Humans as Non-Animal: Can any inferences be drawn?

[Jokodo]

There is only one species called "humans".

 Human (disambiguation) offers "any member of the genus Homo" as one possible meaning of the "human" (while  Human is about homo sapiens).

The controlled use of fire almost certainly predates homo sapiens, but it equally certainly doesn't predate homo. Altering landscapes' fire regimes (by setting fire to the grass regularly in the dry season to prevent fuel buildup and bush encroachment) probably doesn't predate homo sapiens.

 

[untermensche]

Turkana Boy

They say this guy lived about 1.5 to 1.6 million years ago.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkana_Boy

It looks like the boy was somewhere between the ages of 8 to 12.

They say Homo erectus could reach a height of 6'1".

 

[Jokodo]

Turkana Boy

They say this guy lived about 1.5 to 1.6 million years ago.

View attachment 34026

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkana_Boy

It looks like the boy was somewhere between the ages of 8 to 12.

They say Homo erectus could reach a height of 6'1".

You seem to be saying that he is unambiguously not human, under any plausible definition of "human"?

 

[untermensche]

I am saying the opposite.

I am saying the lad looks very human.

He did not have the language capacity though.

 

[Jokodo]

I am saying the opposite.

I am saying the lad looks very human.

He did not have the language capacity though.

You said "There is only one species called "humans"." Hes not commonly accepted as a member of our species.

You previously said that control of fire predates human. Good evidence that it predates him is scarce at best.

 

[untermensche]

I am saying the opposite.

I am saying the lad looks very human.

He did not have the language capacity though.

You said "There is only one species called "humans"." Hes not commonly accepted as a member of our species.

You previously said that control of fire predates human. Good evidence that it predates him is scarce at best.

Homo is a genus, not a species.

Members of the same species can produce offspring that can reproduce.

 

[Politesse]

I am saying the opposite.

I am saying the lad looks very human.

He did not have the language capacity though.

You said "There is only one species called "humans"." Hes not commonly accepted as a member of our species.

You previously said that control of fire predates human. Good evidence that it predates him is scarce at best.

Homo is a genus, not a species.

Members of the same species can produce offspring that can reproduce.

We absolutely reproduced with H. erectus. Indeed, most people believe that H. sapiens evolved directly from an H. erectus population in the first place.

 

[Jokodo]

I am saying the opposite.

I am saying the lad looks very human.

He did not have the language capacity though.

You said "There is only one species called "humans"." Hes not commonly accepted as a member of our species.

You previously said that control of fire predates human. Good evidence that it predates him is scarce at best.

Homo is a genus, not a species.

So you say you're contradicting what you wrote earlier?

Ok.

 

[untermensche]

It all depends on what you think is important.

I personally don't think you have a human until you have the language capacity.

A lot of people would agree with that.

 

[untermensche]

Homo is a genus, not a species.

So you say you're contradicting what you wrote earlier?

Ok.

Only if I accept a loose definition of human.

I don't accept that the shape of the skeleton is what makes up a human.

A human has language.

Look around.

 

[Jokodo]

Homo is a genus, not a species.

So you say you're contradicting what you wrote earlier?

Ok.

Only if I accept a loose definition of human.

I don't accept that the shape of the skeleton is what makes up a human.

A human has language.

Look around.

So when you wrote that "The use of fire predates humans. So you are talking about an environment shaped by an animal like a human for a long time." you were really trying to say that the use of fire as a tool to shape habitats long predates language in our ancestry?

What's your evidence for that claim? When did our ancestors start to control fire, in a meaningful sense, and when did they start to develop language, in a meaningful sense? And how do you know?

Please be specific. I'm but a mere linguist, but I've had good conversations with who I consider to be the top expert on the origins of language from a biological perspective, and he agrees with me that a lot of that is still an open research question.

Also, how do you pass down the knowledge about how to burn the bush without jeopardizing the camp without language?

 

[Jokodo]

Btw, let's get back on topic. This thread has been untered beyond recognition.

 

[untermensche]

Only if I accept a loose definition of human.

I don't accept that the shape of the skeleton is what makes up a human.

A human has language.

Look around.

So when you wrote that "The use of fire predates humans. So you are talking about an environment shaped by an animal like a human for a long time." you were really trying to say that the use of fire as a tool to shape habitats long predates language in our ancestry?

What's your evidence for that claim? When did our ancestors start to control fire, in a meaningful sense, and when did they start to develop language, in a meaningful sense? And how do you know?

Please be specific. I'm but a mere linguist, but I've had good conversations with who I consider to be the top expert on the origins of language from a biological perspective, and he agrees with me that a lot of that is still an open research question.

Also, how do you pass down the knowledge about how to burn the bush without jeopardizing the camp without language?

Who is this top expert?

You can have communication with sound and gesture before you have language. You can scream "fire" before you have language. You can have labels before you have language.

I think there is some evidence that first you have humans and then later you quickly have the emergence of language, at least you see the rapid emergence of more varied and modern artifacts.

Starting about 65,000 to 50,000 years ago, more advanced technology started appearing: complex projectile weapons such as bows and spear-throwers, fishhooks, ceramics, sewing needles.

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/11/04/evolutions-great-leap-forward-when-did-humans-cross-the-intelligence-rubicon/

Merge is a controversial belief by some that human language faculty arose in humans through a single gene mutation, rather the evolving gradually.

This human burst of genetic exceptionalism is embraced by some linguists, such as Noam Chomsky, but the science community has doubts.

https://www.science20.com/news_staff/merge_did_human_language_evolve_due_to_a_mutation-245513

 

[untermensche]

Btw, let's get back on topic. This thread has been untered beyond recognition.

It has been excreted upon, "Jokodoed"

 

[untermensche]

What separates humans from mere "animals" is the combined human language abilities; understanding, speaking, reading, writing, combined with the human cognitive abilities. This is what allows for the rapid cultural advancement of humans that is not seen in any other animal.

But language has to be distinguished from mere communication with sound or gesture.

A dog can learn to associate a sound with something else.

A gorilla can be taught to associate hand gestures with other things.

But neither are language.

The rate of change of gorilla or dog (wolf) culture in the wild is extremely slow as a result.

The animal that predated humans but did not have language was not lost. It had communication with sound and gesture. It could get ideas across, like how to make a weapon through demonstration and then mimicry.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Cetacean Translation Initiative: a roadmap to deciphering the communication of sperm whales

 

[untermensche]

Chomsky talks about language-like expressions from some whales and some song birds.

Chomsky believes the human language capacity appeared recently, about 50 to 60,000 years ago, and was possibly the result of a single mutation.

He does not agree with the idea of a slow gradual development of the language capacity.

He makes a sharp distinction between communication with sound and language.

He says language has hierarchical structure although we must express it linearly.

 

[steve_bank]

I don't see how it is a view.

Unless you are an Abrahamic based religious creationist, we evolved like everything else.


We are known to be genetically linked to other creatures.

From my 50s 60s era primary seduction back then we were different by virtue of opposing thumb and forefinger, tool making, and speech.

Other critters fashion tools and effectively communicate.

The way things are going the way our brains are wired may deselect us for survival.

Agressive, violent, territorial animals with weapons of mas killing.

 

[untermensche]

Chomsky proposes that a single gene mutation caused a "rewiring" of the brain. A gene that controlled a lot of other genes changed and caused cells to arrange themselves very differently.

He proposes that this rewiring did not initially create a language. It initially ordered thoughts and allowed the animal with the mutation to think better.

Because this gene caused the animal to think better the animals with it eventually dominated.

The rewiring, he calls it the language capacity, is what allows a person to learn a language at an age they can't learn much else.

Chomsky also claims that since there are only individual and not group differences in language acquisition abilities the language capacity has not evolved since it appeared.

 

[bilby]

Cetacean Translation Initiative: a roadmap to deciphering the communication of sperm whales