1
General Science / What is the impact of culture versus nature involving "Language"?
« on: 10/02/2013 03:21:29 »
If I read all things right the "qualia' of colour/color is one that is shared by both nature and culture.
Can it not be that perhaps the only language there is, innate to humans, is the language we understand and filter from the language a deaf mute person throws on us and we really understand? Is it not a matter of 2 systems in our brains: 1 lymbic system and 1 neocortex?
Isn't it the neocortex that enables us to differentiate ourselves from other mammals by means of "culture and speech"?
We all know a parrot can copycat. As goes maybe even further for the "Lyre Bird".
Despite those 2 nonsense creatures aforementioned. What about dolphins?
A flock of geese may not have the syntax to put warning signals across but it definitely has an alarm that let others know that a bird of prey is out there somewhere. Sorta like the human equivalent of "watch out" or maybe even deeper like "Ouch!!" Why do not animals say "ouch!!"? This is, humans are animals too.
Can it not be that maybe the human language is both cultural and nature?
There are genes and memes recognized as the only 2 replicators in life. And some say "fire", but I do not see how.
A feril child: does it learn and copy the language of the creatures it was raised by?
A child raised without any living creature, but instead merely with a pacifier milk bottle. Will it be able to grasp the language it is initially confronted with?
Deaf people who were born deaf and were raised by ditto parents have a significant, if not unsurmountable, advantage over people who later on in life got deaf. Does not the sheer fact that learning whatever study in life gets tougher when you age prove that it is both a nature and both a culture thing? At the age of 3 to 16 (or whatever) you can learn 20 languages from birth. But once you get beyond 17 you start to see a significant decline in ability to comprehend "stuff".
And unlike american legislature, we, scientists, realize that the human brains are mature only when hitting the 27th birthday. Though I am not sure about females...they tend to age way sooner. But that is probably reproductive speaking. I do not mean this derogatory but in the vain of evolution.
Should not a young female be prepared and more adult than the young childish adolescent raping her?
This is exactly what is still happening today, but less drawn into a caricature.
Eugentics is over, as goes for Lamarckian days....but how can we still not know the reason why certain people deem light green the same as light blue? And Homer, c.q. one of the writers, describes the sea as black as wine and the sky metallica instead of blue.
I am afraid, extrapolating on this, that eastern culture is really thinking anti-western for a purpose.
And in that regard you can not blame them unless you blame yourself. If we can not even settle on colour, I believe that what they say about oriental minds being different from western may be more true than I ever imagined it to be. I mean: colour is merely one thing in a human mind, let alone hatred.
Can it not be that perhaps the only language there is, innate to humans, is the language we understand and filter from the language a deaf mute person throws on us and we really understand? Is it not a matter of 2 systems in our brains: 1 lymbic system and 1 neocortex?
Isn't it the neocortex that enables us to differentiate ourselves from other mammals by means of "culture and speech"?
We all know a parrot can copycat. As goes maybe even further for the "Lyre Bird".
Despite those 2 nonsense creatures aforementioned. What about dolphins?
A flock of geese may not have the syntax to put warning signals across but it definitely has an alarm that let others know that a bird of prey is out there somewhere. Sorta like the human equivalent of "watch out" or maybe even deeper like "Ouch!!" Why do not animals say "ouch!!"? This is, humans are animals too.
Can it not be that maybe the human language is both cultural and nature?
There are genes and memes recognized as the only 2 replicators in life. And some say "fire", but I do not see how.
A feril child: does it learn and copy the language of the creatures it was raised by?
A child raised without any living creature, but instead merely with a pacifier milk bottle. Will it be able to grasp the language it is initially confronted with?
Deaf people who were born deaf and were raised by ditto parents have a significant, if not unsurmountable, advantage over people who later on in life got deaf. Does not the sheer fact that learning whatever study in life gets tougher when you age prove that it is both a nature and both a culture thing? At the age of 3 to 16 (or whatever) you can learn 20 languages from birth. But once you get beyond 17 you start to see a significant decline in ability to comprehend "stuff".
And unlike american legislature, we, scientists, realize that the human brains are mature only when hitting the 27th birthday. Though I am not sure about females...they tend to age way sooner. But that is probably reproductive speaking. I do not mean this derogatory but in the vain of evolution.
Should not a young female be prepared and more adult than the young childish adolescent raping her?
This is exactly what is still happening today, but less drawn into a caricature.
Eugentics is over, as goes for Lamarckian days....but how can we still not know the reason why certain people deem light green the same as light blue? And Homer, c.q. one of the writers, describes the sea as black as wine and the sky metallica instead of blue.
I am afraid, extrapolating on this, that eastern culture is really thinking anti-western for a purpose.
And in that regard you can not blame them unless you blame yourself. If we can not even settle on colour, I believe that what they say about oriental minds being different from western may be more true than I ever imagined it to be. I mean: colour is merely one thing in a human mind, let alone hatred.