Jump to content
Science Forums

Sounds Then Speech Then Language.


pljames

Recommended Posts

A civilization depends upon the written word, not only to pass on knowledge to the rest of society but in a way that is more efficient than word of mouth is - hence tribal society never gets beyond this or needs to (fifty people by word of mouth or five thousand by pen and ink via scrolls, over a larger territory or as nowadays, the world itself).

 

CGI artists are the next step up to traditional artists but some people still aspire to the old and inefficient ways because of 'class'- that is they want to 'appear' sophisticated, rather than be 'modern.'

 

Advertising magicians lie to sell things and the rich get their money by finding new things to sell society that it may or may not need but may want.

 

As for my quote that came from witnessing an American cop trying to sound sophisticated by using long words, rather than getting to the point (simple truth).

 

The reason we discuss things over and over again, is to refine our knowledge and get it spot on. When we do this, we give up on the subject because it bores us stiff then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A civilization depends upon the written word, not only to pass on knowledge to the rest of society but in a way that is more efficient than word of mouth is - hence tribal society never gets beyond this or needs to (fifty people by word of mouth or five thousand by pen and ink via scrolls, over a larger territory or as nowadays, the world itself).CGI artists are the next step up to traditional artists but some people still aspire to the old and inefficient ways because of 'class'- that is they want to 'appear' sophisticated, rather than be 'modern.'Advertising magicians lie to sell things and the rich get their money by finding new things to sell society that it may or may not need but may want.As for my quote that came from witnessing an American cop trying to sound sophisticated by using long words, rather than getting to the point (simple truth).The reason we discuss things over and over again, is to refine our knowledge and get it spot on. When we do this, we give up on the subject because it bores us stiff then.

 

It's exactly what I am getting at... the new language: That of the CGI word, doesn't actually require human intervention. Once an AI processor has learnt to copy the methods, and reasons to which those picture scapes are made, "IT" can create the art for us. Which then begs the question again, what is the point to have learnt to have written in the first place? I mayaswell bury myself now in stasis and await the time when such art from our creationista machine churns out everything for me, from blondes through too multilingual, multi experiential environment/scapes to live in.... Or I could drown myself with a statue of Mother Mary, and stare at that as my battery dies out. (Yes that is reference to a movie)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yes, when machines become self-activating. Perhaps as has been argued, if this world is actually a kind of hologram already, then it would be a case of a programmed robot (us), creating other programmed robots or as a poet once put it fleas, upon fleas ad infinitum.

and this is where we answer our question about evolution. It's just info sharing...language.

 

To me language in the universe has been tied to emotion, not to adhere the entity to a grasp of reality but too have provided a movement that is fit for Kings and Gods to admire, and the more language that is tied to the finer graces of information that is enjoying the acts of life that it carries with itself, and shares...

 

The more you, and God, and the King and Queen want to stay.

 

...sadly, War:.

Finer... Happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and this is where we answer our question about evolution. It's just info sharing...language.

 

To me language in the universe has been tied to emotion, not to adhere the entity to a grasp of reality but too have provided a movement that is fit for Kings and Gods to admire, and the more language that is tied to the finer graces of information that is enjoying the acts of life that it carries with itself, and shares...

 

The more you, and God, and the King and Queen want to stay.

 

...sadly, War:.

Finer... Happy.

If we had a neg rep function I would be using it. If you're not posting general bullshit you're posting bullshit that is negative and/or hateful. :irked: How about you zip it. :zip: Good frickin' grief. :cussing:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Its so fricken simple, it actually hurts to talk about it: Evolution , Language , Tools. ;and its the simplicity of it that makes you wonder, why it is so simple to begin with, and why most everybody else is stupid.

 

 

 

I think it is so bleeding stupid because action leads to understanding, it doesn't start from it (Nobody knows what the hell they are doing, they just do it and judge the results after: See my post about "What Science Is" and life as an experiment paragraph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   

 

 

I think it is so bleeding stupid because action leads to understanding, it doesn't start from it (Nobody knows what the hell they are doing, they just do it and judge the results after: See my post about "What Science Is" and life as an experiment paragraph.

Neg rep for you too. You know what science is like a clod of dirt knows what science is. :thumbs_do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Language, it's birth... the answer seems to be PAIN -> that's why it's so simple. We read all the stuff on what has been stated over and over again. The answer is making a "Movement". If the the state of the system is plain over a duration, it becomes nothing. Through an emotion (a reaction) you get a "movement", an opera...whalla langauge worth remembering, maybe even writing down. I would suppose that the first utterances that were repeated by apeman was ouch (actually I would suppose it too have been ALOT MORE than that in order for it too have been felt enough) Yes this is negative, and it's sad too think that our evolution is based on pain. The other word that may have been a first is FART? - I would envisage a state in which a smelly ape that had some sort of bowel problem at the time was remembered, but again this is pain induced evolution aswell. Some other obvious words that we may have remember could be, Taste specific: (yuk yum) Event Specific: (Move;as in this ape is dead why don't it move). etc etc

The language of love, doesn't seem to have the duration necessary for it too be remember as something "new", ie. its one of those innate things (Not that I am a proponent of innateness; especially in todays day and age) The wierd beauty of the Fact the humans seem to be the fastest at learning means that we value emotion, and as a sideline topic we probably weren't killers to begin with (We developed a taste for it) Yes I have opened up a smorgasborg too work on, plenty too write and ponder about: none of it really testable unless your allowed to cage and torture beings into a particular state (Which we know doesn't seem to work too great anyway -> it needs to be an opera!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neg rep for you too. You know what science is like a clod of dirt knows what science is. :thumbs_do

 

Sorry Turtle but can you give me a translation as I'm not sure what you mean? Didn't you poke around as a child, making discoveries by accident not design and what about Newton's experiments on himself that led to his discoveries about light (poking sticks into his eye socket and wondering about the light shows that followed).  Life starts with a theory about what you are experiencing, followed by more actions to see if this is consistent with what you believe.  As a child do you know what fire is?  No which is why so many kids get their fingers burnt.  The wise child of course watches as another child sticks their hands in the flames and then conjectures that it is not a sensible thing to do.  You experiment from your belief or simply from curiosity ("I have no special talents, I'm just passionately curious" Einstein, another scientist you may have heard of).  Alexander Fleming didn't know what he'd found when he stumbled upon penicillin initially, Einstein didn't realise that the bomb would come from his equations for a start either.  Then there's petroleum that wasn't thought to have any use and was put in kerosene lamps, until someone thought of the internal combustion engine for cars.  Trains of course would kill you, if you went faster than ten miles an hour - a theory that wasn't proved fact by actual experience, then of course there was flight and the Wright brothers, not to mention space flight (some people still don't believe that happened).  Enough said or have you other evidence rather than your displeasure to add to the conversation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Language, it's birth... the answer seems to be PAIN -> that's why it's so simple. We read all the stuff on what has been stated over and over again. The answer is making a "Movement". If the the state of the system is plain over a duration, it becomes nothing. Through an emotion (a reaction) you get a "movement", an opera...whalla langauge worth remembering, maybe even writing down. I would suppose that the first utterances that were repeated by apeman was ouch (actually I would suppose it too have been ALOT MORE than that in order for it too have been felt enough) Yes this is negative, and it's sad too think that our evolution is based on pain. The other word that may have been a first is FART? - I would envisage a state in which a smelly ape that had some sort of bowel problem at the time was remembered, but again this is pain induced evolution aswell. Some other obvious words that we may have remember could be, Taste specific: (yuk yum) Event Specific: (Move;as in this ape is dead why don't it move). etc etc The language of love, doesn't seem to have the duration necessary for it too be remember as something "new", ie. its one of those innate things (Not that I am a proponent of innateness; especially in todays day and age) The wierd beauty of the Fact the humans seem to be the fastest at learning means that we value emotion, and as a sideline topic we probably weren't killers to begin with (We developed a taste for it) Yes I have opened up a smorgasborg too work on, plenty too write and ponder about: none of it really testable unless your allowed to cage and torture beings into a particular state (Which we know doesn't seem to work too great anyway -> it needs to be an opera!)

You should see Jay Gould - he didn't believe in 'innate' intelligence either and somebody else has taken up the cause again lately (British) but I can't remember his name.  I wouldn't say it was pain necessarily but yes emotion and that comes from exploration.  Life goes forward - death stays were it is, happy (?) in its limitations, mental or physical.  Why is this?  Fear of death (limitation) itself.  The courageous go forward because boredom is what they fear more than bodily loss.  Sorry to digress but this applies top language too - new ideas, new terms needed to describe them (intellectual life).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pain

 

I think it was (and actually have gone through it myself) - much like the mumblings of a dying man, pain brings out the "Sound". A group of chimps merrily munching and grooming, has it's base in communication (Visual, Smell). The next step is to try and instigate the memory centres and the vocal chords, I would presume that the first utterance would have been somewhat musical in quality, the neighbouring chimps would have then applied thier knowledge of tools too beat too the emotion (mimickery), and in true misery and the mourning process would have "Instilled" a new word/rythm. Whalla, speach. Step 2 is to have repeated the speech of that memory at the similar occasion (a passing). Step 3 is the realisation that each member is "different" : Now chimps are starting to name the passings specifically. ... you can see where I am getting at. (The obolisque in the Movie! - but my version omits the war part...thats at least a couple layers of evolution away from the initial transition)

 

NOTE: That it is not a reward/disreward pyschology example, many disiplines have tried with (like teaching dogs tricks).

 

The colloquially theory of it having todo with tools (naming different tools), or the eating of meat/need to survive (new societal organisation/observation of communication protocols of the hunted) is not actually an explanation, it's just a way of saying this is probably what happened: Which makes me shudder that I am in the eyes of learned people a Bimbo...yet any versed movie buff could have reguritated what I have just stated: I think they are just kind enough to not make a public spectacle out of it (They are waiting on the papers)

 

..Cont,

 The simplicity with which languuage is evolved through grouped species accounts for why it isn't all that diverse. (I need a symbol for knowing what my reader is thinking, and not having to explain myself) If you look at all the sounds procured on earth from animals, it's really not as much as you think. Even the birds sing in melody (which of course  brings about the chicken egg dillema - I think the birds have it on this one - ie they sang first, but did we copy them, or did we train them? (NO)) There seems to be some index relative too segregation though, eg. insects are much different too whales, and those still enamoured by visual display are somewhat an order lower.

 

Loner species: I wouldn't have a clue... which is why innate ability scares me. (eg. the Spider that just knows how to spin it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Turtle but can you give me a translation as I'm not sure what you mean? ...

I mean you blather on with meaningless drivel that has not one iota of scientific reasoning or support, let alone a reference. I don't think I can make it any more clear. :thumbs_do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean you blather on with meaningless drivel that has not one iota of scientific reasoning or support, let alone a reference. I don't think I can make it any more clear. :thumbs_do

This sounds like someone using insults rather than reason to back up their assumptions.  This isn't scientific either is it?  I remember you calling me a 'troll' because of how I interpreted evolution once, despite a moderator pointing out that Daniel Dennet had written a book expounding much the same thing.  Name calling is very childish and is the equivalent of a religious person calling me a 'blasphemer' (scientism in other words), so I refute your approach as unreasonable (emotional not intellectual) even if you might be right about me not referencing other people's work in this field.  I am not a scientist but a layman and this is theory (by me) not proven fact by others.  Bullying to get someone to shut up has no place on a site like this let alone in real life (suppression aimed at stopping someone expressing their views).  Last time I left this site because of it - this time I will say what I have to say and if that gets me banned, so be it.  If I was in the USA and it got me shot by you, just to shut me up, again so be it.  Bring me evidence that refutes what I say, not hot air and bluff aimed at shutting me up. :zip:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was (and actually have gone through it myself) - much like the mumblings of a dying man, pain brings out the "Sound". A group of chimps merrily munching and grooming, has it's base in communication (Visual, Smell). The next step is to try and instigate the memory centres and the vocal chords, I would presume that the first utterance would have been somewhat musical in quality, the neighbouring chimps would have then applied thier knowledge of tools too beat too the emotion (mimickery), and in true misery and the mourning process would have "Instilled" a new word/rythm. Whalla, speach. Step 2 is to have repeated the speech of that memory at the similar occasion (a passing). Step 3 is the realisation that each member is "different" : Now chimps are starting to name the passings specifically. ... you can see where I am getting at. (The obolisque in the Movie! - but my version omits the war part...thats at least a couple layers of evolution away from the initial transition)

 

NOTE: That it is not a reward/disreward pyschology example, many disiplines have tried with (like teaching dogs tricks).

 

The colloquially theory of it having todo with tools (naming different tools), or the eating of meat/need to survive (new societal organisation/observation of communication protocols of the hunted) is not actually an explanation, it's just a way of saying this is probably what happened: Which makes me shudder that I am in the eyes of learned people a Bimbo...yet any versed movie buff could have reguritated what I have just stated: I think they are just kind enough to not make a public spectacle out of it (They are waiting on the papers)

 

..Cont,

 The simplicity with which languuage is evolved through grouped species accounts for why it isn't all that diverse. (I need a symbol for knowing what my reader is thinking, and not having to explain myself) If you look at all the sounds procured on earth from animals, it's really not as much as you think. Even the birds sing in melody (which of course  brings about the chicken egg dillema - I think the birds have it on this one - ie they sang first, but did we copy them, or did we train them? (NO)) There seems to be some index relative too segregation though, eg. insects are much different too whales, and those still enamoured by visual display are somewhat an order lower.

 

Loner species: I wouldn't have a clue... which is why innate ability scares me. (eg. the Spider that just knows how to spin it)

Innate ability has to be recorded experience passed on through our genes as I see it as a logical progression

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:blahblahblah:  :blahblahblah:  :blahblahblah:

 

So you're 14 according to your write up?  Makes sense with all this childish behaviour.  How much do you know? (You don't say what you do, where you were educated or at what level).  And you've been posting since you were in single figures (5 years old)?  Are you a child genius or something? (I'd guess something).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

I just found this topic. Its been sitting here for the past four years. I've been studying phonosemantics (the connection between sound and meaning) in natural human languages for the past 40 years. For starters, sounds are often indexes (reliable signals) of various physiological or physicomechanical states. For example, if you hear a stone crunched between your teeth this is a reliable sign that something at least somewhat brittle has broken. Similarly, if you hear a floppy noise like a rug being laid out on a floor then you know that a relatively coherent surface has lost trapped air from beneath it as it settles down onto the surface. And a pop as of a balloon marks an explosion. Many languages have onomatopoeic words which try to take advantage of such sound-meaning linkages, but using a somewhat arbitrary code. This is why imitations such as of dogs barking vary so much between different languages- but not equally in every possible dimension of possible phonetic contrasts. In examining hundreds of languages, using relatively comprehensive dictionaries and also becoming at least somewhat familiar with grammar and word formation processes, over the past couple of decades, I discovered an interesting pattern. For languages that have CVC-type root structure (which can be more or less developed, with consonant clusters, or extra syllables, or reduced ones, etc.), it is usually the case that the first consonantal position has a semantic opposition with the last one. So for example if C1- is a labial stop, it will be far more likely than not that there will be some association, in state or action verb roots, that some sort of loss of containment, confinement, possession, and similar notions involving mass, energy, responsibility, etc. But if -C2 is a labial we find GAIN, or RETENTION, of same is being depicted.  On the other hand if C1- is a velar stop, then GAIN is the main sense, but final -C2 as velar stop we find LOSS. The labial C1- and velar -C2 don't have identical senses on other scores- the labial initials are usually 'about' loss of relatively low value materials- stuff you DON'T really want or respect, and the loss is all-at-once, and generally unwelcome by others as well. Think intestinal digestive wastes, gas, etc.  The C1- velars refer to relatively HIGH VALUE materials which have to be fought over since others (animate or inanimate) will attempt to retain them. So say you're digging hard rock to extract gemstones or precious metals. There is also a textural association- the C1-labials associate with material looseness, while the C1- velars associate with tightness and hardness.  Animal signals may have the beginnings of similar mappings, but they haven't yet been demonstrated. The Motivation Structure Theory by Eugene Morton (he was an animal behavioral ethologist at the National Zoo for many years) took vocal signals form many different vertebrate species and renormalized them for time and frequency range, so they could be compared more easily. What he found was that there was a frequency and amplitude-based code for social interactions. One can deepen a voice to make oneself seem larger to intimidate rivals. Not all species can do this- it evolved. Frogs for example have honest voice pitch so that a rival knows exactly what to expect when competing for mates or territory from another conspecific.  A voice can also be varied for how tonally smooth or noisily rough it is. The latter associates strongly with agitation of the speaker, and the former with calmness and self-assuredness. Loudness goes with emphasis, and quietness with understatement. These types of vocal variation are found across mammals and birds, and even to a lesser extent to some reptiles.  While these vocal signals are generally limited to social statuses and interactions, some species also have warning signals which can differentiate between different types of predator threat. And apes have food calls which alert conspecifics to the availability of abundant food discovered by the caller. Often the caller will try to prevent him/herself from sending the call. They can't stop it from coming up out of their throats, so they put their hands over their mouth to keep it inside.  Zoo experiments on captive apes have shown that the acoustic structures of food calls differentiate foods of different qualities such as size, shape, color, and nutritional quality (such as ripeness). My own research seems to indicate that this type of iconicity laid the basis for the rise of language, given that there is a strong correlation between the articulatory positions of phonemes in the oral cavity, and the masticational/deglutitional (chewing and swallowing) function of the mouth at those positions in mammals. The lips gather materials inwards and keep them contained. The tongue moves food bits about from one process to another, helps to separate more from less processed materials, and consolidates uniformly processed stuffs into a food bolus for swallowing, among other functions. The tooth types are differentiated for function as well. Incisors are nippers and pinchers. Canines pierce. Bicuspids (at least in primates) slice, and molars crush. These actions associate with the material properties of the food bits being processed between them.  And the location of the taste buds on the tongue are also differentiated. Bitter taste is in the rear, adjacent to the molars, which crush hard materials which are often bitter. Sweet is in the front, where ripe fruit melts in your mouth and may only need to be pressed between lips and tongue surface. And so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...