Language, Sounds and Intelligent Design

[Chu]

Great ideas, @nicklebleu !

One thing I have been thinking about for years is: whether or not it would (or will be) possible to design a ‘Universal Translator’ device, at least for human speech, that would be able to translate any language without having to learn it before, just by context and sound. I always thought that speech is a reflection of how we think, and maybe even of how exactly our brains are wired, which means that it would follow some internal rules (a bit like hardware constrains the way you can write code for your software). And your videos have given me more insight into this question - maybe in addition to the constraints in the brain, the sounds themselves have an inbuilt meaning. And if it was possible, would such a device work for an alien language, thus reflecting a truly universal substrate to language based on sound (maybe alien language is based on something else)?

It could be... Although, let me nitpick a bit here:
1. What do you do with the poor sing languages, then?
2. What do you do if you find an "alien" language that is purely telepathic?

In those two cases, you are not in the realm of sounds exclusively anymore. Granted, these are exceptions, so it doesn't rule out your idea completely.

About language being a reflection of how we think, it could also be the opposite. There are actually some debates about it. Some people (and babies) are said to be able to think without language. I don't know that for sure, but one characteristic of thought is that it doesn't always need to be linear, while language is. (E.g you can hold two thoughts at once, or have a more encompassing thought, but with language, whether written or oral, you can't "stack" things together, pronounce two words at once, etc. You need time and space to produce language.) Some people will argue then that thought comes first, and speech allows for us to organize it and improve it. Others will say that speech limits thought precisely because of that linearity.

As for brain constraints, there are very strange cases where you get the impression that the brain is just an "antenna". People with injuries to the Brocca and Wernicke areas (associated with language wiring), and who muster language perfectly well in other areas. Or polyglots using less of their brain to use more languages. Or people who wake up from a surgery speaking a foreign language or with a foreign accent. So, I have serious doubts about the "hardware/software" analogy, in that perhaps the "software" (language) is "out there", not in our brain. And that the hardware is everything, brain, vocal tract, respiratory system, etc. FWIW!

Connected to that is the observation that the word ‘mother’ is very similar in most - but not all! - languages (in Aymara it is ‘Taica’; in Calo it is Dai; then there are a few languages with a N rather than a M sound - like nan). It also happens to be the first word for a lot of babies. Most linguists explain this with the immaturity of the voice apparatus and that this sound mimics suckling the breast in terms of muscular use. And this might be partially true, but again, there might be also a deeper meaning in the sound MA.

The interesting thing with the words ‘mother’ that don’t contain the MA sound - like ‘Taica’ And in case the word in another language doesn’t closely resemble the MA syllable, maybe there is a ‘children’s word’ that would do so - a bit like ‘mum’ vs ‘mother’

You're going to love "Babel", but I'd also recommend that you read Margaret Magnus' book. It will give you a lot more ideas!

/m/ and /a/ are the sounds that use the whole vocal cavity, /m/ also including the nasal cavity. It is possible that they are the most "open" sounds in that sense. They are also both the most melodious. The "suckling" hypothesis can only apply to /m/, I think, not to /a/ (it if was /a/, the baby would have too much air escaping, and no pressure in his/her lips to breastfeed.)

As for "taica", that's interesting! Magnus would say that, on top of the meaning intrinsic to sounds due to the way they are articulated in the vocal tract (e.g /b/ is an explosion in the mouth, so used for works related to explosions, or words with physical boundaires), there is also the part of meaning that concerns cultural reference. That is, how each culture sees the concept being named. Sounds will then be chosen to match those qualities too. Thus, you'd have to know how "mother" is viewed by each of these cultures. And do babies still say "ma-ma-ma" at first, even though later on they learn the word "Taica"?

The last issue that seems connected to all this (and it may well not be) is a thought I have held for a very long time: Anything that a human can think of will become reality at some point. Again, this may be false, and of course I don’t have proof - I can only look back (think Jules Vernes). But it always has looked to me that if we can form a thought, that already halfway materialises what we are thinking about in a sensed - the rest is research and development.

There is SOME proof for speech affecting thoughts, such as what is used in NLP, sophrology, plain affirmations, BrainGym, etc. This then can lead to a better attitude, which leads to better thinking, and to better actions, and hopefully a better reality. On the opposite extreme, you have rhetoric, propaganda, double-speak, etc. The extent to which both things "create our reality" has to do, I think, with the fact that our subconscious mind is active all the time, and that a part of "language" is filtered by it more than by our conscious mind understanding literal messages.

The Cs mentioned at some point that viruses were "thoughts made manifest". Who knows how that works! Maybe there is something like this at our level too. A constant relationship between the immaterial and the physical.

The problem is, AFAIK, that even the best physicists can't tell us what "information", "information field", "thought", "consciousness", "soul", "mind" and even "language" is (heck, even "electrons" and "electromagnetic fields" are there only in theory). So, we can speculate, but it's difficult to prove anything. It's still super interesting, IMO! Just as long as we don't assume we have the full truth, because this may be one area where our knowledge is too limited.

Thank you for your post!!

 

[MK Scarlett]

Thank you so much Chu for this thread and for your videos Sounds & Meaning that I will start to watch on tomorrow. I had completely missed them, as well as this thread.

Sounds & Meaning of words is an area of the linguistic which I find of interest for many years as I think that there is pure beauty in it, and that making the effort to identify them makes the brain work more accurately. They could be infinite for what we know. Each time I discover a new one, I am flabbergasted.

I often take the following one as example of meaning beyond the meaning of one given word: in French, we say "maladie" for "illness". We know that it means being sick, but it also say something that would be in English "The pain talks" which in French is "Mal a dit". It is the same sound and that sound tells you that your pain is telling you something.
Plus, in French we have the same sound for the word "mot" which means "word" and "maux" which is the plural of the French word "mal" which means in this case of plural "pains".

Another French word is "tumeur", which is "tumor" in English. The sound of it is the same than in "tu meurs" in French, meaning "you die" in English. That's pretty astonishing to me.

With these examples, I evoke phonetics, but I guess there is also partly etymology, meaning of the letters, and maybe other fields. So, it seems indeed that there is a "hidden" meaning attached to many words and their sounds.

Oh! A last one word: In French, we say "l'être" which means in English "the being". This word has the same sound in French than "lettre" which means in English "letter".

As human beings, would we be letters in some kind of cosmic code? That would be a very interesting concept, unless I'm going too much off the track.

 

[Chu]

I often take the following one as example of meaning beyond the meaning of one given word: in French, we say "maladie" for "illness". We know that it means being sick, but it also say something that would be in English "The pain talks" which in French is "Mal a dit". It is the same sound and that sound tells you that your pain is telling you something.

It can also mean "evil has spoken"? "(le) mal a dit".

Another French word is "tumeur", which is "tumor" in English. The sound of it is the same than in "tu meurs" in French, meaning "you die" in English. That's pretty astonishing to me.

Yeah! Funny, I was just telling people here about that one the other day.

As human beings, would we be letters in some kind of cosmic code? That would be a very interesting concept, unless I'm going too much off the track.

Why not? At least, in the French "morphogenetic field". I think you'll find parts 2 and 4 interesting, given what picks your curiosity the most. It can basically show that sounds aren't "random" (as in your examples), and that it applies not just to one language, but to many.

Btw, the Spanish team wanted subtitles in Spanish, and that's done. So I'll put French subtitles next as soon as I get a chance.

 

[Chu]

Cannot believe I recalled her name after all these years: Priscilla Dunstan
I bought her video for my kids when they were having babies many years ago.

I wonder if there are further studies done about this. It would seem a bit strange, if Piaget, Tomasello and others were right in basically saying that till about 3 years of age, language is very "egocentric", then turning into a communication system. But perhaps there IS something there anyway. I have never looked much into this, only for sounds.

 

[Metrist]

I remember as a youth, the long conversations I had on the phone, and that I was a listener rather than a talker. If I would initiate a call, it would be purposeful. Like: 'Do you want to hang out?... OK, I'll be right over. Bye.'

But my friends would call to talk. And it was nice because I liked them, and it didn't matter that the conversation was the same as the last, and I often could anticipate what they would say, as they told me before. And so, these conversations weren't really conveying anything meaningful - intellectually, but it is as if it were the excuse we had to spend time together - in conversation. And so it was something more than language we engaged in, but language was the vehicle that held our mutual admiration together - we just talked. And the conversation was occasionally punctuated with something real: 'I really like you'.
Imagine calling someone and the conversation went:
'Hi. I really like you.'
'Oh... I like you too.'
'Bye.'
'Bye.'

So, there is a pageantry aspect to language.

 

[dennis]

Hope this is pertinent to the thread topic, and a little humorous as well

Libo[edit]​

During the century and a half between the last records of the Julii Iuli and the first appearance of the Julii Caesares, we encounter a Lucius Julius Libo, consul in BC 267. His surname Chase translates as "sprinkler", deriving it from libare, and suggests that it might originally have signified the libation pourer at religious ceremonies.[15]

Caesar[edit]​

The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology says this of the cognomen Caesar:
It is uncertain which member of the Julia gens first obtained the surname of Caesar, but the first who occurs in history is Sextus Julius Caesar, praetorin BC 208. The origin of the name is equally uncertain. Spartianus, in his life of Aelius Verus, mentions four different opinions respecting its origin:

1. That the word signified an elephant in the language of the Moors, and was given as a surname to one of the Julii because he had killed an elephant.
2. That it was given to one of the Julii because he had been cut (caesus) out of his mother's womb after her death; or
3. Because he had been born with a great quantity of hair (caesaries) on his head; or
4. Because he had azure-colored (caesii) eyes of an almost supernatural kind.

Of these opinions the third, which is also given by Festus, seems to come nearest the truth. Caesar and caesaries are both probably connected with the Sanskrit kêsa, "hair", and it is quite in accordance with the Roman custom for a surname to be given to an individual from some peculiarity in his personal appearance.

Julia gens - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sextus Pompeius Festus, usually known simply as Festus, was a Roman grammarian who probably flourished in the later 2nd century AD, perhaps at Narbo (Narbonne) in Gaul.
He made a 20-volume epitome of Verrius Flaccus's voluminous and encyclopedic treatise De Verborum Significatione. Flaccus had been a celebrated grammarian who flourished in the reign of Augustus. Festus gives the etymology as well as the meaning of many words, and his work throws considerable light on the language, mythology and antiquities of ancient Rome. He made a few alterations, and inserted some critical remarks of his own. He also omitted such ancient Latin words as had long been obsolete; these he apparently discussed in a separate work now lost, entitled Priscorum verborum cum exemplis. Even incomplete, Festus' lexicon reflects at second hand the enormous intellectual effort that had been made in the Augustan Age to put together information on the traditions of the Roman world, which was already in a state of flux and change.

Sextus Pompeius Festus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Goemon_]

Connected to that is the observation that the word ‘mother’ is very similar in most - but not all! - languages

In Georgian language "father" is "მამა" [mama] and "mother" is "დედა" [deda]...

 

[nicklebleu]

In Georgian language "father" is "მამა" [mama] and "mother" is "დედა" [deda]...

Or rather the other way around ...

 

[Goemon_]

Or rather the other way around ...

If you mean that "mama" is "mother" and "deda" is father. Well, nope. I should probably have highlight that I was reacting to the "but not all!" part of your message.

But, maybe you mean that in Georgian it is the other way around than in most languages. To my point.

 

[Wandering Star]

After watching your videos I have thought a couple of things.

An operating system is installed in a computer, which works through a programming "language". Suppose a "game" is installed in the operating system. Some very long lines of "codes" design a dog, a tree, different avatars ..., it is written in a "language" and when the program is run, it appears on the screen.

And a programmer who knows the program, can alter the contents of the game by changing or adding lines of code (language).

It seems that what surrounds us is a type of wave.

If you get to know the programming language (the real name of what surrounds us) maybe you can write new things in the game or change things.

Sounds configure geometric shapes in a speaker. If you know the name of an object, a sound or vibration for its color, another for its shape, another for the matter from which it is made ..., etc.

So maybe with the right technology we could "name" the object (write the computer code) and "bring it up". It would appear.

Now another maybe ...

With a circular electromagnetic field, perhaps a vacuum zone could be generated where one could write in said programming "language". Within the vacuum zone the object is "named" (the wave is emitted) and the object appears.

Perhaps in the past the real "name" of things was known and they simply "brought" what they needed.

I really liked your videos.

Very, very interesting.

 

[zak]

I remember this very "à propos" video you made at the beginning of the agendamic crisis, which I finally found again:
Coronavirus: Language as a Weapon of Mass Destruction -- Sott.net
And the french version: Coronavirus - Le langage comme arme de destruction massive -- Sott.net

In the current climate, maybe it’s time to remember how words can affect your entire life, even to the extent of making you lose your critical thinking, the moral values that you used to hold dear and your sanity, leading you to accept policies and limitations that you thought were unthinkable. When used to exploit your feelings and actions, language can be the most deadly virus in the world. And today, we are witnessing another huge “outbreak”.

An extract from political ponerology in this sense:

Today, however, the world is being jeopardized by a phenomenon which cannot be understood nor described by means of such a natural conceptual language; this kind of egotism thus becomes a dangerous factor stifling the possibility of objective counteractive measures. Developing and popularizing the objective psychological world view could thus significantly expand the scope of dealing with evil, via sensible action and pinpointed countermeasures.

The objective psychological language, based on mature philosophical criteria, must meet the requirements derived from its theoretical foundations, and meet the needs of individual and macrosocial practice. It should be evaluated fully on the basis of biological realities and constitute an extension of the analogous conceptual language elaborated by the older naturalistic sciences, particularly medicine. Its range of applicability should cover all those facts and phenomena conditioned upon cognizable biological factors for which this natural language has proved inadequate. It should, within this framework, allow sufficient understanding of the contents, and varied causes, for the genesis of the above-mentioned deviant world views.

Elaborating such a conceptual language, being far beyond the individual scope of any scientist, is a step-by-step affair; by means of the contribution of many researchers, it matures to the point when it could be organized under philosophical supervision in the light of above-mentioned foundations. Such a task would greatly contribute to the development of all bio-humanistic and social sciences by liberating them from the limitations and erroneous tendencies imposed by the overly great influence of the natural language of psychological imagination, especially when combined with an excessive component of egotism.

Most of the questions dealt with in this book are beyond the scope of applicability of the natural language. The fifth chapter shall deal with a macrosocial phenomenon which has rendered our traditional scientific language completely deceptive. Understanding these phenomena thus requires consistent separation from the habits of that method of thinking and the use of the most objective system of concepts possible. For this purpose, it proves necessary to develop the contents, organize them, and familiarize the readers with them as well.

And:

Chu:
In a sense, then, linguistic diversity can be another obstacle from achieving this objective language, and in spite of superficial cultural differences and ways of thinking (interesting as they are), ALL countries are ponerized to a great extent, so you could say there is only one culture: The culture of ignorance.

Thanks to Lobaczeski's work and the research done in English, the translations this network has made available, etc., this "objective language" is a bit better known and further developed, even in other languages. But still, English is the only language fairy well equipped to speak about what really is wrong with this world (because most of the research has been done IN English). Yes, it's a product of modern Imperialism, but linguistic diversity creates division and ignorance, and psychopaths have a ball with that. If all humanity spoke the same language, it might come to an understanding, or at least it would have a better chance to do so, MAYBE. So, Babel is a curse today, I think.

I still find languages fascinating, though! But I wish they were just something one could learn for fun and to further develop his/her brain capabilities and knowledge of the world, and not a limiting factor in this ponerized world where it's already hard to separate the wheat from the chaff in one language, and much more when clues are hidden in others too.

Objective Language

In this infernal circle of pressure towards the unique thought and by extension, writing and language, I visualise this forum and its members as a rising spiral, open and always vigilant, engaged in a work of depth and light.

Ark:
Q: (A) When you watch, look and listen, you are getting some signals, and these signals cause a certain pattern of thinking which were not yet able to emerge, but now, after you receive certain signals, you start to think in a different way. So, you cannot now think in a different way, but when you learn this and this has happened, then you start to think in a different pattern. So, you cannot now do things, but you always have to be ready to change your thinking at any moment when you understand more, when you see more, when you notice more, when you put things together which are not yet together. Then, there may be a big change of perspective, a total change. And this we have to keep our minds and thinking patterns open and ready to change, and work and put the puzzle and mosaic together. And, this is all that counts. It is this work that we are now doing that counts, not some future big thing: oh! Now we go on a ship! No, it is only doing our best, and what is it? Our best? It will change. I believe so. That is the idea. So, everything depends on this.

Thank you very much Chu for all these videos on a subject that is all the more complex, because not only do we live with it and use it every day, but the truth is that we know how to turn it on and off, but from what and from whom the transistor was really made, it's like the bottom of the sea, a real abyss. Or not really... but still.

 

[zak]

In this trinity of Language, Sound and Intelligence Design, I would like to linger on the last one and share some extracts and links.

Genome evolution and language evolution have a lot in common. Both processes entail evolving elements—genes or words—that are inherited from ancestors to their descendants. The parallels between biological and linguistic evolution were evident both to Charles Darwin, who briefly addressed the topic of language evolution in The origin of species [1], and to the linguist August Schleicher, who in an open letter to Ernst Haeckel discussed the similarities between language classification and species evolution [2]. Computational methods that are currently used to reconstruct genome phylogenies can also be used to reconstruct evolutionary trees of languages [3,4]. However, approaches to language phylogeny that are based on bifurcating trees recover vertical inheritance only [3,5–7], neglecting the horizontal component of language evolution (borrowing). Horizontal interactions during language evolution can range from the exchange of just a few words to deep interference [8]. In previous investigations, which focused only on the component of language evolution that is described by a bifurcating tree [3,5–7], the extent of borrowing might therefore have been overlooked.

Language Evolution

"Scientists have conducted much research on the origins of human languages and the origins of the grammatical rules that are so essential to all human languages; however they have always failed to find the source. But now for the first time in history the origins of language may be surprisingly attributed to DNA. The language of the genes is much, much older than any human language that was ever uttered on this globe. It is even conceivable that the DNA grammar itself served as the blueprint for the development of human speech."

Music,sound and resonance

Paul Nelson and Del Tackett explore the complexity of languages and compare it to DNA:

http://evo2.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ifyoucanreadthis.pdf

Is DNA more like stalactites and stalagmites and tornadoes and hurricanes and
snowflakes and fractals? Or is DNA more like music, maps, computer programs and
Chinese? It’s definitely in the second category. Absolutely there is no question about it. So what
we have here is that between the world of chaos and patterns and the world of designs
and information there is a huge chasm. A huge chasm. The pattern of DNA is not like a
language. It is a language. By any formal definition of language it is a language.

Intelligent Design in Language - Algemeiner.com

"I cannot doubt that language owes its origin to the imitation and modification, aided by signs and gestures, of various natural sounds, the voices of other animals, and man's own instinctive cries." — Charles Darwin, 1871 Like their colleagues in the biological sciences, when challenged to...

www.algemeiner.com

Isaac Mozeson, a Ph.D. in linguistics from NYU, has explored this possibility in a fascinating work called “the Origin of Speeches.” In it, he hypothesizes a primal, universal language that he calls Edenic (and others might call proto-Semitic or ancient Hebrew). He sees this Ur-tongue as the progenitor of all of our 6000 or so languages and believes that it thwarts the current linguistic ape-sound notions to reveal a communication system where accurate descriptive sounds and concepts came simultaneously – factory installed. So for instance, the word cat would be a derivative of the word “khatool,” which means to be swaddled, wrapped up, as the cat uniquely is in repose. Ever wonder where the name gopher came from? No one seems to know, but we do know the quality of the creature – he’s a digger, and as it happens, the Edenic word for digging is “khofer.” How about the word horse? Which sounds more compelling, the Proto-Germanic root “khursa” which has no meaning, or the Edenic word “horesh” which means a plougher?

Language and Biochemistry: Evidence for Intelligent Design

Have you ever composed a text message on your smartphone and had the app suggest the next word? It is amazing that, many times, the app is correct. How does it work? By sheer chance? Or by reading your mind?

reasons.org

Researchers have discovered a remarkable resemblance between the information structure found in proteins and human languages

To talk about other things, such as the "field" of language and the Field itself with a capital letter, having had the opportunity in the past to speak directly with Laura and Pierre, reading their respective books, I can listen to them almost more than I read them...Or more precisely, they read to me, while I am reading at the same time.

In the interview with Mary Balogh of "The @MindMatters Beys" , she says that her characters end up making their own sense.
These characters made of words and through words, speak to us in a language that touches our very being.
And like a double reflection, and mirror neurons.

Laura:
There are a few things about these books that I've noticed:

1) The authors talk about scents, smells quite a bit. It's very noticeable. The scent of perfume, hair, soap, bodies, etc.

2) A LOT of attention is given to reactions that are read from eyes.

It's this last thing that has me thinking. How many people can actually read such emotions in the eyes of another? And how many people are actually any good at that when encountering a stranger or someone they do not know really well? ARE they reading emotions from eyes, or is it more likely that the author is trying to find a way to describe the unconscious reading of micro-expressions? You would have to be a highly trained psychological expert to do the kind of reading that many of the characters in these books are said to do.

Anybody have any ideas on this? Any experiences?

.Language requires all our senses and beyond.
And so does the disability of one or more of the senses to its language.
Sign language - Wikipedia // Langue des signes — Wikipédia

Sign language is often referred to as "visual thinking". It calls into question what we usually consider to be the domain of linguistics. In fact, according to Christian Cuxac7 , from a semiogenetic perspective, the French sign language model proposes a bifurcation of purpose between two types of structures (frequently intertwined in discourse):

- the so-called standard structures or "standard signs", with a conventional character ;
- structures of great iconicity, with an illustrative aim.

Braille - Wikipedia // Braille — Wikipédia

In 1808-1809, Charles Barbier de La Serre, a former artillery officer, invented a system known as "night writing" to enable officers to write or read coded messages in the dark. The principle of this system, also known as sonography, was to transcribe sounds (36) using raised dots placed on a 2 × 6 grid. It was not until 1819 that Barbier realised the advantages that the blind could gain from his system. He then designed a new system for the use of the blind, which he presented in 1821 to the Royal Institution for Young Blind People. The pupils, including the 12-year-old Louis Braille, immediately showed great interest in the system. However, Louis Braille immediately pointed out the limitations of the system, in particular its inability to take into account spelling due to its phonetic nature, and suggested to Barbier that he make improvements. Barbier did not follow up on this proposal from a 12-year-old child.

Louis Braille was not born blind, he became blind at the age of three. After starting school in his village of Coupvray, he was admitted to the Royal Institute for the Blind in 1819. Two years later, in 1821, he attended the presentation of sonography by Barbier. As Barbier did not follow his proposal to improve his system, Louis Braille undertook this work alone. He kept the basics of Barbier's system, notably the principle of coding and the use of salient points. The main features of Braille's system are:

- reduction of the number of dots used from 12 to 6
- coding of Latin typographical signs (letters, punctuation, musical notes, etc.) rather than sounds.

The main part of the system was developed in 1825 (Braille was then 16 years old) and Braille published his first treatise in 1829.

The meaning of each symbol depends on the language used, which is why Japanese, Korean, Cyrillic and other Braille differ from French Braille. Languages using the Latin alphabet most often use the same coding for the basic letters, but the accented letters, other symbols and sometimes punctuation marks differ.

 

[Chu]

After watching your videos I have thought a couple of things.

An operating system is installed in a computer, which works through a programming "language". Suppose a "game" is installed in the operating system. Some very long lines of "codes" design a dog, a tree, different avatars ..., it is written in a "language" and when the program is run, it appears on the screen.

And a programmer who knows the program, can alter the contents of the game by changing or adding lines of code (language).

It seems that what surrounds us is a type of wave.

If you get to know the programming language (the real name of what surrounds us) maybe you can write new things in the game or change things.

Sounds configure geometric shapes in a speaker. If you know the name of an object, a sound or vibration for its color, another for its shape, another for the matter from which it is made ..., etc.

So maybe with the right technology we could "name" the object (write the computer code) and "bring it up". It would appear.

Now another maybe ...

With a circular electromagnetic field, perhaps a vacuum zone could be generated where one could write in said programming "language". Within the vacuum zone the object is "named" (the wave is emitted) and the object appears.

Perhaps in the past the real "name" of things was known and they simply "brought" what they needed.

I really liked your videos.

Very, very interesting.

Thanks, WS! Well, everything is possible! Although this is a bit too theoretical to me. The Cs have spoken about viruses being "thoughts made manifest", for example. Or about engineering in 4D and how it translates to 3D. But it´s still something we don´t really undestand. It could be that languages (like Reiki symbols, say), have a completely different "outlook" in 4D, and that what we use, hear, tell, read and write is only its 3D manifestation. If we say that, then we also have to imagine that language is "created" somewhere else. But then, the problem is that by saying that it is "brought" here, we are pushing the problem back. It still doesn't tell us about how it was created, by whom, how, etc. The same when you posit that it may have come from "Kantek", say. The problem is, again, just pushed back. It´s a pickle!

 

[Emet-Selch]

I made a series of videos for my YT channel a short while ago, and I'd like to share them here. To my surprise, recently some of you have written to say you were interested and to ask questions, so instead of replying to everyone individually, I reckon it may benefit others to have a discussion here. I've hesitated because I know it's not a topic everyone is fascinated by, I don't have any "smoking gun", and I'm a total newbie Youtuber and video editor! (You'll see the amazing editing skills if you watch )

Some of the books I mentioned are rare or out of print, so if anyone happens to be interested in reading them, don't hesitate to ask and I'll make a copy available.

I'm super fan of your channel on YouTube Really great work I've been learning so mucho with your vids <3

 

[Chu]

Thank you very much Chu for all these videos on a subject that is all the more complex, because not only do we live with it and use it every day, but the truth is that we know how to turn it on and off, but from what and from whom the transistor was really made, it's like the bottom of the sea, a real abyss. Or not really... but still.

LOL, yes. It's funny because even in academic circles, it's almost a taboo to talk about this. They just can't begin to explain how language came about, and how it really works, and it's embarrassing. And when they try, it's even more pathetic than if they hadn't even started.

Thank you for those quotes! They gave me ideas for future videos. That quote by Ark is real scientific thinking, IMO. I want to make a series on Lobaczewski too, and on "language as a weapon". But it will come later once I've covered evolution and complexity.

Sometimes I wonder if we actually know how to turn it on and off, as you put it. Thought without language is not impossible, but rare. It's almost as if for most people, in order to shut off language, you have to shut off thought. So, things get quite complicated because Language is not just a "conventional system of communication" as commonly defined, but a complex "3D interface" thanks to which we experience our human existence?