Tim Tillman wrote:
>> << .....cut out ... >>>
>> > Also, are you saying that communication is a
> >prerequisite to your definition of intellegence?
>> No. Development of language may be indicative of intelligence. It would be
> difficult to describe an individual human born without the necessary brain
> anatomy to utilize language in some fashion as intelligent. Communication
> is a valuable ability. But, I did not equate communication with language.
>> Microorganisms can communicate by chemical signals. The pressence of these
> signals will induce the population to act in a certain way. Inducing
> biolumenescence pathways and aggregation of slime mold individuals into
> reproductive structures come to mind. This form of communication is not
> considered a language. Languages are vocal or symbolic in some form, and
> allow the transfer of complex ideas. Languages are not chemical. Many
> animals communicate vocally. Do we assign the vicious growling of a dog to
> language? I think not. Its communication goal is purely instinctive. The
> dance of the honey bee can communicate the location of nectar. But, this is
> not language. This is the communication of a concrete fact, not complex
> ideas. Great apes and humans can communicate complex ideas.
>> Tim
Maybe ultimately it _is_ the prime objective for "general communication"
to establish a link between brains. The most _direct_ way in chemical or
electrically such as in micro-organims. But chemical diffusion or
electrical conductivity is low in air, so animals "developed" sound and
language as a link between brains.
This means that it is no good to say "having a language" is intelligent.
Micro-organisms don't need vocal language because they have better.
Language is prone to misinterpretation while chemical and electrical
signals (in some sense ...) are not.
Ivo
--
Ivo Kwee,
Department of Medical Physics and Bioengineering,
University College London.
Office: 0171 - 209 6415 Fax: 0171 - 209 6269
Home: 0171 - 794 5243 E-mail: kwee at medphys.ucl.ac.uk
