couldn't understand it. That seems somewhat contradictory because if a Lion could speak English, then well, we'd understand it, right? Similarly, what if *somehow* we could translate Lionspeak into English, could we understand it? This philosopher argued no: our language is shaped by how we live, by our bodies, by our environment, by our culture. To make a comparison, imagine if you were invited to a class on some esoteric branch in physics. The points of reference to you, as someone totally unfamiliar with that branch, would be be almost unintelligible, but even that would eventually be understandable and learn-able. With a lion the only way we could truly understand them would be to be one of them. Otherwise anything which we would 'translate' would essentially be modifying what they have said to make it meaningful to US, in which case it would anthropomorphizing the creature, i.e. attributing to an animal human mentality or motives.

The possibility of complete translation intuitively seems very possible. The issue is that technically, certainty seems rather allusive.

For instance, you don't even need a lion. I can believe the word "dog" means a four legged animal. We can talk about dogs and by chance, I'll appear to know the word. Even more confusingly, I could believe "dog" means "dog when we are on planet earth." Maybe I have some deluded or religious reasoning for believing this. Here, we have different definitions but would normally claim to know the language of another person.

I don't know about Wittgenstein on this matter. Quine thought it would "literally" be difficult to go into the field and make sense of new languages using methodologies advocated by Carnap and others. Modern linguistics proved Quine incorrect on this matter. We can learn about native languages efficiently enough for pragmatic concerns. His skeptical views about knowledge still stand, arguably.

So don't be depressed at the prospect of never being able to talk to a lion. You might succeed. You just won't know with certainty whether or not you have succeeded "linguistically." You'll only know whether or not you have succeeded pragmatically - for you, not them.

[Dean]

I have deleted spam posts by Iiex and corresponding responses (which were otherwise irrelevant) by Rosa Lichtenstein & Meridian. Iiex has already been banned. RL & Meridian, please let me know if any of your posts were not a response to her spam. Thanks.
03-14-10 Dean

[Raúl Duke]

I'm making the assumption that an English-speaking lion exists, just for the purpose of this lionspeak thread because in reality no English-speaking (or Human language-speaking) lion exists.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

That's like assuming a four-edged triangle exists.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

That's like assuming a four-edged triangle exists.

I'm confuses by that. The definition of "English-speaker" is merely a person who speaks the language, arguably. If a Lion spoke English, are you saying it would, by definition, no longer be a lion? Definitions are rather confusing as we can always change them.

A four-edged triangle is analytically not possible. It's certainly conceivable that an English-speaking lion "could" exist, to me at least. However, I'm not the sanest apple in the bunch. I just don't see how that's the same scenario as in the case of a triangle.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dooga:


The definition of "English-speaker" is merely a person who speaks the language, arguably. If a Lion spoke English, are you saying it would, by definition, no longer be a lion? Definitions are rather confusing as we can always change them

No, I was making a conceptual point about what we assocate with triangles and what we associate with lions.


A four-edged triangle is analytically not possible. It's certainly conceivable that an English-speaking lion "could" exist, to me at least. However, I'm not the sanest apple in the bunch. I just don't see how that's the same scenario as in the case of a triangle

Then that would be enough to re-classifie this 'animal' as not a lion.

[Meridian]

I am thinking that if an animal would speak English, it would have the entire "point of view" that English speakers do, and to an extent language speakers do in general. This "point of view" is intrinsically connected to the way our societies, or our lives, are.

So whether or not I have misunderstood Wittgenstein, I see his point. It would be impossible to translate lion language to human language because we would resort to our own language in order to understand its.

[Dean]

Then that would be enough to re-classifie this 'animal' as not a lion.

Humans who speak language are still animals, for one thing. But the most damning fact for you is that humans did not shape-shift species when they learned to speak.

Edit:I didn't mean to sound caustic but I'm too lazy to reword it atm.

[Dimentio]

Wittgenstein was a bit special. I think the idea about Lionspeak cannot be perceived as a general rule about communication. While all people face certain difficulties in communicating (for example, literal translation of sentences from French to English often mean something entirely different), I believe that understanding is possible.

[Meridian]

Humans who speak language are still animals, for one thing. But the most damning fact for you is that humans did not shape-shift species when they learned to speak.
Without anthropomorphizing the lion, that is, understand it in terms of how we would speak, then we could not understand the lion if it used language. Why? Because it would have completely different language games, that is, "rules" of communication, meaning, language. Why? Because they are a different life form.

There is no reference to the lion speaking human languages, rather if it had it's own language.

"The arrow points only in the application that a living being makes of it."

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dean:


Humans who speak language are still animals, for one thing. But the most damning fact for you is that humans did not shape-shift species when they learned to speak.

Edit:I didn't mean to sound caustic but I'm too lazy to reword it atm.

Well, we learnt to speak as a result of collective labour and communal life. Which Lion has engaed in this?

[red cat]

Dean:



Well, we learnt to speak as a result of collective labour and communal life. Which Lion has engaed in this?

So, any animal that has engaged in that will learn to speak ?

[red cat]

Humans who speak language are still animals, for one thing. But the most damning fact for you is that humans did not shape-shift species when they learned to speak.

Edit:I didn't mean to sound caustic but I'm too lazy to reword it atm.

Animals have languages of their own. However, except for very intelligent mammals such as whales, dolphins, gorillas and chimpanzees, these are generally confined to instinctive reactions, and their knowledge need not be passed on from generation to generation.

However, when it comes to something as complex as a human language, a beast such as a lion can go no farther than understanding a few words, let alone "speak" :lol:, just because it lacks the intelligence to do so.

[bcbm]

Animals have languages of their own. However, except for very intelligent mammals such as whales, dolphins, gorillas and chimpanzees, these are generally confined to instinctive reactions, and their knowledge need not be passed on from generation to generation.

i think it would be better to say animals have their own means of communication, rather than their own languages.

[RED DAVE]

I would be careful about drawing too many conclusions about animal's ability to commumnicate with humans at this point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot)

RED DAVE

[red cat]

Alex is a good example. But there are better ones:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_%28gorilla%29

Chimp language:

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/cultural/language/chimpanzee.html

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This must mean that such animals have been engaged in collective labour in their evolutionary history, if Engels and Marx were right that language is a result of collective labour and communal life.

Any who are impressed with 'animal language' should consult the following:

Wallman, J. (1992), Aping Language (Cambridge University Press).

Taylor, J. (2009), Not A Chimp (Oxford University Press).

Radick, J. (2007), The Simain Tongue. The Long Debate About Animal Language (Chicago University Press).

And this book exposes the fraud involved in earlier claims that chimps, parrots, dogs and horses can communicate with us:

Broad, W., and Wade, N. (1985), Betrayers Of The Truth. Fraud And Deceit In The Halls Of Science (Oxford University Press).

Moreover, the Wikipedia articles on this confuse signalling with communication.

Finally, I have covered this in detail here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page_13_03.htm

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


So, any animal that has engaged in that will learn to speak ?

No, it is plainly a necessasy but not a sufficient condition.

[red cat]

This must mean that such animals have been engaged in collective labour in their evolutionary history, if Engels and Marx were right that language is a result of collective labour and communal life.

Just living in herds to enhance chances of survival may result in very complex forms of communication .




Any who are impressed with 'animal language' should consult the following:

Wallman, J. (1992), Aping Language (Cambridge University Press).

Taylor, J. (2009), Not A Chimp (Oxford University Press).

Radick, J. (2007), The Simain Tongue. The Long Debate About Animal Language (Chicago University Press).

And this book exposes the fraud involved in earlier claims that chimps, parrots, dogs and horses can communicate with us:

Broad, W., and Wade, N. (1985), Betrayers Of The Truth. Fraud And Deceit In The Halls Of Science (Oxford University Press).

Moreover, the Wikipedia articles on this confuse signalling with communication.

Finally, I have covered this in detail here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page_13_03.htm

It has been observed that the signals that chimpanzees use to communicate with each other vary from region to region. Indeed these are very primitive forms of language.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


Just living in herds to enhance chances of survival may result in very complex forms of communication

If so, Marx and Engels were wrong when they hypothesised that language was the result of collective labour and communal (not herd) life.

And, I think you, too, are confusing sigalling with linguistic communication.


It has been observed that the signals that chimpanzees use to communicate with each other vary from region to region. Indeed these are very primitive forms of language

Well, and once more, those who 'observed' this are similarly confusing sigalling with linguistic communication.

[red cat]

Red Cat:



If so, Marx and Engels were wrong when they hypothesised that language was the result of collective labour and communal (not herd) life.

And, I think you, too, are confusing sigalling with linguistic communication.



Well, and once more, those who 'observed' this are similarly confusing sigalling with linguistic communication.

Stop bringing up Marx and Engels so that you can turn this thread to one on dialectics.

We can't draw any clear line of distinction between linguistic communication and signaling. Signaling itself becomes more and more complex, includes vocal signals, and develops into languages.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


Stop bringing up Marx and Engels so that you can turn this thread to one on dialectics.

1) You are the one who mentioned 'dialectics', not me.

2) Are you saying that you disagree with Marx and Engels, then?


We can't draw any clear line of distinction between linguistic communication and signaling. Signaling itself becomes more and more complex, includes vocal signals, and develops into languages.

In fact, I think we can; there is a 'leap' as quantity passes over into quality....:)

[red cat]

Red Cat:



1) You are the one who mentioned 'dialectics', not me.

2) Are you saying that you disagree with Marx and Engels, then?



In fact, I think we can; there is a 'leap' as quantity passes over into quality....:)

Fine. This is my last post in this thread. Since the only thing you care about is making the last post while you are in a debate, I hope that you will be contended with posting a mockery in response to this post of mine. I am okay with that. Other users will possibly engage in further discussion in this thread while ignoring your spam.

The latest qualitative development of Marxism is MLM, which states that particular opposites unite and struggle only in certain given conditions. This means that the contradictions which give rise to languages, when simplified to communal-labor etc, already require certain pre-conditions, such as a certain amount of organization, the overall evolutionary development of the species, its relation to its surroundings and all. That is why, ants and bees, who have engaged in a form of communal labour since many millions of years earlier than the appearance of the first human beings, can communicate only with crude postures and chemicals.

Thus your desperate reactionary attempt to prove Marxism wrong fails in this thread too.

Every system undergoes both qualitative and quantitative transformations. However, even qualitative transformations might be extremely slow, in which case, it is required to break down the qualitative transformation itself into more quantitative and qualitative transformations. For example, a new democratic revolution is a qualitative transformation. But it might take decades to complete itself. Hence we divide it into three stages; strategic defensive, equilibrium and offensive. However, it is also very difficult to say when one such stage ends and another begins. So we further divide each stage into many battles, organization of Soviets, setting up of liberated zones etc.

Similarly, in case of language and signaling, exact demarcation might not be possible, and in the course of studying this, we might find ourselves characterizing notable changes by the advent of a new symbol or word.

Say what you will, but this is how things work. :)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red Cat:


Fine. This is my last post in this thread. Since the only thing you care about is making the last post while you are in a debate, I hope that you will be contended with posting a mockery in response to this post of mine. I am okay with that. Other users will possibly engage in further discussion in this thread while ignoring your spam.

Not so; there are thousands of threads here where mine is not the last post.


The latest qualitative development of Marxism is MLM, which states that particular opposites unite and struggle only in certain given conditions. This means that the contradictions which give rise to languages, when simplified to communal-labor etc, already require certain pre-conditions, such as a certain amount of organization, the overall evolutionary development of the species, its relation to its surroundings and all. That is why, ants and bees, who have engaged in a form of communal labour since many millions of years earlier than the appearance of the first human beings, can communicate only with crude postures and chemicals.

In fact, bees merely signal to one another.

However, there is much in what you with which I agree (if you leave out all that self-serving MLM stuff).

That should get you booted out of your miniscule 'party'...:lol:


Thus your desperate reactionary attempt to prove Marxism wrong fails in this thread too.

Where have I tried to prove Marxism wrong? And why are determined to send every thread off-topic?

Anyway, you are the one who has sought to throw doubt on Marx and Engels' theory that language is a social not a biological product.


Every system undergoes both qualitative and quantitative transformations. However, even qualitative transformations might be extremely slow, in which case, it is required to break down the qualitative transformation itself into more quantitative and qualitative transformations. For example, a new democratic revolution is a qualitative transformation. But it might take decades to complete itself. Hence we divide it into three stages; strategic defensive, equilibrium and offensive. However, it is also very difficult to say when one such stage ends and another begins. So we further divide each stage into many battles, organization of Soviets, setting up of liberated zones etc.

In fact there are many systems that do not undergo this sort of change. Several are listed here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/stalin-materialism-t66588/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/quantity-quality-t66709/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/quantity-quality-t66709/index.html?t=66709

And in extensive detail here:

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/page%2007.htm


Similarly, in case of language and signalling, exact demarcation might not be possible, and in the course of studying this, we might find ourselves characterizing notable changes by the advent of a new symbol or word.

Say what you will, but this is how things work

So you say, but the facts say otherwise.