From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!west.West.Sun.COM!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!news2me.ebay.sun.com!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!sun!amdcad!netcomsv!mork!sss Tue Apr  7 23:22:44 EDT 1992
Article 4767 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!west.West.Sun.COM!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!news2me.ebay.sun.com!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!sun!amdcad!netcomsv!mork!sss
>From: sss@netcom.com (Small Systems Solutions)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Language as Technology: A Phenomenological Study
Message-ID: <sbcj9h-sss@netcom.com>
Date: 27 Mar 92 20:15:33 GMT
References: <1992Mar26.003003.20515@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Mar27.130652.23929@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> <1992Mar27.184548.14646@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)
Lines: 39

In article <1992Mar27.184548.14646@mp.cs.niu.edu> 
	rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>
> Although we use the term "body language" for this, most people do not consider
>it to be a real language.  But if you want to consider it a language, I will
>insist that hormonal signals between organs in the body also constitute
>language.

Linguists (and those in allied diciplines) clearly distinguish between
"language" and "signaling" -- between language and any number of other
communication mechanisms.  Intentionality and a symbolic/sign-based mechanism
are some of the features that distinguish language.

>>How do you understand if a dog tells you something?
>>Do dogs have poor language?
>
> I don't claim to be an expert on dogs.  They obviously can communicate with
>one another with some types of body language, olfactory signals, etc.  I am
>not aware of any evidence of a more substantial language.

Dogs don't have language, even when they've learned to associate vocal
patterns with actions  - "Car", "sit", "dinner", etc. My dog's response
to the word "dinner" is equivalent to her response to the sound of a can
opener.

>>If I understand correct your definition of analog/digital language,
>>I can assume that telepathy is for you an analog language.
>>Why is this form of language dissantvantageus?
>
>  Since there is no evidence supporting the existence of telepathy, you
>can call it digital or not as you see fit.  Such statements about something
>non-existent are meaningless.

Woof.
-- 
Small Systems Solutions                   1563 Solano Avenue, Suite 123
sss@netcom.com                                  Berkeley, CA 94707-2116

The above-expressed opinions aren't necessarily


