02 Feb 10
Originally posted by Palynkawell this post makes the discussion more interesting. Is laughter not structured communication? When someone laughs, they are expressing delight. However, depending on context and the tone of the laughter, different messages can be conveyed. For example, a gut buster in which one is bent over slapping their knee indicates that the person has been overcome with hilarity. this is true for any language. However a "laugh" in which one pronounces the words ha ha, may be taken as sarcasm, again true for any language. There is definite coding and decoding going on in laughter, yet the messages stay the same for any language. Maybe laughter is THE universal language?
It's structured communication. A structured coding/decoding system, to be more precise.
02 Feb 10
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundif it's involuntary, then why is it that if the same joke is told to two different people, neither of which have ever heard the joke before, one may laugh while the other may not. Since we are all the same animals, shouldn't laughter be evoked in all of us to the same stimulus, based on what you're saying?
Not much to theorise. Laughter isn't a voluntary sound, it's an involuntary reaction. Us all basically being the same animal make the same sound....what am i missing?
02 Feb 10
Originally posted by Big Orange CountryI don't agree because for it to be structured you require some form of syntax/string manipulation. Laughter is simply an expression of emotion, like screaming or crying. There is no underlying syntax which (for me) is the defining characteristic of language, although there is an element of semantics.
well this post makes the discussion more interesting. Is laughter not structured communication? When someone laughs, they are expressing delight. However, depending on context and the tone of the laughter, different messages can be conveyed. For example, a gut buster in which one is bent over slapping their knee indicates that the person has bee ...[text shortened]... er, yet the messages stay the same for any language. Maybe laughter is THE universal language?
02 Feb 10
Originally posted by Big Orange CountryI never mentioned stimuli, just the actual sound itself. Even though there are variances due to vocal pitch, the laugh itself is pretty standard. If you are asking why one person laughs at one thing, and someone else doesn't then you are asking a totally different question than you did in your OP.
if it's involuntary, then why is it that if the same joke is told to two different people, neither of which have ever heard the joke before, one may laugh while the other may not. Since we are all the same animals, shouldn't laughter be evoked in all of us to the same stimulus, based on what you're saying?
02 Feb 10
Originally posted by Big Orange Country"Maybe laughter is THE universal language?" --- which was and is exactly my point. At last someone is geting the point. Or making sense atleast!!!
well this post makes the discussion more interesting. Is laughter not structured communication? When someone laughs, they are expressing delight. However, depending on context and the tone of the laughter, different messages can be conveyed. For example, a gut buster in which one is bent over slapping their knee indicates that the person has bee ...[text shortened]... er, yet the messages stay the same for any language. Maybe laughter is THE universal language?
02 Feb 10
Originally posted by Big Orange CountryNo; -yes.
if it's involuntary, then why is it that if the same joke is told to two different people, neither of which have ever heard the joke before, one may laugh while the other may not. Since we are all the same animals, shouldn't laughter be evoked in all of us to the same stimulus, based on what you're saying?
It is involuntary but the mentation of the animal and consequential mental interpretation of the pictorial/visual or verbal/audio transmissions determine the impulsiveness. To diff degrees the mental integration on varies. And also level of advancement, understanding, adulthood. And the same is true for any comprehension. And instinct may be lent –as is in this case I suppose -And delaminated to trends that are predictable. That’s how one would tell a “Joke”.