Entry 268 — More Thoughts on Linguistics, Sputterfully
Gosh, kids, I’m finding out that language-Processing is pretty durned complicated. One thing that makes it so is its having to do with responding in kind to its input, something that doesn’t happen elsewhere in the brain, that I can think of right now, so now strikes me as particularly interesting. I had to take a break from thinking about it to clear my synapses. I think they’re clear now, but I still feel over-matched by my opponent. I’m not conceding the game, though.
First, another coinage: Ultilinguiceptuality. That’s where all the “word-flows” occurring in the Ultilinguiceptual Awareness, or final language-processing area in the brain, end up. I propose, very tentatively, that four word-flows can arise in the cerebrum, the heard word-flow, the read word-flow, the spoken word-flow and the mathematical word-flow.
Some of what I’m now saying may contradict previous statements of mine. But this is definitely a sketch-in-progress.
The heard word-flow starts in the auditory pre-awareness in which a syllable-identifier sensitive to sounds representing language. When the syllable-identifiers identifies an incoming datum as a syllable (which includes what I call “nulletters”–but may call “nullybles”–for pauses between syllables that are those part of the word-flow), it forms a verbiceptual percept of the datum. This percept it relays to a second linguistic-identificatioon mechanism which determines whether the percept is rhythmiceptual and metriceptual, If either, a rhythmiceptual or metriceptual percept will be fashioned, or both, and sent with the verbiceptual perceptto the verbiceptual subawareness in the linguiceptual subawareness of the Reducticeptual Awareness. The activation of the m-cells in the verbiceptual sub-awareness will be experienced as the heard word-flow.
The pre-visual awareness cointains a texteme-identifier that separates signals from stimuli that are letters and other textual data from visual data and constructs lexiceptual percepts from them which are sent to the pre-lexiceptual subawareness where a grammar identifier mechanism will tag strings of letters nouns, verbs, prepostitions and other parts of speech. At the same time the mechanism will determine the inflection to be given verbs and give them tags indicating what tense they are. The tags will actually be accompanying percepts. The linguiceptual percepts and their “tags” will end in the lexiceptual sub-awareness of the linguiceptual subawareness of the Reducticeptual Awareness, froming the the read word-flow.
When a person speaks, sensors in the neck pass on data to the dicticeptual sub-awareness where they activate m-cells having to do with the sounds the vocal cords have just made. The subject will experience the spoken word-flow. All word-flows active at a given time will join in the ultilinguistic subawareness to form the total word-flow. Here they will interact with input from most of the awarenesses in the Protoceptual Awareness to permit words to connect with what they symbolically represent.
Warning, what I’ve just written is a blur. Consider it an extreme first draft intended to show the complexities involved with trying to figure out how the brain processes language. It makes no sense. But it is now in a form I hope I can think about effectively enough to make a better clutter–to think about until I make a still better one, and so on, until I have something that makes sense. To me, if to no one else. I’ve succeeded in doing that before, so maybe I can again, although this may be the most complicated problem I’ve yet dealt with.
Later note: I forgot about the mathematical word-flow. I posit an identifier that sorts mathematical textemes from non-mathematical textemes, and sends them to a purely mathematical awareness outside the linguiceptual awareness, but sends all the mathematical textemes along with non-mathematical textemes to the linguiceptual wareness hwere they participate as words–that is, amathematically.
Also note that I am confusing stimuli with results of stimuli, and probably with transmitted energy, and neuro-transmitters. My next task, it would seem, will be getting that straightened out–because it’s a straight-forward job which should not be difficult, although it may take a while.
http://tinyurl.com/37me2ky
Here’s what the verosopath linked to in the comment above:
> > > > >/2010/10/12/entry-252/
> > > > > I have no interest in discussing this poem.
> > > > >http://groups.google.co.uk/group/ardenmanagers/msg/a39eb1eb4aa72274
> > > > > MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> > > >/2010/10/17/entry-257/
> > > > Entry 256 — For the Diary I’m No Longer Keeping
> > > > Entry 257 — Me and My Day-Dreaming.
> > > > Well, Bob, you’re consistent, at least…..
> > > > Tell us a little bit about yourself, then…..
> > > > “I managed to write the following today. It’s the beginning of the
> > > > book I plan that has commercial possibilities, I’m pretty sure, but
> > > > which I don’t want to say anything about, mainly so as not to
> > > > sidetrack myself into discussing it, rather than writing it, but also
> > > > because it’s based on a simple idea that almost anyone could run with,
> > > > although not half as well as I.”
> > > > Clearly not, Bob, you’re obvioiusly the greatest writer the world has
> > > > ever known.
> > > > “But nevertheless or therefore much more likely to make money from
> > > > it.”
> > > > …than you are? Surely not, o fount of all knowledge.
> > > > “Anyway, here’s my beginning”
> > > > Goody.:
> > > > “I don’t know when day-dreaming became important for me. The
> > > > first ones I can recall occurred when we were living in the Hyde
> > > > House in Harbor View, South Norwalk, Connecticut, so I’d’ve been
> > > > around seven. I’d gotten a gift subscription to Walt Disney Comics
> > > > two or three years before when we were still living at Wilson Point.”
> > > > So you’re asserting that this happened /before/ Wilson Point.
> > > > Perhaps you should have written: “I’d gotten a gift subscription to
> > > > Walt Disney Comics, two or three years before, when we were still
> > > > living at Wilson Point.”.
> > > > Still, you’re obviously correct, o greatest writer the world has ever
> > > > known. Punctuation is accorded altogether too much importance.
> > > > Onward…..
> > > > “Featuring Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse–and the wonder of their
> > > > arrival in the mail!”
> > > > So…the comics *featured* the wonder of their arriving in the mail,
> > > > eh? Was that a long-running storyline, or just a one-off?
> > > > “Comic books were as important to me until my
> > > > mid-teens as day-dreaming, perhaps even more because they formed
> > > > the earliest basis for what I dreamed of, as far as I can recall.”
> > > > Clumsy to the point of unintelligibility. Try this:
> > > > “Until my mid-teens, comic books were at least as important to me as
> > > > my day-dreaming was–indeed, perhaps even more important because–I
> > > > can recall no earlier conscious basis for the stuff of which my dreams
> > > > were made.”.
> > > > You’re the world’s leading expert, however….
> > > > “I suspect my very first day dreams were formless, in need of some
> > > > narrative structure, the kind supplied so brilliantly by Walt Disney
> > > > Comics and the later comics I devoured about Superman, Batman
> > > > and Robin, the Black Hawks and many others,”
> > > > So, you’re asserting that when you were about (presumably you mean
> > > > “around”) Superman, Batman and Robin, the Black Hawks and many others,
> > > > you devoured later comics. Did you add salt?
> > > > Still, you know best, o greatest writer the world has ever known.
> > > > This drivel continues on and on, but really it’s too much like hard
> > > > work.
> > > > You draw far too much attention to yourself, Mr. Grumderhill……
> > >/2010/10/22/entry-261/
> > > Magnipetry:
> > > “The sneer, “he calls himself a poet,” for someone who writes bad
> > > poetry, “could be corrected to “he thinks he write magnipetry.”
> > > Indeed, I hereby recall “magnipoet.”.”
> > > Surely this correction is wrong, Bob. It should read: “he think he
> > > write magnipetry”. Making mistakes like that, you just look silly.
> > More extraordinary gibberish from POETICKS. I refer not to the
> > grammatical mauling to which the language is here subjected (with
> > respect to this blog, that’s a given), but rather to the
> > etymologically-challenged epistemological catastrophe:
> >/2010/10/25/entry-264/
> Once again, Grumman ignores the facts:
> “Their contempt is never accompanied by any argument about why a given
> coinage should be junked,”
> /2010/10/26/entry-265/
> Well, Bob…you’re not often right, but you’re /wrong again/….
> Repeatedly, I have argued that unless you can justify your ridiculous
> inventions with detailed etymologies, they are essentially worthless–
> they’ll never be widely adopted.
> Give us etymologies, or stop creating these otherwise meaningless and
> idiotic lexicographical tangents.
> Put up, or shut up.
Latest:
/2010/10/29/entry-268/
“Entry 268 — More Thoughts on Linguistics, Sputterfully
Gosh, kids, I’m finding out that language-Processing is pretty durned
complicated. One thing that makes it so is its having to do with
responding in kind to its input, something that doesn’t happen
elsewhere in the brain, that I can think of right now, so now strikes
me as particularly interesting. I had to take a break from thinking
about it to clear my synapses. I think they’re clear now, but I still
feel over-matched by my opponent. I’m not conceding the game, though.
First, another coinage: Ultilinguiceptuality. That’s where all the
“word-flows” occurring in the Ultilinguiceptual Awareness, or final
language-processing area in the brain, end up. I propose, very
tentatively, that four word-flows can arise in the cerebrum, the heard
word-flow, the read word-flow, the spoken word-flow and the
mathematical word-flow.
Some of what I’m now saying may contradict previous statements of
mine. But this is definitely a sketch-in-progress.”
That being so…why the fuck do you bring it to the attention of us,
the public?
THE PUBLIC HAS THE OPTION OF NOT READING IT.
Interestingly, you had no comeback to my pointing out, in the post to
which the link below is directed, that there is ZERO EVIDENCE in
support of your assertion, about yourself, that:
“The actual truth of the matter is that I believe I MAY be the most
important theoretical psychologist ever.”
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/m...
It was good to see you concede that point. One suspects that it may be
possible that all of this research which you’re conducting is
COMPLETELY WORTHLESS, like nearly everything you do in public view.
Here’s a few questions for you, Bob:
How many of those who /genuinely/ are regarded as leading theoretical
psychologists work in the way that you do? How do you rate their work?
How does your work compare with theirs? Have you ever had a paper
published in an appropriate academic or peer-reviewed journal? Have
you ever presented a paper at a conference, or prestigious
institution? Is there /anything/ on your resumé that mitigates your
looking increasingly like a self-obsessed and deluded idiot?
Are your synapses clear?
******
Note the absence of a single rational critique of what I say in Entry 268, although–as I comment in my entry–the entry is extremely confused–a sketch-in-progress, written and posted for my own sake, as a few of my posts are, with apologies, explicit or implicit always to my poor few readers. The blog is my workshop. I keep it open because some people may find what I do in it, as culturateur or crank, of interest.
I’ve been continuing to read what the verosopath says about me because of its entertainment value and because I consider him an interesting specimen of rigidnikry. But I’m beginning to understand that even I, thick-skinned as I am–can not take continual insane, abusive denigration without feeling, uh, a little unhappy about it. So I guess I’ll stop reading his crap. I won’t block his comments here, though. I’m too much of an advocate of freedom of expression for that. Which reminds me, I think one reason for his insane enmity goes back a long way to my opposing a call of his for censorship at HLAS. I went on after the debate on that got out of hand to label him the fascist that he is (here even trying to run my blog). So, more evidence that, as a rigidnik, he can’t stand anti-authoritarians like me.
–Bob
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/msg/a2c98454e2fede47