Conceptually separating language from biology

[A. Katz]

>Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 20:45:56 +0000
>From: Dan Everett <Dan.Everett at MAN.AC.UK>
>To: FUNKNET at listserv.rice.edu
>
>The problem is that biology needs environment to emerge. Walking,
>seeing, speaking, and various other skills we take for granted as
>biological need environment, like a plant needs water and sunlight for
>photosynthesis - chlorophyll is not enough. Therefore, to show
>instances of retarded development due to lack of environmental stimuli
>does not distinguish between culture and biology. Biology requires
>environment. So does culture. So environment itself will not
>distinguish them.

That's a valid point. Biological entities cannot function without a
hospitable environment.  But we can still tease language apart from
biology by trying the thought experiment the other way: not by
depriving humans of their natural environment, but by allowing
non-humans to demonstrate language ability.

Suppose it turned out that one of our Funknet posters was not a
biological entity at all, but rather an AI program implemented on a
computer and connected to the net. Let's say none of us were able to
tell the difference. The poster not only wrote grammatically and
comprehensibly, but was also able to maintain topic continuity and
discourse coherence and to interact productively with other posters.
If this were the case, would you not concede that the AI entity was
using language? Would it matter that it didn't share our DNA or our
brain structures?


         --Aya Katz


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.well.com/user/amnfn
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++