Guest guest Posted June 18, 2001 Report Share Posted June 18, 2001 Grammatical language is communicated by chimps?. I know this research, and linguists do not accept chimp communication as grammatical language. (Try talking to a chimp about 'addiction'!) Even honey bees communicate, of course. Communication does NOT make culture. Culture can be defined as a grammatically-based communication system that allows trans-generational accumulation with ever-increasing data storage and informational complexity. Chimps - like all mammals, though a bit more so with hominoids - do pass on information, both to the extant group, and trans-generationally. But there is absolutely no evidence of CUMULATIVE information over generations. Chimps today are found in feeding bands with about as much behavioral complexity as palentologists assume they had a million years ago. A million years ago Homo erectus was barely using fire. Humans today are a bit beyond the fire-using stage. . Grammatical language accounts for this increase in information storage capacity. Just as only some molecules are capable of biological evolution, so only some cognitive systems are capable of cultural evolution. The areas of cognitive science and linguistics that explain how and why humans suddenly became able to store huge quantities of information, while chimps seem unable to move beyond learning a few hundred rather simple symbol-elements, all focus on rules and grammar. You are studying programming. It isn't data entry that is the key, it is the RULE SYSTEM that classifies the data that is the key. Chimps do deal with data, and can even associate classes of data with simple symbol categories. But they fail to show any evidence of being able to formulate a complex rule-system - the kind of thing lingusts call a 'grammar'. This activity takes place, in humans, in the pre-frontal cortex. All you guys seem to want to turn people into lab rats. You want to ignore the values and thought of those you seek to push around. Typical totalitarian games. Like the fascists, you want to describe people as animals so that you can treat them like animals. The science does not support you. Re: ragge > > > > > > > > > > > > Our differences are not specific enough to > > > > > be > > > > > > 'ideological'. They are > > > > > > basic, and driven by one, single value: > > > > > > > > > > > > You insist 'addiction' results from a > > > > > flaw inside the > > > > > > individual. > > > > > > > > > > > > I insist that bad habits (NOT > > > > > 'addictions'!) result from > > > > > > flawed, though > > > > > > understandable, attempts to adjust to social > > > > > stress and > > > > > > social pain. > > > > > > > > > > > > That is the entire debate. > > > > > > > > > > > > Whooaaaah. Hold your horses. Not so fast there. > > > > > I insist it is > > > > > > neither. People become chemically dependent due > > > > > to habituated > > > > > > pleasure seeking. Pure and simple. Both you guys > > > > > are dead wrong. DT > > > > > > > > > > , > > > > > > > > > > Do you think it is always " habituated pleasure > > > > > seeking. " Did you read > > > > > Mona's post of the series of unbearable tragedies > > > > > that struck her that > > > > > led her to excessive drinking? > > > > > > > > > > It is not at all unusual, for example, for someone > > > > > whose spouse dies to > > > > > begin and continue self-destructive drinking. Do > > > > > you think it is a > > > > > correct characterize them as " pleasure seeking " ? > > > > > The truth of the > > > > > matter is that they are trying to escape terrible > > > > > pain. > > > > > > > > > > Ken > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.