Conworld idea: no clean break between language and almost-language

[Pabappa]

Or more simply, ignoring what the herbivore is saying and just eat it.

Yeah - humans are quite capable of killing other humans, particularly if they convince themselves that certain sorts of human are somehow "lesser", so the fact that the prey can talk wouldn't necessarily put predators off. Particularly if the prey creatures were the ones with the less complicated language.

Which is very plausible since predators tend to be smarter than prey. (It's not a perfect one-to-one correlation--e.g., baleen whales are a noteworthy exception of a highly intelligent herbivore--but it's a trend anyway.)

Baleen whales are filter feeders, and they get a lot of tiny crustaceans in there, so they are predators like most other large sea animals. you may be confusing them with manatees. both have a similar body plan and are very weak for their size but baleen whales still eat meat whereas manatees are among the very few sea animals that dont. (or at least they eat very little.)

[Zaarin]

Yeah - humans are quite capable of killing other humans, particularly if they convince themselves that certain sorts of human are somehow "lesser", so the fact that the prey can talk wouldn't necessarily put predators off. Particularly if the prey creatures were the ones with the less complicated language.

Which is very plausible since predators tend to be smarter than prey. (It's not a perfect one-to-one correlation--e.g., baleen whales are a noteworthy exception of a highly intelligent herbivore--but it's a trend anyway.)

Baleen whales are filter feeders, and they get a lot of tiny crustaceans in there, so they are predators like most other large sea animals. you may be confusing them with manatees. both have a similar body plan and are very weak for their size but baleen whales still eat meat whereas manatees are among the very few sea animals that dont. (or at least they eat very little.)

I definitely know the difference between a whale and a manatee, the latter being certainly deserving of the "how is such a remarkably stupid species still extant" award. Baleen whales may incidentally eat animals, but they don't hunt--certainly not in the manner of the toothed whales. Hunting requires cunning; filter feeding requires swimming with one's mouth open.

[Pabappa]

I understand that but the whales have a high protein diet like any other predator and a high protein diet allows for a large brain that burns lots of calories. It may not make much sense to classify an animal that doesnt even have teeth as a predator, but from the dietary perspective they are predators just as much as the more dangerous creatures are. Baleen whales are probably not the smartest whales in the sea, but if they had a need for a complex brain, they would have the right diet to make sure that their brain had plenty of energy to run on full power.

Actually, Im having second thoughts about that last part. Since this started as a discussion about animals that could speak languages, it might need some more thoughts ... parrots are certainly not predators, although it looks like they might eat high-protein plant products ... I'm not sure that diet really makes that much difference in whether an animal can evolve language ability. Which means that baleen whales could evolve it, but maybe manatees could too if they had a need for it.

[mèþru]

well if you can manufacture proteins efficiently from other nutrients that'd be great

[Salmoneus]

Ooh, could make it rather difficult for anyone to reasonably be a carnivore with enough thought about what they were doing...perhaps you should consider investing heavily in designing protein-heavy plants?

Or more simply, ignoring what the herbivore is saying and just eat it.

Yeah - humans are quite capable of killing other humans, particularly if they convince themselves that certain sorts of human are somehow "lesser", so the fact that the prey can talk wouldn't necessarily put predators off. Particularly if the prey creatures were the ones with the less complicated language.

Again, this scenario is literally what already happens in reality.

[Salmoneus]

I'm not sure how this differs from the real world?

Most humans, for instance, are in very little doubt about what a dog seems to be saying at any given moment...

We still in the real world have a difference between pheromone communication and verbal communication.

Yes, some animals have some senses stronger than others. Humans don't communicate much by smell, because their sense of smell is bad. Ants communicate almost entirely by smell; their sense of smell is good. To eliminate this difference would mean massively rewriting the principle of evolution, as it would mean animals would have to be stopped from evolving to best exploit their niches (eg in a naturalistic world, falcons will always have better eyesight and worse scent than bloodhounds; because their evolutionary niche is different).

But what if there is no subconscious, (in our world) pheromone signal for "I love you" distinct from a conscious, 'linguistic' word for 'love'?

Well of course, in our world there IS no pheromone signal for "I love you" (or, in humans, for anything else), conscious or unconscious, so I don't really understand what you're driving at.

More generally: if an observable characteristic of an animal can be changed voluntarily by the animal to communicate, I don't think we can really call it unconscious. But at the same time, if an observable characteristic cannot be change voluntarily, I don't think we can call it an unconscious 'signal', because there is no signaller. It is just a symptom. I'm not sure why you seem to attach so much importance specifically to symptomatic smells, as opposed to other sorts of symptoms. Let's say, for instance, that you eliminate a smell that an animal gives off unconsciously when it's injured - but you're left with t he sound it gives off, the vibrations it gives off, the temperature it gives off, and most importantly the visual impression it gives off. One way or another, you're going to be able to tell that an animal has a broken leg! You can't make all of signs of having a broken leg voluntarily - because if you can voluntarily not communicate that you can't walk, then by definition you must be able to walk, and at that point physics gets in the way. You could perhaps eliminate any smells that are characteristic of being afraid - but you can't eliminate other involuntary "signals" like an elevated heartbeat, or a reluctance to get closer, because those are part of what fear is!

So you can't get rid of involuntarily communication or make it all voluntary. On the other hand, if you got rid of all voluntary communication and made it all involuntary, then you're by definition de-animising your creatures down to the equivalent of, I don't know, amoeba? Even amoeba may have voluntary motions, so...

So how can you eliminate the difference between voluntary (conscious) and involuntary (unconscious) behaviour, if both are necessary?

...you clearly have something you want to convey here, but I think you're really unclear what it actually is.

[Hyolobrika]

So how can you eliminate the difference between voluntary (conscious) and involuntary (unconscious) behaviour, if both are necessary?

I was talking about eliminating the difference in expression. So, instead of evolving a different lexicon for conscious signalling versus certain kinds of unconscious behaviour, life evolves to use the same signals consciously.

[mèþru]

but there is no "lexicon" of the subconscious
it isn't true language, and it is impossible for there to be one because language is based on the way a conscious mind thinks.

[Hyolobrika]

I'm not sure how this differs from the real world?

Most humans, for instance, are in very little doubt about what a dog seems to be saying at any given moment...

We still in the real world have a difference between pheromone communication and verbal communication.

Yes, some animals have some senses stronger than others. Humans don't communicate much by smell, because their sense of smell is bad. Ants communicate almost entirely by smell; their sense of smell is good. To eliminate this difference would mean massively rewriting the principle of evolution, as it would mean animals would have to be stopped from evolving to best exploit their niches (eg in a naturalistic world, falcons will always have better eyesight and worse scent than bloodhounds; because their evolutionary niche is different).

I don't think you need to have the best senses in one particular direction in order to have that as your primary means of communication. In this world all creatures have whatever sense is used good enough for the purpose of communication.

[mèþru]

But that would go against evolutionary principles, as itmay be advantageous to move more communication to a different sense.

[Hyolobrika]

If it's too difficult to evolve in a particular way, then a species will make do. If my understanding of evolution is correct, it seeks the local maxima not the global (It was ages ago that I watched this video but I'm fairly sure it will explain what I mean.)

[Salmoneus]

So how can you eliminate the difference between voluntary (conscious) and involuntary (unconscious) behaviour, if both are necessary?

I was talking about eliminating the difference in expression. So, instead of evolving a different lexicon for conscious signalling versus certain kinds of unconscious behaviour, life evolves to use the same signals consciously.

So, I have flu. In our world, I communicate this fact both voluntarily and involuntarily, and some of my involuntary communications are also unconscious.

So we can separate out your different "lexicons":
voluntary: saying I have flu
involuntary but conscious: coughing loudly
involuntary and unconscious: radiating more heat than usual

If you want to reduce this to a single "lexicon", which do you eliminate? It seems hard to eliminate the involuntary symptoms of flu, since presumably your world does have disease. So we need to eliminate the voluntary symptoms: eliminate language. But that doesn't seem like something that would evolve naturally, because of course voluntary things are done for a reason: I tell people I have flu when I think that them knowing that will help me in some way, AND when I think my involuntary symptoms haven't not adequately conveyed that information with its appropriate saliency. Being able to communicate in this way is IMMENSELY useful. If I had no way of communicating illness other than by coughing loudly and radiating heat, I'd be greatly disadvantaged!

Or let's take humans out of the equation and take cats. When a cat is hungry, it has involuntary symptoms of this - a rumbling stomach, for instance, and restlessness - and voluntary symptoms, like meowing. Cats meow precisely because their involuntary symptoms are not always good at conveying their meaning. If a housecat had no way to communicate other than its rumbling stomach, it would find it much harder to get food.

So, since voluntary symptoms arise to convey information more forcefully, for gain, what possible evolutionary force would PREVENT cats learning to make a noise to attract attention?

And why is this important, and what on earth does it have to do with a 'common language' and all that, which doesn't seem related?

[Hyolobrika]

but there is no "lexicon" of the subconscious
it isn't true language, and it is impossible for there to be one because language is based on the way a conscious mind thinks.

The way a conscious mind thinks evolved in the real world from the way the subconscious thinks. According to the current consensus in science, conscious beings/minds evolved from less conscious beings. If this is the case, then it's plausible that the expression of conscious thinking could use the same 'lexicon' as 'unconscious signalling' (I think you know what I mean by that, pheremone response to injury - while not the same - can be compared to the expression "I am hurt" or perhaps more closely, "Ouch!").

[Hyolobrika]

So how can you eliminate the difference between voluntary (conscious) and involuntary (unconscious) behaviour, if both are necessary?

I was talking about eliminating the difference in expression. So, instead of evolving a different lexicon for conscious signalling versus certain kinds of unconscious behaviour, life evolves to use the same signals consciously.

So, I have flu. In our world, I communicate this fact both voluntarily and involuntarily, and some of my involuntary communications are also unconscious.

So we can separate out your different "lexicons":
voluntary: saying I have flu
involuntary but conscious: coughing loudly
involuntary and unconscious: radiating more heat than usual

If you want to reduce this to a single "lexicon", which do you eliminate? It seems hard to eliminate the involuntary symptoms of flu, since presumably your world does have disease. So we need to eliminate the voluntary symptoms: eliminate language. But that doesn't seem like something that would evolve naturally, because of course voluntary things are done for a reason: I tell people I have flu when I think that them knowing that will help me in some way, AND when I think my involuntary symptoms haven't not adequately conveyed that information with its appropriate saliency. Being able to communicate in this way is IMMENSELY useful. If I had no way of communicating illness other than by coughing loudly and radiating heat, I'd be greatly disadvantaged!

Firstly, I am only talking about eliminating your first two examples. It would be impossible to eliminate the third, as you state.
Secondly, we eliminate it smoothly, by reducing them all to points on a spectrum. Not by simply removing one or another. For example coughing can be either voluntary or involuntary.

Or let's take humans out of the equation and take cats. When a cat is hungry, it has involuntary symptoms of this - a rumbling stomach, for instance, and restlessness - and voluntary symptoms, like meowing. Cats meow precisely because their involuntary symptoms are not always good at conveying their meaning. If a housecat had no way to communicate other than its rumbling stomach, it would find it much harder to get food.

So, since voluntary symptoms arise to convey information more forcefully, for gain, what possible evolutionary force would PREVENT cats learning to make a noise to attract attention?

And why is this important, and what on earth does it have to do with a 'common language' and all that, which doesn't seem related?

They would learn to control the previously unconsious signals, what ever they were, instead.
See my previous comment and yours on the imposibility of reducing all ways of knowing about something, including such things as the physical sight of blood, to the same thing.

[mèþru]

But these are not a "lexicon" - a pheromone does not mean nebulous and abstract concepts such as love or friendship.

[Hyolobrika]

It doesn't mean them in some strict sense of 'meaning', but it can map to them:
A pheremone that increases attraction can map to "I love you", "I like you" or some varietion thereof.
Some pheremone that happens in response to injury can map to "Ow!".
Et cerera.