Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Monkey and primate call systems cannot be preadaptations ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Monkey and primate call systems cannot be preadaptations for human language

    Consciousness & Mind
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Language is unique to humans
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a trait is unique to humans, then non-human communication systems cannot be preadaptations for that trait
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Preadaptation requires only functional precursor homology, not identity of trait, as Gould and Vrba established in exaptation theory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Vervet monkey alarm calls exhibit referential semanticity and combinatorial structure that constitute functional precursors to symbolic reference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A trait unique to humans can still have evolutionary precursors in non-human systems without those systems themselves being linguistic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The supporting argument's P2 conflates the uniqueness of a derived trait with the impossibility of ancestral scaffolding, committing a continuity fallacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Tomasello's shared intentionality framework demonstrates that primate gestural communication shares deep intentional structure with human proto-linguistic acts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Evolutionary continuity, not categorical similarity, is the relevant criterion for identifying preadaptations, as Darwin's descent with modification requires.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageConsciousness & Mind

    Related

    A trait unique to humans can still have evolutionary precursors in non-human sys...Evolutionary continuity, not categorical similarity, is the relevant criterion f...If a trait is unique to humans, then non-human communication systems cannot be p...Language is unique to humans
    +4 moreShow less
    Preadaptation requires only functional precursor homology, not identity of trait...The supporting argument's P2 conflates the uniqueness of a derived trait with th...Tomasello's shared intentionality framework demonstrates that primate gestural c...Vervet monkey alarm calls exhibit referential semanticity and combinatorial stru...

    Similar

    Nothing resembling human language could have developed from prior anim...83%Animal communication systems are not relevant to the study of human la...77%If a trait is unique to humans, then non-human communication systems c...76%Intelligent creatures might fail The Turing Test because the pragmatic...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: linguistics
    View source passageHide passage
    Thus, the mere fact that language is unique to humans is sufficient to rule out monkey and primate call systems as preadapations for language. But, contra Bickerton, a neo-Darwinian like Jackendoff (2002) appeals to the work of Dunbar (1998), Power (1998), Worden (1998) to provide a selectionist story which assumes that cooperation in hunting, defense (Pinker and Bloom 1990), and “ ‘social grooming’ or deception” are selective forces that operated on human ancestors to drive increases in express
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit