It is a sad thing, what people do to make a dollar - how a person's motivation exists to be mostly for money. I express this opinion, because I am sad to be sitting here right now in a job that offers me no pleasure in life but the paycheck that lately, only barely pays the bills.
Physically, I think this job may be worse on me than one that requires rigorous manual labor. My hip is on fire from sitting in front of this computer so much. My ass is getting wider, also. And, looking at a computer cannot be good for my already extremely poor vision.
(That last sentence can be taken to have multiple meanings)
Mentally, this job is not challenging enough. I feel I grow dumber each day. For that reason, I surf the internet sometimes when I can to keep me up-to-date on some scientific discoveries -or I expose myself to new music -or, rarely, I write a blog bitching about my life's situation :) ... :(
Unfortunately, most of the knowledge I aquire on my surfing adventures usually does not become acquired knowledge at all, rather, only fleeting entertainment for my troubled mind.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Friday, September 11, 2009
confinement
Judging by the number and length of the blogs I have actually written during work.... it would seem that my escape efforts are rather effortless.
I should figure out how to take bars off of these windows or gain a bit more creativity in my getaway tactics...
I should figure out how to take bars off of these windows or gain a bit more creativity in my getaway tactics...
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
You talkin'?
QUESTION: Does Pidgin talk express fine distinctions of meaning?
“You savvy who’s ‘at disfella atime i-razorOim grass belong face finish?"
“What?!” would not be an unusual response to the above question; however, some people actually talk this way and can extract meaning from such a seemingly odd arrangement of words. The above sentence is known as “Pidgin talk,” and according to the study guide for Linguistics 101 it is translated as follows: “Do you recognize this man since he had shaved his beard?” Hmmm….
In An Introduction to Language, Fromkin says that Pidgins “with their small vocabularies… are not good at expressing fine distinctions of meaning” (435). Let’s research this statement with an examination of our opening sentence, shall we?
Starting at the beginning with “You savvy” the recipient knows that they are to try to understand something or grasp some idea maybe. So at this point I think I might be savvy. Next, is “who’s.” Okay, so now we are to understand something about someone. Got it. Moving on: “disfella.” That someone is a man. Okay, now comes “atime.” I am becoming less savvy. Does “atime” mean now? I don’t know, but I know that time plays a part in what I am to understand about some man. The next letter combination is “i-razorOim.” I say letter combination because at this point I am not sure if actual words are being spoken. i-razorOim? Oh boy. Well, I see “razor” in there. Let’s put it all together at this point. So far I have now deciphered that I am to understand something about a man at some time with a razor. This could get scary, but we must continue. Next is “grass.” Got that one! “Belong face finish?” completes the sentence, so now I know I am being asked a question. I understand the last three words; however the placement leaves room for decoding. Let’s see how savvy I am at this point. Do I understand something about a man now that a razor had something to do with grass that belonged on his face? Am I finished? Not quite. Now it is time to decode even further. A man might have had to cut actual grass from his face, but more than likely there is a hidden meaning here. Let’s see. A razor cuts. Grass grows. Hair grows on a man’s face and razors shave hair. Woo! So a man shaved his beard or mustache and I am being asked if I know who he is now that he has finished. Savvy? I believe so.
How “savvy” is Pidgin language, though? It sure seems like a lot of work to understand. If a Pidgin talker would have asked me that question, I would have had to frustratingly ask for him or her to repeat the questions several times. Without having the actual sentence spelled out in front of me I would have had a significantly more difficult time understanding what I was being asked. So, the question is “Are Pidgins capable of ‘expressing fine distinctions of meaning’?” They are certainly capable of expressing meaning, and in a colorful way, but I do not believe the language is finely tuned. It is jumbled and confusing. I still cannot make much sense out of “i-razorOim!” It is a creative language with its analogy of grass to hair; some may even say poetic. It is not concise, though. It leaves room for too much interpretation. So my ultimate answer is that Pidgin talk does not “express fine distinctions of meaning.” Although, that mean not does it that isn’t fun it tryin' savvy!
“You savvy who’s ‘at disfella atime i-razorOim grass belong face finish?"
“What?!” would not be an unusual response to the above question; however, some people actually talk this way and can extract meaning from such a seemingly odd arrangement of words. The above sentence is known as “Pidgin talk,” and according to the study guide for Linguistics 101 it is translated as follows: “Do you recognize this man since he had shaved his beard?” Hmmm….
In An Introduction to Language, Fromkin says that Pidgins “with their small vocabularies… are not good at expressing fine distinctions of meaning” (435). Let’s research this statement with an examination of our opening sentence, shall we?
Starting at the beginning with “You savvy” the recipient knows that they are to try to understand something or grasp some idea maybe. So at this point I think I might be savvy. Next, is “who’s.” Okay, so now we are to understand something about someone. Got it. Moving on: “disfella.” That someone is a man. Okay, now comes “atime.” I am becoming less savvy. Does “atime” mean now? I don’t know, but I know that time plays a part in what I am to understand about some man. The next letter combination is “i-razorOim.” I say letter combination because at this point I am not sure if actual words are being spoken. i-razorOim? Oh boy. Well, I see “razor” in there. Let’s put it all together at this point. So far I have now deciphered that I am to understand something about a man at some time with a razor. This could get scary, but we must continue. Next is “grass.” Got that one! “Belong face finish?” completes the sentence, so now I know I am being asked a question. I understand the last three words; however the placement leaves room for decoding. Let’s see how savvy I am at this point. Do I understand something about a man now that a razor had something to do with grass that belonged on his face? Am I finished? Not quite. Now it is time to decode even further. A man might have had to cut actual grass from his face, but more than likely there is a hidden meaning here. Let’s see. A razor cuts. Grass grows. Hair grows on a man’s face and razors shave hair. Woo! So a man shaved his beard or mustache and I am being asked if I know who he is now that he has finished. Savvy? I believe so.
How “savvy” is Pidgin language, though? It sure seems like a lot of work to understand. If a Pidgin talker would have asked me that question, I would have had to frustratingly ask for him or her to repeat the questions several times. Without having the actual sentence spelled out in front of me I would have had a significantly more difficult time understanding what I was being asked. So, the question is “Are Pidgins capable of ‘expressing fine distinctions of meaning’?” They are certainly capable of expressing meaning, and in a colorful way, but I do not believe the language is finely tuned. It is jumbled and confusing. I still cannot make much sense out of “i-razorOim!” It is a creative language with its analogy of grass to hair; some may even say poetic. It is not concise, though. It leaves room for too much interpretation. So my ultimate answer is that Pidgin talk does not “express fine distinctions of meaning.” Although, that mean not does it that isn’t fun it tryin' savvy!
After all the studies executed, it seems that non human primates have powerful cognitive abilities and a capacity to learn rudimentary parts of language, such as vocabulary and noun/verb combinations. However, language, in its entire complexity, has yet to be learned and used by primates other than humans. Will nonhuman primates one day develop language skills? I believe that although seemingly unlikely, according to studies performed so far, the answer to this question is inconclusive. The study of linguistics is a science, and part of what makes a study a science is continuous research and an open mind. Closing the door on a possibility is not very scientific. I believe that just about anything is possible. Noam Chomsky compared proving apes to have language ability to flightless birds existing on an island “waiting for human beings to teach them to fly.” In response to Chomsky’s statement, I would like to note that amino acids have dropped from the sky in meteors and recently Yahoo! News reported the probable existence of a planet with a deep ocean on it. So who knows? Somewhere out there maybe flightless birds do exist awaiting the arrival of humans to teach them how to spread their wings and fly!
Take a Left, No Turn Right
About the time of my middle school years I began hearing about left brain and right brained people. I would hear, “he’s left brained” or “she’s right-brained” given for reasons that some people excel in math or score better marks in English. I never could remember what side of the brain was responsible for what, or really understood exactly what that meant, anyway. Now, I have a slightly better understanding, but the subject is still a little confusing.
Evidently, the brain is divided into two hemispheres: left and right. Each hemisphere is responsible for its own ability to store, process, and output hemisphere-specific information. The right brain is responsible for pattern matching, tasks, face identification, and spatial orientation, whereas the left handles language, rhythm patterns, temporal-order judgments and math (Fromkin 48). Studies suggest that these two sides of the brain work independently, but are connected by an area of the brain known as the corpus callosum. People whose corpus callosum has been damaged or severed are said to be “split-brained.” Nobel Prize laureate Roger Sperry believes that these people have two different spheres of consciousness. His idea is argued by physiology Nobel Prize winner, Sir John Eccles, who suggests that consciousness only occurs in the left hemisphere of the brain. Both ideas are interesting, but neither has been proven or disproven.
I am really not sure with which argument I side. When the corpus callosum is intact it seems as if the whole brain is working together to create consciousness. However, split brained people are conscious, too. Does this mean that both sides of the brain are conscious? They are not conscious of each other if responses differ independently (as they did in monkey studies) according to which side of the brain was being stimulated. So does that mean that Eccles is correct in stating that only one side of the brain is conscious? If so, then the left side of the brain would be conscious of the right, but the right would not be aware of the left. This would also mean that a person whose left brain was severely damaged would be unconscious, but a severely right brain damaged person would still be conscious. Is this true? Or would a severely right brained person just not be able to communicate effectively his degree of consciousness? And if each side does possess consciousness, is there a difference in degree of consciousness existing in either side?
To be conscious is to be aware. To exist within one’s own mind and therefore, exist in the external world. But what if one exists only in his mind, in which he resides and functions in a world apart from the majority's perception of worldly existence? In which half of the brain would be this consciousness? It seems as if this topic only produces more questions, to which researchers will continue pursuing answers. Quite a puzzling phenomenon the brain exhibits, and even more puzzling is that which it may not.
Evidently, the brain is divided into two hemispheres: left and right. Each hemisphere is responsible for its own ability to store, process, and output hemisphere-specific information. The right brain is responsible for pattern matching, tasks, face identification, and spatial orientation, whereas the left handles language, rhythm patterns, temporal-order judgments and math (Fromkin 48). Studies suggest that these two sides of the brain work independently, but are connected by an area of the brain known as the corpus callosum. People whose corpus callosum has been damaged or severed are said to be “split-brained.” Nobel Prize laureate Roger Sperry believes that these people have two different spheres of consciousness. His idea is argued by physiology Nobel Prize winner, Sir John Eccles, who suggests that consciousness only occurs in the left hemisphere of the brain. Both ideas are interesting, but neither has been proven or disproven.
I am really not sure with which argument I side. When the corpus callosum is intact it seems as if the whole brain is working together to create consciousness. However, split brained people are conscious, too. Does this mean that both sides of the brain are conscious? They are not conscious of each other if responses differ independently (as they did in monkey studies) according to which side of the brain was being stimulated. So does that mean that Eccles is correct in stating that only one side of the brain is conscious? If so, then the left side of the brain would be conscious of the right, but the right would not be aware of the left. This would also mean that a person whose left brain was severely damaged would be unconscious, but a severely right brain damaged person would still be conscious. Is this true? Or would a severely right brained person just not be able to communicate effectively his degree of consciousness? And if each side does possess consciousness, is there a difference in degree of consciousness existing in either side?
To be conscious is to be aware. To exist within one’s own mind and therefore, exist in the external world. But what if one exists only in his mind, in which he resides and functions in a world apart from the majority's perception of worldly existence? In which half of the brain would be this consciousness? It seems as if this topic only produces more questions, to which researchers will continue pursuing answers. Quite a puzzling phenomenon the brain exhibits, and even more puzzling is that which it may not.
Choo- Choo
click... click... click...
Another exciting day in the good ole U S of A! Riding that Great American Gravy train! I am not sure, however, if this gravy is a bit too viscous, since I seem to be stuck in it, or too runny, since I feel more than a bit diluted; either way, this gravy is not the consistency it should be. And I need more pepper!!
Another exciting day in the good ole U S of A! Riding that Great American Gravy train! I am not sure, however, if this gravy is a bit too viscous, since I seem to be stuck in it, or too runny, since I feel more than a bit diluted; either way, this gravy is not the consistency it should be. And I need more pepper!!
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
MY Blog (an incomplete thought)
Formulating fractals in my mind would be a much better utilization of my time. “MY” time, I say, as if “time” actually belongs to me. Humans have such possessive qualities. It seems we have to own everything - from land to other humans to intangible ideas such as time.
Mine! Mine! Mine! Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!
Sickening, really. Or is it?
Possessiveness is just another evolutionary trait of our species – and other species, too -for the idea of ownership invokes emotional responses that contribute to survival-oriented actions and reactions (e.g. protecting the herd, competing for mates, etc).
Mine! Mine! Mine! Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!
Sickening, really. Or is it?
Possessiveness is just another evolutionary trait of our species – and other species, too -for the idea of ownership invokes emotional responses that contribute to survival-oriented actions and reactions (e.g. protecting the herd, competing for mates, etc).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
