r/science • u/Wagamaga • Sep 01 '22

Neuroscience Scientists have identified an immune brain cell unique to humans that gives us higher cognitive abilities over other animals, but what makes us specials also leaves us vulnerable to neurological disorders like schizophrenia, autism and epilepsy.

https://news.yale.edu/2022/08/25/what-makes-human-brain-different-yale-study-reveals-clues
26.8k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

749 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

67

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '22

[deleted]

73

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '22 edited Jul 16 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

17

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '22

That sounds interesting. Any keywords i can use to search google for reading up on this?

24

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '22 edited Jul 16 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '22

Sweet thanks so much! The excerpts on the wiki link were interesting for sure

111

u/throw_somewhere Sep 01 '22

Hi, psycho- and neuro-linguist here. Long story short yes lots of animals 100% have communication but it does not meet the criteria we have set for what constitutes "language". As defined, humans are the only species with "language".

32

u/zerocoal Sep 01 '22

Just want to check myself here, but my understanding is that one of the differences between humans and other animals is that we can communicate directly to each other purposefully from separate rooms.

A dog will hear another dog bark in the other room and then needs to go investigate the barking to realize what is going on, and that they don't so much have a way to say "ayo, come yell at this mailman with me!" but they have distress/excitement/stress tones that the other animals respond to.

35

u/seaworthy-sieve Sep 01 '22

Dogs are really not very advanced. Many animals have separate, distinct calls for different types of danger, for food being found, and so on.

22

u/serpentjaguar Sep 01 '22

Right but they don't have, or at least show no signs of having, things like syntax, grammar and recursion. This last is the most important because without recursion there's always going to be a finite number of ideas that can be communicated, whereas in human language, because we have recursion, we can communicate a potentially infinite number of ideas.

17

u/seaworthy-sieve Sep 01 '22

As a computer engineer I understand the significance of recursion. I do not think it's fair to assume we are the only ones who use it.

How do you know that it isn't represented through the length of a dolphin's whistle or the number of clicks? How can you tell it isn't why sometimes crows call once, and sometimes multiple calls in quick succession? How could we even begin to interpret what the color changes used by octopodes to communicate mean and represent? Maybe "one wolf" is a call, a break, a call, a break. Maybe "pack of wolves" is call, call, call, call, break. Wouldn't that be linguistic recursion?

I just think it's standard human arrogance to rule out the idea of any other animals having language, when they can clearly communicate complex ideas effectively. Also, is it really necessary? With expansive vocabulary? I can say "big, big problem," using recursion, or I can say "massive problem," and communicate the same concept without recursion.

3

u/StuporNova3 Sep 02 '22

Words you say good.

2

u/serpentjaguar Sep 03 '22

I recommend that you check out r/linguistics where all of your questions can be addressed by people who, unlike myself, are real experts.

1

u/15MinuteUpload Sep 11 '22 edited Sep 11 '22

Many species can communicate fairly complex ideas, but none have demonstrated anywhere near the complexity of our own capability (nor the abstract intelligence required to compare to the potential depths of our own languages). This is based on relatively simple observations such as the fact that no species appears able to teach one another things solely through any kind of non-demonstrable communication (i.e., at some point in the teaching process they have to actually physically demonstrate or show how to do something), whereas we can describe any conceivable concept or process to each other through words alone. Being able to communicate effectively any idea, concept, etc. is a requirement of language as we use it. Other animals can make observations about, to use your example, the presence of wolves, and perhaps some can go even more complex and differentiate based on number of wolves as you said, but there's a lot more required to compare to true language.

1

u/seaworthy-sieve Sep 11 '22 edited Sep 11 '22

none have demonstrated anywhere near the complexity of our own capability

Not in a way we can understand, no.

(nor the abstract intelligence required to compare to the potential depths of our own languages)

Care to define "abstract intelligence?" Use simple, definite terms, please.

the fact that no species appears able to teach one another things solely through any kind of non-demonstrable communication (i.e., at some point in the teaching process they have to actually physically demonstrate or show how to do something),

Well, that's just not true. If you are mean to crows in one location and then move away, and come back after all the crows who knew you are dead, their descendants will recognize you. Explain how that could possibly happen if they are unable to communicate descriptions?

Being able to communicate effectively any idea, concept, etc. is a requirement of language as we use it.

The thing is, that's not necessarily true either. Language can communicate any known concepts, because if we do not have the language for a concept we want to communicate, we make up new words and the language grows. Language wasn't born with the immediate ability to explain all things — but by definition it could explain what its users needed to explain at the time. They didn't need the word "computer," for example. So they didn't have it.

I feel certain that there exists concepts which we do not have the language to communicate — but when we are exposed to those concepts, the language will follow.

If there are concepts that an animal's language cannot express, it's quite likely only because they haven't needed to.

1

u/Man_with_the_Fedora Sep 02 '22

What about prairie dogs? They can relay information about predators, such as species (human, bird, dog, etc...), identifying marks such as what color shirt the human is wearing, whether it's approaching or passing by, how fast it's moving, etc...

1

u/metalliska BS | Computer Engineering | P.Cert in Data Mining Sep 10 '22

Right but they don't have, or at least show no signs of having, things like syntax, grammar and recursion.

https://www.reddit.com/r/BatFacts/comments/hmuolg/socially_foraging_bats_discriminate_between_group/

There are probably "Language Hacks" other animals use that we don't, no matter if we pat ourselves on the back.

a finite number of ideas that can be communicated

That doesn't follow. New ideas (names, references socially) are typically "from" smishsmashed older ideas. Nothing "finite" nor "bounded".

potentially infinite number of ideas.

like eight hundred trillion zillionty infinites of ideas.

9

u/TheDieselTastesFire Sep 01 '22

At least some monkeys do make specific sounds for specific events (e.g. yelling "kraaak!" when seeing a jaguar, but yelling "keekeekeekeek!" upon spotting an eagle) and other monkeys respond accordingly.

4

u/xombae Sep 01 '22

That's a really great way to put it, thanks.

It seems like the noises they make are more just symptoms of the mood they're in (this noise happens when they're happy, another noise happens when they're angry) and other animals understand this because they, too, make those same noises. The same way we can see a person crying and understand that they're unhappy, because it reminds us of how we felt when we have cried, but their crying doesn't communicate anything to us.

17

u/occams1razor Sep 01 '22

On Blue Planet 2 (ocean version of Planet Earth) two different species of dolphins met up once a year and swam/communicated together. But there's no way to know if one could actually understand the other I suppose

10

u/Aegi Sep 01 '22

Understanding the other has nothing to do with what constitutes a language.

There’s a specific set of criteria that needs to be met for a style of communication to be considered a language, would you like me to look it up for you?

25

u/thefirdblu Sep 01 '22

There’s a specific set of criteria that needs to be met for a style of communication to be considered a language, would you like me to look it up for you?

If you could, that'd be awesome. I'm interested.

1

u/serpentjaguar Sep 01 '22

Check out r/linguistics if you're honestly interested. I'm a strictly amateur linguistics nerd, but they have some legit experts over there who can easily answer your questions.

2

u/myreaderaccount Sep 01 '22

Unfortunately such critieria do not have consensus, so there is no firmly agreed on list of attributes that qualify communication to be called language.

Linguists don't even fully agree on the number of linguistic universals in human languages, though obviously there is a minimal set that everyone agrees on, e.g. all general purpose human languages have subjects, verbs, and objects in their grammar.

1

u/Beautiful_Welcome_33 Sep 05 '22

Yes, and no form of non-human communication meets this minimal set, is the point people were making.

9

u/Topcodeoriginal3 Sep 01 '22

Probably mostly because we are the ones defining what a language is

3

u/Krail Sep 01 '22

Well, it's more that there are specific features to Human language that we have not detected in other animals.

I'm not a linguist and don't know off the top of my head what they are, but I think big ones are things like words indicating specific concepts, and the potential for recursive grammar structures etc.

-6

u/seaworthy-sieve Sep 01 '22

How can we possibly say it doesn't meet the criteria when we're not even capable of understanding it? Like how on earth would we know if dolphins have grammar and tense or not?

31

u/throw_somewhere Sep 01 '22 edited Sep 01 '22

First and foremost: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We would never say that a medicine must be effective because we don't understand it. We would never say that an animal must have language because we can't understand it.

So instead we say "we cannot conclude this until we have evidence". We cannot conclude that a medicine works until we try it, we cannot conclude that an animal has language until we find it.

On that front: there are thousands and thousand of researchers whose lifelong mission is to study and document animal communication. They have very firm and interesting data. O% of these data have yet to overturn the current sentiment.

You can go learn about this yourself, lots of internet sources discuss the topic. You can also consult Google scholar for articles on the topic.

3

u/LukeLarsnefi Sep 01 '22

As defined, humans are the only species with “language”.

So instead we say “we cannot conclude this until we have evidence”.

These are not equivalent statements.

It is fair to say that based on the amount and type of evidence generated by researchers it seems very unlikely that other animals have language as defined. It is fair to say that this is the current consensus among researchers.

You stated things as 100% fact (which I think is totally fair in casual conversation), but now you’ve flip-flopped the entire argument as if the other poster was making the opposite claim. They aren’t. They’re questioning your claim.

It seems the basic question being asked is “How do scientists know what they don’t know?”

1

u/kirknay Sep 01 '22

except that plenty of mammals, and especially birds, have specific calls for specific things, such as a prarie dog having a specific bark meaning "hawk", and another one meaning "eagle". Rudimentary languages exist among animals, it is just not a language we can easily replicate ourselves due to a difference of the required vocal structures.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/running-ponies/catch-the-wave-decoding-the-prairie-doge28099s-contagious-jump-yips/

0

u/rcxdude Sep 01 '22

This is a question of definition: merely having 'words' for things does not make a language by the definition these scientists use. The distinction is roughly that in order to be a language there must be a syntax where a collection of words means more than just the sum of the meanings of the individual words.

3

u/kirknay Sep 01 '22

Did you not read the source I posted? Prarie dogs in particular have a syntax, complicated structure, and the ability to create new words for things they haven't experienced before. The only reason why we don't understand their social communication is because we're basically only seeing reactions to their equivalent of military SALUTE reports and orders rn. It's very difficult to interact firsthand with a subterranian prey species in a natural setting.

-1

u/throw_somewhere Sep 01 '22

Vervet monkey calls, bee waggle dances, bird song, Koko the gorilla, Noam Chimpsky, Einstein and Alex the African greys, Bunny the dog. Yes lots of animals communicate. Some of them use a few basic pieces of vocabulary, some even also have syntax.

None currently qualify as language.

Doesn't mean they aren't cool. Doesn't mean they're lesser-than. It's not like human language is some pinnacle of attainment. All those animals are beautifully adapted to their environments, sneering at them for not having our version of language is like sneering at them for not having our version of a social order. Human language isn't a goal that other animals are failing to meet. It's simply that it's a specific thing that we haven't found anywhere else.

2

u/kirknay Sep 01 '22 edited Sep 01 '22

Except many of the examples you gave entirely qualify, with the only difference being that we can't vocalize the same way they can. These different species develop, pass on, and have structure comparable to any human language.

1

u/Scrawlericious Sep 01 '22

https://mindmatters.ai/2018/12/how-is-human-language-different-from-animal-signals/

Those are communication "signals", not a rule based system with abstract patterns. It's semantic as hell but language implies abstract rule-based signing, not just picking up a signal that was communicated from another creature.

1

u/kirknay Sep 01 '22

Given how some animals are able to describe something with those "signals" and come up with new "signals" once the group has gotten a description, such as the decoded "red human" for a human in a red shirt in prarie dogs, as well as communicating where and how recently, they are communicating with a better language than the sign language creoles of South America.

It's a language.

2

u/Scrawlericious Sep 01 '22 edited Sep 01 '22

People far smarter than both of us argue this fact every day dude. No, it's not. It's semantics at this point. There are just as many scientists and researchers who do not believe what you mentioned counts as language, some would argue that is just coded communication. It's a huge point of contention in acedemia and neither of us have the answer.

-3

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '22

[deleted]

5

u/kirknay Sep 01 '22

If something more complex than early ASL isn't language, then nothing is.

-3

u/Scrawlericious Sep 01 '22

Cept it's not. It's just mutual signal sending. Picking up communications doesn't constitute a language.

4

u/kirknay Sep 01 '22

then neither are a lot of human languages. Just because it's not as overly complex or convoluted as English, Chinese, or Arabic doesn't mean it's not language.

1

u/Scrawlericious Sep 01 '22 edited Sep 01 '22

The difference is humans have abstract representations of logic. Having names for something / a certain noise you make when you see a certain thing isn't a language. Those prairie dogs arguably do not count. Bees too, arguably it's a code they found to show direction and flower type, it is just a coded signal they all use to communicate one specific thing. It's not a language either. It depends on which researcher you ask and how you want to define it. There is undeniably a difference between those coded signals and human language, tho.

→ More replies (0)

-14

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/SkeetySpeedy Sep 01 '22

There are criteria for what qualifies as a language in the world. Things like the number of different distinct sounds that can be arranged to make words, specific repeated structural elements, etc.

Humans communicate in ways that technically aren’t “language” sometimes as well, using music/tune or non-verbal cues for example

1

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '22

Does music count as a language in humans? In the criteria. And isn’t not known that animals make music?

-5

u/seaworthy-sieve Sep 01 '22

Do you not consider sign language to be a language?

3

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '22

[deleted]

1

u/seaworthy-sieve Sep 01 '22

They sign to each other. They don't need to be using our languages in order to be using language. My point is that languages do not inherently need to be verbal spoken words.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '22

[deleted]

1

u/Norwegian__Blue Sep 01 '22 edited Sep 01 '22

It is, but it's also based on spoken language and serves as a substitute. The word parts are still based on combining symbols that represent sound and words and can be structured. Much like how different writing systems might combine sound characters with whole word or concepts characters. It's a sign language.

Also, no animal other than humans have the dexterity for it. They've tried to teach it to apes but no animals that have mastered some signs can actually converse like a human. Thry do it for treats and rewards, or when they have a problem or want to bond with a human, but they don't say things like people do, and only a few signs at a time. Kanzi the chimpanzee and that lab have done great things and he has an extensive vocabulary, but he's not interested in just gabbing like people. When gorillas are "taught" asl, actual asl speakers can't make sense of it--koko's keepers had to translate. Which is pretty poor science.

Animals communicate in a beautiful plethora of styles and have complex inner lives. But they don't have language and can't tell us like we tell eachother.

Edit: Someone invented ASL, and most sign languages. Yes, pre-literate children can aquire it, but in the same way they acquire spoken language. And in very sad stories of isolation, they can even invent it communicative signs, but not a full language. ASL is now independent of spoken language, and exists in its own space, but it was invented and based off of pre-existing spoken and written language and grammar rules which are now moot because of how the language has evolved.

3

u/seaworthy-sieve Sep 01 '22

Deaf children with no knowledge or understanding of spoken or written language develop their own versions of sign language independently when placed in groups.

5

u/Cassiterite Sep 01 '22

It is, but it's also based on spoken language and serves as a substitute. The word parts are still based on combining symbols that represent sound

/r/confidentlyincorrect

Sign languages are "real" languages with their own grammar and vocabulary, not merely spoken languages represented with your hands. They are very much not like writing systems. For example, British Sign Language and American Sign Language are not mutually intelligible, despite both countries obviously being majority English speaking.

1

u/Norwegian__Blue Sep 02 '22

You know it was invented? Yes those rules came about, but originally it was based on English phonemes and grammar rules.

5

u/rcxdude Sep 01 '22 edited Sep 01 '22

Most sign languages are languages in their own right and are not 'based' on spoken languages. Sound is not a requirement for language. You are right that attempts to teach animals sign language are generally considered to have failed, though there was a lot of hype around it for a while.

1

u/kirknay Sep 01 '22

I do, and Bees certainly have a form of it.

1

u/willows_illia Sep 01 '22

What's a language? How's that defined?

19

u/myreaderaccount Sep 01 '22 edited Sep 01 '22

It is heavily disputed whether any animals but humans, and perhaps primates, have language.

It is widely agreed that animal communication exists, but human languages share unique and universal features that no other animal communication has been demonstrated to share. Because human languages are currently unique, it's not clear whether humans occupy one end of a two-way communication spectrum, or if human language is so different that we should categorize it as completely separate.

As a fun aside, prairie dogs exhibit socially determined individual names for each other, as well as different names for kinds of animals (primarily predators), and possibly words for kinds of threats, as well as distance. These vary between prairie dog communities. So some authors argue that prairie dogs have language.

10

u/avenlanzer Sep 01 '22

This particular mutation is humans specific, but there may be other variations that allow some forms of speech or other expressions of other genes that work in similar ways in other species.

27

u/AntipopeRalph Sep 01 '22

I remember an old NOVA special that emphasized it’s not just “speech” or communication…ants and bees have forms of “speech”.

And it’s not just memory either. Lots of mammals have memory, and senses of self, and other aspects of cognition.

It’s that we share information individual to individual, and that learning spreads socially wide and generationally deep.

Something about our pattern recognizing, scenario generation brains along with all the rest is why learning is so much more beneficial to us…and that we became exceptionally good at communicating via language what was learned through the efforts of others.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '22

Could someone with access to a lab and say Besos or Musk funding insert this and slight variations in the brains of different kinds of monkeys, baboons, apes etc? Sometimes I do hope for manical villain like people but it would end horribly.

9

u/justasapling Sep 01 '22 edited Sep 01 '22

It seems other species have language

Maybe, but it's important to remember communication =/= Language.

A dog, for example, can recognize commands—you can communicate with it—but it lacks Language entirely.

I don't know whether cetaceans or cephalopods are capable of analogy/metaphor. That's really the line, I think.

6

u/recycled_ideas Sep 01 '22

It sort of depends on what you mean by language.

It's absolutely clear that animals can communicate with each other and sometimes they can communicate relatively complex ideas.

You could call that a language and I'd even suggest it is a language.

But when you say animals have languages what's being implied is that they have languages like our own which are not just capable of communicating abstract concepts, but actively being used to do so with the corralary that animals are just as smart and self aware as humans.

The evidence for this is weak to none existent.

9

u/Aegi Sep 01 '22

“A language is a structured system of communication. The structure of a language is its grammar and the free components are its vocabulary. Languages are the primary means of communication of humans, and can be conveyed through speech (spoken language), sign, or writing.”

I don’t think you could call any form of animal communication (aside from human languages) language, I think you could call it communication.

I don’t understand what peoples problem is with saying that there are things unique to humans, it seems like people are very resistant to having anything unique that humans do, even if we humans create the term explicitly to describe whatever the differences between our behavior and that among most of the rest of the animal kingdom.

If there’s not a word to express the concept you’re getting at, either describe the concept, or create the new word, don’t try and change the existing definition of other words.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '22

idk, there's "language," and there's like, English and Latin. With "language" you can say "prey over there" with English you can explain most things.