evolutionary psychology

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, here's the thing that puzzles me. Evolutionary psychology doesn't state, in any way shape or form - that we're simply apes with language. Evolutionary psychology is the contention that we (we, as in, our mental states or native apprehensions) are at least the sum of all of our parts. We don't think the things we do because we can talk. We talk about those things the way we do because we're the kind of animal that we are.

We'd talk and hear a different way if we were different - and, as a matter of fact we do. The tiny bones in our middle ear have been put under selective pressure by the languages we speak. Or by something else, which just so happens to broadly correlate to language groups. We aren't really sure, it;s a best guess - because we're a best guessing kind of animal (add that to the list).

Sure, we're apes with speech, but that relies on novel adaptations to neural control over vocal tract muscles. The way we speak and the way we hear influence the way we think - and both of those things are in turn influenced by some physical and inheritable structure. More than this, our base apprehension of life is as a terrestrial bipedal mammal with opposable thumbs. That covers alot. We would expect our views and our speech about the world as we see it to be vstly different if we had..for example...just the eight fingers..no thumbs. If we could fly. If we could breath water. If our forelimbs were occupied with walking. On and on. There's no simple about it, no one thing about it. Simple passed -all- life by billions of years ago. The difference between our animal mind and other animal minds, we suspect, is as different as we are as animals. Grunting out a sound that other animals recognize as denoting "dad" is something that alot of animals do.

Even plants talk to each other.

We probably don't disagree as much as you imagine, but you've reduced a broad and open field to jingoism with that statement (and..fwiw, that's something that evolutionary psychologists would just -love- to be able to explain..why we do that). If I had to guess, your statement that we're just animals with language is meant to be taken in comparison to some other claim - but I don't know what that claim is - and there's nothing in your speech to clue me in to what that's supposed to be - meanwhile..outside of that context..the phrase is either a deepity or demonstrably false. We do and are alot more than language. We've taught other apes languages that they can use to communicate with us. Didn't make any of them human.

[evolcon]

Well, here's the thing that puzzles me.  Evolutionary psychology doesn't state, in any way shape or form - that we're simply apes with language.  Evolutionary psychology is the contention that we (we, as in, our mental states or native apprehensions) are at least the sum of all of our parts.  We don't think the things we do because we can talk.  We talk about those things the way we do because we're the kind of animal that we are.  

We'd talk and hear a different way if we were different - and, as a matter of fact we do.  The tiny bones in our middle ear have been put under selective pressure by the languages we speak.  Or by something else, which just so happens to broadly correlate to language groups.  We aren't really sure, it;s a best guess - because we're a best guessing kind of animal (add that to the list).

Sure, we're apes with speech, but that relies on novel adaptations to neural control over vocal tract muscles.  The way we speak and the way we hear influence the way we think - and both of those things are in turn influenced by some physical and inheritable structure.  More than this, our base apprehension of life is as a terrestrial bipedal mammal with opposable thumbs.  That covers alot.  We would expect our views and our speech about the world as we see it to be vstly different if we had..for example...just the eight fingers..no thumbs.  If we could fly.  If we could breath water.  If our forelimbs were occupied with walking.  On and on.  There's no simple about it, no one thing about it.  Simple passed -all- life by billions of years ago.  The difference between our animal mind and other animal minds, we suspect, is as different as we are as animals.  Grunting out a sound that other animals recognize as denoting "dad" is something that alot of animals do.  

Even plants talk to each other.  

We probably don't disagree as much as you imagine, but you've reduced a broad and open field to jingoism with that statement (and..fwiw, that's something that evolutionary psychologists would just -love- to be able to explain..why we do that).  If I had to guess, your statement that we're just animals with language is meant to be taken in comparison to some other claim - but I don't know what that claim is - and there's nothing in your speech to clue me in to what that's supposed to be - meanwhile..outside of that context..the phrase is either a deepity or demonstrably false. We do and are alot more than language.  We've taught other apes languages that they can use to communicate with us.  Didn't make any of them human.

Human 

 As for Apes learning language, you might look at the criticism by linguists like Pinker, Chomsky and others

[evolcon]

Human complex language is very different, it's not just the spoken word. language allows humans access to their stored memory, in other animals memory is only accessed by current sensory impute, human can in essence select their thoughts.

[brewer]

Human complex language is very different, it's not just the spoken word. language allows humans access to their stored memory, in other animals memory is only accessed by current sensory impute, human can in essence select their thoughts.

(bold) Incorrect.

[vulcanlogician]

Human complex language is very different, it's not just the spoken word. language allows humans access to their stored memory, in other animals memory is only accessed by current sensory impute, human can in essence select their thoughts.

I see what you mean: language allows us to conceptualize things... or at the very least aids the process of conceptualization. The link to memory might be a stickier issue. We understand so little about how memory works. Some might contend that the dependence of language on memory is somewhat unverified.

The senses for instance (like smell, for example) can trigger memories more profoundly than words or ideas.

[evolcon]

Yes, the senses, all senses, will trigger many thing, they are evolved survival mechanism, any animal including humans, that cannot recognize it's predator, whether by sight. smell or sound is soon to be another animal's lunch.

[evolcon]

The origin of language is still debated, both as to when and why, But to use language we need to recall words rapidly. Words are part of our reality, and words, through cross modal representation, are linked to images, sounds and odors, Due to our language skill we can select, and we can choose. This is what we call thought. Language gave us the human mind, and it is the human mind that caused the explosive growth of the human species.

[The Grand Nudger]

Plants don't need any intermediary recall step. Botanic language is a series of chemical triggers. They can't be lied to, and they have no means to lie, themselves. They faithfully report the contents of their comprehensively evolved sensory systems.

They were talking before there was such a thing as a spinal chord..and yet, they're still not human. Seems like it might take more to make one of us, evolutionarily speaking.

[evolcon]

I have no idea of what you mean. are you using your own definition of language? can you elaborate.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure.

Languages are tools we use to communicate. They're generally shared between members of a population (or between similar designs when we think of artificial things) in order to facilitate that communication. A great deal of communication both within ourselves and within the wider world of life is chemical or physical, rather than verbal or written.

There are plants that emit specific VOCs when they are damaged or encounter a particular predator - not only do other plants receive that information and begin producing toxins or otherwise preparing for predation themselves...there are species that prey on those predators and home in on the VOCs the plants produce.

Just as we might grunt and wave our hands and understand it between each other, and those same sounds and gestures might even be sensible to another species - not of this talking with any of these languages appears to make anything human, not even us.

As to the human mind causing our explosive growth - IDK. We were anatomically modern 100k years ago, behavioral modernity hit 50k years ago, but the vast majority of all human growth has occurred just within living memory. Unless we got them in the last few generations then something else..or, more accurately, an immense range of other things and, sure, including language and mind, might better explain the growth of our species.