arakura

Upper back, feet, face, eyes... belly area. It also depends on the situation or person maybe... u.u Will add more soon (examples!)

Reading Katahane... not going so well

I've been talking a big break from LLSIF to help things seem less of a grind. Hopefully be back sometime, but I'm still following the thread for great fan art!

"Slaves to our beliefs" Wat?

^ it just takes the thrill out of things... probably. I dont spend my nights contemplating this issue very much, and it just feels natural to say that it's cruel... because that's the way I feel about it instinctively. And I've been considering the concept of randomness. What is truly random in the physical world? Is probability something we just came up with to fill in the gaps of our understanding of the laws of physics or is there some deeper mechanism which actually functions based on randomness or probability? The answer to this question will likely also answer Life's question about a predetermined universe. I talk a lot for how little I say I like to think about this, so please forgive me T.T

how sneaky 0.0

*reading intro* *reading intro* *... hasnt read a vn yet* *gasp* *opportunity spotted, engage power thrusters to response sector* READ TSUKIHIME! oh and welcome welcome!!! I hope you enjoy it here a fourth as much as you'll enjoy Tsukihime. What an opportunity this is! Sadly, many others have put their finest foots (feet?) forth with suggestions of their own! A field of pretty flower this is, isnt it? Anyway, make sure to be nice and have fun and talk to strangers cause they're pretty nice round these parts

What Life says is a bad answer. Mostly because it makes me feel bad . For my part I will believe that there is a much deeper, larger set of 'data' (such a cruel word) leading to each and every one of my millions of actions every day. Things like my emotions state, my memories, these things are so varied and minute and build upon each other second in and second out that it's not only tragic and sad to take the "stimuli, effect" point of view, it's downright useless. Living things are more complex than we can ever understand. Memories and emotions are too varied and detailed, with histories in each body, to take into account as 'data'. The way you answer the question is as if there was an infinity out there by which anything we are saying or feeling could be combined with the molecular build of our bodies and the specific memories that create our mentality that lead us to certain actions. But that's all really confusing and silly. Free will is doing what you want to, and it comes naturally to every one of us. It's just that people tend to react similarly to similar situations. Similarity is all there is. (we could get into an argument over what a choice is and what's just 'autopilot' but I really dont want to get too technical, because that's the whole problem with this question. Similarity is key, and if you feel held down and locked in place by that, go jump out of a plane with a parachute and hopefully while you're falling you can forget that you might not have had a choice anyway, because it's a cruel and heartless suggestion.)

Nah man, if you agree that at least some is innate, then we're all good. Was a good run, though. I was seriously surprised by how much you put into it. And yea, the point about babies hearing more than what we say to them is true, but I would still say they can speak more than what we would expect from them, grammatically speaking. And about the pidgins, they are easy to learn for adults because they are basically just words with no real structure of grammar. And yea, I'm not sure if "grammar" is the most fulfilling or even the most pertinent response to the question, but it's an interesting argument to have. Thank you for your time

I'd agree this is getting kind of off-topic (and I never much cared for the question anyway xD), but you are putting the word 'language' in my mouth. I'm saying grammar. You're saying language for me. Grammar is something that makes a human a human. And no one has offered even an attempt to explain my first example with the agreement rule. And madvanced clearly hasnt seen animal babies. Humans just happen to be K-strategists and thus put a lot of effort into raising few babies over long periods of time. I dont know where this ridiculous notion that babies of other species can defend themselves, but baby deer (you know, the ones that can barely/cant walk when they are very young) would like to say otherwise. Oh, and pretty much every other type of baby. And studies have shown that the complexity of sentences 3-year-olds can form much exceeds the language used to speak to them. Furthermore, the idea that humans dont have the instincts that animals do is kind of ridiculous. We just happen to grow up in a society that tries its hardest to destroy them. First of all, did not neglect this question (like everyone with the agreement rule, seriously, let's just alllll ignore it and keep talking anyway). and stop saying stuff like "supposed to be taught language and grammar rules". It's not semantics when you blatantly suggest that I'm saying they learn grammar rules. My whole point is that they arent. Seriously how is that an unimportant detail. As for your question at the end, what about puberty? Some innate mechanisms obviously have certain ages where they begin functioning and end functioning. What if 3 years old is when grammar puberty happens, or something. And of course they learn better at a younger age. I dont think adults have a problem learning the vocabulary in a new language, it's just weird to put it together.

This was me until I actually watched some mecha. I'm sorry, I was a fool. Please forgive me T.T Have yet to watch Gundam and Evangelion though (but I seriously plan on doing it sometimes/soon!). I haven't really considered VOTOMS but I'll look into it, as atonement for my sins (and to see more awesome robots)

It's like 3 am here, so I'll probably give better response in the morrow, but a few things I'd like to say: I'll give you that some grammar is hard to not instill in children while communicating with them, as you pointed out here. But what I will go on to say is that this doesnt prove anything either way. The more complex question of how the children understand the agreement rule (as well as other complex grammar) still stands. They learn it without being explicitly taught. Or even feasibly picking it up as they go. So it seems natural to assume that it's something built into them to understand. Also, cases in which mothers do not talk to their children have been recorded, and no speech impediments were noted in these cases in which children had a dramatically reduced exposure to speech. I think, I'll have to double check to make sure that wasnt a claim of his and that he actually has some evidence on that point. Pidgins are langauges that consist purely of vocabulary and irregular grammar use. They are used when two populations of adults come into contact with each other and have to find a way to communicate. I think I should explicitly say that this whole "grammar is inherent" idea really applies itself to three year olds when learning. You wont find a teenager easily picking up the agreement rule (or analogous grammar structure) for a new language (and it's even more interesting in that three-year-olds have horrible deduction skills, so they would seem to be the worst at i). That is why pidgins exist. Adults cannot just instill grammar into their new languages (pidgins). But when children grow up hearing pidgins they instill the grammar themselves and creolize it. And he does give some examples of people who have been taught nothing but vocabulary and inherently can use proper grammar: the deaf family in which the parents used irregular and infrequent grammar, while the child learned to use grammar on his own. And also the examples of creolizations are situations in which children are faced with an environment consisting only of vocabulary and then adding the grammar themselves, without any teaching or any intervention. He cites a few examples if you want me to find the pages. I'll edit this tomorrow when I'm less blaah, but this is a good convo imo. And yes, you are right about developments over time leading to the denunciation of previous beliefs. I'm just saying that what he argued in 1984 was obviously less recent and thus he must have changed his mind. It's also feasible that new data has since come out which disproves some of what either or both of us has stated, but the wikipedia page has led me to believe this isnt the truth.

the Clearasil is the key factor, make sure you dont forget it! That's so cute (?) though xD

I'll give you that some of this is true, but you nitpick a lot of details unfairly, such as the word 'faculty'. regardless of the fact that your dictionary said it meant "innate or acquired" he explicitly stated in one of the pages that I referenced that he believed it was innate. You're trying to take down his argument because he used a word that *can* mean something he obviously didnt intend it to mean? I dont see the logic and you just seem to be nitpicking. This dates ten years before the work that I'm citing. I hope you believe me when I say that I don't believe everything I did ten years ago. Things change, and unless you can find a more recent work where he says the opposite of what he's saying in 1994, then it shouldn't matter that two writings of his ten years apart are significantly counter to each other. That's how learning works. This one I'm less sure of countering, but it seems to me that those arent the key details to his idea about grammar being instinctual. Those forms arent inherent to anything, they are just anomalies, right? Why would it matter if they were irregular or not? I'm not saying the words in a language dont source from society itself, I'm saying that a lot of the grammar doesnt. Those are words, not grammar structures. Again, not too confident on this one, would love to hear what you have to say about this. Inherent traits evolve all the time, just like the hands or wings of bats. This is exactly his point. Also dont know much about this, but it doesnt seem to counter or affirm either of our points too much... get over it. your definition says "innate OR acquired". He chose one and disregarded the other very explicitly. It bothers me that you bring it up like it's some big crime. Words need to be taught, not language. If you did actually read those pages, then I would like to hear how you explain his proposition in other ways? How else would a child understand exactly the proper terms for that piece of grammar. Billions of children dont "learn out of luck/(convienience?)/whatever". It's not just "whatever", it's something. You call BS but you have no clue what else it could be and dont even put forth a counterexplanation for his statements, as far as I can tell. Also, you're way older than the age of three when he says that this grammar explosion occurs. maybe if you were three and lived in japan you could instinctively learn it. Oh wait, that's what millions upon millions of Japanese children do. Why does he need to shower you in examples if you wont even respond to one of them properly? whole other can of worms, but we can go there i guess... I'm actually interested in this. I've not read enough to know all of his beliefs in this matter, so I'll let you have this one I guess. I have no idea if great apes can learn language or not, but as far I know, they dont naturally do so. Also, have there been studies of whether or not this ape sign language is a pidgin or an actual language with grammar rules? If you can confirm that they have grammar, then I'll give it to you. I'm not dead set on following everything Pinker says. I'd say that this is blatantly wrong. You never stop to separate vocabulary from grammar. I've read of several examples where non-grammatical pidgins created by older populations are transformed into grammatical languages in one generation of children. They arent taught grammar rules, they have their own that are brought into the language. I'm NOT trying to say they naturally know words. Neither of us believe that. But I am saying that they naturally are aware of some sense of grammar, such that they can add it to a language that has none without any external influence. More than that, there are examples of deaf families where the parents have no normal grammar rules due to learning sign language late in life. In these cases, the child naturally learns to exhibit reliable forms of grammar on their own. He gives examples of each of these events that I mentioned. Umm, certainly some points (like the rats) sound like they make sense, but I'd need to read more than a wikipedia summary to know anything reasonably arguable. I do appreciate the food for thought, though, because I'm not try to argue a point just to argue it. What matters is what actually exists, and if it's not Pinker's explanation, then it's not and he was wrong. It's just that I dont believe you've done a good job deconstructing his beliefs. You neglected to respond to any of the specific situations that he brought up. And as a final thought, I know I didnt respond to your comment on the feral child without language. What I would say is that the child new no words and because of that had nothing to put his innate grammar to use with. In the presence of other humans, people will learn words in order to communicate. Words are most definitely a product of society. Deaf individuals who have no contact with anyone who wishes to speak to them using sign language dont develop a language either (there's no need for the words, and thus the grammar is left untouched, or so it seems to me). I think that makes sense (at least it does to me). Sorry if this came off as aggressive. I know we're both just trying to bring out the truth and that it's a simple matter of believing different interpretations, so no hard feelings hopefully.

http://puu.sh/aZpsK/2aa32b245b.jpg http://puu.sh/aZpth/fc124cffe5.jpg http://puu.sh/aZptW/27f9e97bcf.jpg http://puu.sh/aZptP/7d35c3df12.jpg (sorry I couldn't embed them, they were blowing up really huge for some reason. If you're intrested in the topic, you shouldn't have the hardest time clicking on the links though. The third picture just adds the few lines at the bottom of the page to the 2nd picture.) These are words from Steven Pinker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker) in his 1994 book, "The Language Instinct" and I find little way to combat them. Not captured on camera are the many references to pidgins created over years by adults that are suddenly and predictably creolized in one generation by children around the world (the children add the grammar all by themselves, living in a community where only a raw pidgin is spoken), the aphasics who are perfectly intelligent, and the mentally handicapped who are perfectly well spoken. There's a few more examples, but they are pretty lengthy so I'll leave it here. I'm interested in what you have to say. Do you think he is wrong?

I could, and might answer this question more completely when I'm not on my phone, but I would posit that the essence of human grammar is built into our dna as a part of being a human, much like our human hands and legs also are naturally and definitively human in shape. This grammar is the reason our words (lots of animals make sounds that mean certain things) ascend a new level of ability and take us to an incalculably vast ability to say whatever it is we want to say. There are other things, and I would also agree that the biological arguments are probably the most valid, but also probably not what the philosophers in here were looking to find. I would also say that this grammar argument also falls under the purview of a biological argument, because it's something built into us as any other thing is. And finally, I'd like to say that if you aren't happy accepting the strict and hard biological definitions, you'll probably never get an actual answer, because there are too many nuances to the more philosophical takes on this question. All of these definitions generally sprout from one our two things: we're smart, and we are born from humans in the human shape. But not all humans are smart.

hmm, enjoyable characters of the day... probably not my favourites, but I'll spice it up a little xD and ummmmmm...... ummm....

Wow, good idea for a thread!

That was the first song I spent serious time practicing xD. I used to fall it every time on expert, but now I can beat it with like five to ten goods. To bad they took it away for now, it's such a good sounding song

enjoy

remember, people, always get a tattoo on your forehead which states your blood type. For safety purposes. ^^ I once watched an anime about blood types... it was short and weird and I can't say much more. Also, I thought O was rarer, but I guess I was just thinking O-. The more you know...

Fool, hows I supposed ta adds you, whens I have no skype name.

I wish I could become an idol like you guys. So cool and spicy

I think I'm really interested in this, but sadly I've only read like four popular vns to completion, so it seems like I wouldn't win. Still could be really fun. Also interested in how teams work.