Language, Sounds and Intelligent Design

[Chu]

@zak, thanks again for the quotes. Allow me to comment on some of them:

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.

1 .As far as I know, Darwin's tree of evolution was inspired from the already existing trees of language evolution. The problem was, as it is today, that those trees completely ignore parallel evolution, intelligent design, etc. Genome evolution and language evolution only look so similar because they are theoretical, IMO. The homologous genes (cognates in language) are just that: homologous, but with no real evidence of the "ancestors". And as for borrowing, that's not the only reason for horizontal changes. The fact is that there are a huge amount of similarities among languages that aren't due to "borrowing", and aren't explainable in those terms, or in terms of one population conquering another one, people being in contact, etc. At least not when the similarities in question are found miles apart, in peoples who supposedly never met.

2 . THANK YOU for this and this link! I need to look more into it, and information theory as a whole. I really appreciate you having shared it.

One thing that caught my eye is:

These researchers point out that an individual amino acid in a protein’s primary structure doesn’t contain information just as an individual letter in an alphabet doesn’t harbor any meaning. In human language, the most basic unit that conveys meaning is a word. And, in proteins, the most basic unit that conveys biochemical meaning is a domain.

Well, if sounds and letters, for example, ARE smaller units of meaning as I tried to prove, then there is no reason why domains have to be the most basic unit of meaning in biology. This would give even more meaning to his theory of design, I think. I'll study this more! Some of his references may contain interesting clues as well.

I know people have tried to equate human language with DNA alone. That seems to have its limits, because the "letters" of DNA don't behave like human language, and they contain many mysteries (eg. the same sequence of aminoacids can lead to the production of a different protein, so the instructions can't all be in the "letters"). But when combining it with the "grammar" of proteins, as this author does, there may be more interesting parallels.

The other potential problem I see is that we don't have much power over biology, other than genic therapy and things like that. However, for human language, we are the users of what seems to be an already made design "system", AND we have the power to alter it to a certain degree. So, Design and designers are mixed, which makes language even more of a mystery. OSIT.


3. Regarding Isaac Mozeson: Well, given that he was the only one apparently talking about intelligent design and language, I recently got his book. But I have to tell you I was really disappointed. He is trying to prove that Hebrew ("Edenic" is just a way to make it look older) is the mother of all languages, and that therefore Jahweh is God. The direct comments about "gentiles" and their ignorance can make you cringe. His website is also full of basic propaganda. So, I prefer Abraham Abehsera, who doesn't try to convert people. The parallels Mozeson finds are interesting, nonetheless, but frankly, I haven't finished his book because I couldn't get past his religious agenda and obvious biais towards Hebrew.

Thank you for the other comments and thoughts. You've given me things to think about. I hope you share more, including your own take on language.

 

[luc]

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?

This has been my thinking as well. A while ago I read Reddy's paper about the "Conduit metaphor", which is quite interesting, although also an example of how philosophers and linguists figure out a lot but then begin running in circles. He basically criticizes that in English we always talk about "sending messages through language" as if we could actually "transfer thoughts" via it. He shows how all-pervasive these kinds of expressions are and how it seems impossible to avoid them. But then he says it is "just a metaphor" and tries to show that you could actually talk about language without using that metaphor.

But what if this is not just a metaphor but an accurate description of how it works, just expressed in familiar "3D terms"? I suspect that maybe language is a way to connect to a certain "thought form" or to the "cloud" if you will, and the receiver - under certain conditions - can then connect to the same "thought form". I think we all experience this sort of thing when we listen to someone or even read a book and we somehow feel as if we truly replicate the person's thinking process in our minds and even go beyond the actual words in our understanding. Of course, "sender" and "receiver" must be somewhat "in tune" for this to happen. Often there is misunderstanding, or maybe sender and receiver "connect" to an altogether different "thought form"?

Part of the problem I guess is that philosophers tend to follow a reductionist approach - they ask "what does someone refer to when they say "table" or "tree"? But what if such extremely simple examples are limiting cases - where sender/receiver still "connect to the cloud" so to speak, but because of the simplicity of the communication it's almost as if it's just a convention and people are just referring to an object, i.e. it looks as if there is nothing more to it than an arbitrary learned association between the word "tree" and the object of a tree? The reason being that it's so straight-forward that a misunderstanding is almost impossible and almost everyone is "in tune" in that minimal way? But how much of our actual communication really boils down to such simplistic examples?

I don't know really, more questions than answers I guess. Thanks Chu for bringing all these thoughts about language here!

 

[zak]

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?

It seems that at our level, it is indeed premature to talk about controlling anything in the process, even if it is only to turn on and off the transistor.

It would also seem that we are like planets, and that every time we interact with our fellow creatures, events are created, whether we like it or not. And that understanding can come later, as if the switch is always there in the dark room, and that we only need to find it to make light. And that once the place of the switch is known, it is normally easier each time to find it through the darkness.

To extrapolate a little, one of the possible effects of the Wave is that our thoughts "materialize", and not being able to control the flow can have important consequences, if only in light of what we are experiencing now in terms of vibrational frequency, the amplification of our thoughts, and perhaps in the future, if not already EE will be an important key to "managing" this state. Just like most of the things proposed in this Forum.

I think the Cassiopaean "language", through Laura's, via and shared in this forum, with interactions at the Castle and the Farm itself, is a valid example, of the importance of an evolution of "language".
I remember, less than 10 years ago, sitting around the kitchen table at the Chateau, knowing that Chu, Pierre and myself were more French than English in terms of language.
So Pierre presented us with an idea in English, I explained in English my understanding of his presentation, my explanation didn't seem to be correct, nor did others.
So Laura asked Pierre to repeat his idea in French, and not only did I understand his idea, but where it came from, and Chu translated it to Laura, and the idea also became light.
So in this example, the link between Chu and Laura is very important for me, not only we have a technical translation, but something invisible, which encompasses the whole human experience of language.

A "3D interface", which like the "Open Sesame!", could in one sentence open to a world waiting, that we have enough thirst for truth and knowledge and "language" to express it and thus make it materialize, or/and also a materialization at the level of the collective consciousness.

On one hand to paraphrase Ark, in his presentation in Barcelona:
"In the end, we don't need language, we ourselves are."
And from memory, I don't know if this is Rûmi:
That's why the language of mutual understanding is different, really: being one through the heart is better than being one through the tongue.
Without words, and without signs or writing, hundreds, thousands of interpreters arise from the heart.

And from the other hand:
"If you are not happy in your life, it might be wise to take an inventory of the words you speak."
-Joyce Meyer-

"Modern science has not yet produced a tranquilizing drug as effective as a few kind words.
-Sigmund Freud-

"Everything is in the word... A whole idea changes because a word has changed its place or because another word has sat down like a little king in a sentence that did not expect it and obeyed it... They have the shadow, the transparency, the weight, the feathers, the hair, they have everything that has been added to them by dint of rolling in the river, changing homeland, being roots... They are at the same time very old and very new...
-Pablo Neruda-
Le merveilleux pouvoir des mots -- Sott.net

And from experience, it is much more practical to have both hands.
Definitely, it is a complex subject, and we'll all be delighted with the new seams you'll present to us in your next videos, Chu.
As a reminder, some articles from SOTT (in French):
Le langage qu'on se fait voler, novlangue and co -- Sott.net
Les mots/maux de la crise -- Sott.net

 

[Chu]

This has been my thinking as well. A while ago I read Reddy's paper about the "Conduit metaphor", which is quite interesting, although also an example of how philosophers and linguists figure out a lot but then begin running in circles. He basically criticizes that in English we always talk about "sending messages through language" as if we could actually "transfer thoughts" via it. He shows how all-pervasive these kinds of expressions are and how it seems impossible to avoid them. But then he says it is "just a metaphor" and tries to show that you could actually talk about language without using that metaphor.

It's been a while since I read that paper (thanks to your recommendation!), but that was also the impression I got. There is actually a big current in linguistics who talks about language and metaphors, and Reddy has even been quoted as one of them. I see some value in it.

For example, some explain how Anglosaxon cultures see time as money. "I spent so much time doing this", "It was a waste of time", "this gadget will save you hours". "I've invested years in this project", he's living on borrowed time", etc.
Or argument = building: "Laying the groundwork you've got, you can construct a pretty strong argument", "He demolished her argument", etc. Those are just some examples. And sometimes one concept will be associated with different metaphors.
E.g. "argument" could also be associated with "war" ---> "His criticisms were right on target, "I won the argument", "He shot down all my arguments", etc.

The problem, IMO, is that it can be subjective, it may be cultural or not, and it still doesn't explain all of language. It's difficult to find metaphors for all words, and even harder with function words (e.g. for, to, them, etc).

But what if this is not just a metaphor but an accurate description of how it works, just expressed in familiar "3D terms"? I suspect that maybe language is a way to connect to a certain "thought form" or to the "cloud" if you will, and the receiver - under certain conditions - can then connect to the same "thought form". I think we all experience this sort of thing when we listen to someone or even read a book and we somehow feel as if we truly replicate the person's thinking process in our minds and even go beyond the actual words in our understanding. Of course, "sender" and "receiver" must be somewhat "in tune" for this to happen. Often there is misunderstanding, or maybe sender and receiver "connect" to an altogether different "thought form"?

That's possible, I think!

Perhaps it also has to do with genetics, "morphogenetic fields" among people, and karmic "compatibility" of lack thereof? It's super complicated. Suppose we are "conduits" for whatever our "antennae" (brain, DNA) is tuned into. Well, then the question becomes, is there ever a receiver and a sender, or because we are so mechanical, everything just happens? Obviously not, because there is also free will, and people at different stages/with different "soul qualities", say. So, no idea how it actually works.

And yes, there's still a lot said and received that may cause interference or imply the presence of different "clouds"/"thought form". Maybe your thoughts come from the "cloud" (the branch of a tree) that knows Covid is a scam, but the person you are talking to receives your message through the filter of the cloud/branch that says it's all true. What happens then? Even if the literal meaning of the sentence is the same, in theory, (e.g. "2020 was the first year of lockdowns") and the message is conveyed, you may be meaning it as an annoyance, while the other person feels safe since lockdowns. Something in the way people are aligned may create a short-circuit, misunderstandings, etc. etc. Arghhh, too philosphical for me, LOL! The devil is in the details.

Part of the problem I guess is that philosophers tend to follow a reductionist approach - they ask "what does someone refer to when they say "table" or "tree"? But what if such extremely simple examples are limiting cases - where sender/receiver still "connect to the cloud" so to speak, but because of the simplicity of the communication it's almost as if it's just a convention and people are just referring to an object, i.e. it looks as if there is nothing more to it than an arbitrary learned association between the word "tree" and the object of a tree? The reason being that it's so straight-forward that a misunderstanding is almost impossible and almost everyone is "in tune" in that minimal way? But how much of our actual communication really boils down to such simplistic examples?

Exactly. Hardly any! And I'm pretty sure that even simple concepts are not "universally construed" and conventional. If you are a tree surgeon or a tree-hugger, your concept of a tree may be very different from someone else's who works as a sawmill or doesn't mind deforestation. If you are a biologist studying trees, it's very different from the concept a child has.There will be a common understanding, but are they both connected to the same "cloud"?

I don't know really, more questions than answers I guess.

Well, welcome to the club. Thanks for sharing that, luc! I had almost forgotten about Reddy.

 

[Mari]

Dear @Chu,

I wanted to write before and thank you for putting up those videos, and now that I watched your interview in MindMatters, I think that your research is really beautiful and really groundbreaking.
The whole interview as it went on covered a lot of my own thoughts, so here are some stuff that popped to my mind while watching the interview and your videos.

I´ve never had much interest in linguistics, but your set of videos I find brilliant - in such a short time, I think that you managed to really interest the viewer and keep his/hers attention and bring forward some very interesting aspects.

I´ve got more interested in languages when I moved to Germany almost 6 years ago, when I was thrown to deal with common situations with a bare skeleton knowledge of the language.
I did some courses in German and I had it in school for 4 years, but it all evaporated because I´ve never used it. My second language is English and I used it almost every day, while German I didn´t encounter anywhere in everyday life or at work.
When we moved to Germany, at that point it was almost 15 years since I´ve heard or saw German, but I could remember some basics and I could remember some basic rules of building the sentence,
I was also stuck to find many similarities between the languages.
North of Croatia was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, while the south was heavily influenced by Italian language. So there are many dialects for such a small country like Croatia, with words that are completely different from the official Croatian language that is learned in the school.

Since I´m from the north of Croatia, learning German was fun because I found many Croatian words from everyday life with roots in German that are used even today (in a twisted way of course).

The biggest problem to me is learning German genders because there are genders in Croatian as well, and when one is "programmed" a whole life to think about i.e. "the book" as female, in normal conversation I automatically put "the book" in feminin and build a sentence around that - while in fact "the book" in German in neutral so in the end my sentence is grammatically incorrect.

But apart from that, and maybe it is linked to some collective unconsciousness, there are many words in both languages that are female; like "Earth".
In many cases there are some subtle differences:
eng. star --> cro. zvijezda = feminin vs ger. der Stern = maskulin
But on the other hand;
eng. sun --> cro. sunce = neutral vs ger. die Sonne = feminin.

Another thing I thought about is linked to the meaning of the sounds/vowels - in Croatian and i.e. Russian language most of feminin nouns end with an ´a´.
When I think about that in terms of an example with "takete" and "maluma" (I didn´t know the meanings of the words so THAT was really fascinating to me!!!), where one can tell from the "round" sound of "maluma" that it represent something round/curved, I thought about it in terms of the rule of feminine nouns ending with an ´a´ (round) - as a language representation of the female aspect in the world and linking it to feminine principle, like a vision of a "round belly of a Mother" or "the curve of the Mother Earth" or similar...
Some examples:
eng. water - cro. voda
eng. forrest - cro. šuma
eng. earth - cro. zemlja
eng. plant - cro. biljka
eng. mountain - cro. planina
etc.
In other languages (at least European that I´m familiar with), feminin nouns also end with a vowel and when I think about how vowels are pronounced, one opens the mouth and mouth becomes curved/round...
I don´t know, I´m just writing here as I´m thinking...

So I was also thinking in terms of the evolution of the language and it was an interesting discussion with linking feelings/emotions and thoughts to the sounds.
It got me thinking when you said that perhaps before people were thinking with both sides of the brain; maybe before the Fall, people were able to talk also more/less telepathically, and I can imagine it like some small clips or movies appear in one's brain with all the colors, sounds and feelings. But after the Fall, we disconnected from our "gods"/"creators" and in our collective mind was left that feeling of the representation of the thoughts and collective consciousness picked up on that...? Or, maybe we were able to talk from the start, but since before "the Fall" we were linked to higher information field and people were in tune with their thoughts and feelings, so they also had the same (or similar) representation of the sounds to the world around them, maybe they could also see what others are thinking in their mind in some semi-telepathic way.... Hm...

This made me remember my friends from school; they were 3 sisters and they saw letters in colors. They were always having endless debates about the color of the words; i.e. one would say that "father" is blue because ´a´ is blue but ´e´ is green and since blue is dominant color so word "father" is blue. So something along these lines, it was over 20 years ago so I don´t recall all the details, but you get the picture.
I was always wondering how they are doing that! Maybe they had some genetic leftovers from the days when sounds/language and feelings/emotions were more linked together, and we know how feelings also can be described in colors and how they have a vibration, so maybe there is a link there...

That also made me think about language/sounds and vibration, which was also talked about in the interview.
I remembered the experiments with water, how it's structure changed based on the music or words; whether it created beautiful crystal shapes or not. Like the plants mentioned in the video.
In today's world of low frequency music, with all the cars buzzing around, all of the background noise, then in combination with the use of bad language, I believe that all of that lowers our FRV deeper and deeper.
It makes me think about romance novels and how people referred from cursing and using bad words in general.
Since we produce a vibration when we talk, and additionally when we put into that vibration additional frequency by choosing to talk nice or not, imagine all those people that have a F-word or a curse in every sentence, what they are doing to themselves.
And, of course, that puts a completely different light to all of those articles online saying how people who swear more often are more intelligent ect. ...

Yes, language is also a tool; I can't recall how many times I was hurt or I hurt someone else due to misunderstanding or how people harass others with "words only".
But the language is also therapeutic; many times when I feel bad or stuck, after I write about it in the forum I already feel better. Like some load was removed form my shoulders.
Lack of communication is a blocker for many people, so language is not only a means for communication, but it is also therapeutic and an emotional release, IMO.

It was interesting that you´ve mentioned language switches.
From what I've observed, I think that is much linked also to an emotion or the focus of one´s attention.
As I´ve said, we moved to Germany 6 years ago. My older kid was 5 at the time and spoke very good Croatian. My little one was 3,5 and didn't speak at all, except from basic phrases (he still goes to logopedic therapies and has read-write difficulties, but that's another matter).
Anyway, both of them went to kindergarten and now they are going to school.
So they have been playing and learning for 6 years now almost exclusively in German language, while at home we talk Croatian.
When they are at home, my kids during the play switch to German almost on a click; especially the younger one. But if I ask any of them in the middle of the play any question at all - they reply immediately in Croatian - they don´t even think about it, it´s like you switch on the light.
So, in their brain, feelings and surroundings linked to family in general are linked in their mind to Croatian language, while playing and school is linked to German language, I would say.
That is how I´ve observed it....

In my case, when working I switch to English in my mind, while at home I speak Croatian. So my work (my attention while I´m doing my job) is linked now to English, while my mother tongue is Croatian and linked to everyday life, I would say.

Huh, that's it for now...
I´m looking forward to your new videos!

 

[Scottie]

Don't miss this week's MindMatters!

 

[Redrock12]

Don't miss this week's MindMatters!

Yeah, for gosh sake folks, don't miss this one. Harrison, Elan, and Adam at their best, with super-guest sister Chu.

 

[Nienna]

Yeah, for gosh sake folks, don't miss this one. Harrison, Elan, and Adam at their best, with super-guest sister Chu.

Yep! It was really interesting!

 

[dennis]

My experience (such as it is) with receiving telepathic communication is that its like a compressed zip file in computer speak. It gets unpacked and we read it in terms of our language and experiences, likes and dislikes. Sometimes objects and images are emphatic, other times a word or phrase is emphasized.

Sometimes It can be akin to peeling an onion, each layer revealing more than the one before and each layer usually the polar opposite of the one before it or at least in potential. The more you peel down the more inclined you are to merely observe and catalogue rather than to act and commit. Its mirrors within mirrors all the way down.

Othertimes it seems more direct, like a math equation that gets solved straight to X.

In both instances the speed and you might say frequency of the transmission are much accelerated over our regular mundane communications, you have to be alert and aware to catch it.

The above is describing a rational reception perspective. Feeling based communication is emotional like a smile to a smile. There is no translation needed and the speed and frequency are one to one.

Does this make sense?

 

[Chu]

I confess I have been a bit stuck, not knowing where to go next to make it all linear and progressive and all wrapped up nicely into a theory. I'm definitely not there yet, so, I decided to give up on that, and make it more spontaneous from now on, talking about different topics, and how they make up for the complexity of language. It may be several short series divided by topics, or single ones for each aspect of language. So, all I've got for now is a little "transitional video" about it, as a final (for now) note on sounds, and a warm-up for the next ones:

Transcript:

Hello and welcome to language with Chu. It's been a while. Since I made the series on sounds, I was at two interviews, so check them out on my channel, for expanding on the topics that I covered then. But on this video I wanted to do a bit of a recap of what I've done so far, tell you why I started off with sounds, and where I'm going next. Hopefully to pique your curiosity even more.

So as a recap for the previous series:

On part one we covered the idea that sounds could be like molecules, the tiniest components of language in more ways than it is usually understood.

Then in part two, we saw how one sound like /b/ or /p/ could contain a whole range of meaning that we're usually not aware of, or not conscious of, but that is there, kind of lurking in the background and giving color and meaning to proper words.

On part three, we explored that even more with the idea that even particles, parts of words, syllables, could also do that. Specifically, we did it for names of places (toponyms), but not only.

Then, on part 4, we saw how parallels between sounds and languages across the board, not even amongst families of languages, could tell us something about a hidden history and stories that people told each other throughout the years, the way our ancestors understood the world in the past.

And finally, on part 5, I introduced the idea that shapes, whether it's in sounds or in written symbols, could also express some meaning. All of those to me are just are clues about something bigger, something bigger that we're usually not aware of, and something hidden, part of the big mystery of language. One of the biggest mysteries for science is considered to be the origin of language and our capacity for language, because we differ so much from animals in that respect, that it the jump is not understood. And we're not yet at the point where we can fully understand why it came to be, why we use it, how we use it, etc.

But then you'll say, "Well, why did you start with sounds?" Why not grammars, why not types of languages, why not the origin of language?

Well, the first reason is that sounds have always been my passion. I love sounds, whether I'm learning a foreign language or not. So it was just a matter of preference, but also because it's one example of how something so obvious, that we use all the time, is often neglected, in Linguistics in this case. Many mysteries in life may be staring us in the face, but we just don't see them because we take them for granted, like the air we breathe. So sounds to me are a little bit like that, and the poor sounds are really neglected in Linguistics, and I'm tired of it!

Reason number three for choosing sounds was that sometimes, if you focus on sounds, you'll see parallels among languages that usually shouldn't be there or are not considered important. For example, Spanish belongs to a branch of the Indo-European languages, Greek to another. And then you have Basque which is an isolate, it doesn't belong to any family. Yet, their sound systems across the board are very, very similar. So the sound system in Basque is more similar to Spanish and Greek than, say, French and Spanish.

And the fourth and most important reason, I think, is that when you look at sounds and explore the meaning behind these tiniest pieces of language, you find that there's a big parallel with biology. Instead of imagining, like at the time of Darwin, that the cell was a blob, a jello, and that somehow from that came evolution, etc., biologists now know exactly the content of a cell. Well, what that gives us (and in language too, I believe) is a clue about something intelligent, a design, if you want. Something very complex (I don't know what it is) that tells us that random mutations and materialism as it's understood nowadays don't cut it, don't explain the whole thing.

So that brings me to why before returning to sounds, we need to explore other mysteries: the mystery of why and how the language capacity originated, why we are able to produce language, and how that came to be. The mysteries of how why languages differ amongst each other, why languages are so complex too. The capacity for language is complex, and languages themselves are. So you're looking at a whole web of complexity that is very, very hard to simplify into something banal, or some kind of random mutation here and there. We'll talk about that.

We also have to cover other mysteries: the mysteries of grammars and how they work, and why they are different. The mystery of language acquisition, how we acquire language, whether it's our mother tongue or a second tongue. The difference in typology of languages, these families. And the problem with modern Linguistics and materialism, and seeing what we can keep from that, and what we should expand on because some things are really not explained with materialism.

That doesn't mean that we need to turn into religion all of a sudden. We need to find out the boundaries of what is really material and what may be immaterial, and which we need to explain somehow else. Language includes everything that is physical: the brain, our vocal apparatus... But it also includes our minds, our thoughts, and all that is intangible.

So we need to find the balance between that, which brings me to the next topic that we need to cover: how language affects thought and culture, and vice versa. Is it because of our culture and our thoughts that we speak in a certain way, or does the way we speak affect, alter, our culture? That's a very old debate and nobody has the solution. There are two camps. So I'll talk a bit about that.

And finally, I want to bring up the idea that we won't get unstuck unless we use a multidisciplinary approach. We need several disciplines to explain, to start explaining, languages and language. You need sociology, psychology, neurology, archaeology, biology, information theory... you need a lot of disciplines to make sense of the complexity of language. And usually Linguists (in the same way as other scientists depending on their discipline do it) get stuck into their field, and they don't look at anything else. So we'll try to do that, and I think that we'll find out that even though sounds are possibly one of those types of molecules, there are others in language. Otherwise we wouldn't have the complexity we have in sign languages, for example.

So I think we're going to find out that there are many tiny molecules, and all of them make up for the complexity of language. And ultimately, my hope is that in the same way that many of you wrote to me saying how the sounds series had piqued their curiosity and made them want to learn more about sounds, we will all become a bit like Sherlock Holmes. Because ultimately, the mysteries hide in the details. Sherlock Holmes or any detective story, really, is based on the fact that the clues about a mystery are always hidden in plain sight, but in the details. So that's kind of what we're doing.

And as a long-term goal, why not use Linguistics as a step towards understanding who we are, why we're here, what we're here for? Those are all philosophical questions, if you wish, that have a lot to do with language, I think. Usually philosophers will just reflect on that or throw in ideas, but language, I think, is a big, big component. And yeah, I just find it fascinating, and I think that you will too, whether you're interested in language because you are, or because you use language. And who doesn't use language, right?

So stay tuned, and let's hope that we can discover...we can walk through it like in a labyrinth. Don't be surprised if I go in a tangent sometimes. It may seem to you that I'm talking about language trivia or a language mystery that doesn't have to do much with sounds. But hopefully in the end, or globally, it will make sense if you keep these goals in mind. Thank you for watching!

 

[zak]

After watching your last video, one can see the importance of being both very open to all sorts of fields of ideas, and not only within a Darwinian/other framework as in this video of Mark Pagel, where I found his idea at first interesting, but limited by his specialty, and ultimately disappointing and still limiting, in view of his more recent interventions on this subject.

Speaking of sound, I recall my early childhood in Laos, where I learned a Cuban song by listening to the radio, when I could neither read nor write:

My father often asked me to sing it to him, and it must have made a big impression on him, because until his last days he still asked me to sing it to him, even though I could see in his eyes that I knew it much less well than when I was a child.
And the funny thing is that although I had "learned" Spanish in the meantime, it was only recently that I took the time to decipher the meaning of the words of the song.
All the while it was like a magical formula with no rhyme or reason, with a sound and a rhythm that had an effect.
And it was the same formula for my father who listened to me singing it, even if he understood Chinese, it was Spanish for him!

When you first hear the sound of your recorded voice, you don't really recognise it, maybe even a little embarrassed by it, "that's my voice!?" At least for me, it was.
Then finally we get used to it, like the reflection of our image in the mirror.

There is also a funny thing, some people sing under the shower, in my wanderings, if I find myself renting a house with a bathtub, I sometimes sing not in apnea, but with my ears immersed in water, try it!

Thanks again JUliana/CHUliana () for your important work.
Here is a beautiful metaphor from Stuart Hameroff:
"If you go to the symphony the sounds and tones of an orchestra warming up, they're each doing their own thing, here all the tones, it's not music, and then the symphony starts and you have music.
So what the brain does with the microtubules do is organize and orchestrate all these individual objective reduction moments into litterally music, and i really think that consciousness is more like music then it is like computation.
The brain is more like a quantum orchestra than it is a computer. "

 

[Pat]

Thank you very much Chu. I haven't read all the thread yet and soon will make time to do so because this subject really interests me.
In my introduction, I believe I explained that I felt very young that the words we were using were lacking meanings and I really struggled with communication for a while.
Now I am learning my fourth language (French, English, Spanish and Chinese) and I really enjoy the exercice being asked of me to learn how for exemple chinese people express their thinking compared to european.
I look forward to learning more

 

[Pat]

Very interesting, I felt while reading the following comment from Chu that it was like a treasure, multiple parts separated and distributed to humans a long time ago to protect...

So to me, it's starting to look that there is a subconscious language that we carry around. It's almost like a universal fabric, something that binds all languages together. There are “language universals”, which I'll talk about in the future, but they're very few and far in between. And the sounds seem to be more universal than we think. And as I said before, different aspects of reality could be scattered perhaps throughout all the languages, and that could be the “confusion of tongues”,
finally. Because each culture picks different types of traits of an object, of an entity, or of a feeling even, to describe, they choose specific sounds,
and they kind of omit part of the elephant, of what the meaning of the word is.

I often asked myself why learning languages had to be so complicated, complexed and long winding. I felt that although I learnt some of them, our capacity to learn is way more than what we think we can. I imagine myself being immerse for a while and computing and suddenly understanding.
IMO, Music and mathematics are involved in learning languages.
Just have to find the key, the secret, the pieces of the puzzle.

Great information Chu, thank you.

 

[Pat]

My experience (such as it is) with receiving telepathic communication is that its like a compressed zip file in computer speak. It gets unpacked and we read it in terms of our language and experiences, likes and dislikes. Sometimes objects and images are emphatic, other times a word or phrase is emphasized.

Sometimes It can be akin to peeling an onion, each layer revealing more than the one before and each layer usually the polar opposite of the one before it or at least in potential. The more you peel down the more inclined you are to merely observe and catalogue rather than to act and commit. Its mirrors within mirrors all the way down.

Othertimes it seems more direct, like a math equation that gets solved straight to X.

In both instances the speed and you might say frequency of the transmission are much accelerated over our regular mundane communications, you have to be alert and aware to catch it.

The above is describing a rational reception perspective. Feeling based communication is emotional like a smile to a smile. There is no translation needed and the speed and frequency are one to one.

Does this make sense?

Thank you dennis, the first part of your message makes sense to me. I could visualise it but have no experience so far to back it up. Very interesting the zip file and the onion layers!

This morning I woke up after reading last night some of the thread and going to sleep with two groups of words. "The name of God" and the universal language". I say group of words because it's lacking real meanings to me. I feel something is still missing to "understand" them yet.
About the universal language, I had a thought I never had before although understanding languages has always been my "unconscious quest", I believe that now.
I visualise the "universal language" like a sphere with noms, adjectives attached to it. Here they are (no order in them)
- enclosure of a sphere, light, reflection of light, space, colour, sound, geometry, stillness, emptiness, visual (transparency), vibration, sensory, gravity.
And it could be that once understood all that it is (the universal language) we get truth and understanding.

I also had a thought about what is inside the sphere, just one word (sound, vibration) of each language spoken or unspoken, the key to unlocking our memory...

 

[Pat]

This is true, and it's a rather complex and sophisticated behavior, and I suppose it needed to be communicated somehow, a form of language to instruct was being used I would think.

it reminded me of the following:





So perhaps language was necessary as telepathic abilities weren't present in our model/design, so to speak? so a spoken language package was included "in the box".

Perhaps language was necessary as means of separation and division . Because telephatic would allow us to be in touch with each other without restrains, perhaps language and then multiple languages were given to us to keep us in check, controlled.
The "universal language" should be sooooo much more than what we have as way of communication (the actual language capacity tool box, words, grammar etc...).
I am really looking forward to reading more and still more from you Chu and everybodyelse. Thank you