Maybe it's only my reaction, but the hair on the back of my neck bristles
whenever I hear a statement beginning "[some technology] will never be
able to ...." or containing "... [some 'distinctly human' ability] can not
be replicated ...." What positive purpose can such a belief serve?
In my humble opinion, scientists from many fields wasted a whole lot of
valuable "head time" during the past century or so trying to make sure
that humans would continue to be thought of as "superior" to the "lower"
animals. I'm not sure who, exactly, was so insecure about our preeminent
on this planet, but the literature is rife with arguments about such
things as human creativity (never to be found in "lower" animals), the
ability to use language ("they" don't do it), the ability to think beyond
the present moment (nope, they can't; couldn't possibly), etc. This was
followed by all the arguments about whether "machines" could "think" (or
"learn" or "adapt," etc.) and this is still being argued today.
I'm only suggesting that:
1. Perhaps making such an argument is a waste of time and, at worst, an
impediment to the progress of our own learning (if it discourages someone
from thinking about and researching such things.)
2. Look at the course of such arguments in the past and see if the
present example is following a similar course. The course I see is to
begin with didactic statements of "fact" such as "humans are superior
because lower animals do not have the ability to use language." Then,
when researchers find or create some examples where lower animals seem to
actually be using language, the next step is to deny that what they're
doing is "language." [Oh, it's a cute trick, but it ain't language. It
may even be a primitive, lower-animal form of "communication" but it ain't
language. You see, for it to be language, it must be ....] The next step
is to admit that they're using "their kind of language" but, of course,
it's not what we mean by "human" language. Finally, the last bastion
(which is unassailable, because it has no empirical content) is to say
that there is something unique about the human being and our use of
language, something ineffable, something so rarified and special that it
just won't ever be within the reach of lower animals. [Which is to say,
it may be language after all but it ain't "human language" because only
humans use human language, don't you see?]
When I see arguments starting down this path, my tendency (after paying
attention to the bristling neck hairs) is to dismiss them. I'll admit
that sometimes the arguers perform a worthwhile duty by making others be
clearer about what they mean. As a result of such interactions, for
example, I believe we have a much better idea about the nature of language
than we did a century ago. Wouldn't it have been a shame if everyone had
taken the initial argument for granted and failed to explore this subject?
--"John Gunkler" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>