forgotten language may be more deeply engraved in our minds than we realize.

[ellion]

Many of us learn a foreign language when we are young, but in some cases, exposure to that language is brief and we never get to hear or practice it subsequently. Our subjective impression is often that the neglected language completely fades away from our memory. But does "use it or lose it" apply to foreign languages? Although it may seem we have absolutely no memory of the neglected language, new research suggests this "forgotten" language may be more deeply engraved in our minds than we realize.

Psychologists Jeffrey Bowers, Sven L. Mattys, and Suzanne Gage from the University of Bristol recruited volunteers who were native English speakers but who had learned either Hindi or Zulu as children when living abroad. The researchers focused on Hindi and Zulu because these languages contain certain phonemes that are difficult for native English speakers to recognize. A phoneme is the smallest sound in a language-a group of phonemes forms a word.

The scientists asked the volunteers to complete a background vocabulary test to see if they remembered any words from the neglected language. They then trained the participants to distinguish between pairs of phonemes that started Hindi or Zulu words.

As it turned out, even though the volunteers showed no memory of the second language in the vocabulary test, they were able to quickly relearn and correctly identify phonemes that were spoken in the neglected language.

These findings, which appeared in a recent issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, suggest that exposing young children to foreign languages, even if they do not continue to speak them, can have a lasting impact on speech perception. The authors conclude, "Even if the language is forgotten (or feels this way) after many years of disuse, leftover traces of the early exposure can manifest themselves as an improved ability to relearn the language."

[voodoo scientist]

Interesting. This seems to corrobate the idea that memory is never 'unlearned' once it has entered long term memory, it can only become (temporarily? inaccessible.

[Karaten]

Interesting. This seems to corrobate the idea that memory is never 'unlearned' once it has entered long term memory, it can only become (temporarily? inaccessible.

Not through natural process anyways, with the exception of dying, of course.

[Ajna]

Have you ever considered that the most forgotten language we are all guilty of neglecting is (for lack of a better phrase) the language of nature?
When you are a kid, trees have bad days. You have an acute perception of the world around you that is dismissed as childhood naivety. Words limit our communication immeasurably. The more we learn "the way things are" and how to express ourselves to the rest of society... the more we let go of other possibilities that are practiced by the whole world around us.

[voodoo scientist]

Have you ever considered that the most forgotten language we are all guilty of neglecting is (for lack of a better phrase) the language of nature?
When you are a kid, trees have bad days. You have an acute perception of the world around you that is dismissed as childhood naivety. Words limit our communication immeasurably. The more we learn "the way things are" and how to express ourselves to the rest of society... the more we let go of other possibilities that are practiced by the whole world around us.

I considered it briefly before easily concluding it was a vague and baseless idea with no discernible meaning. What you just said is exactly the kind of junk that sounds deep, but has no actual substance.

[Karaten]

Have you ever considered that the most forgotten language we are all guilty of neglecting is (for lack of a better phrase) the language of nature?

No.

I have no reason to.

When you are a kid, trees have bad days.

What?

You have an acute perception of the world around you that is dismissed as childhood naivety. Words limit our communication immeasurably. The more we learn "the way things are" and how to express ourselves to the rest of society... the more we let go of other possibilities that are practiced by the whole world around us.

Now, before you dismiss the effectiveness of words, I suggest you re-examine your method of using them.

[Ajna]

All that ive said has a base in logic if you consider that you and I both know nothing at all. Life is perspective. The only thing you can base your opinion of reality on is the experiences that youve had in life. Could you picture a color youve never seen before? Does that mean that colors you cant see dont exist?

for you to completely deny the possibility that as a child you are connected to and can perceive parts of reality that you lose connection with as you integrate your brain more and more into society is foolish. If a child has more empathy for a dog or a tree than a supposed more intelligent logical adult, its easy to feel that the childs empathy is rooted in a lack of knowledge or understanding. That is merely one perspective... a popular one, and I feel that its off base entirely.

[Karaten]

All that ive said has a base in logic if you consider that you and I both know nothing at all. Life is perspective. The only thing you can base your opinion of reality on is the experiences that youve had in life. Could you picture a color youve never seen before? Does that mean that colors you cant see dont exist?

Not exactly, but we have no basis to believe a specific one we can't see does either.

for you to completely deny the possibility that as a child you are connected to and can perceive parts of reality that you lose connection with as you integrate your brain more and more into society is foolish.

Foolishness sounds like a concept of society. Plus, I never got close to society, and I still think you have no basis.

If a child has more empathy for a dog or a tree than a supposed more intelligent logical adult, its easy to feel that the childs empathy is rooted in a lack of knowledge or understanding. That is merely one perspective... a popular one, and I feel that its off base entirely.

The empathy is one sided a lot of the time. Children empathize with everything. including dolls and stuffed bears. Are you going to say now that a patch of cloth has some language we are not aware of?

[Ajna]

No, but I am suggesting that the sensitivity that brings upon that empathy makes a child much more intuitive to details the analytical realist approach of adult logic leaves little room for. Especially when considering that you cant say for sure anything you know is real is real. While we are discussing colors we can or cannot see, we should bring up that when you see the color orange, and I see the color orange, and we both identify it as the color orange- we are most likely seeing totally diffrent, or at least mildly diffrent at best color. Which means the orange that I consider to be reality... to you isn't even real. The fact that you need factual proof to consider the possibilty of something being real to me is a weakness. Once you accept that it is ok for you not to know the answers, because you simply arent capable of knowing the answers... you open your mind to alot of possibilities.

[Karaten]

No, but I am suggesting that the sensitivity that brings upon that empathy makes a child much more intuitive to details the analytical realist approach of adult logic leaves little room for.

And I just explained that one species having empathy doesn't mean it's connected to the other one.

Especially when considering that you cant say for sure anything you know is real is real.

Perceptions exist because we perceive them, there's no denying that.

While we are discussing colors we can or cannot see, we should bring up that when you see the color orange, and I see the color orange, and we both identify it as the color orange- we are most likely seeing totally diffrent, or at least mildly diffrent at best color.

If true, the basis of the perception is the same. Plus, we're not perceiving each other's feelings, we're perceiving our own.

Which means the orange that I consider to be reality... to you isn't even real.

Which is a meaningless point as the color orange will still be identified in the same context for me as you, so, if the shade is different, then it doesn't mean anything at all, as the label applies to what is seen given this condition, and doesn't have any greater meaning then that.

 

The fact that you need factual proof to consider the possibilty of something being real to me is a weakness. Once you accept that it is ok for you not to know the answers, because you simply arent capable of knowing the answers... you open your mind to alot of possibilities.

No, but I need some basis that can't be disproved like I have all of your points. Plus, that's quite hypocritical considering your position on everything else, and your complete inability to think beyond your own perception that is demonstrating in almost every post you make.

[Ajna]

No, but I need some basis that can't be disproved like I have all of your points. Plus, that's quite hypocritical considering your position on everything else, and your complete inability to think beyond your own perception that is demonstrating in almost every post you make.

youve disproved nothing. Your like a child who knocks the chess pieces to the ground and claims "i win!"

All youve done is dissect my sentences instead of viewing my posts as a whole. I am not trying to prove anything other than life is perspective. I am open to all things being true and possible, but find it very unprobable that what is true is what society accepts. I am more playing devils advocate. And it seems to be making you rather upset.

[Karaten]

youve disproved nothing. Your like a child who knocks the chess pieces to the ground and claims "i win!"

All youve done is dissect my sentences instead of viewing my posts as a whole. I am not trying to prove anything other than life is perspective. I am open to all things being true and possible, but find it very unprobable that what is true is what society accepts. I am more playing devils advocate. And it seems to be making you rather upset.

The want to be "devils advocate" is quite typical, and I'm certainly not upset. What I do find interesting is that you think just because you're going against "the norm", which you're not by the way as most people come up with ridiculous things like this,  you're instantly right.

You can show me one point you have won, I show you several I have.

1.Children appear to have a natural language we have lost due to their ability to connect with nature.
I've shown how this is false with the simple basis that children emulate themselves on to other things, including dolls and stuffed animals.

2.Children have empathy for other things adults seem to have lost.
This is no basis for an argument as empathy is a lot of times one sided.

3.Empathy is connected to intelligence.

This one you simply have no basis for. You have no relevant information to show how it takes higher knowledge to empathize for something.

Your response to these arguments most of the time was "No..." and then you'd drift off into a subjectivist argument about the subjectivity of perception, when in fact, we are discussing reality, not the perception of such.

I'm not sure where you're getting this ideology that I'm just knocking pieces, but I've in fact won each argument fair and square. Tell you what, in your perception, you can think you've somehow one despite your points either being false or irrelevant, while everyone else will know in reality, I have won.

Now please, bring some relevant information next time you try to make a point.

[Ajna]

The want to be "devils advocate" is quite typical, and I'm certainly not upset. What I do find interesting is that you think just because you're going against "the norm", which you're not by the way as most people come up with ridiculous things like this,  you're instantly right.

You can show me one point you have won, I show you several I have.

1.Children appear to have a natural language we have lost due to their ability to connect with nature.
I've shown how this is false with the simple basis that children emulate themselves on to other things, including dolls and stuffed animals.

2.Children have empathy for other things adults seem to have lost.
This is no basis for an argument as empathy is a lot of times one sided.

3.Empathy is connected to intelligence.

This one you simply have no basis for. You have no relevant information to show how it takes higher knowledge to empathize for something.

Your response to these arguments most of the time was "No..." and then you'd drift off into a subjectivist argument about the subjectivity of perception, when in fact, we are discussing reality, not the perception of such.

I'm not sure where you're getting this ideology that I'm just knocking pieces, but I've in fact won each argument fair and square. Tell you what, in your perception, you can think you've somehow one despite your points either being false or irrelevant, while everyone else will know in reality, I have won.

Now please, bring some relevant information next time you try to make a point.

 I think it comes down to one thing. Your saying things like "i proved thats false" and "i won" (several times) and frequently refer to reality as if its some tangible defined text that you can refer to.
You cant prove anything is false. All my points are centered on perspective and I generally use things like "i believe" "i feel" "what if" etc...
Right now your telling me...
Children have empathy for stuffed animals... thus their empathy for something like a tree or dog is misplaced.
If thats not the very definition of jumping to conclusions.. i dont know what is.

While it is my personal belief, i would never say that it is a fact that children are more perceptive than adults to different aspects of reality. And you can not logically say that its impossible. Nothing is impossible, and that particular suggestion is actually quite possible and probable. One could say that the kind of empathy they are displaying for stuffed animals is a result of being hyper sensitive. Being that sensitive could very well give them access to perceiving aspects of reality that we have blotted out over time.

you said "we are debating reality, not the perception of such"  REALITY IS PERCEPTION. This cannot be denied. And that is my whole point. Im not saying your wrong.. your turning this into some kind of competition that you seem to desperately want to win. I am telling you that you know nothing.
I also know nothing, nor does anyone reading this post. All that we think we know is only based on our perception of reality. There is no "general reality" that we can live in or outside of.

The idea that other creatures perceive reality in an equal but different way is not illogical. Just unpopular.

[Ajna]

PS.. only the word "is" that begins the bold text was supposed to be bold 

[Karaten]

Of course I'm trying to win, what's the point of trying if not?

Absolute subjectiveness is a logical fallacy within itself, as it denies the key factor of defining reality, which is the connection we all have. This is not some magical spiritual connection, it is reality.

It appears the problem is you're trying to put a label upon reality that does not exist. Words have no superficial meaning, they are nothing more than identification tools, that humans invented to communicate thoughts to each other, and calling something by a name is a simplification so we don't have to describe the entire object each time.

When one person thinks they can feel what something else is feeling when that object is in fact not feeling it, then it is in no way shape or form considerable to reality.

[Ajna]

Of course I'm trying to win, what's the point of trying if not?

Absolute subjectiveness is a logical fallacy within itself, as it denies the key factor of defining reality, which is the connection we all have. This is not some magical spiritual connection, it is reality.

It appears the problem is you're trying to put a label upon reality that does not exist. Words have no superficial meaning, they are nothing more than identification tools, that humans invented to communicate thoughts to each other, and calling something by a name is a simplification so we don't have to describe the entire object each time.

When one person thinks they can feel what something else is feeling when that object is in fact not feeling it, then it is in no way shape or form considerable to reality.

now we are getting somewhere. I am suggesting that verbal communication, using words, is limiting. an inconvenient and ineffective way to communicate. We do it so we can all agree and accept a reality. Here in lies the problem... reality in a general sense does not exist. its an illusion.
It is human nature to quantize everything around us. The weakness im describing is the most obvious in something like religion.
You cant actually know what is going to happen when you die... how the world came to be... but some people absolutely cannot accept that they do not know the answers to these quesitons. They need to know, or at least feel like they know. So they turn to religion for the answers.
You dont need to know though... once you accept that reality is only what you percieve it to be your mind opens up to immeasurable possibilities.