16 Jul '09 14:50>
OK.
[soapbox]
"Also like humans, apes have a marked faculty for language. (This, of course, is intertwined with their powers of reason.) Their vocabulary is enormous, their grammar complex, and their conversations deep and meaningful. "
I'm afraid this assertion simply isn't true. Their vocabulary is not enormous, it is limited to a small number of phrases, that signify, among other things, quality of food, presence of predators, etc. Grammar among apes is not complex, but quite limited, in the sense that their language is not generative. Human language is generative, in that we can create new utterances almost at will, using a) our vocabulary, and b) the rules of grammar. Apes simply don't have the sophisticated grammar required to make their language generative. Human language is constantly evolving (thing slang, neologisms, etc.), and there is _zero_ evidence that apes have this capacity. Human language is structured at multiple levels, meaning it can be analysed in terms of phonemes (smallest sound unit), morphemes (smallest meaning unit), words, sentences and discourse. Ape language lacks this property.
Many attempts have been made over the years to teach apes human language, and whilst some have been able to grasp a rudimentary vocabulary (approx. 60 words) and grammar, this fades to vanishing compared to the abilities of a two-year old child, who has more words and knows more grammar, yet has a brain that is almost completely immature.
Second:
There are many cases where brain-damage and congenital abnormalities have left individuals with almost no impairment. This absolutely does not mean that we don't need or use parts of our brains. In cases of brain damage, often undamaged parts modify to take charge of tasks previously done by the damaged brain tissue (e.g., regaining language, or use of an arm). In cases of congenital developmental differences, often the brain will make do with what it has, and simply develop in such a way that the rest of the brain takes on the functions of the missing parts of the brain; if the woman lost half of her brain due to trauma in adulthood, she most certainly would be seriously impaired.
Third:
brain size does not correlate with intelligence. The complexity of folds (gyri and sulci) within the brain is what enables more processing power to fit inside the head, as it increases the (3d) surface area available for connections between neurons. Whales have brains many times larger than those of humans, and are demonstrably not as smart (at least not in ways you or I would consider smart).
[/soapbox]
[soapbox]
"Also like humans, apes have a marked faculty for language. (This, of course, is intertwined with their powers of reason.) Their vocabulary is enormous, their grammar complex, and their conversations deep and meaningful. "
I'm afraid this assertion simply isn't true. Their vocabulary is not enormous, it is limited to a small number of phrases, that signify, among other things, quality of food, presence of predators, etc. Grammar among apes is not complex, but quite limited, in the sense that their language is not generative. Human language is generative, in that we can create new utterances almost at will, using a) our vocabulary, and b) the rules of grammar. Apes simply don't have the sophisticated grammar required to make their language generative. Human language is constantly evolving (thing slang, neologisms, etc.), and there is _zero_ evidence that apes have this capacity. Human language is structured at multiple levels, meaning it can be analysed in terms of phonemes (smallest sound unit), morphemes (smallest meaning unit), words, sentences and discourse. Ape language lacks this property.
Many attempts have been made over the years to teach apes human language, and whilst some have been able to grasp a rudimentary vocabulary (approx. 60 words) and grammar, this fades to vanishing compared to the abilities of a two-year old child, who has more words and knows more grammar, yet has a brain that is almost completely immature.
Second:
There are many cases where brain-damage and congenital abnormalities have left individuals with almost no impairment. This absolutely does not mean that we don't need or use parts of our brains. In cases of brain damage, often undamaged parts modify to take charge of tasks previously done by the damaged brain tissue (e.g., regaining language, or use of an arm). In cases of congenital developmental differences, often the brain will make do with what it has, and simply develop in such a way that the rest of the brain takes on the functions of the missing parts of the brain; if the woman lost half of her brain due to trauma in adulthood, she most certainly would be seriously impaired.
Third:
brain size does not correlate with intelligence. The complexity of folds (gyri and sulci) within the brain is what enables more processing power to fit inside the head, as it increases the (3d) surface area available for connections between neurons. Whales have brains many times larger than those of humans, and are demonstrably not as smart (at least not in ways you or I would consider smart).
[/soapbox]