From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Wed Aug 12 16:52:42 EDT 1992
Article 6588 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Communication and Intelligence
Message-ID: <1992Aug10.163139.20080@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References: <1992Aug6.185819.9079@sequent.com> <1992Aug6.203254.11225@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992Aug10.133447.6855@sequent.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1992 16:31:39 GMT
Lines: 48

In article <1992Aug10.133447.6855@sequent.com> bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne) writes:
>
>3)  This is really a followup to the previous question.  Given that 
>everything seems to communicate anytime anything happens, why did we specialize
>in speech?  Some thoughts of my own:
>	a) We didn't.  We use all kinds of communication mediums.

  Agreed.

>	b) Speech is directionless.  Speech leaves the sender in a sphere
>and the receiver need only be within the effective range of the sphere.  Other
>means of communication, all seem to involve that the sender and receiver be in
>relatively close proximity with a narrow cone of reference.  This has 
>exceptions in the proximity issue (smoke signals for example), but not
>necessarily in the cone of reference.

  I don't agree with this.  If two people are back to back, they cannot
understand each other speech at as great a distance.  There is a
directional component to speech.  Other animals, most obviously the song
birds, use sound for communication, but it doesn't seem to have done as
much for them.  Underwater sound carries much further, but whales and
dolphins, while believed to be very intelligent, appear not to have
developed complex languages.

>	c) Our ears developed the ability to catch distinctions faster then
>other parts of our bodies.

  I'm dubious about this too.

>4)  How is human communication unique?  How does it reflect (like many other 
>things we do) our intelligence?  Is it the ability to communicate a concept
>(or abstraction)?

  As I see it, the unique aspect is that language is DIGITAL.  I've
mentioned this before in c.a.p. postings, but it seems to have not
attracted much interest.  Either most people don't notice the digital
nature of language, or they do not see it as very important.  It
seems to me to be fundamental to the differences between man and
other mammals.

>                   If that is the uniqueness of human communication, then 
>isn't a computer already capable of that sort of interaction?

  I think we tend to underestimate the importance of the intelligence
of other animals.  We differ from the other animals in that with language
we have added a digital interface.  We differ from computers in that we
have that underlying raw animal intelligence available to us.



