Languages and Thought

Perhaps, in the interest of peace and love and understanding, rufio might like to say some nice things about Craven too.

Iain

Peace, love and understanding are over-rated . . . let's string somebody up . . .

Great idea! Who's up for some dog? I've got superb Korean recipes!

Actually, i've eaten dog in Korea . . . stringy, but a good flavor.

Make yer move big boy, i'm ready for ya . . .

Really no need. But thanks. I harbour no animosity toward rufio. My dispute here is an academic one.

Plus there's the whole peace love and understanding being overrated bit...

My point in the post where I changed the words I used was to show that it didn't matter what the words were, the meaning was the same. Clearly, this was lost on you.

When I said that there was no evidence to the contrary (and the rest of those absolutes), I was still under the misconception that you were on-topic. My mistake.

rufio,

Even by your standards that's a shoddy evasion.

You made several clear, explicit and most importantly, indefensible statements and I challenged them directly.

You will be unable to support this risible assertion that I was "off topic", I would be very amused to see you try.

The topic was Sapir and Whorf, who thought that people speaking different languages or types of languages had differently programmed brains with different capabilities. Please explain how your emphasis on the facilitation of thought via language has anything to do with that.

No, rufio, the topic that I addressed was your absolutisms and now you are trying to drop names in even more convoluted efforts to disavow yourself of your own brainfarts. I can see why you'd like to revise what the topic was after the fact but nowehere did I bring that up with you and it's another red herring.

You stated that language makes no change in thought. "Sapir and Whorf" have nothing to do with our exchange, and as I said I addressed your explicit and repeated brainfarts directly and you are now trying to disown them in any way possible.

I suggest less obvious methods. :wink:

You can go back and read the page on which you entered if you don't believe me.

Admit it, you were just trying to pick a fight.

It's not a metter of not believing you. It's a matter of knowing that you are trying to weasel out of your arguments and pass them off as anything but yours.

I have read it, and note that you are trying to change the subject after the subject has been discussed and your arguments debunked.

Nowhere did I mention "Sapir and Whorf". I was discussing your indefensible proclamations very directly and you responded about said absolutisms with even less defensible ones.

You addec the name dropping as a red herring but your absolutisms preceeded mention of "Sapir and Whorf" in our exchange.

You are trying to justify what you said, by using a red herring you deposited afterwards.

No, I wasn't "trying to pick a fight" but nice try. Even if I were, it does not change the absurdity of your statements nor the obvious attempts you are making to disown them. :wink:

I for one was glad to see Craven enter the fray. You both got a little long-winded after that, but the point is, Craven was only trying to point out something that had frustrated me, and I don't think I'm alone in that, for several exchanges. Your posts, rufio, didn't acknowledge or seem to address what others were saying.

Thank you, Craven, for all your efforts. I don't know if it helped or not, but thanks. Also, your clear reasoning was a pleasure to read.

Now, is there any discussion left here or should we all start over with a different beginning?

Thanks.

Actually you brought up something I wanted to dicuss and one of the reasons I 'entered the fray' is because rufio was being loud with the "no change" position way back then and stifled the exploration of it.

This is the exchange I mention:






Here I got the impression that rufio shouted you down and that this was not explored because of the tedium that would have ensued.

The notion you brought up is one I consider far from proven but very likely.

rufio dismissed it out of hand and added the "no change" absolutism there, but the truth is that the jury is out on this. Her assertion is as misplaced as it is forceful and since you're here again I'd like to discuss it.

rufio may be partly right in that I did deliberately engage her (though it was not to fight that was almost an inevitable result).

I saw what happened in Setanta's exchange with her, then with Sozobe's, then with you...

Finally I wished someone would call the "no change" argument. But now that everyone on the thread agrees that some change is made I'd liek to discuss the physical aspect.

It's what has the most implication to rosbourne's original topic and it's not as easily dismissable as it was dismissed.

thank you, alphonse...

Yeah, I kinda quit. I don't think "developing neural pathways" is the same as "radically altered biology", but you spoke more eloquently than I had any mind to. And I know that what I said is a theory with which some people (some more educated than I) disagree...

Let's go on, then, and see what we can figure out about these changes and how that relates to the original topic!

I'm going to post what I find as I read up on this, hopefully others will join in.

http://www.scilt.stir.ac.uk/SLR/Issue8/Heather.htm

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/events/protein.cfm

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-10/bcom-ato102403.php

http://www.bcm.tmc.edu/pathology/basicresearch/researchdescrip/gmardon.htm

http://neurobio.mcphu.edu/CunninghamWeb/cunningham.html << I thought of emailing this guy and asking him to join the discussion. :-)


I haven't found any really good ones, just lots of references to possibly good studies. I'll be looking for more.

I thought I touched on it a little, in the middle/in way of the fray, but
I'm sans data re forming of new synapses, etc. But, I will go read Craven's links this evening.

I have my own wonderings if people brought up in a given culture, learning that language, are hindered in any way perforce by their developed synaptic connections, or lack of them, in thinking another way, for example, in what might be called a less rigid way. Does having your first language be X mean you have a harder time with thinking "poetically", or mathematically. I know, this brings up left and right brain function, and linear and nonlinear thinking, on which I am barely conversant much less articulate. I use poetic and mathematic as gross examples, flailing for words to describe what might be different ways of conceptualizing that are possibly functions of neural pathways developed in different language situations.

Craven, sure, seems like an enjoyable idea to ask knowledgeable folk to join.

Years ago I was watching a PBS show which dealt with Linguistic Acquisition in children.

The show was quite detailed and covered many aspects of the process, but one of the most interesting was the physiological method in which the brain develops from birth to approximately two years of age, and the way in which certain neural pathways are honed.

The key point in the process is that neural pathways in the brain are not grown to support new thoughts, rather, unused pathways become less functional, and more used pathways more robust.

It was noted that before two years old, the developing brain uses up more sugar, and produces more energy than at any other time in our lives. It's during this time that the general neural structure of the brain is being grown (and at a fantastic rate). After this time, most of the neural complex is complete, but it is not yet molded by the use (or disuse) of specific pathways.

So in the end, the brain doesn't build the pathways it needs, it loses the ones it doesn't.

I found this a very interesting and meaningful physiological mechanism associted with thought. And it stuck me that the nerves of the brain are probably not unique in this methodology; something which athletes almost know intuitively as they feel themselves learning a physical skill. The repeated firing of certain neural pathways makes them easier, and more efficient to fire again. So practice doesn't make perfect, but it does leave a well worn path for the next impulse to follow.

Best Regards,

This makes perfect sense re my sense of things.

As to synapses forming, or reforming, I didn't pull that from outer space, but from reading at some point, admittedly not recently.

Ah, well, maybe I will find a reference, perhaps not tonight.

Well, I certainly opted out of a very interesting discussion because, given how horrendous work is at present, I was not looking for further silly aggravation - (sometimes I enjoy it - but there are edges to avoid assiduously) - but I felt a wuss for disappearing.

I was glad to see Craven with the energy and fire to engage.