Could a technological society develop without language?

[Swank]

The thread is specifically about language.

I'm sorry; I don't see how that is an answer to my question.

 

[paeng]

Meanwhile, language might also involve the written form, which means what is visual.

 

[-K2-]

I'm suspect most here have watched the new Dune movies. The hand signals they use are too brief and simplistic to convey individual words or letters (like sign we might think of). My guess would be that each sign equals a meaning altered by context. Because two or more people can communicate with it--even without specific individual signed, verbalized, or written words--makes it a language. More so, no matter your native language, once you learn the meanings for each signal, which you will translate into your language, does not mean you now understand the other person's language, yet that language of sign.

It's too easy to get wrapped up in a mindset of words and speaking since that's what we use. Some species (as might alien races) use scent, vibrational frequency, tones, posture, gestures/sign, custom, expressions, symbols, and so on. Just because we don't understand it, doesn't make it any less of a language. As I said earlier; a language only develops as much as is needed. Any means by which individuals mutually communicate in a formalized way--no matter the way--makes it a language.

K2

 

[Montero]

The work on elephant language is showing that gesturing with the ears is probably included but they're still working on it. Not just the gross "extend in challenge" type, but also flapping and bending.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

The work on elephant language is showing that gesturing with the ears is probably included

I will say that elephant ears can tell a lot more than a few gestures. The size of the ears is for body heat regulation but also helps to get the point across as they don't have the greatest eyesight and it does amplify their hearing. Think of a cat's tail, there's a lot of information coming off of that. Squirrel tails tell a lot. Then there is the human face and body language, which not everyone can read.

 

[Swank]

Thread: Death of a thousand cuts.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

The question has to ask something more specific than the word language.

 

[paeng]

Language can mean verbal and written forms of communication, but the latter are critical for transmission of more complex ideas and long-term storage.

And transmission of more complex ideas plus long-term storage are needed for ever-increasing levels of technology.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I'm suspect most here have watched the new Dune movies.

K2

Nope, I'm Duned out.
Trekked out too. LOL

 

[Orcadian]

The work on elephant language is showing that gesturing with the ears is probably included but they're still working on it. Not just the gross "extend in challenge" type, but also flapping and bending.

Are you aware of the recent research where it was established that elephants have names? Names they gave themselves. This is not them recognising names we gave them. See https://www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=pSdfv9uWdCg and https://www.sci.news/biology/elephant-names-13007.html

 

[Wayne Mack]

If the end point is a technological society, then anything involving computer programs would not be available due to the no language constraint. I'm not sure what else would be available to achieve a technological society.

 

[Swank]

If the end point is a technological society, then anything involving computer programs would not be available due to the no language constraint. I'm not sure what else would be available to achieve a technological society.

If math is a language.

 

[paeng]

Not just computer programs but even economic processes that require written inventories of items, etc.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

Are you aware of the recent research

Research about elephants posted by Montero around a month ago. I believe they are unique names and they are doing more than just saying hello.
There are several different ways of transmitting information, FM, AM, Phase, Pulse. I don't think we have a monopoly on those methods. We are however apparently expecting animals to speak plain english using ordinary vocalizations so we can understand what they are saying. And if they don't speak our language, well, then, apparently they can't communicate intelligently. I would suspect most of this reasoning is based on personal preferences. Its entirely possible that the use of language, described as Neuroanthropology is the deciding factor in the pecking order, but I would suspect those 10 fingers and toes have a lot to do with it as well. Here's an interesting article about dogs, no longer seen as ordinary animals by science. “The dog community is one of the biggest communities in cognition research.” I guess that must be next to people.

 

[Orcadian]

... Here's an interesting article about dogs, no longer seen as ordinary animals by science.

Sadly paywalled for me (in Europe). But I'm aware of one particular border collie (now dead) that appeared to understand symbols. S/he could not only fetch a toy by name (from a huge selection), s/he could look at a photo of a toy, then fetch that specific toy from an adjacent room, where it lay amongst many other toys.

 

[Montero]

There is Alex the parrot - Home - Alex Foundation
Subject, and star, of a very long study which showed
"In 1977, Dr. Irene Pepperberg and Alex, her first Grey Parrot research subject, began seminal research into the cognitive abilities of parrots, providing a new view of nonhuman intelligence. Via her pioneering methods, Alex learned to accurately use over one hundred English labels to describe objects, shapes, colors, and materials, did simple math, and understood concepts of “none”, “same/different”, “bigger-smaller”. Grey parrots see optical illusions as do humans and engage in various forms of inferential reasoning."

 

[Orcadian]

There is Alex the parrot - Home - Alex Foundation
Subject, and star, of a very long study which showed
"In 1977, Dr. Irene Pepperberg and Alex, her first Grey Parrot research subject, began seminal research into the cognitive abilities of parrots, providing a new view of nonhuman intelligence. Via her pioneering methods, Alex learned to accurately use over one hundred English labels to describe objects, shapes, colors, and materials, did simple math, and understood concepts of “none”, “same/different”, “bigger-smaller”. Grey parrots see optical illusions as do humans and engage in various forms of inferential reasoning."

Interesting... I've read about parrots that appeared able to do such things but I don't know whether the bird was tested under controlled conditions. Perhaps the accounts are anecdotal? Do you know if the results of any actual tests were published?

 

[paeng]

The language has to be able to deal with increasingly complex material, like abstract concepts in philosophy and the sciences (which means combinations of a few words allowing for more meaning, or more words and each one laden with multiple meanings brought about by context), then put down in recorded form (which means the ability to assign symbols to each character or word or both), and ideas utilized using the equivalent of an opposing digit needed for higher-precision fabrication, not to mention recording what's communicated.

 

[Swank]

The language has to be able to deal with increasingly complex material, like abstract concepts in philosophy and the sciences (which means combinations of a few words allowing for more meaning, or more words and each one laden with multiple meanings brought about by context), then put down in recorded form (which means the ability to assign symbols to each character or word or both), and ideas utilized using the equivalent of an opposing digit needed for higher-precision fabrication, not to mention recording what's communicated.

Philosophy is byproduct of the structure natural language, not the result of scientific pursuit of information.

In other words, beings that don't have nebulous words like "truth" don't waste their time pursuing its definition.

 

[AllanR]

Philosophy is byproduct of the structure natural language, not the result of scientific pursuit of information.

Science developed from philosophy. A few hundred years ago they were indistinguishable. A PHD is a doctorate of philosophy (the specific field comes next). For quite some time science was called natural philosophy.