MIT paves the way for neuro linguistic hacking. Guard your deep grooves people.

a reply to: imod02

No no.. madness can be made a permanent thing if a negative feedback loop is created and then closed. It will feed itself.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: imod02

No no.. madness can be made a permanent thing if a negative feedback loop is created and then closed. It will feed itself.

10 go mad
20 goto 10

a reply to: Brotherman

Phonemes aren't universal. Phonemes were designed to cover "ALL" the sonuds in "EVERY" language, therefore you'll have phonemes for each sound of each language. However, not all languages share the same set of phonemes. In spanish, you don't have the sound of "a" for sep(a)rate, that's not part of the language sounds.

There are no "universal" phonemes. There's a language in a tribe which is only a set of different whistles. Where is that sound in english? If you're trying to find a common denominator for all human languages then ALL human languages must be included, even those you wouldn't consider languages, otherwise it's not universal at all, it's just "part" of a group.

Regarding the mind control, I'd be more worried about stuff like this:
www.telegraph.co.uk...

They're hacking children's brains to make them fall asleep in 12 minutes, or 2 book pages.
The next book will be "Training children to go potty".

Think about what they can do with our minds without our knowledge (and permission)

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: imod02

No no.. madness can be made a permanent thing if a negative feedback loop is created and then closed. It will feed itself.

Madness can be happy too:

If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands (clap clap)
If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands (clap clap)
If you're happy and you know it, then your face will surely show it
If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands. (clap clap)...

...do happiness on a feedback loop and try and explain to someone that you are not mad.

You can see this effect by deciding which of these two sentences is easier to understand: “John threw out the old trash sitting in the kitchen,” or “John threw the old trash sitting in the kitchen out.” To many English speakers, the second sentence will sound strange—we’re inclined to keep the words “threw” and “out” as close together as we can.

Actually, I found the second sentence more natural. I guess I'm just weird.

Great thread and interesting article from MIT.

I ordered "Snow Crash" based on this info.

Thanks...I'm looking forward to reading Neal Stephenson's book!

originally posted by: Lincourtz
a reply to: Brotherman

Phonemes aren't universal. Phonemes were designed to cover "ALL" the sonuds in "EVERY" language, therefore you'll have phonemes for each sound of each language. However, not all languages share the same set of phonemes. In spanish, you don't have the sound of "a" for sep(a)rate, that's not part of the language sounds.

There are no "universal" phonemes. There's a language in a tribe which is only a set of different whistles. Where is that sound in english? If you're trying to find a common denominator for all human languages then ALL human languages must be included, even those you wouldn't consider languages, otherwise it's not universal at all, it's just "part" of a group.

Regarding the mind control, I'd be more worried about stuff like this:
www.telegraph.co.uk...

They're hacking children's brains to make them fall asleep in 12 minutes, or 2 book pages.
The next book will be "Training children to go potty".

Think about what they can do with our minds without our knowledge (and permission)

And how exactly is that not universal if it encompasses all sounds or utterances made by human vocal cords? The Chinese cant make different sounds then the damn English, your implying they can and that's silly.

originally posted by: Brotherman

originally posted by: Lincourtz
a reply to: Brotherman

Phonemes aren't universal. Phonemes were designed to cover "ALL" the sonuds in "EVERY" language, therefore you'll have phonemes for each sound of each language. However, not all languages share the same set of phonemes. In spanish, you don't have the sound of "a" for sep(a)rate, that's not part of the language sounds.

There are no "universal" phonemes. There's a language in a tribe which is only a set of different whistles. Where is that sound in english? If you're trying to find a common denominator for all human languages then ALL human languages must be included, even those you wouldn't consider languages, otherwise it's not universal at all, it's just "part" of a group.

Regarding the mind control, I'd be more worried about stuff like this:
www.telegraph.co.uk...

They're hacking children's brains to make them fall asleep in 12 minutes, or 2 book pages.
The next book will be "Training children to go potty".

Think about what they can do with our minds without our knowledge (and permission)

And how exactly is that not universal if it encompasses all sounds or utterances made by human vocal cords? The Chinese cant make different sounds then the damn English, your implying they can and that's silly.

Phonemes aren't language universals.

What you're saying is that, since all languages involve sound, then all languages must be interconnected.

That's true because they all involve sound.

But disparate languages use these sounds in different ways, not the same ways.

The article is about "language universals." There's a definition for that term. It's not the same as "universal."

All languages are sounds made with a mouth. In your view, this makes all languages connected. That's far broader than the subject here.

All languages occur on Earth as well - is "Earthiness" a language universal?

Harte

a reply to: Harte

I contend that all languages probably cme from the same place, the human mind using human vocal cords to describe something. The phoneme is the smallest construct used in any given language (I already know what your thinking but wait...) certain phonemes can be unique to a particular ir many language however all phonemes are universally unique to most people excluding people with speech problems. Phones, accents, and phonosemantics excluded phonemes can be and are (dependant) universal, I understand the opposition would say no sh*t only humans use speech to describe things, in regards to neurolonguistic hacking phonemes are universal because you can't neuro linguistically hack a monkey, sea turtle, a mink, or a parrot. Further the usage of this concept has to use an idea of proto language where as phonemes are universal as to make their tests universal to all people. Again I highly suggest read the works of M. Magnus phd dissertation and perhaps you may have a better idea of where it is I am coming from. This language stuff (as I refer to it) was something I was very heavy into understanding and researched quite a bit a time ago, in a deeper sense there really is a lot more to it then what MIT is putting out, what is being done with it can be incredibly dangerous.I apologize I am not posting links I am on a mobile and quite far away from home or else I'd link you all over hell and creation if this is a topic your interested in.