Originally posted by Kantzveldt
I've had the advantage here of considering the contents of the website for a couple of months prior to posting, and so I've been running my own mental Venn diagrams as it were, with regards to who might be interested in one aspect of the sites contents but not another, and what I'm seeing here to some extent is people focusing on an aspect of the contents that appeals to them and seems natural that a working group could be set up toward research in that area, but disregarding many other areas of interest found in the greater content.
Logocracy is the rule of, or government by, WORDS. It is derived from the Greek λόγος (logos) - "word" and from κράτος (kratos) - to "govern"
*Ed. When someone is observing an event in space-time and using language to describe the event...
"As the function parameters change, what was once a local minimum may find itself in the basin of attraction of another one. The process will then suddenly switch from the old local minumum to the new. This is a catastrophe."
"The set of points in parameter space at which catastrophes occur is the catastrophe locus. To a large extent, catastrophe loci (edges, changes) are the data furnished by our senses. For us to perceive a catastrophe in our 4-dimensional space-time, there must be a 4-dimensional sheet running through parameter space which intersects the catastrophe locus transversely, i.e. crosswise. Otherwise an infinitesimal displacement would make the catastrophe disappear, and we would have no chance of seeing it.
"If a process in space-time can be characterized by one of these catastrophes, then the mental process which apprehends it will mimic that catastrophe, and the syntax of a verb phrase describing it will correspond to the topology of a one-dimensional section through its parameter space.
(*Thom lists sixteen such topologies in Topologie ...). In particular the number of arguments of the verb (subject, object, instrument, destination) corresponds to the number of minima that can simultaneously coexist. In all of Thom's sixteen examples this number is less than or equal to four; this corresponds to the linguistic observation that in general a verb can have at most four arguments."
And look at that links vids, you have sometimes two or more opposing things being translated, the visuals say one thing the audio another,
Sorry but music and singing is just noise humans tend to make with there facial flaps, its just something that lives and lasts for but moments, it has its moments but those are soon gone usually in a few minutes. I suppose that is were spacial sequencing and directions would come in but to communicate without words or something like that medium. I do not think its very you know circumspect, it can be interpreted as anything literally. And look at that links vids, you have sometimes two or more opposing things being translated, the visuals say one thing the audio another, its you know if there is a message you would have to be clued in first to it or else you would just be guessing. I mean don't get me wrong even with words or captions you are still guessing but at least the plot is coagulant. Though that vid with the antelope running into a tree while the lions sit and watch is hilarious, even the sounds are hilarious. I suppose that would be what you call fast food on delivery for the lions.
So now you've got three things in place - hand to mouth, mouth in brocas area to visual appearance in the fusiform and auditory cortex, and auditory to visual, the booba/kiki effect. Each of these is a small effect but acting together there's a synergistic boot-strapping effect going on and an avalanche effect, culminating in the emergence of language. Finally you say well what about the hierarchical structure of syntax? How do you explain that? Well I think like when you say he knows that I know that he knows that I know that I had an affair with his wife. How do you do this hierarchic embedding in language? Well partly I think that comes from semantics, from the region of the TPO where I said you'd engage in abstraction and I already explained how abstraction might have evolved, so partly abstraction feeds into syntactic structure, but partly from tool use. Early hominids were very good at tool use and especially what I call the sub-assembly technique in tool use where you take a piece of flint, make it into a head - step one. Then you haft it onto a handle - step two, and then the whole thing becomes one entity which is then used to hit you the subject, you hit the object. You do something to the object and this bears a certain operational analogy with the embedding of noun clauses. So what I'm arguing is what evolved for tool use in the hand area is now exapted and assimilated in the brocas area to be used in syntactic hierarchic embedding. So now look, each of these has a small bias but acting in conjunction they culminate in language. It's very different from Steve Pinker's idea which is that language is a specific adaptation which evolved step by step for the sole purpose of communication. What I'm arguing here is no, it's the fortuitous synergistic combination of a number of mechanisms which evolved for other purposes initially and then became assimilated into the mechanism that we call language. This often happens in evolution but it's a style of thinking that has yet to permeate neurology and psychology and it's very odd that neurologists don't usually think of evolution given that nothing in biology makes any sense except in the light of evolution as Dobzhansky once said
This should help explain all that noise that humans do with their facial flaps but it is deeper then thisedit on 14-7-2013 by Brotherman because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by kosmicjack
Yes, it is.
According to my correspondence with the admin anyways.
These are legit languages.
You or I could LEARN these languages with a bit of diligence.
However, at the speed at which they can apparently churn them out (17 new languages so far in four years) with this software, one could probably stay ahead of the game, so to speak.
Imagine being a monolinguist in a room full of multilinguists.
That is what this is.
Hmm... but the idea was not to generate a cryptic language of some sort. The idea was this: - to analyze syntactic and morphological drift for a given set of languages, and to explore whether such a drift produces a semantic drift correlate. In order to do so, we designed a software, called Nodespaces, that acts as a genetic algorithm that takes as input a given language and then, by stimulated annealing, subjects the language to a set of stochastic rules. If we consider the language as a complex adaptive system, by changing the boundary conditions the language is forced to adapt itself, thus changing its syntactic structure and its morphological internal structure. Obviously, a boundary condition was this: change as you wish, but the change must yield a syntactically and phonetically coherent language. The result shows that language is also a dissipative structure, one that can finally derive in a total colapse of communication, unless you impose some restrictive superstructure upon it. We found it was then better to introduce the self-organizing constraints into the system. And the experiment shows that in order for you to obtain such a language, the system must, of necessity, include the speaker. Though it seems obvious that language and speaker are inseparable, sometimes linguists forget this, in particular when they study ancient languages. We wanted to find an answer to this question: can we think of the Russian language regardeless of the Russian speaker? That is: can anyone speak Russian without feeling Russian? So far, the answer is "No". Sure you can be a Lakota. Sure you can learn Russian. Sure you can get a total mastering of the Russian language. But you will never "feel" like a Russian. So the question arises: what do we mean by being Russian or Lakota? And if there was just one protolanguage, what made a given speaker to start feeling like a Russian? The landscape? The environment? A genetic mutation? A specific neurological arrangement? Happy new year to you all! Ayndryl Forgotten Languages "Translation shall cease" project.
I thought love had nothing to do with the own's personal profit and loss balance sheet. You should love, even if they don't love you. Humans are not animals working under the reward/punishment scheme. Does not your god know that? Ask Lilith, the first woman.
She quitted from paradise. Never returned. Never loved Adam, as she found him dumb and pathetic.
By the way, the source of knowledge was a tree in the garden of Eden, and your god explicitely prohibited and banned Adam and Eve to ever get close to it. It seems your god wanted them to be ignorants.
"Put your hands over her head..."
If the guy tries to touch me, sure his head will start spinning, his eyes will burst out, and he will fall to the floor speaking in tongues... Go tell him.
The background to their research is that of the vampiric cult, so seemingly a group of extremely gifted linguists that always provide extensive academic bibliographic referances, yet are also given to producing disturbing videos on vampiric theme
Something is seriously weird around those parts. As an example of this intrigue, they have an article that suggests that Voynich is an adaption of a cryptic language known as Franciscan Alashi;
English quotations are sometimes found on the site but not often, the language they most commonly write in they refer to as Affel, supposedly a Romanian Vampiric dialect, they have many articles concerned with Affel and Romaniel
In the Loopscapes section of their website they write their own poetry and discuss the vampiric tradition, mainly in Affel, which i can sort of get the gist of and basically follow some of their invocations. Their interest in language is essentialy that of the Demoniac, speaking and writing in unknown tongues, though interaction with archaic spirits, but this is studied in conjunction with the very latest theories on language and semiotics, and the underlying patterns of a Universal language, this group is certainly fully informed, and seemingly well ahead in the game...
Any help and insight on understanding this group will be appreciated, whether debunking or otherwise, as they disturb me. I did wonder if they're connected to
At some point you will also need to factor in what they appear to have no interest in as regards the overall content of the website, for example Satanism, America, Politics, Marxism, Feminism etc etc The suggestion that this was a sort of Arts related language of Sound experimentation group doesn't find overall supporting evidence within the site, as i work in the area of Community and Progressive Arts i would have certain expectations regarding the political and social viewpoints i'd expect to see reflected in the overall content of the site, it simply isn't there. Which isn't to say individuals connected to the site don't have such interests in their everyday life, just that it is not the general concern of the project
At some point you will also need to factor in what they appear to have no interest in as regards the overall content of the website, for example Satanism, America, Politics, Marxism, Feminism etc etc
The suggestion that this was a sort of Arts related language of Sound experimentation group doesn't find overall supporting evidence within the site