Posts Tagged ‘Language Relativity’


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/

Humans are not the only species to dream. There is some evidence that your pets do too. Dogs are known to bark, under their breath, and have rapid eye movement: REM sleep. I won’t get into animal dreams though. There is reason to believe that several different types of dreams occur. Occasionally, we all have dreams of sex, falling—where we jump in our sleep, or ones akin to visions or premonitions. I will try to examine some of my dreams over the years and draw conclusions from them. I will start with an easily explainable one for this post.

I love to cook! Not any surprise that, one night while camping, I had a dream that I was cooking a huge supper for my family. I was making barbeque potatoes, corn on the cob, fresh tomatoes, and of course chicken. I had just set the chicken on the picnic table and turned around to open the barbeque. As I reached for the chicken it was no longer there. I looked around to see what happened to these fresh delectable chicken breast and could not find them anywhere. Gone! I asked everyone if they knew where the chicken breast disappeared to and no one knew.

By this point in time I began to become emotional. I was extremely upset leading to an anger with rage. I began knocking things on the ground looking for this chicken. Then my actions sped-up as I began swearing and yelling at everyone over this missing chicken. At one point, I felt so much anger and rage that I jumped. The jump woke me up just in time to stop myself from wetting the bed! Still angry, I jumped out of bed and ran to the camp park restrooms and almost did not make it.

Some types of dreams are really hard to explain. This dream, however, has an easy explanation. There are not really any hidden messages. I probably went to bed planning what to have for supper the next day. Your unconscious brain knows everything about your body, more or less. I might have been sub-consciously going over my supper plans and very much enjoying it. My brain knew that I was asleep as a state of body and motor activity. My brain knew that I desperately needed to go to the washroom. How does my unconscious, desperate, brain get my dreaming brain to wake up? Induce anger into this bliss. Needing to go, as bad as I did, during a happy moment of cooking, would require replacing this contentment with rage. The rage produced by my desperate condition.

You might think that there was an easier way for my needy brain to awaken my dreaming brain. Why not just supplement a suggestion that I needed to go to the washroom? I guess I left that part out. It did! While I was cooking, I had the feeling of needing relief. My dreaming brain told my dreaming brain that I would go to the washroom after I got the chicken started. This might make sense of the anger over the chicken.

The brain is extremely complex, even in the dream state!

©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/

 

Why Platos Dichotomy?

on June 21, 2014 in Uncategorized Comments Off

Plato utilized both reason and spirituality or a separate soul in his thinking and it would fall under dualism nowadays. He often referred to the gods, myths and of course observations of self by an inner observer. This was so obvious with the shadows in the cave. The word dichotomy actually means a divided opinion or contradictory opinion.

This is not why I use this title.

Plato was famous, if for nothing else, his ability to construct conversations in a way as to extract knowledge form the readers themselves. While reading his many works I often found myself asking some similar questions as did His dear Socrates.

Whether Plato was right or wrong in his thinking he had the perfect talent for making knowledge obvious to the reader. He readily insisted that knowledge was an innate instinct; that by asking the right questions your mind already knew the answers. As it turns out, there are actually two forms of knowledge. One form is innate. Certain types of knowledge are contained within the genome and passed from generation to generation.

It is either neglected or purposely ignored by many, that, the ability to learn is actually innate within the genome. As far as platos’ thinking is concerned, he was right that we actually have two sources of awareness. There is an inward source of awareness: innate knowledge. There is an outward source of awareness: observation of an observer. The brain being the observer and capable of learning new information. Note: not limited to a brain.

The word dichotomy also means a contrast between two things which are different. Innate knowledge and accumulated knowledge are different in contrast, but both are true.

©copyright 2011-2014

http://shermanbastarache.ca/


 

 

It has been studied and well understood that among primates different sexual calls or cries of passion are used.

Stuart Semple analyzed copulation calls from seven different female baboons. Apparently, these copulation calls are very complex vocalizations. These mating calls contain information about the status of the male she is copulating with.  The acoustic sounds are more complex when copulating with higher ranking males. Supposedly to let lower ranking males know to stay away until the higher ranking male is gone. The sound produced is longer with the high ranking males.

The sound complexity also changes when she is closer to ovulation. Yet these calls are distinct to sexual reproduction and both the males and females know this little fact. The human female has a higher pitched voice when she is closer to ovulation. The human female does not have a call for copulation—that we men know of anyway.

If lengthening or shortening pitch or duration can change a copulation call in baboons, then why can’t the same apply to human speech? Not only can pitch change, but duration as well. If other primates can alter calls to indicate different copulation situations, then why can’t humans alter every call to communicate different situations?

We can! It’s called articulated speech.

So while we listen to the erotic calls of the wild we should be mindful not to get caught with our pants down.

©copyright 2011-2014

http://shermanbastarache.ca/


 

Mystic Stories

on May 28, 2014 in Uncategorized Comments Off

Commonly, the word myth is used to connote stories based on lies. As language evolves throughout time, false meanings attach themselves to words. Because myths are no longer believed to be true, they are defined as false stories dreamt up by the ancients. I have to give credit to our ancestors. They had very wild imaginations!

Mythology is studied as a sort of science, but not taken seriously as factual. It is studied more as an abstract of ancient peoples’ social behaviour.

The word myth, is in fact, not of false origins as mythologist would have you believe. The word has its meaning based within the same context as mystic, mystery, and magic, just to name three examples. Magic was used to express wisdom—not hocus pocus—and was held with great esteem. Mystic was a means of expressing inner knowledge—knowledge itself being defined differently than it is today. Mystery, well that’s a mystery!

Mythos is the Greek word used to denote a narrative. Myth in its original meaning meant to place facts into a narrative. As a whole, the meaning would resemble the following: to uncover facts from within ones inner knowledge or logic system (however flawed that was) combine them with the knowledge passed down from generation to generation and put them into a sequence of narrative that could be “reliably” and “accurately” repeated.

Who said that these myths were accurate and reliable? I don’t return to the study of mythology because I believe these stories true! I return time and again because these stories have so many flawed facts! For example, how many myths exclude the development of some form of wisdom?

Tell me again mommy how we came to be wise. Grandmother and Grandfather were… to the next generation it would become Great Grandmother and Great Grandfather were… Finally the most that could be said would be that the first man and first woman were…

Throw a few hard won facts together into any narrative and then define narrative as trying to create a coherent story from flawed or misunderstood facts. One should take ones studies seriously or not be bothered to study at all. Important insight into early human psychological states and psychological development ferment these myths. Not only psychology, but knowledge and language origins as well.

©copyright 2011-2014

http://shermanbastarache.ca/


 

A Study Worth Following

on April 5, 2014 in Uncategorized Comments Off

As I look for new material to write about, I find myself at a loss some weeks. Most scientific news or articles are redundant, too complex in scope, or the reverse, far too simple to write about in a blog post. I try to keep my post with a mixture of my own work and that of the mainstream sciences.

This magazine article is the best I’ve read in a while now. It also adds the bonus of confirming my own work on language. Certain combinations of sounds are preferred by all languages and have an added innate knowledge base. That is, they are learned quickly enough by infants to suspect the sounds carry innate meaning. This lends support to the theory of calls and cries becoming structured into our speech articulation.

As I wrote in my book: Tilogos: A Treatise on the Origins and Evolution of Language: due to the premature development of the infants brain—not fully developed at birth—calls and cries are not allowed full development. Instead, I suspect that infants, after hearing only articulated speech after birth, have their calls and cries knowledge, replaced with the shortened digitally articulated version.

They retain the knowledge, innate in development, of the sound/concept correlation, but replace the call or cry with the newer, shorter, digital sound. If this is not true on some level, then science has to explain why some combinations of phonemes hold power over other combinations (and I am being kind). The cause cannot be the ease of combination in any case! Natural selection does not care how hard sounds are to make. Natural selection only cares that the sounds have meaning and are acted upon.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140401102126.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=

Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fmind_brain%2Flanguage_acquisition+%28Language+Acquisition+News+–+ScienceDaily%29

©copyright 2011-2014

http://shermanbastarache.ca/


 

Value of the Past

on March 31, 2014 in Uncategorized Comments Off

The future, as far as natural selection is concerned, has no value. True, the future can be altered with every action done in the present: it is called niche change. Also true, anyone’s alterations or actions of niche change can alter the future—it does not need to be your changes.

In my estimation, future predictions of events are based upon past analysis of analogous and homologous experience. The future of your survival also relies upon your expert and precise knowledge of mathematical systems. Good thing only your subconscious brain needs to know these calculations right?

We need two terms if we are to understand this to be the case. Conscious past: the past you know and love, or are wise enough to hate, is the obvious one that everyone understands. The unconscious past, which is responsible for your survival, is less understood.

Unconscious past is based in innate instincts and fine-tuned with learning. By example, it is what teaches your nervous system to walk. It does not exclude representation of new data which is part of your conscious past, but it does keep the calculations out of your conscious mind or conscious brain.

To keep it simple for our understanding, the conscious brain does not need to know that 2x2x2 is the reason that your finger feels pain. The unconscious brain does need to know that 2x2x2 is why you cut your finger. We just need to understand that there are two different brains doing two different past event analysis.

The unconscious past is what makes the predictions about the time flow from present into future and automatically makes adjustments in your behavior. Your unconscious brain is where the knowledge of space/time relativity is stored and it is this that I refer to as brain relativity. It is considered past because you already know it. At the same time, it is present/future oriented. Confused?

©copyright 2011-2014

http://shermanbastarache.ca/


 

First Causes in Language

on March 22, 2014 in Uncategorized Comments Off

“Sound trumps meaning in first language learning” ScienceDaily.

First, let me console my friends and followers. Sound does not trump meaning. Sound and meaning are one and the same in the brain. First sound meaning, trumps secondarily learned meaning, is the correct means of expression.

The article is very interesting and I take this quote:

“[Children] do not always rely on the most predictive information available when learning their first language. Instead, children disproportionally value the phonological information.”

The link to the article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140312161802.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fmind_brain%2Flanguage_acquisition+%28Language+Acquisition+News+–+ScienceDaily%29

Since I am writing and you are reading, I can’t deal in phones or phonemics: you can’t hear me. Calls and cries are first cause. I will use the word “food” as a cry. The “F” in food is phonological information. Being “first cause” the “F” allows for grouping. Grouping for food will become classed as both food and a type of food. Fudge will become secondarily grouped into the food classification without conflict of interest. It starts with the sound “F.”

The conflict of phone over meaning comes into play when nouns are used “wrongly” in accordance with the innate meanings. Foundation is not something to eat. It is something to build on.

True, you might say that apple does not start with the letter “F” and it is food. That is the whole point! Apple does not start with the letter “F” so it does not need to compete with the meaning of food and is accepted as the noun for that type of food without conflict. The brain sees food and hears apple: no conflict of calls or cries, thus words. Read into it the placing of nouns onto objects and not setting up different categories of things.

The link to the published study is:

http://www.linguisticsociety.org/document/statistical-insensitivity-acquisition-tsez-noun-classes

©copyright 2011-2014

http://shermanbastarache.ca/


 

 

 

Follow

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

Join other followers: