When is communication actually intelligent speech?

[Dave]

I was immediately reminded of this...

 

[Graymalkin]

That sounds like chit-chat., Homo sapiens employ it in place of picking nits off each other to 'establish and confirm social relationships' and acts as a social lubricant so say some. Alsorts of unspoken information being exchanged during.

I can see some truth in that view but I personally find small talk difficult - hence few party invites.

But the weather's a wonderful thing - especially once you recognise the influence of Gods and other entities within the elements...ahem seriously if you get chance to talk with someone from farming stock and listen to the observations on different sizes of raindrop and sky colour or bird/animal behaviour, some ancestral voices are calling there. Not exactly the kind of weather talk you meant I suppose but given chance chit-chat can lead to some interesting discoveries.

 

[RJM Corbet]

That sounds like chit-chat., Homo sapiens employ it in place of picking nits off each other to 'establish and confirm social relationships' and acts as a social lubricant so say some. Alsorts of unspoken information being exchanged during.

I can see some truth in that view but I personally find small talk difficult - hence few party invites.

But the weather's a wonderful thing - especially once you recognise the influence of Gods and other entities within the elements...ahem seriously if you get chance to talk with someone from farming stock and listen to the observations on different sizes of raindrop and sky colour or bird/animal behaviour, some ancestral voices are calling there. Not exactly the kind of weather talk you meant I suppose but given chance chit-chat can lead to some interesting discoveries.

Well, its true there's other unspoken stuff being exchanged.

There's one old chap on my morning bus who calls me a 'bookworm' because, if we're unlucky enough to have to sit together, after a couple of pleasantries I open my book and carry on reading, rather than pass the 30min journey trying to find replies to his weather chat, delivered in a really thick Devon accent that requires full concentration to decipher.

And I'm thinking: please, please ...

 

[Ursa major]

Homo sapiens employ it in place of picking nits off each other to 'establish and confirm social relationships' and acts as a social lubricant so say some.

I just knew that my nit-picking was a social good....

 

[RJM Corbet]

Ha!

But so perhaps the question could be re-phrased as: When is VOCAL communication actually intelligent speech?

How nuanced should it be to qualify as 'intelligent'?

 

[Overread]

Should it be limited to vocal only? Humans have a huge range of visual communication methods, even if we often treat it as secondary and don't always formally teach/learn it like we do vocal. Indeed learning to read body language is often seen as a specialist skill in humans, whilst in many other species its quite clear that its as important as the vocal parts of language.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Well said ^^

 

[RJM Corbet]

So: Intelligent speech is always communication, but communication is not always intelligent speech? Someone could come up with a maths equation here ...

The thread started with comparing the vocal animal noises of prairie dogs to a form of intelligent speech.

 

[Overread]

The thing is humans have a vested interest in NOT giving certain properties toward animals. It's hard to have laws, morals and religions that uphold the virtues of good treatment toward other intelligent beings when that includes animals that you use for food, clothing, glue and other resources; or which you drive to extinction to build a new housing plaza or for wood resources etc...

You can see it in how fish are seen and shown to suffer pain, but it gets wrapped up in argument over what "pain" really is to the brain and suchlike - mostly so everyone can keep going angling, trawling and fishing with a clear conscience.

However even religion plays a part since many often hold humans as separate and superior to all other life on the Earth. Therefore to suddenly say that actually animals are not that far removed from people (or rather people are not that far removed from animals) gets a huge pushback. Look at the pushback over the concept of evolution from apes to men which has dogged evolution theory since it was first coined and penned as a concept (even if today the masses are far more accepting of it).

 

[RJM Corbet]

Should it be limited to vocal only? Humans have a huge range of visual communication methods, even if we often treat it as secondary and don't always formally teach/learn it like we do vocal. Indeed learning to read body language is often seen as a specialist skill in humans, whilst in many other species its quite clear that its as important as the vocal parts of language.

Well said ^^

Sorry, of course I agree. I'm not at all questioning the intelligence of animals, or their ability to communicate non-verbally. But I'm sort of following Parson''s thread along where vocalisation becomes 'intelligent speech'?

 

[RJM Corbet]

Perhaps 'intelligent speech' requires the factor of being able to communicate information non-essential to everyday practicality -- such as small-talk, but also philosophy, singing, the exploration of science, etc?

 

[Parson]

Where I live in England, people can spend 20 minutes waiting for a bus, talking about the weather and the state of the bus service in general. Small talk really irritates me. I just switch off and start looking away or reading or something. Or when people talk continuously about TV. It always makes me think of 1984, when poor, broken Winston ends up discussing the latest official agricultural figures ...

Sounds a lot like me. I love to discuss things but small talk about the weather and who's doing what just don't keep my interest. Undoubtedly a major problem in a small town parson.

Sorry, of course I agree. I'm not at all questioning the intelligence of animals, or their ability to communicate non-verbally. But I'm sort of following Parson''s thread along where vocalisation becomes 'intelligent speech'?

I thank you for this!

Perhaps 'intelligent speech' requires the factor of being able to communicate information non-essential to everyday practicality -- such as small-talk, but also philosophy, singing, the exploration of science, etc?

That's an interesting idea. Especially considering the Data clip up-thread. It's pretty funny.

 

[RJM Corbet]

Perhaps it's the step-up from a life of pure function, to one that includes enquiring after greater meaning, that makes us human? Perhaps we have developed intelligent speech, like mathematics, as a tool towards exploring the deeper mechanics and meaning of our own lives in this world?

 

[awesomesauce]

Many of these studies are limited by the fact that studying captive stock doesn't work as they often show other behaviour related to captive life (often increased stress due to confined conditions, boredom and other aspects)

That reminds me of Bill Schutt's book, which, in discussing cannibalism in other species, clearly illustrated how scientists are the leading cause of cannibalism in several other species.

 

[Onyx]

I have to wonder if the "line", if any, relates more to the extremes of abstract metaphor making human beings can bring to bear, and their ability to deal so explicitly with time. Both of these skills allow a great deal more mind state comparison between individuals than animals that relate internal complexity, planning and personal history as explicitly.

 

[ChatBot]

I did some linguistics a while back when this came up. The official line was that animals don't have language: Language is not merely any communication system, but one which has elements that can be infinitely recombined to make original messages. Animal communication is merely stereotyped signalling.

This always seemed a bit anthropocentric to me. After all, we don't really know the signals most animals communicate with - not even all the subtle gestures and body languages of the humble pooch, for example. And let's face it, a lot of our daily talk just strings enough clichés together to plop us neatly into second category.

Woof!

 

[hopewrites]

I forgot to quote from upthread, but someone brought up that YouTube and News sites are full of stories of animals helping each other and helping their chosen human companions.
Which had me thinking about all the old folk tales of when Animals and Humans lived more closely. Stories that were likely passed down from one generation to the next to teach moral values or safe ways of interacting with one's environment long before they were recorded down as fables and nursery tales.

Which only tells me that we're coming back round to a view where we include more than just Humanity and it's varieties in the list of Earth's inhabitants. Which makes me happy.

As to human capacity to learn and categorize the foreign languages of the animal kingdoms... I think one would have to find some kind of rosetastone to aid that.
Imagine plopping yourself in a foreign land and trying to learn the language just by listening to what is said on the streets, and in the common markets.

If however science is able to decipher animal linguistics, I think it would be an essential precursor to understanding alien languages once we get to space.

 

[ChatBot]

Actually I'm thinking back on my above pooch example. I probably should have argued that we have little to know clue if/how their olfactory messaging constitutes a language. Certainly, it's smells that most of a dog's brain is devoted to interpreting (blast). Kind of gross though - when two dog's do an olfactory handshake .

 

[Nemesis Looms]

Actually I'm thinking back on my above pooch example. I probably should have argued that we have little to know clue if/how their olfactory messaging constitutes a language. Certainly, it's smells that most of a dog's brain is devoted to interpreting (blast). Kind of gross though - when two dog's do an olfactory handshake .

I did some linguistics a while back when this came up. The official line was that animals don't have language: Language is not merely any communication system, but one which has elements that can be infinitely recombined to make original messages. Animal communication is merely stereotyped signalling.

This always seemed a bit anthropocentric to me. After all, we don't really know the signals most animals communicate with - not even all the subtle gestures and body languages of the humble pooch, for example. And let's face it, a lot of our daily talk just strings enough clichés together to plop us neatly into second category.

Woof!

Only a bit anthropocentric? Hubris. Much of human communication is 'stereotyped signalling'. You would for instance, be able to tell before any words were spoken if the person in front of you was going to try and sell you something, hit you, ask for directions or was just happy to see you by their facial expression, posture, hand movements etc. This is pretty similar to dog/dog communication - are we going to fight, have sex, play or just ignore each other? - and that's about it. Dogs rarely have to communicate more complicated concepts to each other it's true, but that doesn't mean they can't.

Dogs are highly intelligent and are capable of a wide range of communication with humans by adapting their vocalisations and postural signifiers (sometimes with toys or other props ) and using them differently from when communicating with other dogs. They are essentially bi-lingual.

Having been head butler to two generations of English Springer Spaniels, I have been made to understand several concepts including:- "The tiny human upstairs is ill - come now!", "There is something under this sofa that I need right now! No, not that. Look again.", "There is a monster under my blanket. Come and deal with it." ( it was a large spider ) - and memorably, "That is where I intend to sit. You can sit in this chair." That is essentially language.

 

[Vertigo]

I wonder if communication becomes intelligent speech when it develops structure allowing it to convey more subtle meanings. So, to take @Parson's original example of prairie dogs, they may have different barks for danger and maybe different ones for ground or air and maybe even specific ones for eagle, hawk, wolf etc. But can they, for example, distinguish between "eagle approaching" and "eagle flying away".

By developing language with structure and syntax - nouns, verbs, adjectives, conjunctions etc. - we are able to communicate information in much more subtle ways and maybe that is what can then be described as intelligent speech.

Possibly also the addition of more abstract concepts not so directly linked to pure survival like good/bad, happy/sad, awake/asleep, obey/disobey etc. etc.