Communication

[HouseApe]

How would you explain that to someone who is mute?

Individuals within a group can be mute. Entire groups fending for themselves cannot without help from the non-mute.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

It is an impossible scenario. Humans can't live without vocal communication.

Presenting such unfounded and blatantly false statements do not do much for increasing your credibility.
Please note that you did not hear this but probabilities would conclude that you read this.

 

[HouseApe]

Presenting such unfounded and blatantly false statements do not do much for increasing your credibility.
Please note that you did not hear this but probabilities would conclude that you read this.

CC,

The statement is neither unfounded, nor blatantly false. If you think it is, please present evidence of the existence of a society of mutes that has ever been recorded. You will not be able to. The next step is to wonder why. The next step is to educate yourself on the subject (which I have done). Your final step would be to apologize. Something I am confident you find difficult to do in any circumstance.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

CC,

The statement is neither unfounded, nor blatantly false. If you think it is, please present evidence of the existence of a society of mutes that has ever been recorded. You will not be able to. The next step is to wonder why. The next step is to educate yourself on the subject (which I have done). Your final step would be to apologize. Something I am confident you find difficult to do in any circumstance.

You continue to tickle me... I just don't know if it is intentional.
I'm am pretty sure that you know the fallacy of burden shift.

 

[HouseApe]

You continue to tickle me... I just don't know if it is intentional.
I'm am pretty sure that you know the fallacy of burden shift.

A burden shift is fallacious in the instance of two competing viewpoints both of which command some evidence. Yours has none. Nada. Zip. So it sits at the extreme boundaries of fallaciousness. Indeed, the ludicrousness of your statement essentially requires a burden shift.

However, I'll throw out a few concepts that you can choose (or not) to research at your leisure.

1. If you live in a mute society, you have never heard language.
2. If you have never heard language, you will not possess language.
2. Humans require language to think.
3. Humans cannot survive in the wild without the ability to think.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

A burden shift is fallacious in the instance of two competing viewpoints both of which command some evidence. Yours has none. Nada. Zip. So it sits at the extreme boundaries of fallaciousness. Indeed, the ludicrousness of your statement essentially requires a burden shift.

I see that you still do not fully understand. It is not the burden of the 'other view' to prove something false if the first party never proved that their assertion was true. Research it before going further in contrasting our levels of knowledge... for your own sake please.

However, I'll throw out a few concepts that you can choose (or not) to research at your leisure.

1. If you live in a mute society, you have never heard language.

False premise - does not account for historical event possibilities.

2. If you have never heard language, you will not possess language.

Circular - never having a beginning.

2. Humans require language to think.

LOL

3. Humans cannot survive in the wild without the ability to think.

You have got a lot of work ahead of you poving all those.

 

[HouseApe]

I see that you still do not fully understand. It is not the burden of the 'other view' to prove something false if the first party never proved that their assertion was true. Research it before going further in contrasting our levels of knowledge... for your own sake please.

No, I do fully understand. You are using a simplistic view of the subject.

False premise - does not account for historical event possibilities.

The OP did not mention historical event possibilities, so I did not assume any.

Circular - never having a beginning.

Incorrect use of circular.

LOL

Science has been done. Please feel free to research. Your ignorance of the subject is readily apparent. I suggest looking into research on language and consciousness.

You have got a lot of work ahead of you poving all those.

Certainly one of us does.

 

[Ledifni]

This is a circumstance question.

You are an explorer and part of a team of scientists going to a small island that has remained un-discovered. Your specialty is language and etymology, you are responsible for communicating with any indigenous people that may be found.

As your team picks its way through the jungle, you come across a village of mud hutts. You slowly make your way into the village and are greeted by groups of strange looking people. Male and female mixed, pale white skin with white body paint in random line configurations. There appears to be no sign of any food stores, tools, fire pits, weapons, decorative art, furniture of any sort.

The people are curious but not agressive, they touch your clothes and face. They imitate basic body movement such as waving and smiling but they dont speak and dont appear to have any written language. How do you work on communicating with the people? Remember that modern equipment such as planes or engines may frighten them and allthough they arent agressive, scaring them probably wont help.

You find out by what means they communicate and then form your strategy based on what you find. Generally, all language works in the same way no matter what medium is used to communicate -- the difficult part is finding out how they communicate.

This problem isn't any different from the linguistic problems with meeting any new culture. The only different thing you've specified is that you don't know how they communicate, which is hardly a unique problem as that just puts you back one step -- to the point of determining whether a given group does communicate. With humans, we assume this since in our experience all humans communicate, but if we met humans that do not appear to, we'd simply have to find out whether they do and then proceed as usual.

 

[Ledifni]

This is obvious. I take the largest members of my group, arm them, then we storm the village. We take two or three young children hostage. Being young they should be able to learn our language rather quickly. Then I take several of the tribe and burn them alive just to show the others I mean business. I allow the rest of my group to force the women of the tribe to have sex. When the people of the tribe start to die I attribute these deaths not to the disease we've brought with us, but to God's wrath upon them for not being saved.

Within a year those who aren't Christian will be dead. Who cares how they communicate?

After all, it's a tried-and-true method that has worked brilliantly time and time again.

 

[Antoninus Verus]

Presenting such unfounded and blatantly false statements do not do much for increasing your credibility.
Please note that you did not hear this but probabilities would conclude that you read this.

I dont think we need go THAT far. His statement is untrue, I will agree. He is fixated on the idea that language is imperative for survival. And it is...in our society. Communication and self-expression are fundamental aspects of this society, we HAVE to be able to do those things to function. But a totally different society may not have grown the same way and therefore may not be as dependant on speech as we are.

After all, it's a tried-and-true method that has worked brilliantly time and time again.

Just ask an Indian

 

[GreenDragon]

I think I agree with HouseApe here, to a point. Humans do need some kind of communication, but it doesn't have to be verbal, though this would seem the easiest and most likely to develop. Hand signals, writing, or even telepathy (assuming it's possible) would all work as valid communication methods. I don't see how we could function without communication though, nor do I see how we could ever develop without it spontaneously coming about.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I think I agree with HouseApe here, to a point. Humans do need some kind of communication, but it doesn't have to be verbal, though this would seem the easiest and most likely to develop. Hand signals, writing, or even telepathy (assuming it's possible) would all work as valid communication methods. I don't see how we could function without communication though, nor do I see how we could ever develop without it spontaneously coming about.

You might have an actual point if HouseApe stuck to the phrase 'some kind of communication'; but as one can see, the assertions shift and much more is claimed.
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=14182846&postcount=18
http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=14200837&postcount=25

 

[GreenDragon]

That's why I said "to a point".

-.-;;