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)

You don't mean to imply that a dog is smarter than me? Supreme Master Assassin^{O Mentoras} 21:05, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that if one sets the standards to favour humans, of course humans are going to come up on top. "If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it's stupid," as Einstein put it. Sadelyrate (siniath) 21:20, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

It's physiologically impossible for a fish to climb a tree, much less, to come out of water and thrive on land.  Supreme Master Assassin^{O Mentoras} 21:31, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

Miss the point there much? Sadelyrate (siniath) 23:25, April 29, 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm strengthening the point, animals aren't meant to do the things humans can do. Supreme Master Assassin^{O Mentoras} 00:26, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

And yet, you're okay with deeming their intelligence infernal, using human standards? Sadelyrate (siniath) 04:35, April 30, 2013 (UTC) 

There's no other way to measure their intelligence, there hasn't been an established "animal" method.  There's only a human method, and it'll have to do.  Supreme Master Assassin^{O Mentoras} 05:57, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Using human standards, one should only consider humans, and even within that sample, there are multiple variables. The moment one begins to consider something other than humans, one tosses out the human standards and builds up new ones, based on the object of observation. For intelligence, there are other methods. If only because 'intelligence' is an abstract, the definition of which fluctuates, from study to study, person to person. When one is faced with "there is no other way"... a new way is made.

No matter what standards, what 'methods' are in use, though, deeming something infernal because it's different... nothing good lies down that road. Sadelyrate (siniath) 08:49, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Ahem! What a nice discussion. Too bad we are confined to typing. I would love to debate with you in actual conversation. Now I want to point out a few things. Firstly, language. Language is simply us using our well-developed vocals chords to use sounds in order to make different words and use those words in sentences. You may notice however that certain ancient languages have many words in common despite originating from different continents. The first thing you may think was that foreigners who arrived in a certain country, used words to describe things that the natives had not named, hence the natives copy it and convert it to their own BUT in some cases, mostly when related to simple sounds rather than words you will find they are universal(like the sound for a negative is always a sound beginning with the letter "N"). This is because they stem from original sounds that were made during the evolution of humans but as humans migrated to all over the world, each sect started using different sounds to describe what they saw, similar to how different animals separated from their original population develop slightly different features. That little paragraph aside, what GI and Sadel said is true, about the language not being part of genetics thing. I'd say its subconscious acts that do not stem from being taught that count as genetic memories. Like the common fear of things that people share(cockroaches,spiders,snakes,darkness), these weren't taught, rather it was embedded in our subconscious. Or the feeling of deja vu that you may feel, despite having no reason to experience the deja vu.

On the topic of intelligence, sorry to tell you Supreme but your explanation isn't entirely accurate(neither is mine btw) True that humans have all this so-called intelligence but what is it that truly separates us from other animals? The key word is "creativity", The very reason why Humans began to become smart was due to their curiosity and their constant desire to find a way to make things easier for them to obtain. Overcoming the fear of fire was a massive leap. Cause every other animal feared fire. Fire eventually lead to everything else. This desire for new things made them develop an unsatisfactory sense. Unlike other animals, we began discarding survival needs and started to develop what is now called "want". On this basis, yes, we can't compare animals with us, cause we have lost what they have and gained something they don't. However you will note that the humans that lead so-called "uncivilized lives" are actually far more advanced than us physically. Their sense are sharper and they lose very little as they grow into adults. In the end, the true well evolved are those poor people that live deep in the jungle. To gain one thing, is to sacrifice another. The so-called intelligent people have sacrificed their base animal instincts and senses. However if you work hard enough there are ways in which you can regain them, however at a cost. You will lose some of the things that made you human. That is how it works. Animals are in fact intelligent as far as the word goes, but they are content with their lives and have no evolutionary need to become like us. If you pit a regular human and some animal in an experiment to catch and eat something, then they will both come up with their own unique way of getting the job done. You would notice that while a human needs to find a tool to aid him, the animal will simply use its enhanced senses to finish it. So you can see that human intelligence isn't necessarily a good adaptation, cause animals do just fine with their average intelligence. Its not necessarily that animals aren't meant to do what we can, rather that they have no need to. Being an animal is so much better than being a human. Look at it this way, at least you never know what you missed. =P

Hope these pointless lectures helped you in some way. ^_^ I know they help other people.Fairy Tail Grand Master^{<F.T.G.M. >}

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)