The purpose of speech is to convince.
or communicate.
But, by communicating you are still trying to convice the other person of what you are saying.
Unless said speech is rhetorical.
But, then who are you trying to convince?
But by starting this topic are you trying to convince us that the purpose of speech is to convince or are you infact been rhetorical.
I am in fact being rhetorical in presentation, but the statement is still trying to convince you, and myself, that the purpose of speech is to convince. :icon_mrgreen:
I had a freind, an engineer, try to convince me that "uh" was not considered speech. Or, that a caveman grunt was not considered speech (it's not, it's a sound).
one of the greatest posts ever :)
But if we are looking into the issue of the purpose of speech being to convince have we correctly defined speech, Some would consider "Uh" as ago old speech, it contains meaning, the meaning would have to be convinced upon the listener, would this infact also prove it was speech?
Brilliant post i can see custom titles coming from this.
Quote from: pantablo on September 17, 2007, 12:59:52 PM
or communicate.
it is the only reason for speech or any noise in the animal world which we all belong.
But in communicating, your statement is going to convince the other person/animal that:
You got the message
You understand there is danger near
You're convincing the other person that the meeting is a 10:00...
You are informing.
If I inform you of something, am I not convincing you of that something?
"Uh" is definitely convincing in that it conveys to the listener that maybe you really don't know what you want to say next. Or, it is used to get one's attention (thus convincing that person to look at you).
But, if you say, "uh", as in the caveman sound, it is just that, a sound.
Let's say you say, "uh" to the ground. Are you trying to convince the ground of something, or is it just a sound? Or, are you trying to convince yourself that you are saying something to the ground? What is it that you are trying to say? Until you assign it meaning, it is just a sound.
Let's look up the Webster's definition of speech:
1 a: the communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words b: exchange of spoken words : conversation
2 a: something that is spoken : utterance b: a usually public discourse : address
3 a: language, dialect b: an individual manner or style of speaking
4: the power of expressing or communicating thoughts by speaking
So here, it states nothing of the purpose of speech, but it does state what speech is, or is used for.
When you whistle, is that speech? Or, a sound? If you whistle at someone, what are you trying to do?
But could it not be argued that to inform and to convince someone are slightly different.
If you were, for example, to "inform me" (tell me) of the aforementioned meeting at 10.00 you are simply dictating to me details of a meeting that as far as i know may or may not happen. To convince me would you not need to provide proof of the meeting to back up the claim of the meeting happening at 10.00
For example the cavemans' "Uh" may be just a sound but if they made the "Uh" sound and pointed at a rock could you be convinced that "Uh" meant rock or involved something to do with rock. If you have thus put meaning and convinced a meaning to the sound "Uh" would that not reclassify it as speech - a way of communicating or convincing.
Moving back slightly and with a counterpoint - inform and convince being separate meanings - in our culture today could it be said that if you informed someone you have in turn convinced them, simply due to the factor that we have learned that to coexist we have to trust and therefore if you informed me of a meeting at 10.00 i would likely be convinced as i had no reason to doubt you. This does not necessarily have to have applied forever though. We often work on the principle - innocent till proven guilty, or true till proved wrong. Unless i saw good reason to not believe you i would default to being convinced.
Edit: to answer your edit.
When you whistle you are making a sound using your lips, if the sound is for yourself, your own tune and not interacting with anyone else or the environment then its a sound. If you whistle at someone would you not be implying meaning in your sound, You whistle at a passer by you are implying a meaning to your whistle, however i wouldn't classify this as speech, although you have communicated a meaning you haven't convinced the passer by of the meaning, in this situation where you don't know the whistler you would default to convince yourself of your own belief of the meaning of the whistle.
Dude??
Dude!!!
Duuuude.
i whistle to get my dog to come over, wouldn't that make it "communicating" therefore speech?
Quote from: scratch on September 17, 2007, 04:38:13 PM
But in communicating, your statement is going to convince the other person/animal that:
You got the message
You understand there is danger near
You're convincing the other person that the meeting is a 10:00...
You are informing.
If I inform you of something, am I not convincing you of that something?
If I communicate to you through speech or text that your thread sucks, I am not trying to convince you. I am only informing you of my opinion.
:flipoff:
In the case of dogs (and many other creatures) i believe it wouldn't be considered speech.
You conditioned the dog to respond to a whistle, the whistle is a trigger, when the dog hears the 'sound' i.e. the whistle, they have learn't that they must come to you. However if you met a dog that wasn't conditioned to do this and you made a whistle the dog would have no idea as to the meaning or purpose of the sound and would react in a way you couldn't predict only guess. Thus you havn't communicated with your dog you have taught the dog a basic task which is to be completed on the whistle.
However if the dog whistled back then that would be communicating. ;)
since my ma had her stroke about 2 weeks ago she can not speak well. i can not imagine that happening to me
Quote from: pantablo on September 17, 2007, 05:11:38 PM
Quote from: scratch on September 17, 2007, 04:38:13 PM
But in communicating, your statement is going to convince the other person/animal that:
You got the message
You understand there is danger near
You're convincing the other person that the meeting is a 10:00...
You are informing.
If I inform you of something, am I not convincing you of that something?
If I communicate to you through speech or text that your thread sucks, I am not trying to convince you. I am only informing you of my opinion.
:flipoff:
And we have no reason to trust shifty pablo therefore we would not automatically be convinced by your opinion and would choose to believe that this thread rules.
Quote from: frankieG on September 17, 2007, 05:18:14 PM
since my ma had her stroke about 2 weeks ago she can not speak well. i can not imagine that happening to me
Will the care she gets be able to help her recover her speech?
with the state of health care in the country i honestly dont know. more than half of the 3 trillion spent on health care in the world is spent in the USA. yet this country is 37th on the list of countries when it comes to care. the private companies who steal the money of the healthy and leave the sick to die are the true evil
Quote from: Kasumi on September 17, 2007, 05:14:46 PM
In the case of dogs (and many other creatures) i believe it wouldn't be considered speech.
You conditioned the dog to respond to a whistle, the whistle is a trigger, when the dog hears the 'sound' i.e. the whistle, they have learn't that they must come to you. However if you met a dog that wasn't conditioned to do this and you made a whistle the dog would have no idea as to the meaning or purpose of the sound and would react in a way you couldn't predict only guess. Thus you havn't communicated with your dog you have taught the dog a basic task which is to be completed on the whistle.
However if the dog whistled back then that would be communicating. ;)
Well havent we all been taught language? we have been conditioned that "come here" means go there, hearing "come here" also acts liek a trigger--technically haha
However we have the ability to interpret the situation, come here to the dog, it would come untill it was nearly jumping off a cliff (unless it was scared) If you said come here to me, you wouldn't have convinced me to come there depending on the situation. I think to communicate in terms of speech is to decide as to whether your convinced of what is being said spoken to you and to decide of your response. We've learnt the meaning of come here but were not convinced of what come here means until someone says it to us.
technically, speech was invented by a man to help him get laid.
What about questions? Are questions convincing? They ask for the users knowledge of a subject. The question asker wouldn't be convincing anyone, they are asking to be convinced by a statement / answer. I'm not convinced.
Edit: Damn, questions are trying to convince the reader that they know the answer... I'm tripping out on this... aaaah.
The purpose of speech is the transference of thoughts, ideas and information from one subject to another. This does not have to be in a persuasive manner. If I tell a friend that I will be at the McDonalds at 10 AM that is in no way trying to persuade him, it is only informing him of my intent to be in a certain place at a certain time. That statement would be transferring information.
But it will convince him that you are going to McDonalds at 10am.
Any statement made would be to convince. Thus, informing is still convincing.
If I merely say the word, "plutonium", even if there is no plutonium around, what is the first thing you think of?
Quote from: scratch on September 18, 2007, 09:25:55 AM
If I merely say the word, "plutonium", even if there is no plutonium around, what is the first thing you think of?
Sex. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Quote from: Kasumi on September 17, 2007, 04:58:48 PM
But could it not be argued that to inform and to convince someone are slightly different.
Yes, but to inform someone you are still trying to convince them of what you are informing them of. If I inform you that the sky is blue, or, it's raining outside, have I not convinced you that the sky is indeed blue and that it's raining outside (and not inside)?
Quote from: Kasumi on September 17, 2007, 04:58:48 PM
If you were, for example, to "inform me" (tell me) of the aforementioned meeting at 10.00 you are simply dictating to me details of a meeting that as far as i know may or may not happen. To convince me would you not need to provide proof of the meeting to back up the claim of the meeting happening at 10.00
See example of raining above. Now if I say the sky is red, and you know it to be blue, are you convinced that it is red? Of course not, but by me just simply saying the sky is red, that statement alone is
trying to convice you, maybe by trickery, that the sky is red.
Quote from: Kasumi on September 17, 2007, 04:58:48 PM
For example the cavemans' "Uh" may be just a sound but if they made the "Uh" sound and pointed at a rock could you be convinced that "Uh" meant rock or involved something to do with rock. If you have thus put meaning and convinced a meaning to the sound "Uh" would that not reclassify it as speech - a way of communicating or convincing.
Correct. If you assign any sound a meaning, including whistling, is has become a form of speech.
Quote from: Kasumi on September 17, 2007, 04:58:48 PM
Moving back slightly and with a counterpoint - inform and convince being separate meanings - in our culture today could it be said that if you informed someone you have in turn convinced them, simply due to the factor that we have learned that to coexist we have to trust and therefore if you informed me of a meeting at 10.00 i would likely be convinced as i had no reason to doubt you. This does not necessarily have to have applied forever though. We often work on the principle - innocent till proven guilty, or true till proved wrong. Unless i saw good reason to not believe you i would default to being convinced.
See my reply to spcterry
Quote from: Kasumi on September 17, 2007, 04:58:48 PM
Edit: to answer your edit.
When you whistle you are making a sound using your lips, if the sound is for yourself, your own tune and not interacting with anyone else or the environment then its a sound. If you whistle at someone would you not be implying meaning in your sound, You whistle at a passer by you are implying a meaning to your whistle, however i wouldn't classify this as speech, although you have communicated a meaning you haven't convinced the passer by of the meaning, in this situation where you don't know the whistler you would default to convince yourself of your own belief of the meaning of the whistle.
It doesn't matter weather you believe it or not, it is still trying to convince you of something, and it could be anything, but you are correct in stating that without assigning a meaning it is only a tune.
Quote from: pantablo on September 17, 2007, 05:11:38 PM
Quote from: scratch on September 17, 2007, 04:38:13 PM
But in communicating, your statement is going to convince the other person/animal that:
You got the message
You understand there is danger near
You're convincing the other person that the meeting is a 10:00...
You are informing.
If I inform you of something, am I not convincing you of that something?
If I communicate to you through speech or text that your thread sucks, I am not trying to convince you. I am only informing you of my opinion.
:flipoff:
And, your opinion is trying to convince me of your opinion. Be it fact or not.
Quote from: pantablo on September 18, 2007, 01:05:20 AM
technically, speech was invented by a man to help him get laid.
When that failed, they invented money. When that failed, they invinted alcohol.
BTW, I agree with Scratch.
What comes after alcohol? Good looks? A personality?
Big bikes.
Allright, inform and convince being different parts of speech.
Convince:
1 obsolete a : to overcome by argument b : OVERPOWER, OVERCOME
2 obsolete : DEMONSTRATE, PROVE
3 : to bring (as by argument) to belief, consent, or a course of action : PERSUADE <convinced himself that she was all right -- William Faulkner> <something I could never convince him to read -- John Lahr>
Inform:
1 obsolete : to give material form to
2 a : to give character or essence to <the principles which inform modern teaching> b : to be the characteristic quality of : ANIMATE <the compassion that informs her work>
3 obsolete : GUIDE, DIRECT
4 obsolete : to make known
5 : to communicate knowledge to <inform a prisoner of his rights>
intransitive verb
1 : to impart information or knowledge
2 : to give information (as of another's wrongdoing) to an authority <informed on a member of his own gang>
To inform is to communicate knowledge to, impart or give information. Be it common knowledge or not, the words you have chosen are being used to convey a meaning. The meaning of your opinion (Pablo), the meaning of a question, the meaning of all these statements are trying to convince each of us who reads them, no matter if they succeed or not.
Quote from: CndnMax on September 17, 2007, 05:09:40 PM
i whistle to get my dog to come over, wouldn't that make it "communicating" therefore speech?
By that rationale, waving to someone would also be speech. You are still communication. Speech is a type of communication while communication is not limited to speech. It's a square/rectangle thing.
I haven't finished reading all the posts yet so I may be repeating what someone said :).
I would make the argument that speech cannot be defined by "to convince". There are too many examples where that would not be the case. When a cager cuts me off and I curse to myself, am I trying to convince myself that he was in fact in the wrong? Or am I merely exclaiming my frustration and agreement with my already existent beliefs. When you sing along with a song on the radio, or two yourself in the shower, whom are you trying to convince? And of what?
Just catching the most recent reply, I would also argue that Speech cannot be limited to "to inform" either. Sometimes, like my examples, speech can be merely and exclamation without requiring an inherent purpose or action. Speech can exist for speech' sake.
As to the caveman's utterances, that would fall under the broader scope of Communication (as would speech).
Quote from: CndnMax on September 17, 2007, 06:24:28 PM
Quote from: Kasumi on September 17, 2007, 05:14:46 PM
In the case of dogs (and many other creatures) i believe it wouldn't be considered speech.
You conditioned the dog to respond to a whistle, the whistle is a trigger, when the dog hears the 'sound' i.e. the whistle, they have learn't that they must come to you. However if you met a dog that wasn't conditioned to do this and you made a whistle the dog would have no idea as to the meaning or purpose of the sound and would react in a way you couldn't predict only guess. Thus you havn't communicated with your dog you have taught the dog a basic task which is to be completed on the whistle.
However if the dog whistled back then that would be communicating. ;)
Well havent we all been taught language? we have been conditioned that "come here" means go there, hearing "come here" also acts liek a trigger--technically haha
Try this if you get a chance, using the exact same inflection/tone/expression/gesture, say something completely different to your dog and see if you get the same reaction. Our dog is named Maynard. We can call him that, or dumbass, or airplane, and as long as it sounds the same to him (the inflection/tone/etc), the words are meaningless - he'll still react the same.
Exactly MrDan. My girlfriends dog and i think most dogs are just like that. If you say "squizzle" as in squirrel the dog jumps up barks and runs to the nearest window to look for a squirel, if you say "christmas" in exactly the same tone the dog runs to the window - looking for christmas lol.
Demonstrate is to convince as inform is to demonstrate. This is circular arguement. Scratch is correct.
Quote from: Kasumi on September 18, 2007, 02:49:44 PM
My girlfriends dog and i think most dogs are just like that.
Sooo.. :laugh: You are saying you have an agreement with your girlfriends dog? :laugh:
Quote from: Jake D on September 18, 2007, 03:08:34 PM
Demonstrate is to convince as inform is to demonstrate. This is circular arguement. Scratch is correct.
Scratch has made a number of points - which do you think is correct? His original (since amended) point that the purpose of speech is to convince or inform? I still think that is incorrect. If I walk up to you and say "Hi", what am I trying to convince or inform you of? It does not convey any knowledge or alter any belief.
Similarly, (as groff started to point out before editing himself), asking "How are you?" does not convince you that you know the answer. You already know the answer so there is no change in your belief that would reflect "convincing". And since I'm asking a question that is arguably rhetorical, I am not relaying any knowledge. You could really stretch to say that some questions (for instance "How much is that doggy in the window?") might relay something to the person being asked (such as "He might want to buy a dog" or "He does not know how much that dog costs"), but you really have to stretch to make that argument hold on anything but a very small technicality.
Quote from: scottpA_GS on September 18, 2007, 03:09:00 PM
Quote from: Kasumi on September 18, 2007, 02:49:44 PM
My girlfriends dog and i think most dogs are just like that.
Sooo.. :laugh: You are saying you have an agreement with your girlfriends dog? :laugh:
Lol we get on well! We agree about alot of things hehe.
Quote from: MrDan on September 18, 2007, 03:21:35 PM
Scratch has made a number of points - which do you think is correct? His original (since amended) point that the purpose of speech is to convince or inform? I still think that is incorrect. If I walk up to you and say "Hi", what am I trying to convince or inform you of? It does not convey any knowledge or alter any belief.
My orginal point still stands, the purpose of speech is to convince. I made that point clear at the end in my previous reply.
In by saying "Hi" you are convincing the other person that you acknowledge them/their existance; you're making them aware that you are aware of them. Same as saying, "Greetings".
Quote from: MrDan on September 18, 2007, 03:21:35 PM
Similarly, (as groff started to point out before editing himself), asking "How are you?" does not convince you that you know the answer. You already know the answer so there is no change in your belief that would reflect "convincing". And since I'm asking a question that is arguably rhetorical, I am not relaying any knowledge. You could really stretch to say that some questions (for instance "How much is that doggy in the window?") might relay something to the person being asked (such as "He might want to buy a dog" or "He does not know how much that dog costs"), but you really have to stretch to make that argument hold on anything but a very small technicality.
Questions convince the listener that you do not know something, or again,
try to convince the listener that either you don't know something, or in a rhetorical question, you trying to convince the listener to think about something. You might say you are relaying a lack of knowledge. But, it is still trying to convince somebody, even if it's not you.
Also, regarding cursing, if in by doing so, have you not convinced yourself of your displeasure?
Singing along to a song...hmmm...are you not convinced to sing along? To say the same words the singer is? To inflect the same, or a similar, feeling? Is not the singer trying to illicit a feeling from the listener? Or, tell a story? So, by singing along, tell that same story? And, by singing along are you not convincing yourself to feel a certain way?
Quote from: scratch on September 18, 2007, 04:14:49 PM
Singing along to a song...hmmm...are you not convinced to sing along? To say the same words the singer is? To inflect the same, or a similar, feeling? Is not the singer trying to illicit a feeling from the listener? Or, tell a story? So, by singing along, tell that same story? And, by singing along are you not convincing yourself to feel a certain way?
(http://clientes.netvisao.pt/kapoww/MasterPo.jpg)
Quote from: scratch on September 18, 2007, 04:04:14 PM
Quote from: MrDan on September 18, 2007, 03:21:35 PM
Scratch has made a number of points - which do you think is correct? His original (since amended) point that the purpose of speech is to convince or inform? I still think that is incorrect. If I walk up to you and say "Hi", what am I trying to convince or inform you of? It does not convey any knowledge or alter any belief.
My orginal point still stands, the purpose of speech is to convince. I made that point clear at the end in my previous reply.
In by saying "Hi" you are convincing the other person that you acknowledge them/their existance; you're making them aware that you are aware of them. Same as saying, "Greetings".
Quote from: MrDan on September 18, 2007, 03:21:35 PM
Similarly, (as groff started to point out before editing himself), asking "How are you?" does not convince you that you know the answer. You already know the answer so there is no change in your belief that would reflect "convincing". And since I'm asking a question that is arguably rhetorical, I am not relaying any knowledge. You could really stretch to say that some questions (for instance "How much is that doggy in the window?") might relay something to the person being asked (such as "He might want to buy a dog" or "He does not know how much that dog costs"), but you really have to stretch to make that argument hold on anything but a very small technicality.
Questions convince the listener that you do not know something, or again, try to convince the listener that either you don't know something, or in a rhetorical question, you trying to convince the listener to think about something. You might say you are relaying a lack of knowledge. But, it is still trying to convince somebody, even if it's not you.
I think the problem with that argument is "convince". To convince requires a previous state of disbelief or disagreement. If, when I say "Hi", the person is convinced that I believe they exist, then they have serious issues. That would require that they either a) believed themselves NOT to exist at all, or b) to belive that I did not think they existed. Convince is completely the wrong definition in that case. Descartes said "I THINK therefore I am", not "Someone said HI to me, therefore I am".
Regarding questions, I stand by what I said, Questions
might convey information and by extension convince someone to form an opinion, but they do not, by the very nature of being speech, convince someone.
I reject your reality and substitute my own. :laugh:
I do not conjecture that they might; questions do impart a lack of information.
If, you say "hi", that person is convinced that you acknowledge them, not just their existance (which would be funny), but you're acknowledging that they are there and that you are aware of their prescence. Same as if you looked at that person, and they saw that you looked at them.
Your example b), is exactly what I would be talking about, and would be correct in reinforcing the conviction...er, subject.
Descartes (or whoever it was), convinced himself of his own existance by his own thoughts, obviously, not by someone else's. And, his statement thereafter is the reinforcement of that conviction, but his (or your) application still does not disprove that the purpose of speech is to convince. You are confusing existance with conviction.
Quote from: scratch on September 24, 2007, 11:46:56 AM
I reject your reality and substitute my own. :laugh:
I do not conjecture that they might; questions do impart a lack of information.
If, you say "hi", that person is convinced that you acknowledge them, not just their existance (which would be funny), but you're acknowledging that they are there and that you are aware of their prescence. Same as if you looked at that person, and they saw that you looked at them.
Your example b), is exactly what I would be talking about, and would be correct in reinforcing the conviction...er, subject.
Wow ...
You might want to look up convince again. I know you posted a definition, but did you read it? Here it is again
Quote from: scratch3 : to bring (as by argument) to belief, consent, or a course of action
It requires that there is a previous state of mind which, by speaking, you change. If I'm convincing you that I acknowledge you when I say "hi", that would DEMAND that you had no way of knowing I knew you existed. The only way that saying "hi" would serve as the only means to convince you I was acknowledging you was if you were blind, crazy, or thought you were invisible. By looking at you, smiling, waving, etc, I am showing that I am aware of your presense. Speaking to you can therefore not convince you of anything since your belief will not change based on my speech.
As for questions, while questions
can impart a lack of information, they do not have to. An example that ties the 2 points together. If we'd known each other for years (and known each other's names for years), and I say "My name is Dan, what is my name?" to you, I am asking a question. However, it does not ask for any bit of information that is not known to all parties involved. By your definition of speech, it would require me to convince you that something you thought is incorrect and change your mind. This would not be true either.
A truly rhetorical question will neither convince anyone of anything nor impart a lack of knowledge.
I miss writing my philosophy and rhetoric papers but sheesh.
Quote from: MrDan on September 24, 2007, 12:09:14 PM
Quote from: scratch on September 24, 2007, 11:46:56 AM
I reject your reality and substitute my own. :laugh:
I do not conjecture that they might; questions do impart a lack of information.
If, you say "hi", that person is convinced that you acknowledge them, not just their existance (which would be funny), but you're acknowledging that they are there and that you are aware of their prescence. Same as if you looked at that person, and they saw that you looked at them.
Your example b), is exactly what I would be talking about, and would be correct in reinforcing the conviction...er, subject.
Wow ...
You might want to look up convince again. I know you posted a definition, but did you read it? Here it is again
Quote from: scratch3 : to bring (as by argument) to belief, consent, or a course of action
It requires that there is a previous state of mind which, by speaking, you change. If I'm convincing you that I acknowledge you when I say "hi", that would DEMAND that you had no way of knowing I knew you existed. The only way that saying "hi" would serve as the only means to convince you I was acknowledging you was if you were blind, crazy, or thought you were invisible. By looking at you, smiling, waving, etc, I am showing that I am aware of your presense. Speaking to you can therefore not convince you of anything since your belief will not change based on my speech.
What if you come up behind me?
Why would you even say "hi"? Answer that and you've found your reason why it is speech and it convinces.
Quote from: MrDan on September 24, 2007, 12:09:14 PM
As for questions, while questions can impart a lack of information, they do not have to. An example that ties the 2 points together. If we'd known each other for years (and known each other's names for years), and I say "My name is Dan, what is my name?" to you, I am asking a question. However, it does not ask for any bit of information that is not known to all parties involved. By your definition of speech, it would require me to convince you that something you thought is incorrect and change your mind. This would not be true either.
A truly rhetorical question will neither convince anyone of anything nor impart a lack of knowledge.
I miss writing my philosophy and rhetoric papers but sheesh.
Right, a rhetorical question can convince someone to think about something. It is still speech and is trying to convince.
If you and I did know each other, and you said, "My name is Dan, what is my name?"; why would you have said that if not to convince me of something?
Quote from: scratch on September 24, 2007, 12:23:47 PM
Right, a rhetorical question can convince someone to think about something. It is still speech and is trying to convince.
If you and I did know each other, and you said, "My name is Dan, what is my name?"; why would you have said that if not to convince me of something?
That's the thing ... I'd say it because I wanted to. There does not always need to be a purpose to speech. What is someone who has tourette's trying to convince you of when they speak? Answer me that and I'll accept your argument that speech is ONLY to convince. That would be a vocal utterance which constitutes speech but which has no thought behind it and therefore cannot convey any ideas that would serve to convince anyone of anything.
How about another example. What is someone who talks in their sleep trying to convince you of?
Also, you've already somewhat ceded your point ... I italicized the pertinent part.
[For the record, I'm not trying to say people with tourette's cannot talk intelligently - just that some of the things they say cannot be controlled - those are the ones that apply here]
Quote from: scratch on September 24, 2007, 12:23:47 PM
What if you come up behind me?
Why would you even say "hi"? Answer that and you've found your reason why it is speech and it convinces.
Since this is a hypothetical situation anyway, I did not come up from behind you. I was walking towards you waving and smiling. Once close enough, I said "Hi" which only served to reinforce what I had already expressed (non verbally) by waving and smiling. Thus - no convincing. And why would I say "hi" in that situation? To be polite.
Hello George. How are you today?
What am I trying to convince either george or myself of?
Someone who has Tourette's, cannot control their speech, so how can it even be considered speech? And, remember some utterances are sounds, without meaning, sounds are just that, sounds, and nothing more; even if they said, "the". But, if he said, "there", would you not think of there (wherever that being)?
And, by you saying, "hi", would you not be convincing me of your being polite?
Quote from: scratch on September 24, 2007, 12:50:36 PM
Someone who has Tourette's, cannot control their speech, so how can it even be considered speech? And, remember some utterances are sounds, without meaning, sounds are just that, sounds, and nothing more; even if they said, "the". But, if he said, "there", would you not think of there (wherever that being)?
And, by you saying, "hi", would you not be convincing me of your being polite?
Someone who cannot control their speech can still speak. You can't dismiss it that easily. Try again.
And I'm only convincing you I'm being polite IF I TELL YOU I'M BEING POLITE. Without me saying that, you would have to both believe that I was NOT polite, and interpret my saying "Hi" as an attempt to be polite.
The important part of your argument is that the person listening has to have a change of belief for
anything to be considered speech. If what I say in no way affects what you think/believe, then by your definition, it would not be speech - ludacrious.
You are focusing on one part of the definition of convince. The other is: to bring about an action.
Do you listen? Do you listen to someone who has Tourette's? If you ignore them, do you not choose the opposite of being convinced?
Quote from: scratch on September 24, 2007, 01:10:13 PM
You are focusing on one part of the definition of convince. The other is: to bring about an action.
Do you listen? Do you listen to someone who has Tourette's? If you ignore them, do you not choose the opposite of being convinced?
Now that raises an interesting question. If someone speaks, and you choose to ignore them, and are thereby unconvinced ... did they speak at all?
Regarding "to bring about an action". I'd like to see how you'd define that. If you say "hi" to someone, what action is brought about?
Quote from: MrDan on September 24, 2007, 12:54:58 PM
Someone who cannot control their speech can still speak.
And...
If they can still speak, can they not convince?
Quote from: MrDan on September 24, 2007, 12:54:58 PM
And I'm only convincing you I'm being polite IF I TELL YOU I'M BEING POLITE. Without me saying that, you would have to both believe that I was NOT polite, and interpret my saying "Hi" as an attempt to be polite.
Not true, I would not
assume that you were polite or being polite.
Quote from: MrDan on September 24, 2007, 12:54:58 PM
The important part of your argument is that the person listening has to have a change of belief for anything to be considered speech. If what I say in no way affects what you think/believe, then by your definition, it would not be speech - ludacrious.
Nope, you do not have to bring about a change in belief, an attempt is all that is needed.
Quote from: scratch on September 24, 2007, 01:26:21 PM
Quote from: MrDan on September 24, 2007, 12:54:58 PM
Someone who cannot control their speech can still speak.
And...
If they can still speak, can they not convince?
I don't see your point. Their speech is not changing your beliefs and does not bring about action. It's just speech without meaning. How could that serve to convince (by any definition).
Quote from: scratch on September 18, 2007, 10:44:39 AM
Quote from: Kasumi on September 17, 2007, 04:58:48 PM
But could it not be argued that to inform and to convince someone are slightly different.
Yes, but to inform someone you are still trying to convince them of what you are informing them of. If I inform you that the sky is blue, or, it's raining outside, have I not convinced you that the sky is indeed blue and that it's raining outside (and not inside)?
Quote from: Kasumi on September 17, 2007, 04:58:48 PM
If you were, for example, to "inform me" (tell me) of the aforementioned meeting at 10.00 you are simply dictating to me details of a meeting that as far as i know may or may not happen. To convince me would you not need to provide proof of the meeting to back up the claim of the meeting happening at 10.00
See example of raining above. Now if I say the sky is red, and you know it to be blue, are you convinced that it is red? Of course not, but by me just simply saying the sky is red, that statement alone is trying to convince you, maybe by trickery, that the sky is red.Quote from: Kasumi on September 17, 2007, 04:58:48 PM
For example the cavemans' "Uh" may be just a sound but if they made the "Uh" sound and pointed at a rock could you be convinced that "Uh" meant rock or involved something to do with rock. If you have thus put meaning and convinced a meaning to the sound "Uh" would that not reclassify it as speech - a way of communicating or convincing.
Correct. If you assign any sound a meaning, including whistling, is has become a form of speech.
Quote from: Kasumi on September 17, 2007, 04:58:48 PM
Moving back slightly and with a counterpoint - inform and convince being separate meanings - in our culture today could it be said that if you informed someone you have in turn convinced them, simply due to the factor that we have learned that to coexist we have to trust and therefore if you informed me of a meeting at 10.00 i would likely be convinced as i had no reason to doubt you. This does not necessarily have to have applied forever though. We often work on the principle - innocent till proven guilty, or true till proved wrong. Unless i saw good reason to not believe you i would default to being convinced.
See my reply to spcterry
Quote from: Kasumi on September 17, 2007, 04:58:48 PM
Edit: to answer your edit.
When you whistle you are making a sound using your lips, if the sound is for yourself, your own tune and not interacting with anyone else or the environment then its a sound. If you whistle at someone would you not be implying meaning in your sound, You whistle at a passer by you are implying a meaning to your whistle, however i wouldn't classify this as speech, although you have communicated a meaning you haven't convinced the passer by of the meaning, in this situation where you don't know the whistler you would default to convince yourself of your own belief of the meaning of the whistle.
It doesn't matter weather you believe it or not, it is still trying to convince you of something, and it could be anything, but you are correct in stating that without assigning a meaning it is only a tune.
Quote from: scratch on September 24, 2007, 01:42:03 PMSee example of raining above. Now if I say the sky is red, and you know it to be blue, are you convinced that it is red? Of course not, but by me just simply saying the sky is red, that statement alone is trying to convice you, maybe by trickery, that the sky is red.Quote from: Kasumi on September 17, 2007, 04:58:48 PM
That implies intent ... sure you want to go down that road?
You first? :laugh:
The purpose of speech is to convince. So the intent of speech is to convince.
Quote from: scratch on September 24, 2007, 01:49:18 PM
You first? :laugh:
The purpose of speech is to convince. So the intent of speech is to convince.
Wow .. so let's break that down.
P = Purpose
S = Speech
C = Convince
I = Intent
PS = C
P ~ I
IS = C
Problem there is that P does not always = I. So you cannot make that logical deduction :)
Conversely, if someone speaks with no intent (words in nonsensical sentences, tourettes, etc), then they are speaking without trying to convince.
If were having this converstaion in person, then your speech would be to convince. However, since I'm sitting here just saying "wow", that is not the case. Noone can hear me, noone can be convinced (in any way) but what I say, does that mean I'm not actually speaking?
This is like the whole if a tree falls in the forest and no ones there to hear it does it make a sound lol.
Quote from: Kasumi on September 24, 2007, 02:45:59 PM
This is like the whole if a tree falls in the forest and no ones there to hear it does it make a sound lol.
Only if it convinces the other trees that it fell :thumb:
'The purpose of speech is to create bliss in the listener.'
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in Langenkamp, F. (1997)
Quote from: MrDan on September 24, 2007, 02:51:28 PM
Quote from: Kasumi on September 24, 2007, 02:45:59 PM
This is like the whole if a tree falls in the forest and no ones there to hear it does it make a sound lol.
Only if it convinces the other trees that it fell :thumb:
Hahahaha best response so far!
Quote from: Kasumi on September 24, 2007, 02:55:00 PM
Quote from: MrDan on September 24, 2007, 02:51:28 PM
Quote from: Kasumi on September 24, 2007, 02:45:59 PM
This is like the whole if a tree falls in the forest and no ones there to hear it does it make a sound lol.
Only if it convinces the other trees that it fell :thumb:
Hahahaha best response so far!
:laugh: agreed!
Intent:
1 a: the act or fact of intending : purpose; especially : the design or
purpose to commit a wrongful or criminal act <admitted wounding him with intent> b: the state of mind with which an act is done : volition
2: a usually clearly formulated or planned intention : aim <the director's intent>
3 a: meaning, significance b: connotation
Purpose:
1 a: something set up as an object or end to be attained :
intention b: resolution, determination
2: a subject under discussion or an action in course of execution
Don't think of the white elephant.
...or entertain. I mean... That's the other reason to speak.
The purpose of speech:
To be heard if you have something to say?
To convey a meaning of your desire
To enlighten those that are in darkness
To aggravate the Buddha loves you out of your spouse!!!!!!
After that I forgot what I was saying!
Oh yeah to help people.
Save peoples money from being over taxed.
If all else fails..just ask them to be happy and ride?
The purpose of speech is to communicate.
The purpose of the communication differs.
Having said that, let me add...
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_xslElWhAZBQ/SEi55f7bjcI/AAAAAAAAASw/v55Eh0cPLvE/s400/return_of_the_living_dead.jpg)
(http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2009/2/6/128784270049646431.jpg)
(http://www.myebaypages.com/zombie/images/incaseofzombies1_large.jpg)
(http://www.fearwerx.com/images/ZombieHunterZERO.jpg)
Michael
Wow, I miss intelligent posts like this. So, today my helmet fell off the couch. I scream "FLUCK" What am I trying to convince myself of?
Mary
The word in of itself has meaning, but your usage is that of an exclamation; an exclamation of displeasure. Or, the same as saying, "AUGH!" You're venting. Making noise.
Now get back in the kitchen and make me a sammich. :wink:
The purpose of speech:
The communication between God and Adam
Biaotch make yo own sammich! :icon_mrgreen:
Mary