Posts Tagged ‘Grammar’


Last post I covered priming as a necessity in evolution and it holds for cognition as well. What if I told you that you can get that you get, that you get, that you get, that you get, and it really means nothing. The only thing that it means is that you got something. You are just adding meaningless levels of I got it. The main reason is in kind, it is the same in kind and we need different in kind or type, not same.

This is where priming comes in. In short, you need to be primed before you get anything. Priming comes from attention—neurological attention as mentioned last post, indirectly. You get something when your attention is primed or prompted for causation.

Try this and see if it improves anything. I get that I can get it. Once you get that you have the ability to get something a new door opens. “Can get” is different in kind. Everyone has heard someone say the following statements. If you can do that, you can do anything! If you can figure that out, you can figure anything out. Both of these attributes have a common denominator: ability, as depicted by the word can. “Getting” that you “can” is only one more “I get it” but a game changer. Humans, becoming specialized in getting it, would be in the perfect primed state to have one of the “I get it” moments become I get that I can.

Archimedes sat in his bath trying to solve a problem. As he sank deeper into the bath he “noticed” that the water level rose as he sank. The volume of irregular objects was thus solved and reportedly, he ran down the street naked screaming eureka! What was Archimedes trying to do? Solve a problem! It takes knowing that you can solve a problem before you waste time thinking about solving a problem. This is a result of I can get it, not I get it. While he was in the “can get” mode of thought he noticed that the water level rose as he sank and the famed “eureka” moment arrived.

When the brain is primed with “can get” then it becomes heightened for attention of details. Archimedes, primed with “can get” and again, primed with his “problem to be solve” was heightened for a solution. He was set up for—primed—a related trigger to the problem. The rise in water level became that trigger. His body displaced his irregular shape in the water. He could now measure the water displacement in a regular shaped container.

Here is the quote from my book promised last time:

“If everything I say is true, and it is true, then we must reexamine everything that we have for clues. The reason I say “we” is that I mean you. I have no real intention of doing so, so I should have written, “You must reexamine everything.” I plan to only reexamine one thing here, as I believe “I got it” is the most fruitful avenue. We humans quite possibly have learned proper so many things that our brains became specialized in getting it. That is, level one. Whether level two or level three thousand, they are all the same, as mentioned above. I get that I get that I get that I get that I get … It means nothing in reality. I suggest a different “species” of kind or a different “kind” of species of “I get it.” Let’s try on for size the notion of one of those “I got its” being “I got that I can get it” and see where that puts us.

After this thought, we can begin to see that nothing special must happen. It is simple in nature. It only requires time until this needed different species of “I get it” is hit upon and no other magic is required. It does not require finding any hidden traits or missed attributes of the brain, which stupid man cannot find or has not found yet, but look what it gives us in return. We can now call it questioning, as this is what it produces. Why does this happen this way?

Actually, for your information, as I was sitting here typing this, I was thinking about what the other ingredient might be. I typed in “why” and thought, No, because this would imply the species to be capable of questioning before consciousness arose. It might sound fearful to suppose that the first time a prototype human, not conscious, or only semiconscious, asked why, the full light came on and consciousness was born. I don’t believe it’s possible. However, a form of analyzing will avoid the questioning problem. I left this area of the book and thought about it. I get that I can get it was my epiphany, and it led me to believe this is the reason for “why,” or questioning in general. It also, which must be obvious to you by now, solves the biggest problem with my language origins. I get that I can alter, first calls and cries and then, shortly after, words. I have invented a huge word for this: wisdom. Well, I didn’t invent the word; I just called it a niche change to drive knowledge. Socrates is reported to have said, “Wisdom begins in wonder.”

You can purchase Tilogos: A Treatise on the Origins and Evolution of Language, here [Book]

Next weeks post will be on the selection for multiple orgasms!

©copyright 2011-2016 all rights reserved

http://shermanbastarache.ca/

Homonyms are words that are pronounced the same, but have different meanings. They can be either spelled the same as in tear—rip something apart, or tear—water droplets produced by the eye. This type can be accounted for by pronouncing the word differently regardless of spelling and is of little interest in the evolution of language. Writing has to do with the evolution of writing. Spelling two words the same with completely different meanings is acceptable when they are not pronounced the same.

They can be spelled the same, pronounced differently, and be derived from the same meaning or root word. Minute is one such word. It can be pronounced as (my nute) meaning small unit of space—read a small object or part of an object—or a subject as in: all of the minute details. Minute can also be pronounced as (min it) and refers to a small quantity of time—as apposed to year, month, week, day, hour, and then minute—small in comparison. Both mean small units, one of space and one of time. As far as the evolution of language is concerned, it is not hard to see any connection with spacetime on the larger scale. Pronounce minute one way for space and the other way for time, but keep the spelling the same. (The Brain Relativity thing!)

Then there is the case of more than one word sounding the same, but spelled differently. Two cases I will examine here: two, too, and to; there, their and they’re.

The number two caries more then one factual meaning. It can mean the second number in counting or be the name of the second number in counting 1 2 3… Another meaning can be derived as addition to. If you have one stick, then adding one stick to it makes both the name of the second number and the additional part of plus one. Perhaps a sentence would make this clear.

One stick, plus “two it” add one stick making two sticks, plus “two it” add one stick making it three sticks, plus “two it” add one stick making it four sticks, plus “two it” add one stick making it five sticks. I know! This seems strange, but quite possibly true. Two taken as a second step in adding at every stage. Writing, being secondary to language, would demand it be spelled differently. Writing that sentence would become: Adding one stick “to” another stick produces arithmetic. It would also produce “I am going ‘to’ the store” as a means of adding yourself to a different location. You one, plus location two, in addition—terminology presented as being spelled to. To the this, or to the that, as adding place instead of objects being counted.

Too is the easier one to explain over to. Too can be used synonymously with: also, and, further, moreover, and other words meaning “in addition to.” Too many, then would be interpreted as “adding more than needed” and could be examined/treated as two many. Too few could be treated as two few, meaning the addition of more was not enough. I am going too would be treated as I am going two, making a second, third, or fourth addition the group “going” wherever they are going.

If you think this is the stupidest thing you have ever heard, then ask yourself this: would I have ever noticed that he was not using the proper spelling of the word two, too, or to if I were just hearing the words? Speaking, they would have all sounded the same, thus homonym, and my brain would have known the difference in how they were meant intuitively. I could “say” that I went two the store two get two candies and my brother came two. Your brain would hear it correctly! The grammar police would not be pleased of writing it that way. To sort these out intuitively they might just carry the same root meaning and work parallel to sense of the word or tense of the word. Think two, too, and to; run, ran, running, plus proper noun.

To clear up what is meant by intuitively, we need to examine tense and sense of the words. I will use the second example for this purpose: there, their and they’re. All three words are spacetime relative. “There” is a place in spacetime. They’re, or they are, taken two ways. Are, is a place in spacetime, or literally existence as a sense and tense. They, is a singling out of objects or subjects, also spacetime related. “They’ out of everyone else! Their, is also a singling out of spacetime identical to “there” in place, but of persona possession instead, indicating ownership of the spacetime.

Intuitively, you would understand that spacetime pinpointing was involved in this word group. Context would be taken into account automatically, and you would derive which tense or sense the speaking of the word pertained to. There, place in space or time. Their, direct persona (ownership) in/of place or time. They’re, persona (they) in tense of time (are) indicating present tense continuum. Since these words are all spacetime related they can all sound the same as context can determine sense and tense based on the innate holistic concept and intuition.

©copyright 2011-2016 all rights reserved

http://shermanbastarache.ca/

Your brain is more sophisticated than hitherto suspected when it comes to answering questions. The well-established idiom “I know the answers. It’s the questions I don’t understand” has more bite than you know.

It is the main reason that yes and no questions are so hard to answer. If I were to ask you if you were hungry, the answer would be an easy one. Yes, you are hungry, or no, you are not hungry. The answer would likely come quickly and accurately. Your brain knows exactly which state your stomach is in at all times. If I were to ask you the same question differently, than your brain is now stuck.

What if I were to pose the question as: Are you hungry or full? There is one, and only one answer to this question. The answer is yes! You are either hungry or full! To answer no would be to state that you’re… What?  You’re neither hungry nor full, but indifferent, which would require more than a yes or no answer. The brain then, has more work to do to answer that question. It needs to analyze the actual question for information before it can set a proper answer. What is the question asking? The one question must be divided into two separate questions: Am I hungry? Am I full?  Then, there needs to be an assessment made on intension of the two separate questions—what is actually being asked here. Then the proper answer is produced: I am hungry. Take notice that the answer is neither yes nor no.

Try another question. “Ben has not called today?” which, I am guessing is a poorly translated question in this article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150617135403.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fmind_brain%2Flanguage_acquisition+%28Language+Acquisition+News+–+ScienceDaily%29

As it is, it is more of a statement then a question. More like you are telling another person that Ben did not call today. Correcting for poor grammar translation, I think, we can pose the question as “Did Ben not call today?” which I have heard spoken in everyday language. Because the word “not” is used, it would take longer, slightly, to understand this question over the proper question of “Did Ben call today?” requiring a yes or no answer. I feel that the “not” word, being negative in nature, and the negatively natured “no” for an answer conflict enough to force your brain to think before answering. Think double-negatives! The double-negative here being: not no—therefore yes.

I think, mainly, that slower responses to questions of this nature are in the poor construction of the questions and get picked on by linguistics by being made more complicated then needed. In reality, some simple, properly phrased questions do have yes or no answers. Some questions are actually produced to make you think first and supply a longer answer. Some questions are asked, not because you need to answer at all, but to bring to your mind that the asker caught you red-handed and wants you to know you were caught. The question would be phrased as: Did you just break that?

To end this post on a happy note, some questions are never intended to make any sense because there is either, no real way to ask the question, or there is a lack of knowledge to venture into a proper question.

©copyright 2011-2016 all rights reserved

http://shermanbastarache.ca/

 

Follow

Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: