Language Evolve?

[Holiday20310401]

I was just thinking about language and words, and vocabulary, etc.

So I figured that ok, theres a thought object for a word you recognize right? So what is going to be the next essence of language? Will it always be words? Why not us having chipsets in our heads that can send sound as bits of music (non lyrical) to each other that we learn as a language that will always be able to connote or denote to a context. We would eventually be able to adapt to understand everybody's emotions and repertoire of perception. It would work assuming that we are pretty much the same. We all carry basically the same emotions.

I think that words are very primitive in contextual significance compared to the potential of sound as semantical that we can get. Why not send thought directly and it converts to sound through a chip in our heads. The chip would read the thought of the sounds we make in our heads, and the sound in our heads are respondatory to emotion, cognition at its deeper levels than what words can try to do.

It would seem unethical to be this cybernetic race that stretches the limits of what we'd call humanity, so thats my only problem. But humanity's purpose can be argued as social interaction. Why not give it melody?

I've often wondered if when I play back a song in my head I really like, if the clarity can be felt externally by relinquishing it.

It would certainly bring us closer to thought to thought communication, rather than verbal. Our brains would adapt too, as the mind would be the stipulator for communication directly, rather than the larynx.

Assuming that the technology is possible, does this seem like the future to you?

Also sidenote: Is cybernetics inevitable through reasoning of virtue, in that people will slowly seek virtue through robotics when morality is not about society's virtue but of humanity's?

Your thoughts. ?

[urangutan]

Try getting that over at a sports match.

I think you have watched to much on the screen and think like the sound effects blokes who try to tune our emotions to a particular scene.

How do you emphasize yelling or whispering and what if somebody wants to talk code.

I can no longer talk to myself even though I am.

Where do you seperate thought from speech though, like when you see a nice piece of tush and say to yourself............................SLAP.

However, the mind can distinguish from more information than the ears can receive, so a heated arguement between several or more others would merely be a great conversation between all.

I once had an idea for a nightclub, where there was no DJ or speakers just walkmans, MP4 or iPODS, to you younger folk. People could bring there own music or choose from a selection. The idea would make dancing wild to view and stimulating as well I would think, all the while a conversation would not be such a hard task.

Would we need computer chat rooms if the range could be tweeked to navigate the globe.

Would we eavesdrop or simply be content to be comunicated with.

I think when you learn the alphabet, you wont think it is such a great idea.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

I was just thinking about language and words, and vocabulary, etc.

So I figured that ok, theres a thought object for a word you recognize right? So what is going to be the next essence of language? Will it always be words? Why not us having chipsets in our heads that can send sound as bits of music (non lyrical) to each other that we learn as a language that will always be able to connote or denote to a context. We would eventually be able to adapt to understand everybody's emotions and repertoire of perception. It would work assuming that we are pretty much the same. We all carry basically the same emotions.

I think that words are very primitive in contextual significance compared to the potential of sound as semantical that we can get. Why not send thought directly and it converts to sound through a chip in our heads. The chip would read the thought of the sounds we make in our heads, and the sound in our heads are respondatory to emotion, cognition at its deeper levels than what words can try to do.

It would seem unethical to be this cybernetic race that stretches the limits of what we'd call humanity, so thats my only problem. But humanity's purpose can be argued as social interaction. Why not give it melody?

I've often wondered if when I play back a song in my head I really like, if the clarity can be felt externally by relinquishing it.

It would certainly bring us closer to thought to though communication, rather than verbal. Our brains would adapt too, as the mind would be the stipulator for communication directly, rather than the larynx.

Assuming that the technology is possible, does this seem like the future to you?

Also sidenote: Is cybernetics inevitable through reasoning of virtue, in that people will slowing seek virtue through robotics when morality is not about society's virtue but of humanity's?

Your thoughts. ?

All words are actually concepts. As our concepts grow in number so do our words, and as we drop concepts we also drop words.
And if I may challenge your last statement: morality is individual. Certainly, morality is in relation to a community. We are all usually more moral to our own families than to distant relatives. It is an emotional connectedness, and people are thought strange or fickle if they care about all people as they should feel toward their families. Now, just because some philosophers have tried to teach morality with philosophy, thinking good comes from knowledge, and the like, does not mean it can be reasoned out. If you want all people to be moral in regard to humanity, give them the emotional paradigm where such a feeling is natural. Without that moral feeling you never get the moral action no matter how it is preached or taught. There is no formula for morality, there are conditions supportive of morality.

[de_budding]

I think you over look the subtle complexity of speech, it is not all about sound; we communicate with our eyes, facial muscles, hands and arms; we utilise tone, modulation and dynamics as well as current context. A word can mean different things just by standing in a different place (e.g. USA fag = gay UK fag = cigarette.)
I think the process of breaking this information down into a discrete signal is a complex and bandwidth hungry approach.
thought to thought communication to me seems a callus and unrealistic way to socially read one another; I think it is paramount that we have a thought-filter and thought-organizing process like language which allows us to take thoughts, order them, add and remove parts and then convey this newly constructed message... this is how a lot of us (I hesitate to say all) explore our own minds- with an internal narrative. This allows us to organise our vast, powerful and above all parallel thoughts into discrete, linear signals which can be communicated to eachother using sound waves.

What is it you can't express with language that prompts you to suggest it requires improvements? I think the dynamics of our aural and oral systems are so that we can freely manipulate the system as it is now to cater for any specific problems you have with expression.

Dan.

[Holiday20310401]

Maybe people are adamant about their opinions because words to not speak clearly and deeply enough of the mind's feelings in regard to a situation or topic. Thus a new language is needed.

[de_budding]

I think you are suggesting by-passing our own internal attention spotlight to highlight information that may be more useful to letting another know how one feels; or to use an expanded polygraph to transmit 'state' information to another, which in turn can be converted into probabilities of emotional states. Either way, tehre is no information that you would want to communicate that you can't access, and no lack of words to express such things. The system is dynamic, evidently by its gentle evolution and a huge part of human psychology, it is the main propogater of memes.

I get the feeling there's something you want to say Holiday, but you just can't say it :P lol.

Dan.

[Holiday20310401]

Yeah, thats exactly it.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

Maybe people are adamant about their opinions because words to not speak clearly and deeply enough of the mind's feelings in regard to a situation or topic. Thus a new language is needed.

We have two languages. One for the moral world and one for the physical world, and one overlaps the other. Why do you worry that you cannot express clearly what cannot be defined and measured? It is not a human failing or a failing of language. That is just the situation we are dealing with. It is not perfect, and we are not perfect compared to it. Consider it as a shadow dance cast by a firelight on a cave wall long ago. Not much you say? No commercials, say I. It is the only show in town, and another kind of description would only add to the confusion.

[chad3006]

These "chips" you suggest, would probably have to be manufactured by multinational corporations, so I’m sure it wouldn’t be long before the chips would be used to manipulate the thoughts of the “host.” Shouldn’t your suggestion be entitled “Language devolve” instead? It would render autonomous thought and communication totally meaningless.

A couple of quotes:

"Take the ideas of the masses and concentrate them, then go to the masses and propagate and explain these ideas until the masses embrace them as their own." (Mao Tse-Tung)

"If thought can corrupt language, then language can corrupt thought" (George Orwell)

“Only a crisis, real or perceived, produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.” (Milton Friedman)

[Fido]

Originally Posted by chad3006

These "chips" you suggest, would probably have to be manufactured by multinational corporations, so I’m sure it wouldn’t be long before the chips would be used to manipulate the thoughts of the “host.” Shouldn’t your suggestion be entitled “Language devolve” instead? It would render autonomous thought and communication totally meaningless.

A couple of quotes:

"Take the ideas of the masses and concentrate them, then go to the masses and propagate and explain these ideas until the masses embrace them as their own." (Mao Tse-Tung)

"If thought can corrupt language, then language can corrupt thought" (George Orwell)

“Only a crisis, real or perceived, produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.” (Milton Friedman)

When people complain in America about all that does not work as it should; they are complaining of capitalism generally, and specifically of how their traditional forms have failed them. It is not rocket science. It is just a terrible hard conclusion to reach that society is in need of change, and that we have to be the grups and change it, or our children will not have squat. This land belongs to the people just as it once belonged to the sovereign in England. He could not enforce his right here, or it would still be his. The question now is: Are we able to understand the situation so as to change society in such a fashion that it does not add unhappiness to peoples lives? It is nothing anyone wants to do. It requires a great deal of trust from people and in people. We all have something invested in this society, and most of all, the old. We will be the last to change the world because we already have. But no one can afford to watch this government bring us into world war for damned little profit. Countries go broke building empires and all the sooner the empires start falling in. Bankruptcy invites revolution, and revolution invites war. Yet, we could declare our freedom, demand justice from our countrymen and the world, and begin writing a constitution for a single generation. Clearly, if people have to devote much of their lives to following politics, and can never justify taking their eyes of their representative, then what is the point really. We pay taxes so the thing will run, and it don't run, and intead of it saving us energy we must give it our free time and energy. Primitives used to give great portions of their lives to their politics, but they had leasure. I think there is a great correlation between working ourselves to death wishing for payday, wishing for retirement, and finally wishing for death to avoid poverty, and our inability to get good out of our government. Where is our friend, as government should be. Where is our strong arm in danger?