Thought language. Page 2 of 2

Language. Does the brain offer a way to call for “help.” When we think about the mouth and lips all moving to give out words , it’s as though we think we are the clever one doing it all. The movements of all the physical parts to voice a sentence etc. Just two words like saying ” I am” shows a sort of economy. You don’t have to close the mouth till the end of ” I am.” Same with calling “Help”

We might wonder why a baby isn’t born with the knowledge that it’s parents have, passed on through genes and DNA etc. That would surely help them. Maybe knowledge of medicine or how to ride a bike.
If though the baby was born being able to speak the English language but it was born in Spain or Japan , then it would have to start all over again. So the next babies have to learn lots of things as if from the start as the environment might be different from their parents. On language , if we try to teach a toddler how to pronounce certain words , we know that we are wasting our time and theirs. Absolutely no need to repeat syllables like ‘th’ to make the word ‘there’ or ‘this’ is . They somehow get the language and somehow speak it without any help. They all end up with a whole language.

Babies don’t need much guidance. They need feeding and little instruction on how to learn language. And knowledge might also not be passed on because it could be wrong. For example we could be born thinking that life and plants evolve using random mutations natural selection.

We sort of know though , that the smell of a strawberry would be pleasant to us even if we had not come across one before. We sense that and will happily eat it. That is obviously inherent in us. But knowing a word for it, or even that it is a fruit needs the new baby to put a word to it or accept the word given to them after they are born.

In the supermarket there are twenty plus herbs and spices. You can try one that you haven’t had before and are giving the body a completely new food. Thought has gone. Think it might have been which one of the body or brain or consciousness thing says it’s alright to eat. Taste is another sense. The new food to us is new to us .. It’s a new taste and maybe the body or brain would be the the one to reject it without us thinking about it. But we think that’s not nice to eat. Back to trickiness.

Keeping in our thinking about evolution using random mutations and natural selection , how would any of those words with the ideas behind them give us the straight away knowing that a certain food is not good for us. The first ever animals would have had more than a belly ache every single day. Eating the right foods could be considered a phenomena on it’s own. Our consciousness couldn’t be relied on to eat the right foods. We could be asleep and fed bad food and the body would object.

The using of the natural selection idea would at first have to allow all the animals in the first place to taste the foods , and then the animals that survived went on to eat only the foods that enabled them to survive. All animals know what to eat or are taught what to eat. Since they get that right straight away why do we invent random mutations and natural selection to explain it.
It’s almost like imagining that food is more paramount than life itself.. Waffling a bit now. Or maybe waffling on top of waffling. Doesn’t matter. We ( delete later )

But is our brain making us think we need to eat. I don’t know if there is enough food in my belly but I know I’m hungry. Then , is my brain making me interested in looking at trees and thinking about whether the idea of evolution is just a human invention. Once again no idea.
This kind of thinking leaves us trying to compartmentalize. If we just take say sight , then we have the physical eyes that light hits with it’s photons. There are then physical connections from the eyes that go to the brain.
Now we imagine that the brain is involved with the sight that we see. The ‘we’ is the tricky part.
It’s tricky because the we in us moves the physical eyes to get the light and so wonder if the we is different to the physical eyes and brain. The we in us , might wonder why it is necessary to have eyes and a brain when we have some ability to move the eyes. That is , why wouldn’t we just see with the power of whatever is in us that can move a pair of eyes do the seeing itself. We are left with thinking , whatever thinking is , how or what the connection is between the physical eyes and brain and the ability to move the eyes. Evolution theories don’t help with it. As a possibility in the world of conjecture would be that the ability to move the eyes before they exist, in some way actually produced the eyes to see.

So , is the ability to move the eyes something different and separate. Of course we now have to wonder if thought is altogether different as there seems to be no physical sense organ that we know of , that makes thought or thinking.
Have used the word unfathomable elsewhere , but somehow putting down the words about it helps , even though in reality we might not get any further with the thinking about it.
But we have only recently learnt that light comes to the eye. Before that it could or would or might have been thought that the eyes just see in an outwardly sort of way. In other words , the eyes were thought to see on their own , independent of light. We now also know about sound waves that travel through the air and hit the ears , and that smell occurs because of molecules hitting the nose. It would have been difficult thinking about it all not long ago about whether something comes to the senses or the senses in some way independently have a property to see or hear or smell. I suppose though that to physically feel say a stick hitting the body would give the notion that the body senses the stick at the point of impact and that the thought would have occurred at some point that something also hits the eyes and ears and nose.

We’d have to wonder though , on what we now know , if thought is different to the senses. We’d have to ask if thought does act in an independent way , unlike the physical eyes. Never mind missing links in fossils , someone might come up with the missing link between the sense’s and thought. The sight occurs somehow because light hits the physical eyes and we can move the eyes to focus. Just seems that our evolution theory couldn’t bring any of that about.

Same with memories. We move the eyes , so do we bring up memories . No matter how we try , we can’t bring up a memory and think oh I’d forgotten about that . What does that mean. Again no idea. Just leaving here that we instantly know a voice and can even imagine all the voices that we have ever heard in our head or brain or mind or whatever. We can imagine any family members voice and anyone’s voice from the TV , like in the same way that we can imagine say an ice cream or a barge on a canal.

Can’t quite grasp what I’m trying to say but for now our idea of evolution is useless to explain any of that. We instantly know the voice of a character in a soap opera from 20 years ago that we haven’t heard for 20 years and know a song on the radio we haven’t heard for 20 years. Animals 500 million years most likely had the ability to remember and know the sounds and sights that they had previously encountered like the prey that would eat them. Basically it just seems that our evolution ideas have nothing to do with that. It’s a one off ability to memorize where our house or nest or burrow is and it’s hard to conjecture that that ability to do that evolved.

The ability to know the sound of things we have encountered like other people’s voices or trees falling down is not new to any animal that has ever existed. It is in the realms of what seeing or hearing actually is. It’s not quite as easy to explain as like conjuring up the ideas that there are physically evolving eyes and ears and brains using random mutations and natural selection. It just seems that any ability like being able to find our car keys or to know the implication of someone calling for help is more likely to be used to make an animal or tree evolve , if they ever did.

Noticeably on a today documentary on cats and tigers the scientist didn’t use the word evolution once. Every cat or tiger was said to have ‘adapted’ this or that ability or body features like thicker fur etc. And no mention of random mutations or natural selection. Is that some sort of change in thinking.

Of course it could be thought , that anyone thinking that animals and plants didn’t evolve must mean that anyone thinking in that way must be thinking that they just somehow pop up. But that’s not the case. It’s more that the notions of random mutations and natural selection are used to explain say how a squirrel with it’s furry tail runs across the top of a garden fence. Maybe the squirrel did evolve , but it surely didn’t evolve using our random mutations and natural selection ideas. There is a line in the film Jurassic Park where the scientist says ‘ life finds a way.’ There is no evolutionary thought behind that.

That’s more credible as a thought than saying life uses random mutations and natural selection. Think said earlier that Judge Judy , who says ‘ you have eyes and ears for reason’ would also accept as evidence that ‘life finds a way ‘ and throw out of court any fossils or DNA or the idea that 500 million years did it. Judge Judy would shout out that 500 million years ago animals were physically whole and were hungry and fancied their own species and also could move and also had feelings of being warm or cold. To go on for the next 500 million years they surely wouldn’t mess around with random mutations and natural selection.

Uncle of mine 45 years ago fell on some rocks and broke a leg bone. He said that at that moment the whole of his life flashed before him. He said he couldn’t explain it. Do memories linger in the brain or does the brain reproduce them. Is the brain involved at all and so on. We can do computer analogies and all sorts of conjectures to say that a brain stores memories and lets us , whatever us is , to recognise voices. But whatever memory and remembering is , it’s a one off thing like seeing and hearing and smelling and it surely does not exist because of our evolution ideas.

That brain memory ability idea is compared to a tape recorder storing sound , and then a few years later to a computer storing the memories in a hard drive. But words like stored and retrieval only apply to tapes and computers.
There are also ideas that the animal and it’s memory and ability to move have been designed.

But to design would in some way have to mean that an ability to design existed before anything existed , and also that the designing would still be going on today to say cure illnesses. Problem also though , is that we humans design things with what is available , like wood to make boats or minerals to make cars or sound frequencies to allow radio communication , and have taken that to imagine that these things that we use to design things were designed before we have used them to design other things. That feels more like a hope and is in some way as misleading as is the evolution idea.
It’s not that it couldn’t be that way , but there is no evidence for it. It would then lead to the thought that if none of the above occurs , that life with it’s legs and eyes and ears is completely independent and forms itself on it’s own. No evidence for that either , but it’s as good a contender as evolution or design.
Something quite unimaginable is and has been going on. Will we ever know.
Well , we have only been thinking about it for a few thousand years , and we have a lot more to go on now knowing a bit more about light and sound waves and molecules etc. So who knows.

More likely in the world of conjecture , just for now , would be the existence of a type of phenomena that we couldn’t possibly imagine , that brings about or allows animals to be whole things perfectly able to see and hear and move from day one. We would then of course have to conjecture about phenomena and so we are still stuck with little idea.

We do though move our body. We can look at our arm and move it. Is it the thought that does it. Seems like it is. It doesn’t though feel that our thoughts brings about what we see or hear. We can be asleep and a noise will wake us up and we can see things moving without us ourselves actually making the sight of say cars on the road ahead. It’s as if the sound and sight is forced on us to hear and see , but to move might require something different. Movement does exist , but we can’t in the seeing sense see what the moving thing that moves the body is. To get beyond that might be possible one day , and perhaps it has to do with the fact that any object can be moved.
Movement could be as much as a phenomena like eyes and legs , but different.

While typing , just heard David Attenborough in wildlife documentary say that a magpie bird has the ability to mimic. He said that ‘mimicking is encoded in the DNA. The words skip by as fact. Encoding is a computer word.
When we say of someone else’s behaviour , that it must be in their DNA , generally we leave out any explanation of how the DNA leads to the behaviour. We say it jokingly. We don’t know if DNA has codes in it like the software in a computer to produce a behaviour.

We have no evidence that the magpie is able to mimic because that mimicking is encoded in DNA. None at all. We simply don’t know anything about the physical substance dna and can only conjecture that it contains abilities or behaviours like the codes in some computer software.

Next chapter. How did worms cross the earth.

Home