Thinking about programs, which presuppose categories, what then of animals
that seem to have program perceptions but not language? It seems quite
possible to me that the appearance of programmatic control might be an
effect of controlling sequences. Failure to control a sequence to its
conclusion might result in switching to another sequence that intersects
the failed one at that point, or at some earlier point. That would have the
appearance of a logical decision-point or a conditional test; it might even
be the evolutionary precursor to it. But logical or programmatic control as
we understand it might depend on the prior evolution of language. Certainly
Borel and other mathematicians have recognized that mathematics depends
upon a prior shared vernacular.
Thinking about programs, which presuppose categories, what then of animals
that seem to have program perceptions but not language? It seems quite
possible to me that the appearance of programmatic control might be an
effect of controlling sequences. Failure to control a sequence to its
conclusion might result in switching to another sequence that intersects
the failed one at that point, or at some earlier point. That would have the
appearance of a logical decision-point or a conditional test; it might even
be the evolutionary precursor to it. But logical or programmatic control as
we understand it might depend on the prior evolution of language. Certainly
Borel and other mathematicians have recognized that mathematics depends
upon a prior shared vernacular.
Interesting idea, about interrupted sequences mimicking programs. A nice
illustration, in fact, of how we can apply too high a level of perception
to a system that doesn't actually contain that level of organization.
However, the way you have stated the problem entails a circular definition.
If language, by definition, is that which is produced by an organism
containing all 11 levels of organization, then obviously no animal with
fewer levels has language. But this does not mean that an animal with fewer
levels couldn't use signs and symbols (auditory and other) to convey
meanings to other animals. If we define language in a strictly
anthropocentric way, then obviously only human beings have language, since
no other organisms are organized exactly as human beings are. But if we
define it in terms of communicating experiences, it's obvious that many
animals have language.
Do Americans play football? Ask any European. Obviously not.