Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Mind and Brain] Paper: How language acquisition builds on cognitive developme

Expand Messages
  • Dr.d@delaSierra-Sheffer.net
    Seems like the sorting out into categories of perceptual units is part of the bio-CPU we inherit. When these units find their meaning in the beholder (with the
    Message 1 of 13 , Dec 1 5:32 AM
      Seems like the sorting out into categories of perceptual units is part of the bio-CPU we inherit. When these units find their meaning in the beholder (with the participation of 'plo') then subject is ready for a more sophisticated 'concept formation' which requires an inferential analysis in the dominant brain as cephalization of functions increases. Dr.d'
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 4:58 PM
      Subject: [Mind and Brain] Paper: How language acquisition builds on cognitive developme

      Language and Conceptual Development series

      How language acquisition builds on cognitive development

      Eve V. ClarkE-mail The Corresponding Author



      Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

      Available online 11 September 2004.


      When children acquire a first language, they build on what they know – conceptual information that discriminates and helps create categories for the objects, relations and events they experience. This provides the starting point for language from the age of 12 months on. So children first set up conceptual representations, then add linguistic representations for talking about experience. Do they then discard earlier conceptual representations in favour of linguistic ones, or do they retain them? Recent research on the coping strategies that young children (and adults) rely on when they are unable to draw on language suggest that they retain both types of representations for use as needed.



      Full Text at Science Direct
       
      Posted by
      Robert Karl Stonjek

    • Geraldine Reinhardt
      I m afraid I interpret the post you ve included below as children being born with a tabula raza and then acquire their language skills depending on their
      Message 2 of 13 , Dec 1 12:28 PM
        I'm afraid I interpret the post you've included below as children being born with a tabula raza and then acquire their language skills depending on their surroundings.  Is this what you are saying?
        You are correct about importance of environment in determining proficiency in language but you've neglected to concentrate on "talent".  A child born as a son to a world famous pianist will likely have a propensity for the keyboard.
         
        Gerry Reinhart-Waller
        Independent Scholar
        http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Dr.d@...
        Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 5:32 AM
        Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Paper: How language acquisition builds on cognitive developme

        Seems like the sorting out into categories of perceptual units is part of the bio-CPU we inherit. When these units find their meaning in the beholder (with the participation of 'plo') then subject is ready for a more sophisticated 'concept formation' which requires an inferential analysis in the dominant brain as cephalization of functions increases. Dr.d'
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 4:58 PM
        Subject: [Mind and Brain] Paper: How language acquisition builds on cognitive developme

        Language and Conceptual Development series

        How language acquisition builds on cognitive development

        Eve V. ClarkE-mail The Corresponding Author



        Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

        Available online 11 September 2004.


        When children acquire a first language, they build on what they know – conceptual information that discriminates and helps create categories for the objects, relations and events they experience. This provides the starting point for language from the age of 12 months on. So children first set up conceptual representations, then add linguistic representations for talking about experience. Do they then discard earlier conceptual representations in favour of linguistic ones, or do they retain them? Recent research on the coping strategies that young children (and adults) rely on when they are unable to draw on language suggest that they retain both types of representations for use as needed.



        Full Text at Science Direct
         
        Posted by
        Robert Karl Stonjek


      • chrislofting@ozemail.com.au
        ... From: Dr.d@delaSierra-Sheffer.net [mailto:Dr.d@delaSierra-Sheffer.net] Sent: Thursday, 2 December 2004 12:33 AM To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re:
        Message 3 of 13 , Dec 1 4:06 PM
          Seems like the sorting out into categories of perceptual units is part of the bio-CPU we inherit. When these units find their meaning in the beholder (with the participation of 'plo') then subject is ready for a more sophisticated 'concept formation' which requires an inferential analysis in the dominant brain as cephalization of functions increases. Dr.d'
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 4:58 PM
          Subject: [Mind and Brain] Paper: How language acquisition builds on cognitive developme

          Language and Conceptual Development series

          How language acquisition builds on cognitive development

          Eve V. ClarkE-mail The Corresponding Author



          Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

          Available online 11 September 2004.


          When children acquire a first language, they build on what they know – conceptual information that discriminates and helps create categories for the objects, relations and events they experience. This provides the starting point for language from the age of 12 months on. So children first set up conceptual representations, then add linguistic representations for talking about experience. Do they then discard earlier conceptual representations in favour of linguistic ones, or do they retain them? Recent research on the coping strategies that young children (and adults) rely on when they are unable to draw on language suggest that they retain both types of representations for use as needed.



          Full Text at Science Direct
           
          Posted by
          Robert Karl Stonjek


        • chrislofting@ozemail.com.au
          The IDM abstract - I have fleshed it out a bit ---- By identifying the basic methodology used by the brain in the process of deriving meaning, we can identify
          Message 4 of 13 , Dec 1 4:13 PM
            The IDM abstract - I have fleshed it out a bit ----

            By identifying the basic methodology used by the brain in the process of deriving meaning, we can identify the properties and methods within that methodology that go to giving the species its ability to identify and re-identify and so communicate. In humans, as well as other neuron-dependent life forms, we find that at the fundamental level all meaning is based upon distinguishing objects (the what) from relationships (the where), these being abstract distinctions reflecting the even more fundamental processes of differentiating and integrating. These basic distinctions are sourced in our neurological make-up and demonstrate a degree of hard-coding, our brain is not a tabula rasa (clean slate) at birth but rather (a) contains gene-based behavioural patterns to particular elements in the environment and (b) contains a template used for distinguishing meaning based on the distinctions of 'what' from 'where'. Our brains oscillate across the elements of the what/where, aka differentiate/integrate, dichotomy and from that dynamic generates qualities we use to process meaning. This oscillation introduces a 'Small World Network' dynamic operating within the brain and reflected in how we categorise/specialise our meanings.

            The dichotomous perspective appears to be the roots of meaning, where our consciousness, through its mediation skills allows for trichotomous perspectives but these reflect more so temporary dynamics that 'dissapear' once mediation is complete; IOW dichotomies are stable and form the base line for meaning derivation; trichotomy models reflect the inclusion of mediation as a distinct part rather than as an exaggeration and as such find problems in being accepted over dichotomous models. We can come up with the following dynamic:

            REPRESENTATION = MEDIATION(Stimulus/Respose) [first time through]

            REPRESENTATION = MEDIATION(REPRESENTATION) [ad infinitum]

            We use four METAPHORS, specialist languages, representations, to show the SAMENESS in them all, where that sameness reflects the IDM-identified patterns of meaning, qualities, we use as foundations for our communications:

            (1) The types of numbers, their basic qualities, we use in Mathematics;

            (2) The qualities in the set of basic emotions we all share as species-members;

            (3) The qualities of the types of personas categorised by such typologies as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®;

            (4) The qualities in the set of categories of 'meaning' presented in such 'esoteric' systems as the I Ching.


            This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
          • chrislofting@ozemail.com.au
            To add some fuel to the fire. The IDM perspective is on the use of recursion of a dichotomy to elicit qualities useable for communicating meaning. Analysis of
            Message 5 of 13 , Dec 1 4:28 PM
              To add some fuel to the fire. The IDM perspective is on the use of recursion of a dichotomy to elicit qualities useable for communicating meaning.

              Analysis of this methodology shows us TWO forms of dichotomies - symmetric vs asymmetric. The analysis also shows that, when deriving a sequence of qualities recursively I can rotate the sequence to derive an alternate form of interpretation.

              By this I mean that, if I assign 1 to differentiate and 0 to integrate, after three loops I have a set of qualities represented as:

              111, 110, 101, 100, 011, 010, 001, 000

              This is in fact a sequence of PAIRS used to identify DIFFERENCE out of SAMENESS. e.g. 111 and 110 have the SAME core elements (11) but a DIFFERENT expression, being the last bit added, 111 vs 110.

              If I make the elements of the dichotomy those of fight/flight, and so dealing with emotions, then I get:

              111 - anger
              110 - sex (love)

              The 11 element is a focus on context REPLACEMENT, be it by erradication (111) or replication (110).

              If I take the above derived sequence and ROTATE the elements I get a sequence of:

              111, 011, 101, 001, 110, 010, 100, 000

              Here we find pairs but now identifying SAMENESS in DIFFERENCE. Thus 100 and 000 share a common element, even though 'different' in that their base nature, represented by the firt bit in the sequence, is different.

              When we review this from the specialist realm of emotions, so 100 = surprise and 000 = fear; IOW they share a common element in their expression where that element ties them together even though they are 'seperate' (and so we also get 010 rejection sharing elements with 110 love)

              From these REALLY simple dynamics comes a rich realm of representations prior to any spoken/written word. The advantage with the words is their universal nature; we can fold up a context 'into' words and unfold it as we tell a story etc in a very different context.

              Chris.


              This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
            • Dr.d@delaSierra-Sheffer.net
              I am sorry about being so cryptic in my previous note. There is evidence on how newborn animals and humans reflexly respond to environmental sensory cues
              Message 6 of 13 , Dec 1 4:45 PM
                    I am sorry about being so cryptic in my previous note. There is evidence on how newborn animals and humans reflexly respond to environmental sensory cues (multimodal) representing potential threats to their respective species survival. A surgical excision of the amygdala will eliminate this protective response in adults. This suggests this organ as being involved in matching (comparison analysis?) the cue with inherited proto-semantic codelets (primitive 'meanings'). Arguably these inherited meanings guide the subsequent acquisition of language in the newborn as it develops from mimicry, mom's baby talk and facial expressions. As cephalization of functions progresses as a function of neocortical ontogenetic maturation, environmental phonemic input gets structured according to acquired syntactic rules from mom's language, this way proto-semantics precede syntax, the inverse relation that we have been used to accept after Chomsky, Fodor and other 'primitivists'. My position is primitivist also regarding primitive meanings (proto-semantics), but give more importance to environment (semiotics & acquired language) regarding syntax structure. I think I elaborate more in http://home.earthlink.net/~dr.ds/neurophilosophyofconsciousnesssummary/. There are more published articles where this topic is discussed, see Table of contents at: http://www.delasierra-sheffer.net/ID1-Neurophilo-net/index.htm   Btw, I remember being at your w-site before, very original and attractive, almost as much as the owner. :-)
                Dr.d'
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 3:28 PM
                Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Paper: How language acquisition builds on cognitive developme

                I'm afraid I interpret the post you've included below as children being born with a tabula raza and then acquire their language skills depending on their surroundings.  Is this what you are saying?
                You are correct about importance of environment in determining proficiency in language but you've neglected to concentrate on "talent".  A child born as a son to a world famous pianist will likely have a propensity for the keyboard.
                 
                Gerry Reinhart-Waller
                Independent Scholar
                http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Dr.d@...
                Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 5:32 AM
                Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Paper: How language acquisition builds on cognitive developme

                Seems like the sorting out into categories of perceptual units is part of the bio-CPU we inherit. When these units find their meaning in the beholder (with the participation of 'plo') then subject is ready for a more sophisticated 'concept formation' which requires an inferential analysis in the dominant brain as cephalization of functions increases. Dr.d'
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 4:58 PM
                Subject: [Mind and Brain] Paper: How language acquisition builds on cognitive developme

                Language and Conceptual Development series

                How language acquisition builds on cognitive development

                Eve V. ClarkE-mail The Corresponding Author



                Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

                Available online 11 September 2004.


                When children acquire a first language, they build on what they know – conceptual information that discriminates and helps create categories for the objects, relations and events they experience. This provides the starting point for language from the age of 12 months on. So children first set up conceptual representations, then add linguistic representations for talking about experience. Do they then discard earlier conceptual representations in favour of linguistic ones, or do they retain them? Recent research on the coping strategies that young children (and adults) rely on when they are unable to draw on language suggest that they retain both types of representations for use as needed.



                Full Text at Science Direct
                 
                Posted by
                Robert Karl Stonjek



              • Geraldine Reinhardt
                I thank you Dr. d for your reply. However, your language is a bit obscure. I m not certain what you mean by the inverse relationship of Chomsky, Fodor and
                Message 7 of 13 , Dec 1 7:31 PM
                   
                  I thank you Dr. d  for your reply.  However, your language is a bit obscure.  I'm not certain what you mean by the inverse relationship of Chomsky, Fodor and other primitivists.  Is it that your analysis of the problem is more avant garde than your predecessors?
                   
                  Gerry Reinhart-Waller
                  Independent Scholar
                  http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk
                   
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Dr.d@...
                  Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 4:45 PM
                  Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Paper: How language acquisition builds on cognitive developme

                      I am sorry about being so cryptic in my previous note. There is evidence on how newborn animals and humans reflexly respond to environmental sensory cues (multimodal) representing potential threats to their respective species survival. A surgical excision of the amygdala will eliminate this protective response in adults. This suggests this organ as being involved in matching (comparison analysis?) the cue with inherited proto-semantic codelets (primitive 'meanings'). Arguably these inherited meanings guide the subsequent acquisition of language in the newborn as it develops from mimicry, mom's baby talk and facial expressions. As cephalization of functions progresses as a function of neocortical ontogenetic maturation, environmental phonemic input gets structured according to acquired syntactic rules from mom's language, this way proto-semantics precede syntax, the inverse relation that we have been used to accept after Chomsky, Fodor and other 'primitivists'. My position is primitivist also regarding primitive meanings (proto-semantics), but give more importance to environment (semiotics & acquired language) regarding syntax structure. I think I elaborate more in http://home.earthlink.net/~dr.ds/neurophilosophyofconsciousnesssummary/. There are more published articles where this topic is discussed, see Table of contents at: http://www.delasierra-sheffer.net/ID1-Neurophilo-net/index.htm   Btw, I remember being at your w-site before, very original and attractive, almost as much as the owner. :-)
                  Dr.d'
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 3:28 PM
                  Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Paper: How language acquisition builds on cognitive developme

                  I'm afraid I interpret the post you've included below as children being born with a tabula raza and then acquire their language skills depending on their surroundings.  Is this what you are saying?
                  You are correct about importance of environment in determining proficiency in language but you've neglected to concentrate on "talent".  A child born as a son to a world famous pianist will likely have a propensity for the keyboard.
                   
                  Gerry Reinhart-Waller
                  Independent Scholar
                  http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Dr.d@...
                  Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 5:32 AM
                  Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Paper: How language acquisition builds on cognitive developme

                  Seems like the sorting out into categories of perceptual units is part of the bio-CPU we inherit. When these units find their meaning in the beholder (with the participation of 'plo') then subject is ready for a more sophisticated 'concept formation' which requires an inferential analysis in the dominant brain as cephalization of functions increases. Dr.d'
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 4:58 PM
                  Subject: [Mind and Brain] Paper: How language acquisition builds on cognitive developme

                  Language and Conceptual Development series

                  How language acquisition builds on cognitive development

                  Eve V. ClarkE-mail The Corresponding Author



                  Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

                  Available online 11 September 2004.


                  When children acquire a first language, they build on what they know – conceptual information that discriminates and helps create categories for the objects, relations and events they experience. This provides the starting point for language from the age of 12 months on. So children first set up conceptual representations, then add linguistic representations for talking about experience. Do they then discard earlier conceptual representations in favour of linguistic ones, or do they retain them? Recent research on the coping strategies that young children (and adults) rely on when they are unable to draw on language suggest that they retain both types of representations for use as needed.



                  Full Text at Science Direct
                   
                  Posted by
                  Robert Karl Stonjek




                • Dr.d@delaSierra-Sheffer.net
                  Dr.CL: Our consciousness, being the agent of mediation, takes the set of universal qualities and links them to a particular context through the association
                  Message 8 of 13 , Dec 1 7:54 PM
                    Dr.CL: "Our consciousness, being the agent of mediation, takes the set of universal qualities and links them to a particular context through the association with a label, be it auditory, visual, olfactory, gustatory, kinesthetic, or all together."
                            That link is precisely what I have been looking for and I suspect are primitive phonemes that later on become the universal sounds we find in all human languages. I am glad you agree. Btw, I was sharing this discussion with a prominent HiQ listing. When they saw your w-site bye-line <ID-Meaning>, a 'prominent' member lambasted me for yet another session on Intelligence Design (ID), not knowing (nor inquiring) that 'ID' stands for <Integrate/Differentiate-Meaning>. How is that for knee-jerk prejudice? Res Ipsa Loquitur"......... :-)      Dr.d'
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 7:06 PM
                    Subject: Re: Re: [Mind and Brain] Paper: How language acquisition builds on cognitive developme


                    "Seems like the sorting out into categories of perceptual units is part of the bio-CPU we inherit. When these units find their meaning in the beholder (with the participation of 'plo') then subject is ready for a more sophisticated 'concept formation' which requires an inferential analysis in the dominant brain as cephalization of functions increases." Dr.d'

                    ChrisLofting
                    Yes - It all gets back to differentiating/integrating and so the language of the neuron. What the article calls 'language', and what is the common interpretation, is the use of labels through spoken/written forms.

                    The hard coding, the bed rock, the DETERMINED, qualities for communication stem from the differentiating/integrating dynamic, which includes a hierarchic format allowing for stimulus/response to be mediatated and symbolised (representation). 'Free will' is LOCAL, at the surface level, allowing for quick adaptations to local context WITHIN the general bounds setup by the sensory systems and the neurology. From that position develops 'novel' languages, the languages of specialisations that ensure the specialisation remains 'special'.

                    Beneath all of words, symbols, etc are the basic qualities of wholes, parts, static relationships, dynamic relationships - but as FEELINGS (Blend, Bound, Bond, Bind). It is these that allow us to make analogies, form metaphors, so easily in that the basics, the bedrock is the SAME for all specialisations, the words are arbitrary but point to the ONE set of qualities rooted in the dynamics of our neurology.

                    Thus we have sensory systems integrated into the neurology out of which come basic categories, concepts, and on into symbols and metaphors.

                    Our consciousness, being the agent of mediation, takes the set of universal qualities and links them to a particular context through the association with a label, be it auditory, visual, olfactory, gustatory, kinsesthetic, or all together.

                    To 'build on what you know' demands a root set of categories to start off with - and those stem from the dynamics of differentiating/integrating.

                    Chris.


                    This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au



                    ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
                    Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
                    Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
                    http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/HKE4lB/TM
                    --------------------------------------------------------------------~->

                     
                    Yahoo! Groups Links

                    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MindBrain/

                    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        MindBrain-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                    <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                     


                    Seems like the sorting out into categories of perceptual units is part of the bio-CPU we inherit. When these units find their meaning in the beholder (with the participation of 'plo') then subject is ready for a more sophisticated 'concept formation' which requires an inferential analysis in the dominant brain as cephalization of functions increases. Dr.d'
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 4:58 PM
                    Subject: [Mind and Brain] Paper: How language acquisition builds on cognitive developme

                    Language and Conceptual Development series

                    How language acquisition builds on cognitive development

                    Eve V. ClarkE-mail The Corresponding Author



                    Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

                    Available online 11 September 2004.


                    When children acquire a first language, they build on what they know – conceptual information that discriminates and helps create categories for the objects, relations and events they experience. This provides the starting point for language from the age of 12 months on. So children first set up conceptual representations, then add linguistic representations for talking about experience. Do they then discard earlier conceptual representations in favour of linguistic ones, or do they retain them? Recent research on the coping strategies that young children (and adults) rely on when they are unable to draw on language suggest that they retain both types of representations for use as needed.



                    Full Text at Science Direct
                     
                    Posted by
                    Robert Karl Stonjek


                  • Dr.d@delaSierra-Sheffer.net
                    Dr.CL: The dichotomous perspective appears to be the roots of meaning, where our consciousness, through its mediation skills allows for trichotomous
                    Message 9 of 13 , Dec 1 10:10 PM
                      Dr.CL: "The dichotomous perspective appears to be the roots of meaning,
                      where our consciousness, through its mediation skills allows for
                      trichotomous perspectives but these reflect more so temporary dynamics that
                      'dissapear' once mediation is complete;"
                      Agreed. What we need to do next is to identify the algorithm that
                      transforms an 'all or none' action potential (ignoring receptor potential)
                      at the afferent nerve gets coded as binary codelets (your dyads) for future
                      retrieval and integration with other relevant units. This process
                      (categorization or 'differentiation' in your IDM) exists (in my model) in
                      three different network levels according to their hierarchical position in
                      the decision-making process (your mediation):
                      1. archilayer of redundant reticular neurons including the amygdaloid and
                      cingular cortex projections. The template for the binary codelets storage
                      structure is inherited and specializes on biological survival binary sets
                      for the species. Eg., high/low frequency phonemes, high/low intensity
                      phonemes, etc. Ditto for binary sets ~ pain/pleasure content.
                      2. paliolayer of massively parallel pathways to sensory cortex. The template
                      for storage/retrieval of binary codelets is inherited and filled in with
                      sense-phenomenal input when pathways become myelinated. Coding patterns are
                      analogical, and asymmetrical. Main activity is handling non-inferential
                      analysis. The hippocampus is part of this network.
                      3. neolayer of distributed subset of networks intimately related with
                      dominant brain and executive cortex. Deals more with linearized inputs and
                      propositional inferential analysis.
                      Recursive self-generative cycling among binary sets at 1. & 2. fuel
                      3. that synthesizes (your Integrating) all input co-generating recursively
                      in the process an inner language and its corresponding thought (your
                      mediation) preceding an adaptive response. Dr.d'
                      Lux, Veritas et Vitae

                      > The IDM abstract - I have fleshed it out a bit ----
                      >
                      > By identifying the basic methodology used by the brain in the process of
                      > deriving meaning, we can identify the properties and methods within that
                      > methodology that go to giving the species its ability to identify and
                      > re-identify and so communicate. In humans, as well as other
                      > neuron-dependent life forms, we find that at the fundamental level all
                      > meaning is based upon distinguishing objects (the what) from relationships
                      > (the where), these being abstract distinctions reflecting the even more
                      > fundamental processes of differentiating and integrating. These basic
                      > distinctions are sourced in our neurological make-up and demonstrate a
                      > degree of hard-coding, our brain is not a tabula rasa (clean slate) at
                      > birth but rather (a) contains gene-based behavioural patterns to
                      > particular elements in the environment and (b) contains a template used
                      > for distinguishing meaning based on the distinctions of 'what' from
                      > 'where'. Our brains oscillate across the elements of the what/where, aka
                      > differentiate/integrate, dichotomy and from that dynamic generates
                      > qualities we use to process meaning. This oscillation introduces a 'Small
                      > World Network' dynamic operating within the brain and reflected in how we
                      > categorise/specialise our meanings.
                      >
                      > The dichotomous perspective appears to be the roots of meaning, where our
                      > consciousness, through its mediation skills allows for trichotomous
                      > perspectives but these reflect more so temporary dynamics that 'dissapear'
                      > once mediation is complete; IOW dichotomies are stable and form the base
                      > line for meaning derivation; trichotomy models reflect the inclusion of
                      > mediation as a distinct part rather than as an exaggeration and as such
                      > find problems in being accepted over dichotomous models. We can come up
                      > with the following dynamic:
                      >
                      > REPRESENTATION = MEDIATION(Stimulus/Respose) [first time through]
                      >
                      > REPRESENTATION = MEDIATION(REPRESENTATION) [ad infinitum]
                      >
                      > We use four METAPHORS, specialist languages, representations, to show the
                      > SAMENESS in them all, where that sameness reflects the IDM-identified
                      > patterns of meaning, qualities, we use as foundations for our
                      > communications:
                      >
                      > (1) The types of numbers, their basic qualities, we use in Mathematics;
                      >
                      > (2) The qualities in the set of basic emotions we all share as
                      > species-members;
                      >
                      > (3) The qualities of the types of personas categorised by such typologies
                      > as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®;
                      >
                      > (4) The qualities in the set of categories of 'meaning' presented in such
                      > 'esoteric' systems as the I Ching.
                      >
                      >
                      > This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • Dr.d@delaSierra-Sheffer.net
                      Dr. CL: rich realm of representations prior to any spoken/written word. Precisely my point that those representations = proto-semantic content guiding syntax
                      Message 10 of 13 , Dec 1 10:20 PM
                        Dr. CL:"rich realm of representations prior to any spoken/written word."
                        Precisely my point that those representations = proto-semantic
                        content guiding syntax structure according to grammar rules of acquired
                        language. Dr.d'

                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: <chrislofting@...>
                        To: <MindBrain@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 7:28 PM
                        Subject: Re: Re: [Mind and Brain] Paper: How language acquisition builds on
                        cognitive developme


                        >
                        >
                        > To add some fuel to the fire. The IDM perspective is on the use of
                        > recursion of a dichotomy to elicit qualities useable for communicating
                        > meaning.
                        >
                        > Analysis of this methodology shows us TWO forms of dichotomies - symmetric
                        > vs asymmetric. The analysis also shows that, when deriving a sequence of
                        > qualities recursively I can rotate the sequence to derive an alternate
                        > form of interpretation.
                        >
                        > By this I mean that, if I assign 1 to differentiate and 0 to integrate,
                        > after three loops I have a set of qualities represented as:
                        >
                        > 111, 110, 101, 100, 011, 010, 001, 000
                        >
                        > This is in fact a sequence of PAIRS used to identify DIFFERENCE out of
                        > SAMENESS. e.g. 111 and 110 have the SAME core elements (11) but a
                        > DIFFERENT expression, being the last bit added, 111 vs 110.
                        >
                        > If I make the elements of the dichotomy those of fight/flight, and so
                        > dealing with emotions, then I get:
                        >
                        > 111 - anger
                        > 110 - sex (love)
                        >
                        > The 11 element is a focus on context REPLACEMENT, be it by erradication
                        > (111) or replication (110).
                        >
                        > If I take the above derived sequence and ROTATE the elements I get a
                        > sequence of:
                        >
                        > 111, 011, 101, 001, 110, 010, 100, 000
                        >
                        > Here we find pairs but now identifying SAMENESS in DIFFERENCE. Thus 100
                        > and 000 share a common element, even though 'different' in that their base
                        > nature, represented by the firt bit in the sequence, is different.
                        >
                        > When we review this from the specialist realm of emotions, so 100 =
                        > surprise and 000 = fear; IOW they share a common element in their
                        > expression where that element ties them together even though they are
                        > 'seperate' (and so we also get 010 rejection sharing elements with 110
                        > love)
                        >
                        > From these REALLY simple dynamics comes a rich realm of representations
                        > prior to any spoken/written word. The advantage with the words is their
                        > universal nature; we can fold up a context 'into' words and unfold it as
                        > we tell a story etc in a very different context.
                        >
                        > Chris.
                        >
                        >
                        > This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      • Geraldine Reinhardt
                        Dear Dr. d, I m not that well versed in Chomskyian linguistics and haven t read much by Jerry Fodor but I do think that heredity plays an important roles in a
                        Message 11 of 13 , Dec 2 9:04 AM
                           
                          Dear Dr. d,
                           
                          I'm not that well versed in Chomskyian linguistics and haven't read much by Jerry Fodor but I do think that heredity plays an important roles in a child's language acquisition.  One important test in determining a person's language ability is by examining his/her father.  If he is educated, well spoken, articulate, and clever of speech, then likely his offspring will follow suit (although there are some well known exceptions).  This is exactly what Chomsky is referring to with his L.A.D. and what Jerry Fodor alludes to when he claims language acquisition is pre-determined.  Others simply call it a talent.
                           I also believe environment contributes to a child's facility with language development.....if visitors at the dinner table speak of academic issues, then the young people present will have a better grasp of that area of expertise.  Likewise with medicine, government or law.
                           
                          Gerry Reinhart-Waller
                          Independent Scholar
                          http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: Dr.d@...
                          Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 7:32 PM
                          Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Paper: How language acquisition builds on cognitive developme

                          GR: "Is it that your analysis of the problem is more avant garde than your predecessors?"
                                  Its just a dream or more likely my incomplete comprehension of Chomsky, et al. For them syntax determines semantics, in my case the reverse is true semantics* --> syntax. * indicates 'proto-semantics' as explained. But notice that in both cases we are dealing with a 'deep' or universal grammar issue, the hallmark of the 'primitivist' or internal, inherited approach as opposed to the external, acquired (environmental) view.    Dr.d'
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 10:31 PM
                          Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Paper: How language acquisition builds on cognitive developme

                           
                          I thank you Dr. d  for your reply.  However, your language is a bit obscure.  I'm not certain what you mean by the inverse relationship of Chomsky, Fodor and other primitivists.  Is it that your analysis of the problem is more avant garde than your predecessors?
                           
                          Gerry Reinhart-Waller
                          Independent Scholar
                          http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk
                           
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: Dr.d@...
                          Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 4:45 PM
                          Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Paper: How language acquisition builds on cognitive developme

                              I am sorry about being so cryptic in my previous note. There is evidence on how newborn animals and humans reflexly respond to environmental sensory cues (multimodal) representing potential threats to their respective species survival. A surgical excision of the amygdala will eliminate this protective response in adults. This suggests this organ as being involved in matching (comparison analysis?) the cue with inherited proto-semantic codelets (primitive 'meanings'). Arguably these inherited meanings guide the subsequent acquisition of language in the newborn as it develops from mimicry, mom's baby talk and facial expressions. As cephalization of functions progresses as a function of neocortical ontogenetic maturation, environmental phonemic input gets structured according to acquired syntactic rules from mom's language, this way proto-semantics precede syntax, the inverse relation that we have been used to accept after Chomsky, Fodor and other 'primitivists'. My position is primitivist also regarding primitive meanings (proto-semantics), but give more importance to environment (semiotics & acquired language) regarding syntax structure. I think I elaborate more in http://home.earthlink.net/~dr.ds/neurophilosophyofconsciousnesssummary/. There are more published articles where this topic is discussed, see Table of contents at: http://www.delasierra-sheffer.net/ID1-Neurophilo-net/index.htm   Btw, I remember being at your w-site before, very original and attractive, almost as much as the owner. :-)
                          Dr.d'
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 3:28 PM
                          Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Paper: How language acquisition builds on cognitive developme

                          I'm afraid I interpret the post you've included below as children being born with a tabula raza and then acquire their language skills depending on their surroundings.  Is this what you are saying?
                          You are correct about importance of environment in determining proficiency in language but you've neglected to concentrate on "talent".  A child born as a son to a world famous pianist will likely have a propensity for the keyboard.
                           
                          Gerry Reinhart-Waller
                          Independent Scholar
                          http://www.home.earthlink.net/~waluk
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: Dr.d@...
                          Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 5:32 AM
                          Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Paper: How language acquisition builds on cognitive developme

                          Seems like the sorting out into categories of perceptual units is part of the bio-CPU we inherit. When these units find their meaning in the beholder (with the participation of 'plo') then subject is ready for a more sophisticated 'concept formation' which requires an inferential analysis in the dominant brain as cephalization of functions increases. Dr.d'
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 4:58 PM
                          Subject: [Mind and Brain] Paper: How language acquisition builds on cognitive developme

                          Language and Conceptual Development series

                          How language acquisition builds on cognitive development

                          Eve V. ClarkE-mail The Corresponding Author



                          Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

                          Available online 11 September 2004.


                          When children acquire a first language, they build on what they know – conceptual information that discriminates and helps create categories for the objects, relations and events they experience. This provides the starting point for language from the age of 12 months on. So children first set up conceptual representations, then add linguistic representations for talking about experience. Do they then discard earlier conceptual representations in favour of linguistic ones, or do they retain them? Recent research on the coping strategies that young children (and adults) rely on when they are unable to draw on language suggest that they retain both types of representations for use as needed.



                          Full Text at Science Direct
                           
                          Posted by
                          Robert Karl Stonjek




                        • chrislofting@ozemail.com.au
                          It has taken me a while to settle after reading the recent email of Geraldine s. The lack of understanding re language acquisition etc is stunning IMHO -
                          Message 12 of 13 , Dec 2 5:47 PM
                            It has taken me a while to 'settle' after reading the recent email of Geraldine's.

                            The 'lack of understanding' re language acquisition etc is stunning IMHO - as is such implications as single-parent (female) families raising children who MUST inevitably end up with limited language ability!

                            The new-born infant is the expression of genetics that is then exposed to the environment for 'refining'. Included in this genetics are information processing skills that categorise at a generic level into WHAT/WHERE distinctions. Also included in most neuron-dependent life forms is a set of qualities deemed 'emotions' that extend the WHAT/WHERE dynamics, particularise them, and so can serve to express one's needs/demands/desires. No spoken/written word required (gets into the realm of body-language etc)

                            What the spoken/written word does is remove dependence on local context to communicate - I can express by needs/demands/desires in words in any context, no need for pointing or handsignals, facial flushes or swishing of one's tail!

                            As such, we all have a sense of wholeness, partness, static relatedness, dynamic relatedness. What these are applied to are determined LOCALLY - such that what is a whole to me may be a part to someone else. What exposure to words means is to learn the differences possible, the many terms, the subtle distinctions, of 'wholes' (expressed in linguistics as 'nouns' etc).

                            Oh, and then, when we do speak, there is the 'traditional' concepts of the 'talkative' female vs the 'quiet' male! ;-) ..... and does the reference to sitting around the dinner table, these days replaced by 'take out' (take away) meals suggest that fast food outlets have contributed to the 'dumbing-down' of the language?

                            Depite attempts to deny the fact, there are innate skills in individuals that will determine their futures regardless of context - and that includes the rate in which they can 'link the dots' and so demonstrate both IQ and EQ. Yes, someone with an average IQ of 100 could come up with relativity theory etc but it would take time and a lot of education to make that achievement; higher IQ means faster linking of the dots (but a lack in EQ can affect the expression of, and exploitation of, the consequence of the linking - as shown in such subtle differences in behaviour re instant gratification vs delayed gratification - the latter reflecting frontal lobe dynamics and so some nurture input). Added to this is the 'borderlands/inland' focus, where exposure to borderland conditions, and so a context of complexity/chaos dynamics, can elicit 'innovative' behaviour when compared to living in a stable environment 'inland'.

                            In formal education systems we are aware of differences in resolution power, in differentiation skills, such that some learn procedures (nurses/paramedics) that elicit stress when not completed - whereas the more educated (doctors) can interrupt a procedure, re-configure it, when circumstances demand. We see here the focus on SAMENESS vs DIFFERENCE.

                            There is no language-skills dependence here - there can be issues of SPEED in thought and DEPTH of thought but than indicates development of mediation skills and so of consciousness - and that is not solely dependent on language skills! ( I know excellent programmers who have 'limited' language skills, but are 'bright' people!)

                            There is no 'tabula rasa' as far as language is concerned, where 'language' covers any form of structured, repeatable, communications. That said, there IS a demand for a 'suitable environment' to bring out the genetics such that some people are just not suited to some contexts, thrive in others.

                            Sitting around a table of academics does not ensure 'soaking' in academic skills!

                            Chris.


                            This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
                          • John M
                            Dr.d, I did not know you are that much involved in our brain! Just one request: please do not take seriously what you wrote about the bio-cpu . It sounds
                            Message 13 of 13 , Dec 2 6:14 PM
                              Dr.d,
                              I did not know you are 'that much' involved in our brain! Just one request: please do not take seriously what you wrote about the "bio-cpu". It sounds like: the Porsche is "2 bicycles and some gadgets to hold them together". I may condone (not easily) if someone calls AI a machine-mind etc., but the inverse simulation to characterise the unfathomable with a gadget is bad for my blood pressure (ha ha).
                              I will be interested in this field when someone comes up with the idea, how ANY brain item (measurement, operation, stimulation) can be translated into content of experience or mental occasion  - topically - even if the code may exceed our braincapacity.
                              Till then I only try to use it, not to explain at available, though insufficient levels. (Whoever that "I" may be).
                               
                              Have a good holyday season
                               
                              John Mikes
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.