|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 4:23 pm
Makes sense.
Would we? Tell me, if we are unable to observe or otherwise acknowledge the existence of a thing, can it truly be said to have any effect on us at all? Even if we were only able to acknowledge its effects, that would still observe the cause; when these effects are standard, no one would feel the need to acknowledge them.
For example, let's assume every living person is born with a complete and thorough knowledge of Esperanto. Nothing new could ever be learned in Esperanto, nor would anything new need to be invented. Further, let's assume that this not only applies to humans, but to every living thing. Plants, animals, everything. Every living thing we ever interact with speaks Esperanto. Let us also assume that Esperanto is the only existing language. At that point, Esperanto wouldn't even be a point of consideration for anyone or anything, nor would language at all, because we would have nothing else to measure it against. Nothing would be incapable of speaking. Thus, speech is rendered completely unremarkable.
That's true. However, you assume that a person's creative potential is limited by the extent to which one physically practices creativity. I think that that would limit ability, yes, but not necessarily potential. Hypothetically, there would be an infinite degree of potential in any given field within each individual, but the degree to which that potential is realized would vary. Hence 'all men created equal'. Equality in creation does not necessitate that the permanence of equality.
The way my Government teacher explained it: "All men may be created equal, but that doesn't mean they necessarily stay that way."
I feel that statement probably has a fair degree of applicability to this conversation as well.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 03, 2010 5:08 pm
I think we could. Take jellyfish for example. A jellyfish does not have the mental capacity to be aware of the fact that it possesses instincts which tell it how to eat, move, and procreate, but these instincts have effects upon it's behavior nonetheless. It may not even be aware that these effects exist, but they are still there. There are plenty of effects in this universe for which we do not know the cause.
Ahaha, it took me a few sentences to figure out what Esperanto was, ok. xd I get where you're going. Interesting.
I see. Makes sense because now that I think about it potential can't really be created. And yes it does. I'll have to mention that quote to my APUSH teacher (who I have Government with next year), she will enjoy it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 12:25 am
Assuming a jellyfish lacks "true" consciousness, however that may be defined, I think my theory still applies: a jellyfish is pushed to eat by its instinct. It therefore eats. It may or may not feel its hunger wane, but even if it does not, the push to eat becomes weaker in the jellyfish. In this way, then, the effects of the actions taken as a result of its instinctual drives are in fact observed by the jellyfish.
Yeah. Esperanto was a so-called 'universal' language intended to be native to no culture and to be integrated in all cultures, thus eliminating the language barrier. However, it failed completely. I believe it failed simply because people as a whole are too inertial to go to the trouble of substituting their native tongue with one that is completely unfamiliar to them. Obviously, this is not true in all cases -- the immigrant who learns his new home's language, for example, but even he will use his native tongue in conversation with those who know it. Also, there's the matter of cultural pride.
Point is, it didn't work.
... APUSH? What the hell. You have "APUSH," Pink got "AVID," and I got "FOCIS." I find it idiotic that people fit titles to fit the acronyms they desire, rather than just coming up with a title first. It's pointless, really, and it makes people sound stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 5:29 am
IamJacksVampirism Assuming a jellyfish lacks "true" consciousness, however that may be defined, I think my theory still applies: a jellyfish is pushed to eat by its instinct. It therefore eats. It may or may not feel its hunger wane, but even if it does not, the push to eat becomes weaker in the jellyfish. In this way, then, the effects of the actions taken as a result of its instinctual drives are in fact observed by the jellyfish. Yeah. Esperanto was a so-called 'universal' language intended to be native to no culture and to be integrated in all cultures, thus eliminating the language barrier. However, it failed completely. I believe it failed simply because people as a whole are too inertial to go to the trouble of substituting their native tongue with one that is completely unfamiliar to them. Obviously, this is not true in all cases -- the immigrant who learns his new home's language, for example, but even he will use his native tongue in conversation with those who know it. Also, there's the matter of cultural pride. Point is, it didn't work. ... APUSH? What the hell. You have "APUSH," Pink got "AVID," and I got "FOCIS." I find it idiotic that people fit titles to fit the acronyms they desire, rather than just coming up with a title first. It's pointless, really, and it makes people sound stupid. it is required in Japan and China that all schools teach how to read and write English.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 8:19 am
Ah, okay. So you are saying that observing the effects of a specific phenomena equates to acknowledgment of it's existence, yes? However, the jellyfish doesn't know what caused it to feel hungry, it just knows how it feels. According to the jellyfish, anything at all could have caused the feeling, so it cannot draw the connection that the feeling is a direct cause of the instinct. Therefore, it's instincts have no effect upon it's consciousness, and cannot be acknowledged.
My parents are an example of that, kind of. They learned English as children in addition to their native languages, but continue to speak to their family (namely members who continue to live outside the country) in their native tongues because it is easier for both to understand. I believe there is also some subconscious association between a language and the place where it is spoken/specific person it is being spoken to. Languages are interesting. My mom finds it easiest to count in Dutch (even though she remembers little else of the language) simply because she learned to count in a school where Dutch was spoken.
APUSH is the acronym for my history class. D:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 9:06 pm
The jellyfish doesn't acknowledge the instinct of hunger, no. However, the jellyfish acknowledges hunger itself. It would also presumably acknoledge movement and procreation, as well as the desire to perform those activities. It would acknowledge its own desire to remove itself from the presence of a thing intent on harming or destroying it. The jellyfish would not acknowledge instinct as an absract, no. However, it would acknowledge the behaviors and desires that make up instinct, just the same as we do. The only difference between us is that we take it one step farther and link these desires together to form a single weave of behavioral concepts: instict. Our acknowledgement, however, is no more complete than that of the jellyfish: we still see the same desires, the same drives, as that of the jellyfish. As such, the jellyfish would acknowledge the things that make up instinct, despite that it is us who acknowledge the abstract, linking concept behind them.
Oh. What.
I think of language as being quite interesting. My World Geography teacher (funny guy, I liked him, despite that other people didn't -- I guess they thought he was a jerk; I found his sarcasm quite amusing. We got along well) once explained it in a very enlightening manner. Different languages represent more than simple differences in preferred methods of communication. For example, a what we know as fire is also hi, and kaji, and sparke. It is also incendie and larguer. Language thus represents a collection of ideas. Every time a language dies, an entire way of seeing the world is lost.
Ha. Your history class is called APUSH? Hahahahaha. That's ridiculous. Makes me think of A Christmas Carol. It makes it sound as though your destiny is propelled by the ghosts of the past. Which may or may not be true, figuratively speaking, but I don't believe there's a literal ghost out there who'd be content to carry the future on his own back. Certainly none I've ever heard of. They always have something better to do.
Again: it's ridiculous that people fit titles to acronyms, rather than acronyms to titles. Seems like a somewhat backward practice to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:10 am
Jack, have you heard about the large movement (20 billion so far) to get the english language in America refined? (I say refined, hacked with an axe and pissed on is more like it)
their slogan in: enuf is enuf but enough is too much.
other known examples are:
Too: to
to: to
Hear: Heer
there: theer
Slow: Slo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:47 am
Jack: Exactly! :] It does not acknowledge the larger network pattern of it's behavior known to us as instinct, but the behavior itself still has effects upon it. The same goes for just about every living organism.
Soryiu: Who are these 20 billion people? Because changing the language sounds too inconvenient to be feasible. All our books will need to be rewritten, the Internet translated, and the general public will have to be convinced to learn to spell all over again. Not to mention that barely anyone with half a brain will will jump on the bandwagon to write like an illiterate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 10, 2010 8:35 pm
ChiRubian Jack: Exactly! :] It does not acknowledge the larger network pattern of it's behavior known to us as instinct, but the behavior itself still has effects upon it. The same goes for just about every living organism.
Soryiu: Who are these 20 billion people? Because changing the language sounds too inconvenient to be feasible. All our books will need to be rewritten, the Internet translated, and the general public will have to be convinced to learn to spell all over again. Not to mention that barely anyone with half a brain will will jump on the bandwagon to write like an illiterate. I don't know any names, just that there is a petition started by teabaggers that has (supposedly) 20 billion names.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:26 pm
People that devoted to chaos are likely to be masters of hyperbole. I highly doubt they have 20 billion names, don't worry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Good lord. No, I hadn't heard of that. That's really pretty frightening. Of course, I doubt they really have 20 billion people (seeing as only ~ 7 billion exist on Earth at this point, and we don't have access to any other civilized planets), but still, on principle. I'm sure that most of these people are under the age of thirty, but that in itself sucks. Children are the future, right? So we're teaching kids to spell like a dumbass. Which essentially boils down to a future that spells like one giant societal dumbass, somewhere down the line. A..... fyutr. s**t, that hurt.
Reminds me of an episode of "Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law" that I saw once. There was a guy who simply didn't write any vowels in any words he wrote, to write faster. Didn't pronounce them, either, so he basically sounded like he was eating his tongue while imitating a deaf guy who's been bound and gagged.
And Nyz.... masters of hyperbole? Ha.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
