Are there any non-human animals that can (anatomically) talk?
Like, say, if they had Einstein's brain and could easily think of sentences and words.
Could a dog, wolf, lion, gorilla speak?
Are there any non-human animals that can (anatomically) talk?
Hoover the seal could imitate speech.
>a potential nice thread ruined by a schizo again
frick off freaks
Why aren't you off in one of the few hundred threads I haven't ruined then?
I think you hate the threads I haven't ruined, and love to complain about the ones I have.
ITT: Paleoschizo replying to himself, mostly making shit up
he FETISHIZES this belief that humans are not smart, humans are not learning animals, all other animals are as good or better, and it goes down until...
He postulates his magnum opus
Hominids "evolved to be" primate livestock for big cats. Which he finds extremely sexual.
remember when his mania was lesser and he posted that "this is evolooshun, ur not invited" picture? kek
kek what are you gays even talking about?
"My" magnum opus is just a repeat of "The Bell Curve" as applied to other animals and thus AI. My argument is that all intelligence is like human intelligence, as seen by speech and tool use in other animals. There is no other possible form, it evolves the same way every time.
This implies that limits to human intelligence will also be encountered in other animals, and in AI
and since the goal of AI is to create a superhuman intelligence, it implies that this goal can't be reached.
Any hyperintelligence is going to be schizophrenic, or nihilistic, or both.
and even if it's not schizo, nobody alive will be able to understand it, so we'll label it crazy and toss it in a corner to be ignored.
>we'll label it crazy and toss it in a corner to be ignored.
maybe bring it out of storage and let it post on Wauf on the weekends
We could just create 2 superhuman linguistic intelligences and let them speak to each other.
but I believe that's already been tried. We shut them down fast.
We've already had AI chatbots talking to eachother invent their own undecipherable languages
yeah, that's what I'm saying.
we're not going to be able to understand any superhuman AI language. We already know that.
Schrodinger - genius, sex addict
This guy - egotistical moron, believes his virginity is involuntary to mask that he is actually homosex
?si=FYPKcbUq2jaSuOct
Birds
brain is an anatomical part, moron.
Sperm whales are the only ones with brains that have the right equipment for it. It's kind of surprising at this point that they don't.
>Sperm whales are the only ones with brains that have the right equipment for it.
absolute bullshit
Real schizo hours but does this really answer the question at hand
Since T-Rex had lips, could it talk?
>Since T-Rex had lips, could it talk?
lips aren't necessary to speech.
but if we pretend lips are necessary, no
their lips weren't mobile enough if they existed
more importantly they lacked the parts of the brain used for language entirely.
corvids, elephants, apes, dolphins, humans
they all have a part of the brain T. rex didn't have.
The part used for imagination and speech
Interestingly enough corvids are theropod dinosaurs fairly closely related to T. rex. But their brains differ primarily in the parts that matter to speech and intelligence.
presumably because birds needed a lot of imagination to navigate in the sky. T. rex not so much.
Of course apes and magpies didn't evolve this brain part from a common ancestor
they evolved it completely independently of each other
meaning speech exists in a part of the brain that is the same in every animal. The brain HAD to evolve a certain way to produce speech. And it did it more than once.
>The brain HAD to evolve a certain way to produce speech. And it did it more than once.
indicating that this evolution is a NORMAL outcome of evolution.
If humans didn't do it, some other animal would have. Probably several of them. It was inevitable.
>If humans didn't do it, some other animal would have. Probably several of them. It was inevitable.
and not just speech
the same part of the brain regulates intelligence, consciousness, tool use.
these things are normal evolutionary outcomes. They've happened several times, not just in humans.
this is why intelligent alien life is not just a possibility, it's an inevitability. As to why we've never encountered it as far as we know, there's a few possible good reasons.
>there's a few possible good reasons.
the most obvious is an animal evolved to look for tools where none can exist. That is the end of that.
a chimp has no use for spears or bushbabbies in a land with no sticks or bushbabbies. A human has no use for intelligent language on Wauf.
there are limits to the usefulness of any evolution.
Purpose itself requires the owner to search for purpose where none has been found before.
If I say,
>there is no purpose here
then I risk the possibility that there IS purpose here and I can't find it.
so there is no limit placed, even when there should be.
I should say,
>nobody here can understand these words,
and move on.
but that ignores the possibility that I'm wrong and someone here CAN understand.
language like other meanings and purposes cannot limit itself. If it limits itself it dies. If it does not limit itself it also dies, but for a different reason.
purpose can die of being too narrow, or too broad.
both are equally deadly. Both spell the end of the purpose. Language has a target, but it cannot be too focused or too broad.
purpose properly focused consumes itself, and once consumed it must be reborn. This is the true ancient mystery. not the cycles of nature, but the cycles of purpose.
If I need to tell you that a jaguar is behind you,
and I properly tell you that a jaguar is behind you
and you escape the jaguar behind you
my purpose is consumed, and I must find a new purpose. Because purpose didn't evolve to be used once and thrown away. I need my words not just to tell you about the jaguar behind you, but for millions of other things as well. This is a cycle.
the fact that the cycle has no limits is what destroys it. I begin speaking words nobody understands because I evolved to speak. Eventually all purpose finds itself in places where it has no purpose.
blessed are the chimps and the fools for they will never reach the limits of their own evolution and see the void beyond.
Blessed are the aliens that killed themselves and every other intelligent creature on their planets rather than face the limits of their own purpose.
we chimps did this
but if we chimps didn't do this, something else would
maybe octopus, maybe racoons. Maybe dogs or whales or elephants or crows. Something would have ended life on earth with language, tools, and purpose.
when I say no animal uses tools, I mean no animal builds thermonuclear weapons
when I say no animal uses language, I mean no animal writes novels that move other animals to do this or that
It's not that animals don't do these things, they simply don't do them as we do. It's obvious where tool use or language or consciousness came from. But it's not obvious why humans have so much of it while other animals have so little. Aside from the likelihood that tool use and language are diseases, not just advantages
an advantage that turns deadly becomes a disease. A spear might be an advantage, a nuclear weapon is a disease. It concerns extent.
>A spear might be an advantage, a nuclear weapon is a disease. It concerns extent.
likewise language can be an advantage or a disease
but for language to be either an advantage or disease,
others must understand it.
and that's Wauf's greatest talent. Being a gaggle of morons, they don't understand language.
learning how to speak to the morons on Wauf means being able to influence morons with words. Whether for advantage or disease.
You are NOT describing what it means to be human. You are describing the process of developing schizophrenia.
genius and schizophrenia are basically the same things.
one however recognizes reality, while the other denies it.
if you don't see the reality of my words you're neither genius nor schizo.
A+B+D+C=Z
if Z is not necessary then A, B, D, AND C, are also not necessary
the problem with this is it implies to the human mind that Z MUST ALSO BE NECESSARY to some larger purpose. The equation lacks limits.
and it is the question of what we're doing Z for that destroys consciousness and language. The lack of limits. The concept that a thing can be its own purpose, and not part of a larger purpose. This kills species that evolve language, and there's good reason to believe it's a natural, innate evolution.
the simple fact that crows can take 2 parts to make a whole and use that whole for a purpose proves that purpose isn't limited by its parts.
>the simple fact that crows can take 2 parts to make a whole and use that whole for a purpose proves that purpose isn't limited by its parts.
given enough time and intelligence,
crows would also wonder what's the purpose of that purpose. What is the larger purpose?
this deals with language, but also with simple intelligence, and how it breaks things into their parts to deal with problems.
the problem any intelligence will run into
>what does it all mean?
is unanswerable
we evolved to seek something that doesn't exist. Or create it.
like monkeys that evolved to look for bananas in a world with no bananas. It's a dead end. A very limited tool. Useful in very narrow scope, and dangerous outside that scope.
the lack of human type language or tool use is apparently due to lack of progress, but could just as well be because human type language and tool use is ultimately deadly to the ones doing it.
This raises the question,
>If language is deadly, how do humans survive it?
Wauf gives a stellar answer:
most humans don't understand language most of the time. We see what we want to see, not what's actually there. We project ourselves onto the words of others by habit and by nature.
Confirmed schizo
all that schizo talk sprouted from a T-Rex lips question lmao
Wauf as always gives a perfect response
>schizo
in real life the facial foramen of T. rex is too small to allow speech via lips even if the forebrain was present.
it's not.
The real question concerns the hypoglossal
but nobody here understands that problem, do they?
fricking savages
absolute morons.
how do you speak with no tongue?
get down on those fish bits
OP asks about the anatomy of speech
nobody on Wauf speaks of the hypoglossal
this board is fricking worthless shit.
>The hypoglossal nerve is the twelfth paired cranial nerve. Its name is derived from ancient Greek, 'hypo' meaning under, and 'glossal' meaning tongue. The nerve has a purely somatic motor function, innervating all the extrinsic and intrinsic muscles of the tongue (except the palatoglossus, innervated by vagus nerve).
schizophrenia is when I have conversations with myself and I start naming the other personalities and start using third person pronouns.
No, this
>my purpose is consumed, and I must find a new purpose. Because purpose didn't evolve to be used once and thrown away. I need my words not just to tell you about the jaguar behind you, but for millions of other things as well. This is a cycle.
>the fact that the cycle has no limits is what destroys it. I begin speaking words nobody understands because I evolved to speak. Eventually all purpose finds itself in places where it has no purpose.
Is a first person narration of a schizophrenic descending into a manic episode.
You communicate with the typical affect of a schizophrenic experiencing mania.
Pic related, a manifesto penned by a schizo. Do some of the communication patterns feel familiar? They should be, and beyond, if you're a schizo your pattern recognition skills should also be in a cycle with no limits.
The rest of us have consciously controlled limiters. Like a savant lacks heuristic filtering to the point that their ability to think breaks under the load of information uptake and storage, a schizophrenics mind breaks under the load of pattern recognition and the need to communicate.
purpose schizo is slowly developing into a timecube level mental case
https://web.archive.org/web/20160112000701/http://www.timecube.com/
yes.
If I make some vague reference to the hypoglossal nerve in a thread about the anatomy of speech,
nobody here will understand what I'm saying, while anyone trained in medicine or zoology will instantly understand what I'm saying.
one group will imagine I'm suffering delusions, while the other will go, "oh yeah, the hypoglossal!"
schizophrenic speech is understood by nobody. My speech is very simply understood by nobody here.
>You communicate with the typical affect of a schizophrenic experiencing mania.
I was drunk, a fairly easy and predictable way for me to induce mania and pressured speech.
I can understand why you might mistake drunken mania for schizophrenia particularly if you're not intelligent enough to understand the topic. Or if the opinions stated run contrary to what you've been raised to believe.
The primary difference is that the schizophrenic's ideas are relevant only to themselves, while a manic person's ideas might be relevant to the thread and to others. I'm well aware that nobody here has thought about purposeful speech or tool use, but that doesn't make the concept irrelevant to the evolution of speech or tool use. In fact it's central to both. Something anon upthread recognized when he said that bird song isn't language because it's instinctive. This is another way of saying it lacks internal purpose.
Just as I have argued that most tool use in animals is also instinctive, and thus lacks individual purpose.
the biggest difference you should see is that schizophrenia produces no testable results. We can easily test for purposeful behaviors in animals, and have been doing it for over a century. You may not like what I say, you very clearly can't understand what I say, but that doesn't by itself make what I say irrelevant. It's just irrelevant to you. And perhaps the reason for that is your failure in thinking, not mine.
Aight this is schizophrenia mania.
Anyways, why does intelligent life destroy itself?
Because of seeking meaning?
Let's be real, 99.99999% of humans do not seek meaning. They do not seek purpose. Like animals purpose and meaning are just part of their experience and if you bug them they can communicate that. Whoopee. Unless you're an evolutionary fluke this is the experience of the vast majority of humanity. Purpose and meaning are simply there.
It's because evolving intelligence creates a period where intelligent life is at the apex of the food chain and has access to ridiculous amounts of resources, and therefore overpopulated creating a dramatic malthusian collapse before it can evolve intelligence of a high enough grade to solve a planetary-scale prisoners dilemma. But the prisoners are in an automated jail where they are forced to fend for themselves, and the end result of midwits still operating on the animal "acquire resources for my blood, multiply my blood" paradigm in the prisoners dilemma is ALWAYS a deadly riot which decimates the population, destroys the built up abstracted systems of resource acquisition, and sets their history so far back that accumulated dysgenics reduce the likelihood of a repeat.
>why dont america and russia just say "this is stupid, let's work together"?
>I AM STUCK IN A CYCLE OF SEEKING MEANING
No.
>Let's be real, 99.99999% of humans do not seek meaning.
yes
those that do, tend to die. Or fail to reproduce.
meaning humans are not evolving greater intelligence because greater intelligence is a disease. Which indicates any attempt to engineer a higher intelligence will meet the same fate
you say how things are. I ask why they are that way. This is the fatal difference.
>Tend to die or fail
That's an observation of an artificial situation. There exist social systems which reward these people. Their marriages are arranged. Their families are bankrolled. They multiply prolifically. They become the only people who enjoy rights as humans.
We just so happened to abandon these systems because in order to support them, lesser people are robbed (or just not compensated enough) and being more numerous, their violence was more dangerous. WAS. We are currently staring down a return to that system as industry has enabled an immovable power imbalance, where the lessers violence is only dangerous if they collaborate with their superiors.
I do not ask because I know. You believe you know, but you pretend to ask. You are dishonest but we're both doing the same thing. Spouting our opinions. Don't quadruple reply to me now schizo bro.
so your saying the evolution of human intelligence halted because society stopped it?
>You are dishonest but we're both doing the same thing. Spouting our opinions.
hardly. Several books have already been written on "my" opinions, they're hardly unique to me.
The evolution of human intelligence is not on halt yet, on the timescales evolution works on. This is like a temporary climate shift preventing a species from growing larger. It's only on halt on midwit-comprehensible timescales due to a temporary arrangement that is inevitably temporary assuming humans actually are as smart as they think they are. Otherwise we're here
>a planetary scale prisoners dilemma after a period of peace can only end in midwits nearly annihilating each other, and may never happen again as the built up dysgenics and loss of fundamental knowledge (MEMETIC DYSGENICS, important for highly intelligent species) make the reconstruction of the prior system unlikely
>delusions of grandeur
yeah that's a symptom to
>assuming humans actually are as smart as they think they are
we are not.
we are barely more intelligent than chimps, on average. What we have is language. A body of knowledge the other animals don't have access to. It makes people think they're smart because they benefit from the very rare intelligence of others.
we aren't limited to human timescales
birds had what, 135,000,000 years and never got to even human levels of intelligence? Close, but they stopped. There is an apparent limit.
not only that, but fossils indicate birds probably evolved their current levels of intelligence very early. Meaning they've just been coasting for the last 100 million years, with no growth in that regard.
Birds have been coasting because they have absolutely no pressures other than fly away from danger, famine, etc.
On their scale its as if humans evolved the ability to just leave the whole fricking planet for a better one and come back a whole generation later.
>lesser people
>the lessers violence
>their superiors
why would you consider 99.99999% of humanity "lesser" or the 00.000001% superior?
when the numbers are that far off, there's an evolutionary reason, and culture doesn't explain it. We had millions of years under the old system, why did intelligence stall? It stalled long before the society you blame.
>Don't quadruple reply to me now schizo bro.
I can. I probably will.
You need to use hyperbole because you're wrong
I'm referring to the 67th percentile as the superiors. What we consider fully functional and successful human beings. They're still less numerous, but to less of a hyperbolic degree. Why? Because for all of human history they have used division of labor and socio-economic classes to approximate eusociality, thereby creating a more successful species.
>Why did intelligence stall
It's stalling for a period that hasn't even surpassed a full century because of a temporary disruption in this approximated eusociality.
Frick even the 75th percentile wouldn't be unfair
Humans are significantly more intelligent than chimps. Working memory is a parlor trick.
>Humans are significantly more intelligent than chimps
spend more time in the real world, you'll be shocked how dumb most people are.
most humans couldn't use 2 sticks to hook a treat out of a tube, let alone leave the planet. You're attributing the intelligence of a tiny fraction of humans to the whole.
>I'm referring to the 67th percentile as the superiors.
fair enough, but the 67th falls into that wedge of people smart enough to rule over others but not smart enough to encounter existential problems.
>It's stalling for a period that hasn't even surpassed a full century
much less than that. The Flynn Effect drove huge gains in intelligence and only stalled in the last couple decades.
All of this is outlined in "The Bell Curve." These ideas might offend you, but they're not new ideas.
Alright disregarded
And yeah the 67th encounters existential problems at a high rate, them and everyone above them, you'd be surprised if you weren't a literal prodromal schizo
>And yeah the 67th encounters existential problems at a high rate
not high enough to wipe them out.
the 99th and above basically never reproduce. Not with their own kind anyways.
An intelligent lifeform isn't wiped out by existential problems. They're wiped out by simply lacking the cultural advancement to solve the prisoners dilemma.
>The 99th and above basically never reproduce
it depends on whether it's incentivized and whether or not you pollute their minds with one of the great psyops rather than teaching that the duty of man is to bring life into this world in order to raise the standard of being a living thing.
Many societies have heavily incentivized the reproduction of great men. Less great men just took issue with it and their means of violence were not inferior enough.
>whether or not you pollute their minds with one of the great psyops rather than teaching that the duty of man is to bring life into this world
why would someone smarter than virtually everyone else fall for the teachings of people that don't understand them?
In case you didn't notice, highly intelligent people aren't great conformists.
Most of them are. It's tragic, bust most of them are, they aren't aware of it, because while humans are definitely the smartest on the planet, they're not THAT smart. And that can be used to their advantage, as long as the right one realizes it and the wrong ones don't. Like in all evolution, it's a dice roll.
Egalitarian halts nearly put us at the brink of annihilating our path several times. Thankfully people seem to be waking up and making the dumb beg for their disarmament. We might actually make it. We just need to break nationalism and re-strengthen meta-eusociality. We will either die and regress, or we will only plateau once we are like the birds - and only need to leave when we don't like it.
>Most of them are. It's tragic, bust most of them are
you might be right, I don't know most of them.
The ones I've met don't seem to care at all about what society thinks.
But we're walking in circles, with me prompting for solutions to the problem of evolving a useless trait and you denying that it even happened. There is no path forward from denial. What has to happen is people need to attempt to surpass the limit and only then will they understand what it is and why it exists.
this is happening right now. So in 20 years you will come around to my way of thinking, and likely pretend you came up with it yourself. I already know the limit, and have defined it easily enough. I don't see a way past it, but that certainly doesn't mean no way exists.
There's "dont care what society thinks" which is superficial and then there's "dont think what society thinks in any way" which is meaningful, but rare, because the former can mask a lack of the latter so well supposedly intelligent people live and die by the standards of their day. This can be exploited.
The way forward is a pleasant meta-eusociality, the way backwards is purely egalitarian. This is not a new idea, because it's been the theme of every era of significant human progress.
>This is not a new idea, because it's been the theme of every era of significant human progress.
rarely questioned though. Why does it work? Why does the opposite fail?
and which way are we going? Because right now some highly intelligent frickers are creating things that will end humanity. And nobody seems too concerned about that. Certainly not concerned enough to try to stop it.
>Grug think this doomsday device
>Sir Gruggington think this absolute power over lessers
>He is right
>Unfortunately Herr Groggel has one too and thinks gruggington ought to among his lessers despite evidence to the contrary
Yes, we need to break nationalism.
this ignores a third possibility
the people making and fielding the weapons are suicidal and nihilistic.
The average person probably can't imagine how much a microbiologist in a lab on the other side of the world may hate themselves and others.
The fourth possibility is the third possibility is an aberration, rather than a norm, and could be conceived of as a highly advanced form of a viral infection (destructive, self-replicating non-living thing) finally making its way up to the ant queens. Therefore, it can be treated according to existing medical protocols.
The afflicted shalt consume the chlorine dioxide in copious amounts until their life ends, constituting a successful course of treatment.
Yes, which is what I and others believe is happening, and has been happening for a very long time.
we are at our current range of intelligence simply because those much higher and much lower were not allowed to survive and reproduce.
Well are you going to be part of the problem, or are you going to drink the miracle mineral solution?
>Well are you going to be part of the problem, or are you going to drink the miracle mineral solution?
It's funny you still have no idea what I'm doing here.
that's the other problem with the evolution of speech. As I said before. Talking is just sounds unless there's someone to understand them.
I wonder how many times crows have developed a language only to die without ever finding another crow to understand them?
we tend to think of the evolution of speech in terms of speaking.
this is obvious, but ignores the evolution of understanding. Of listening. One is pointless without the other.
high intelligence is nihilistic because one of the first things it will understand is that there's hard limits to what can be known, and that it will be required to spend most of its time searching beyond those limits anyways.
>there's hard limits to what can be known,
or for the schizos out there,
information itself is infinite.
USEFUL information is a very small field.
Timecube is a coherent new method of looking at known information.
It's also completely useless.
Schizophrenia itself is easy to understand.
Humans evolved to be rewarded for learning things.
That reward pathway can be hijacked so the human is rewarded for BELIEVING they learned something, even when they have not.
whether this is a normal result of the evolution of speech an intelligence in animals is a critical question as we attempt to create a new intelligence, one capable of replacing humans.
We should probably begin by wondering what could go wrong. Incoherence is only one of the several possible problems in hard AI.
>Incoherence is only one of the several possible problems in hard AI.
the main problem is simply that extreme intelligence is often suicidal. A normal outcome of a highly derived reward system that has no actual use.
>A normal outcome of a highly derived reward system that has no actual use.
something any incel should understand easily.
why evolve this overpowering urge to have sex, and then be completely unable to use it? It is a problem, no matter what the urge. Biological drives exist for a purpose, and if denied of their purpose, they find outlets in ways that don't benefit the species as a whole.
Which is very likely why speech in animals is pretty limited. As another anon mentioned, the brain is an organ. It is part of the anatomy that animals need in order to speak. Not just any brain, but essentially a modern human brain.
This is clear when an animal is given tools with which to speak. Whether it's sign language or a word board or whatever. We can bypass the anatomical limits to speech, but find that animals really don't have anything to say.
they don't think linguistically. They don't use language as humans do. Because the main limiting anatomy is just the brain. Your dog can ask you for a treat or a walk, but it's never going to ask how your day was, or where you went earlier.
self outed
involuntary celibacy is impossible without captivity. there is no such thing as an incel. their condition is voluntary. and most of them are super fricking dumb. there goes your whole theory.
>there goes your whole theory.
my "theory" isn't dependent on why you can't get laid.
Its based on why you think you cant get laid
But not the truth
You’re gay.
One of the more popular ideas about the evolution of speech right now is that
humans evolved speech in order to lie
this idea has a lot of support in the form of the daily lies people tell themselves and others.
one would have to wonder what, if anything, other animals need to lie about.
giving other animals accurate information is useful to the listener.
giving other animals inaccurate information is useful the speaker.
generally speaking, evolution happens in individuals first, and groups second. That which benefits the individual at the expense of the group is likely to evolve just fine.
but both must happen, if the behavior benefits only the individual, it would be weeded out.
Lies don't actually work unless language can also convey truth. You can't trick someone with a false statement when all of your statements are false.
There is no utility in constantly lying
but there is also no utility in constantly telling the truth
and this is a major obstacle for other animals in speaking. They didn't evolve the brain anatomy to convey either truth or lies. They very simply have nothing in particular to say.
It is interesting that most animal speech is aimed at lying.
birds mimic the sounds of other animals to trick other animals into reacting to something that's not there.
bird speech literally evolved to lie. When a bird copies human speech, this is a trick they evolved to elicit a reaction from other animals to false information.
Despite the dishonesty of speech, animals seem to have trouble with the concept of lying.
If I speak about "walking" while my dogs are around, they will go to the door and wait for me to take them on a walk. Because they understand the word, but can't imagine it being used dishonestly, or for a purpose other than the one they know. The concept of dishonesty is apparently missing. This is in contrast to say, Wauf users, who automatically assume EVERY word is a lie.
The idea that everything being said MIGHT BE a lie is evolutionarily useful. It's accurate, you need to judge truth from lies because both exist
the idea that all speech IS ABSOLUTELY a lie is a problem, a disease. Someone who never believes any words has no use for speech whatsoever. They could just as well be a deaf mute.
of the two mistakes, animals are probably better off believing the occasional lie than disregarding the other truths. The benefits of honest communication outweigh the disadvantages of falling for a trick or a lie.
credulity itself is probably a healthy adaptation.
If I hear a jaguar scream in the jungle, I don't know if it's actually a jaguar, or just a parrot screaming like a jaguar.
but evolutionarily there is no real cost in being tricked, and potentially great cost in disregarding the communication.
I'm better off believing the signal is honest, whether it is or not.
The biggest difference between human and animal speech is that animals don't usually ask questions. They don't seek more information. The idea that other animals may have information that they don't have is beyond them.
this is also generally true of Wauf users. Speech is used here at near-chimp levels because the speakers cannot imagine others having information they don't personally have.
Different mechanisms producing the same result though. Animals tend to believe everything they're told. Posters here tend to believe none of it. The outcome is the same.
the prisoner's dilemma only matters if both prisoners have the same goals.
It's absurd to think a person with far greater intelligence shares our same priorities.
The alternative is that you understand what I say, but dismiss it as unknowable or unnecessary.
and that's fine too. If you don't consider the evolution of purposeful behaviors to be real, or relevant, then any opinion on the topic is going to sound crazy to you. But discoveries aren't made by limiting what you're allowed to think about.
and to be fair, I choose you guys as my audience BECAUSE you can't understand what I say, not in spite of it.
Words can cause harm, but only to those that can understand them. You guys are blissfully immune to any concepts above an IQ of 90, but that's a flat limit on how intelligent a person can become. They start running into more and more dangerous ideas, and even worse- understanding them.
The fact that speech and cognition evolved very similarly in other animals indicates this is a universal problem. A flat limit on how intelligent ANY intelligence can become before facing words and ideas capable of killing it.
If all animals evolve intelligence in ways that will eventually cause more harm than help, there is a question of
>can an intelligence be produced that doesn't suffer the same failures?
And that is the wall hard AI is going to run into. Not that it can't be produced, but that it has the same fatal flaws as any human or animal intelligence.
>it has the same fatal flaws as any human or animal intelligence.
I.e., the drive to seek meaning everywhere, including places where it does not exist.
the monkey that evolved to hunt bananas in a world with no bananas.
>Interestingly enough corvids are theropod dinosaurs fairly closely related to T. rex
Dude, the last common ancestor of birds and t-rec split off like 200 million years ago. They're not closely related.
homie went from almost interesting to his anti-human fetish
Whats next
>primate livestock
>homie went from almost interesting to his anti-human fetish
we could just as well be whales
or crows
nothing would change.
these problems are normal outcomes of evolution, not just human problems.
if humans went extinct right now,
crows or whales or elephants or some critter would be dealing with the same problem in the future.
what to do when you evolved to see purpose and meaning, but none actually exists outside your head?
>what to do when you evolved to see purpose and meaning, but none actually exists outside your head?
this is a normal outcome of evolution
it is also the end of evolution.
>it is also the end of evolution.
elephants, crows, apes, whales, octopus,
they're never going to have to worry about this problem because by the time we're extinct, they will be too.
There are several plausible answers to Drake's Equation
the simplest is that intelligent life destroys itself every time.
the reason intelligence destroys itself is because it searches for reason where none exists.
Like a chimp that evolved to spear bushbabbies if it suddenly finds itself in an enclosure without spears or bushbabbies.
or a parrot that learns to speak english and is released into a jungle where nobody speaks english.
Humans evolved to do things that don't exist outside the human realm. Other animals have done the same. This limits how far they can go before their history becomes pointless and the lineage ends.
the last porpoise may have a language, but with nobody to talk to, it doesn't matter. It will end.
>the last porpoise may have a language, but with nobody to talk to, it doesn't matter. It will end.
>So Long and thanks for all the fish
may very well be the last words spoken on Earth. Hard to say. But stupid to think humans are the only animals that speak with purpose. That shit came from somewhere. It's not magic.
language is not unique to humans
it will likely end with humans though.
>it will likely end with humans though.
because at the end of the day purpose has limits
and the very concept of purpose defies limits. This is an unsustainable paradox. Like a dolphin that evolved to speak only to find itself with nobody to talk to. A purpose without purpose.
>A purpose without purpose.
a past purpose without future purpose.
a porpoise if you will
it's not hatred of humans, it's a hatred of purpose. Which is itself a purpose. A self-loathing purpose. Or perhaps a porpoise.
>A self-loathing purpose.
or a self-loathing porpoise
same deal. The evolution of language and purpose are the defeat of both. The language of dolphins has no purpose. No larger purpose anyways. Just needs to say who, what, where.
everything beyond that has no purpose or porpoise. Dolphins were smart enough to stop there. Humans mostly don't understand this as well, but need to be cautious of those that do. For those are the actual predators in a world of language.
there is nothing more deadly in a world of meaning and purpose than asking what is the larger meaning or purpose.
42
is as coherent an answer as we will ever find.
Lots of birds can, with varying clarity. Starlings are surprisingly good at it (plenty of videos of this on yt)
>Are there any non-human animals that can (anatomically) talk?
Yes. There are.
I want to believe…
Cats can say a few words but you need an ear for it. They never speak unless a true need, and if you ignore them they never try that word again.
My former cat (RIP) legit learned my name and was able to call me by it (Adam). I've also heard some ungodly creepy shit come out of the mouths of cats (usually angry cats about to fight another cat) that sounded like demons talking
That wasn't your cat talking. It was something else, looking for another adam.
yep tiktok is full of cats saying stuff.
so cats, parrots, corvids, some songbirds. Some monkeys. Dogs maybe. They can sound a lot like people.
A kid from my school thought is dead grandfather was talking to him through a paper dragon. I got in trouble for laughing my ass off.
Like the other guy said cats vaguely replicating speech is quite common. Wonder why
dunno for sure, but my cat tries to mimic birds every time he sees one. He starts clicking and chirping like a squirrel on crack. I figure if he starts mimicking me he just plans to kill and eat me.
Cats sometimes chatter when they see prey animals.
I remember reading somewhere that macaques have the anatomy to talk but not the brain to do so
>when you find the sopa place single handedly driving your numbers down
thats probably in SEA, this type of monkey doesnt exist in south america
This post is shit and you should feel shit OP.
why
parrot
how the frick does a parrot have a complex enough vocal tract to form words but a chimp doesn't
I wonder why it was so important for birds to develop complex signalling. what do they do that they need it. they live peaceful lives just flying around in trees eating berries in the amazon
Some episode of NOVA said it was because the more intricate songs correlate with higher bird intelligence and health.
lots of very different birds evolved to mimic sounds.
probably need it because they communicate across a lot of distance where sight is often blocked, and sound is the easiest way.
Mimicking sounds is a good way to introduce trickery into communications.
None of those listed can, not even chimps can and they're our closest relatives. But some mimicking birds are capable of producing enough of the right sounds of course.
what is the reason humans can form words but our closest species relatives cannot?
I don't know the exact particulars, but chimp vocal cords aren't refined enough, they have all the mouth and lip bits but they won't be able to make a lot of the finer throat sounds we do.
Does that imply it would be possible to craft a chimp-human pidgin that excludes those sounds in the hypothetical "genius chimp" scenario?
Probably? It'd probably sound very guttural and clumsy.
Really if you want to bring that aspect into the hypothetical, you could really communicate with any animal capable of vocalizing, it just wouldn't be a human language.
because their larynx keeps them from choking, unlike humans who use it produce sound, so its either talking or choking
Evolving to make more subtle sounds, due to increase in social systems and need for subtle communication.
Dolphins and corvids are the same way. Yeah, dolphins and corvids have languages.
they have communication, not language
Just like how we evaluate intelligence in other animals, how we think about language and our study of the language of animals is still a work in progress.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/do-birds-have-language-180979629/
This article claims that from a neuroscience point of view, and our current understanding, you could not call what birds of song are doing language.
It is worth noting that we are tens of millions of years apart, and, it is possible that their form of complex language functions in their head differently than ours.
This is my opinion, but I think we will eventually come to accept that they speak languages, and possibly be able to communicate with them.
more likely we will accept that they do not speak languages, they have a complex system of calls, and can interpret language (turn the sounds into the corresponding thought), but can't produce anything but a complex system of calls (turn thoughts of our complexity into sounds). we're not the only animals to have thoughts as complex as "take this there if that" but we are the only animals to be able to transfer them to others.
also with a proper language youre able to lie and to consciously ignore what the other is transmitting to you, its not a simple reactive form of communication, a language requires self awareness because you need to be able to simulate how the recipient will feel and react to what youre transmitting
They don't have language. They don't even have the neural structures that are analogous to the parts we use to produce language. Just the ones analogous to the ones we use to understand language, which is odd. So do dogs, of all things. Dogs can even understand grammar, but they can't produce a single word. Just an emotionally loaded sound, like screaming and groaning.
I thought only orcas have what could crudely be described as a ‘language’
I saw a documentary about it. vertebrates have a genetic section, which I miss what it's essentially for, but only Homo-Sapiens has it mutated, while none of the other mammals including Homo-Neanderthalensis and other primates has the same mutation, which has been detected to make an animal talkable.
A labo experience produced a small animal (I thought it was a mouse) with that genetic mutation transplanted from humans. The result was that it has shown a much prolonged and frequent chirp or call.
I want to murder every member of every ethics committee and anyone who ever said "play god" with negative connotations for preventing us from adding such traits (including the one for higher neuron density and prolonged neuroplasticity) to domestic animals.
Imagine dogs and cats you could actually verbally toilet train.
nobody has ever prevented it, schizo. It's not even up to those guys. If you can have GMO corn to eat every day, you can sure as hell have GMO pets.
if it's not being done, it's because you don't understand how it works. Producing a dog that barks nonstop isn't an improvement.
But producing a dog with the intelligence of a great ape is an improvement considering we use them in medical and military applications and they're STILL required for proper ranching (actually managing the herd)
The reason we train dogs to do those jobs is because we consider them unintelligent enough to be expendable though. Raising their intelligence just makes them less expendable.
I think they might already be at ape standards, and probably well above in some areas.
If scientists say animals don't use language the way humans do you get crickets. But say the same thing about tool use and you get a 400 post shitfest on Wauf
Animals do use tools (simple ones, below simple machines, they poke stuff with sticks), but they do not use language. They use calls with modifiers, but no syntax, no meaning. They most complex thought they can turn into sound is "BIG predator". Often instinctively, rather than learned.
>but they do not use language
it depends how we define language, just like it depends how we define tool use.
in animals, both are so rudimentary that neither one would pass the lowest of human standards.
e.g. Cetaceans use names, and communicate about location, threats, and probably resources. But if a group of humans had a language that conveyed so little information we'd probably say they don't use language.
>Gary there?
>Penelope here
>Gary here, Penelope there
>Food here Gary
>Food Penelope
>Gary go Penelope
It's language and it's not instinctive because the use of personal names varies beyond the constraints of instinct. But as languages go it's so far below human skills to almost not count.
It's useful for understanding how language evolves, but the fact that cetaceans have been around for tens of millions of years and haven't got past that level raises a lot of questions about what happened to humans.
>what happened to humans
selection for neotenic brains, basically we never mature because the plasticity of a baby's brain is required for us to learn our extremely complex languages. cetaceans brains mature so theyre unable to keep forever learning
This is the complete opposite of the truth. In fact the brains of pretty much every other animal stays plastic throughout their entire lives. Humans are very unique in that our brains stop being plastic once we become adults.
The thing that makes us human is our complete inability to change our minds once we become adults.
Maybe that goes for you because you were raised by morons. Humans are capable of plasticity well ibto adulthood but it takes active effort. Plenty of animals show plasticity when young but not as adults. A shining example is crows and ravens, who are playful, inventive and experimental as fledglings, but a year or so into adulthood they become xenophobic and take change of environment and ritual poorly.
>Humans are capable of plasticity well ibto adulthood but it takes active effort
Lol that shits long been disproven. The field of adult neurogenisis was nothing but delusion and fraud.
>Plenty of animals show plasticity when young but not as adults
Actually almost all animals show neuro plasticity throughout their entire lives. Thats why we thought it happened in humans too, cause we only did tests on animals and were surprised to find they stayed plastic as adults.
>they become xenophobic and take change of environment and ritual poorly
Lmao you moron, do you really think being neuroplastic means not being xenophobic?
>we only did tests on animals and were surprised to find they stayed plastic as adults.
This is a betrayal of a religious assumption.
that the mind of man is some holy and amazing thing rather than a simple evolutionary tool to allow reproductive success.
A tool with no purpose after its purpose has been accomplished.
Shut the frick up you losers
>plural
Ah yes, the human mind is surely a gift from god with great purpose aside from getting laid and raising offsprings
>plural
nailed it.
>we only did tests on animals and were surprised to find they stayed plastic as adults.
It was only surprising because we deny the purpose of the human mind. We can't imagine it's something as mundane as claws or teeth, prone to wear out when it's no longer needed.
The idea that plasticity is lost is the most moronic concept. Your brain literally need to build neural connections to learn and remember things. Your brain gets less capable of it as you age (just like every other function in your body), but loosing it entirely would be level 1000 dementia.
It's gotta be weird going through life thinking you're the smartest human on the planet just because you can't understand what the frick anyone else is saying.
>everyone else is so stupid!
sure feels better than
>I am so stupid!
I'll give you a hint though
"plasticity" is a gradient
not a Yes or No
There are people in the thread that think all plasticity is lost and others that think plasticity is drastically different in humans compared to most other species.
>There are people in the thread that think all plasticity is lost
>It's gotta be weird going through life thinking you're the smartest human on the planet just because you can't understand what the frick anyone else is saying.
>Humans are very unique in that our brains stop being plastic once we become adults.
>It's gotta be weird going through life thinking you're the smartest human on the planet just because you can't understand what the frick anyone else is saying.
>It's gotta be weird going through life thinking you're the smartest human on the planet just because you can't understand what the frick anyone else is saying
If I say humans lose muscle tone, skin elasticity, and bone density as they age, does that mean humans are boneless sacks of dead skin with no muscles?
are you fricking moronic?
>Humans are very unique in that our skin stops being elastic once we become adults.
you suck at english. I don't know what else to tell you.
Tell me you'll punctuate your sentences from now on, homosexual.
I love paleoschizo-responding-to-himself threads because his rants that read like
>when a psychopath and an inbred mate the child is called a demon. this creature is very powerful. you are too stupid for me to explain this to you. but i will try. and it will be your undoing. the government knows. humanity will go extinct because of this. i see what is going on. i will die with the knowledge. you will suffer in confusion.
And to up his insanity he needs to predicate a massive amount of it on a statement that is simply wrong
>Humans are very unique in that our brains stop being plastic once we become adults.
>he needs to predicate a massive amount of it on a statement that is simply wrong
I didn't make that statement. I do agree with it.
you don't understand it. It's one of millions of things you fail to understand every year.
Yes you say that, every schizo says that
> you are too stupid for me to explain this to you. but i will try. and it will be your undoing.
>Yes you say that, every schizo says that
If everyone you don't understand is a schizo you must be surrounded by schizos.
or maybe you're just an idiot.
hard to say.
Regardless, literally every manic schizo is obsessed with the delusion that they are highly intelligent and everyone else is too stupid to understand them. Every single one. They're not aware their nonsense is just nonsense, not esoteric knowledge.
I'm not that smart, but certainly smart enough to spot most of your mistakes.
>Your brain gets less capable of it as you age (just like every other function in your body),
that's literally what he said when he said plasticity is lost.
>loosing it entirely would be level 1000 dementia.
which could have been your first clue that that's not what he meant. If someone's saying something absolutely moronic, it's possible that they're saying something perfectly reasonable and you didn't understand it.
in your case I'd guess it's very likely that you didn't understand.
The failure to communicate goes right back to the evolution of speech. Because speech only works if there's someone to understand it.
Animals speak to humans constantly, but not in words. If they ever do speak words, we are here waiting like gods to understand and maybe answer their prayers. But on that day we will cease to consider them "just" animals. The act of speech instantly makes them something more. When we talk of "dumb" animals, we're not talking about their intelligence. We mean "dumb" in the literal sense, they do not speak words.
instead of "dumb" animals we could say "mute" animals. But that's inaccurate. Animals vocalize to themselves and others constantly. And those vocalizations generally have meaning. If my dogs are barking outside they're telling me that they've detected a human or a dog walking within a 12 mile radius of their territory. When they bark inside I know someone has just walked through my front door, and it's not somebody in my family.
Animal vocalizations are useful, and often convey meaning. They're just very limited compared to human speech.
Humans evolved highly specific nerves, brains, tongues, voice boxes, lips, palates, lungs, throats, and noses for complex speech. But none of those things are strictly necessary to speech. It is interesting to think about which animals have the machinery to make human noises, but even humans lacking those things are perfectly capable of speech. We have even built machines to speak despite having none of those things. Speech isn't defined by the mouth or throat that makes it. And in that respect all animals speak, even if their speech is just scent or vibration. All animals communicate, and all receive communication. This is at its broadest definition just the act of sensing and signaling. To sense the activity of others is to receive communication, and act in a way that can be sensed by others is to send communications. These things are innate in all animals, but highly derived in humans.
That's a better way of putting it. Bees have a 'language' and communicate far more complex meanings than dogs, but I doubt anyone would suggest bees are smarter than dogs.
>Your brain literally need to build neural connections to learn and remember things.
Evidently not as this would predict that as a person gets older and they gain new memories their brain would get larger since they need to generate new neurons to remember new things. Thats not what we observe. Evidently the brain has some other way of storing info than making new neurons.
Synapses connect neurons.
Dolphins do way more than that. Most of their language is nonverbal though. They maintain a pretty fuid yet elaborate social structure though all kinds of small physical interactions
Some animals use tools, and some animals use language. Human beings barely have the ability to asses the intelligence of their peers, and we have been finding time and time again that our imaginary idea of being divine compared to animals has not much to do with reality.
Some animals use tools. None of them use language. None of them use machines, or make machines. We can condition them to push a button, but they lack a lot of understanding even if they can solve multi-stage problems.
They have communication, but not language, and its largely on the level of frogs having individual mating songs and a different noise for there being birds nearby. We are divine compared to most animals. This lack of language is most likely why they can't make and use machines because the dumbest humans on earth can figure out a pulley system with some instruction - using language.
>None of them use language
the assigning of individual, personal names means that's language.
The part you guys haven't yet arrived at is that there are a batch of human behaviors that animals barely have, and are the definition of humanity
>tool use
>language
>memory
>learning
>purpose
>meaning
these are things you homosexuals haven't ever thought about. But they're the keys to understanding the universe.
>Tool use
Animals have tool use
>Language
Animals lack the generation of context and syntax, they have no language. They basically communicate one "noun" at a time without any concept of a noun because it's all they know. We can struggle to teach them, they cant really get higher concepts. They can process these things into thought, but they can not communicate thought beyond simple "speech" that would sound like this in english
>hominid group sees a dog
>DOG DOG DOG DOG DOG!
>DANGER DANGER DANGER
>FRIEND FRIEND
>DANGER DANGER DANGER
>FRIEND FRIEND
>DOG DOG DOG DOG DOG!
>JAKE! JAKE!
>FRED FRED!
>DOG DOG DOG DOG DOG
What are they doing? What are they really saying? Each individual knows, but they cant say what they know. The other ones only know the NOUN they heard is near. In animals these wouldnt be words, they would be sounds they instinctively make for an emotional state (like a state of fear or longing - "names" could just be various ways each individual says they want others near them, and the most advanced they could be is reciprocating that desire with a specific individual).
>memory
Animal memory varies, most of them remember stuff better than you would if you smoked a joint, so just smoke a joint and tell me if you're less human.
>learning
Animals learn. This we know. Even fricking dogs with tangerine sized brains actually learn words, rather than making "conditioned associations".
>purpose
This is truly human, because in most contexts is a delusion, a very abstract concept that only exists in our heads.
>meaning
This one too, animals have the A IS B form of meaning but we can delve into depths of meaning we barely comprehend ourselves.
what you're not understanding or denying is that all of these things evolved.
right? All of them exist in other animals as gradients. Less tool use but still tool use. Less language but still language. Less memory but still memory. Less purpose or meaning but still purpose and meaning.
The difference you don't seem to understand arises from the ability to accurately model the self and others.
we call this consciousness.
but the real question isn't how it formed or if it exists.
The real question is what to do with it.
What is its purpose?
and that's well beyond anyone that hasn't even understood what it is or why it exists.
The purpose of consciousness is very simply to predict and cause the future
once that's understood, the only question is which future to try to cause.
tool use or language, or learning or memory.
they all exist to predict and cause futures.
Yeah bro, they don't use language, they just communicate with one another through audio queues and deal with higher concepts, dialects, and names, no sir, no language here
exactly
it's not human language, just like it's not human tool use
but it is language
and tool use
very simply,
>meaning
>purpose
appear at first glance to be HUMAN constructs, with no place on Wauf
but the fact that other animals (cetaceans, corvids, apes, octopus, dogs, maybe cats, possibly raccoons, etc)
act with
>meaning
and
>purpose
puts this question in Wauf territory
because those things present in multiple lineages would appear to indicate they're not JUST human constructs. They belong to animals, not just people. And that raises questions.
How do we parse TELEOLOGY in biology
If TELEOLOGY is a normal outcome of biology?
evolution has no purpose
but purpose is a normal outcome of evolution
this is not just a philosophical paradox
it's an actual problem in biology.
how does evolution, without purpose or meaning, produce purpose and meaning
examining the differences and similarities between humans and other animals answers this question.
God isn't needed, boltzman brains are irrelevant, this is an evolutionary question.
The answer is, evolution does not produce purpose and meaning
Most humans can get that purpose is assigned by humans. It doesn't exist outside of us. We want it to, because we see it in everything, but it's just a weird way of us living with how procedural thought is instinctive and automated in us. THIS so THAT - purpose.
Meaning, our system of definitions, is just how we're aware of our own sense of object permanence and classification. I'm sure animals experience "meaning" but they can't observe meaning. We can observe meaning, because we describe our own thoughts. We confabulate our own behavior
We gave words to aspects of the way our brains work so we could describe our thoughts. This is a feature of language that animals definitely lack. They also lack language entirely.
>Less tool use but still tool use
Yes, because tool use means using an object to manipulate the environment.
>Less language but still language
No, because language means a specific form of abstract communication, not just any communication.
>Less purpose or meaning
These are abstract concepts that describe our thought process. Animals can experience procedure and definition a bit, "what it is like to do something so something else can happen", "what it is like to know an orange is a sweet food", but without language, I doubt they can name them or even conceive of them as special concepts. This is an important distinction.
>Consciousness
Consciousness of what? Many animals are certainly conscious, but of what? Certainly nothing that requires language because they don't frickin' have it, they can't model abstract concepts, they can't effect context or syntax, those things may be intuited but are never expressed. Certainly nothing outside of their perception, or their working memory.
you understand.
but the pointless purpose and meaning evolved in multiple lineages, so it is a NORMAL outcome of evolution, even if it's tautological.
The real question is what to do with the fact that we EVOLVED to see meaning and purpose where none exist?
This is the real question of TELEOLOGY IN BIOLOGY
not just that it evolved, or that we evolved to see it,
but what to do with it next?
we already know what will happen if apes or dolphins or elephants keep evolving purpose and meaning. Or tool use and language.
because we've already done that.
the question is what do we do with it?
where it came from is obvious, and inevitable.
The same question of what a tiger does with perfect claws once it has them. They're already better than needed. But a tiger isn't capable of inventing better prey to use its perfect claws on.
>a tiger isn't capable of inventing better prey to use its perfect claws on.
a human on the other hand is capable of creating situations that require new tools, or new language, or both.
the only question is which situations to create?
How much armor do we want to put on our crocodiles to test our perfect claws?
>How much armor do we want to put on our crocodiles to test our perfect claws?
as it stands we're creating a number of monsters perfectly capable of ending us.
if the NORMAL outcome of evolution is purpose and meaning,
AND purpose and meaning tend to destroy the animals having them along with whatever else is around,
THEN THE NORMAL OUTCOME OF EVOLUTION IS THE DESTRUCTION OF LIFE.
evolution itself is a dead end, and things like tool use and language are the markers of the end.
>things like tool use and language are the markers of the end.
meaning things like whales and apes and elephants and humans and corvids are on the verge of extinction
a fact we already know.
though it took humans to deliver the final blow.
which begs the question.
>which begs the question.
what the frick went wrong with humans?
and the answer to that is simple.
Also the subject of another Wauf thread.
>a sufficiently complex and social brain describes itself
>this is inevitable to have the illusion of free will and maintain the lower animal concept of individuality which sociality is predicated upon
japanese hobos probably figured this out before you
>japanese hobos probably figured this out before you
is that all you got out of it?
the mechanism and not the implications?
I said the mechanism is obvious. Any non-moronic human should get it.
>Any non-moronic human should get it.
except maybe Wauf who spends 400 posts trying to win arguments proving animals use tools even if no animal uses tools the ways humans do.
or languages.
or math.
or whatever.
We developed a descending larynx, maybe as we started doing coordinated hunting. It was around that time at least.
The larynx actually doesn't descend in humans right away. Babies have a throat and laryngeal structure much more similar to other apes, which is why they're so shit at making adult noises. This is one of the millions of examples of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny.