User talk:SupremeAssassin

Archive 1

Language

As I suggested, taking this to a talk page, rather than keep on cluttering an unrelated blog page.

The way we learn to recognize what people around us say, what our family members say is not genetics, but our surroundings. A newborn doesn't understand words; it imprints on the people who take care of it, who smell and sound familiar. Merely sound; there is no understanding of language, not at that phase, nor for a while afterwards far as we are currently able to tell.

This familiarity is born during the pregnancy; all the sounds around the fetus filter in through all the layers, with the general rhythm of the language spoken amongst them. The cadence of words, even if the words themselves are indistinguishable. This helps the child to learn the language later on, but it has nothing to do with genetics beyond being born to specific parents, specific environment. Specific culture.

As it is, that familiarity is feeble enough for an early adoption to nullify its effects.

Take a baby away from its 'family', the language they speak, and that child will grow up not understanding the language. Consider the 'feral children' throughout human history, examples of which exist even in relatively modern times.

Sadelyrate (siniath) 21:40, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

All the same, there are genetics involved, otherwise, our ability to learn a language is useless... and evolutionarily speaking, it makes sense, even from a memory point of view.  Even if that child was taken away from its brith parents, and the language... that child has a greater chance of learning their native tongue, than others who are not native to the ethnicity.  So as such, genetic memory is involved.  Supreme Master Assassin^{O Mentoras} 22:15, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Children adopted away from their birth culture as babies have no definable advantage to learn their birth parents' language over their peers within the culture that raised them. Nothing within our current knowledge points to that.

Question: how would the ability to learn languages be rendered useless by separating it from genes? Even certain animals can be taught words, language, and to use them in appropriate situations, after all. Same as any human. Sadelyrate (siniath) 22:58, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

There is a very significant advantage for that child to learn his or her native language, at an alarmingly quicker rate than a child not belonging in that creed.  It therefore establishes genetic memory, it codes for the development of "I can learn this language a lot more quicker than someone else can." Why else, when we do learn to speak, we are able to understand a foreign tongue? There is genetic memory involved.  Our parents don't sit us down, and tell us what each word means, what the verbs are, what the nouns are, etc, we just know because we recognize the language as part of our DNA.  This is also why, many people raised in North America, can all speak English but also a second language.  

And the answer to that question can be found in our ability to learn... that is part of genetics, if genetics didn't code for the ability to learn, much less, to easily identify our native tongue... we'd be stuck with gutteral sounds.  Animals don't have a very advanced intelligence, you can't really teach them to speak English for instance, their vocal cords aren't that evolved yet.  Supreme Master Assassin^{O Mentoras} 00:19, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

What do you base that opinion on? That baby adoptees have easier time in learning their birth parents' language?

And why would genes enable us to learn a foreign language? A language we're not 'related' to?

Parents have delegated that task ("sit us down, and tell what each word means") to teachers; other than that, they don't need to. A child is surrounded by sounds (and later, words) since the hearing develops during the second trimester of pregnancy, but especially during its formative years; this inundation since infanthood 'teaches' the child all the basics, and then some, about the language its caretakers use, and thus the language the child 'needs' to survive. Once again, the process of learning one's primary language has nothing to do with genes.

If it did, wouldn't the reverse be true? Wouldn't genes make it hard to learn languages other than the primary one? And yet, that is patently not true.

Ability to learn is thanks to evolution; it's an adaptive feature. Ability to learn, to adapt, is what has enabled species to better survive. That's the way true evolution works: refine the species, and deal with the occasional atavism as fit. But genes do not explain culture, part of which language is; genes 'merely' provide the fertile soil for the culture to flourish in.

How do you get that without genes, we'd be left with guttural sounds?

I'm sorry, but... animals don't have a very advanced intelligence? No, they may not have culture as humans may define the term. But there are animals that do use tools, communicate with each other, solve problems, express emotions and understanding of them, and work together. All signs of intelligence, even among humans. Once we step outside of human definitions, intelligence among animals becomes even more apparent: different doesn't mean infernal. What's more, there are animals with vocal cords who can be taught human languages, on top of their own. To the extent of a bird being able to string together words on its own to form understandable sentences. And that's not even taking into account written language. If we do, the amount of animals able to grasp such concepts and their meaning rockets. Sadelyrate (siniath) 07:10, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

@Supreme - As a student of genetics and biodiversity, I'm going do my part and drop by to say language has nothing to do with genotypes. It's a behavioral adaptation, not physiological or anatomical in the slightest. Human vocal cords have a wide range, we created a language out of it. Other animals have varying vocal ranges, they have their own means of communication, their own "language" which is simply something we usually can't comprehend. Kind of arrogant to believe language is something only humans are capable of to be honest. And just to give you a classic example of how your theory on having an advantage on the native tongue is wrong, I'm far better at English than at my native tongue, even though everyone in my family prefers it over English. ~ GI Auditore ^{Comms Channel} 08:34, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Then I'm arguing my case for naught, I'm trying to say that everything we learn, and have learned... by the time we are born.. has to do with genetic memory.  I am trying to strengthen the possibility that genetic memory is in fact possible.  And no, human beings are far more intelligent than any primitive being, there might be some animals with exceptional problem solving skills, but after all, you can't teach a dog to write or type on the keyboard.  Supreme Master Assassin^{O Mentoras} 18:27, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Genetic memory exists, without a doubt. Humans tend to think it's better to climb up, as high as you can. Humans don't eat the bright things in nature. Humans fear the howl, the slither, the dark. The genetic memory humans possess is the legacy of hominids, something shared with the apes. But something as transient as a language... not something that could leave a mark in one's DNA. That's like thinking a chalk painting left out in the last days of summer will be there the next spring.

Human beings are far more intelligent than any primitive being? Let's flip that around. Humans see only a fraction of the world, humans have one of the lousiest noses around, and humans can't even live together without destroying their surroundings. How stupid must humans seem to animals...

Almost daily, we are finding out how wonderfully different and glorious animals are. How many variations there exist of a thing called 'culture'. The number of species that are capable of problem solving, tool using, emoting is far from minority, far from exception. The key to all this is to let go of the anthropocentric definitions and views. Sadelyrate (siniath) 20:06, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to cunning and intellect, we are the shepards of our existence and the architects of our foundations, humans are by no means... the perfect species nor the most biologically efficient race out there, there are animals with far better senses and instincts, than a human being.  Animals that far stronger, faster and perhaps... animals that live for much longer, but when it comes to intelligence... humans outclass every animal on this planet.  I for one believe, humans are weak and feeble minded, introducing genetic engineering might fix this issue... Supreme Master Assassin^{O Mentoras} 20:46, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

If one uses human standards, then yes. Sadelyrate (siniath) 21:02, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

More ideas...

Inspired by the AC3 DLC. The Templar that murders Zelda can keep Link away from him like Washington could with Connor--using a Piece of Eden. So, Link needs to learn how to catch him unawares. Thus, he needs Assassin training from Ezio in Rome to conquer this Templar. I could also have this templar with the PoE being establishing a Templar base in Hyrule.

First of all, don't forget to sign your posts.  

That sounds interesting, though I don't know how he'll be able to recruit to Hyruleans to his cause.  Any ideas? Other than the Piece of Eden. Supreme Master Assassin^{O Mentoras} 18:29, April 29, 2013 (UTC)