Modern Sci-Fi - the enslavement of scientific reality to religious delusion

:
: I wonder how realistic that is? After all, these people don't _have_
: a spoken language, and one of the "new" ideas in child care is to
: teach young children a modified version of sign language, because
: their cognitive skills tend to develop before their verbal skills do.
: So the thought of these kids trying to communicate verbally seems
: about as likely as the modern American kid spontaneously deciding to
: use sign language instead of talking.

That's a good question. But do deaf infants in a signing environment
make gestures the way hearing infants in our rehearse vocalizations by
babbling? And would hearing infants start out concentrating on sound,
even if it draws no reaction from adults about them?

Or putting it another way, are the linguistic centers of the human brain
preferentially associated with sound? Doesn't seem out of the question,
but I doubt close enough scenarios have been studied to say.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

In article , (Wayne Throop)
wrote:

:
: I wonder how realistic that is? After all, these people don't _have_
: a spoken language, and one of the "new" ideas in child care is to
: teach young children a modified version of sign language, because
: their cognitive skills tend to develop before their verbal skills do.
: So the thought of these kids trying to communicate verbally seems
: about as likely as the modern American kid spontaneously deciding to
: use sign language instead of talking.

That's a good question. But do deaf infants in a signing environment
make gestures the way hearing infants in our rehearse vocalizations by
babbling?

Yes, such infants babble in sign.

And would hearing infants start out concentrating on sound,
even if it draws no reaction from adults about them?

No, hearing infants in such an environment babble in sign too. However,
I strongly suspect that if you had a bunch of hearing infants, raised in
a community of deaf adults, the kids would spontaneously develop some
verbal language, albeit a crude one.

Or putting it another way, are the linguistic centers of the human brain
preferentially associated with sound?

No, the higher language centers are fairly plastic, though of course
they're supported by the appropriate sensory areas too.

Best,
- Joe

:: But do deaf infants in a signing environment make gestures the way
:: hearing infants in our rehearse vocalizations by babbling?

: Joe Strout
: Yes, such infants babble in sign.

Nifty!

:: Or putting it another way, are the linguistic centers of the human
:: brain preferentially associated with sound?

: No, the higher language centers are fairly plastic, though of course
: they're supported by the appropriate sensory areas too.

Note that I didn't say "exclusively", so being plastic, even highly
plastic, doesn't contradict the hypothesis that there's a preference.

On the other hand, the actual experience you note *does* seem to contradict
the upthread story scenario.


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

In article , (Wayne Throop)
wrote:

: Eivind Kjorstad
: Telepathy is unrealistic. We have no indication whatsoever that it ever
: existed, nor does it, as commonly understood, even fit with our
: understanding of basic physics.

Well sure, I agree, mostly. But to get back to the original point, how
does this differ from FTL, teleportation, and so on? One can handwave
about wormholes and spacetime bubbles and such, and mechanisms now unknown
for manipulating same, but then one can handwave about bio-eeg or fifth
(or nth) forces or other now-unknown mechanisms for manipulating same.

The difference is that FTL and teleportation and so on are clearly
*technologies* -- something that was invented and built through advanced
science and engineering. If you posit telepathy that works through
brain implants purchased from Audible Thought Inc., then sure, that's in
the same class as FTL and teleportation. But if you posit telepathy as
something that some people are simply born with, then that's magic, not
technology. And the resulting fiction is fantasy, not SF, I would say.

Cheers,
- Joe

:: But to get back to the original point, how does this differ from FTL,
:: teleportation, and so on? One can handwave about wormholes and
:: spacetime bubbles and such, and mechanisms now unknown for
:: manipulating same, but then one can handwave about bio-eeg or fifth
:: (or nth) forces or other now-unknown mechanisms for manipulating
:: same.

: Joe Strout
: The difference is that FTL and teleportation and so on are clearly
: *technologies* -- something that was invented and built through
: advanced science and engineering.

That's a difference all right. But why is it significant wrt plausibility?

: If you posit telepathy that works through brain implants purchased
: from Audible Thought Inc., then sure, that's in the same class as FTL
: and teleportation.

What if it's a discovered property of biological systems, but too weak
(or wrong environment, or whatever) and is bred for (or gengineered
for, or a select few can be found by technological testing/training, or
provoked by appropriate environmental cues)? Taking Telzey for example;
she and the other telepaths in the Hub can be considered part of a long
breeding experiment by the psychology service (well... not quite, but
close enough, since the Hub government is attempting to encourage them).

Or, what about Ethan of Athos?

Or hybrid scenarios, like the people in Cordwainer Smith's works, where
most of the population seems to have been gengineered to have telepathy,
but a few throwbacks such as Rod McBan have to use "hierng aids".

Point being, whether something is discovered, or created, doesn't seem
to affect its SFnal plausibility. If it does, why does it?


Wayne Throop http://sheol.org/throopw

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:50:09 -0600, Joe Strout wrote:

In article , (Wayne Throop)
wrote:

: Eivind Kjorstad
: Telepathy is unrealistic. We have no indication whatsoever that it ever
: existed, nor does it, as commonly understood, even fit with our
: understanding of basic physics.

Well sure, I agree, mostly. But to get back to the original point, how
does this differ from FTL, teleportation, and so on? One can handwave
about wormholes and spacetime bubbles and such, and mechanisms now unknown
for manipulating same, but then one can handwave about bio-eeg or fifth
(or nth) forces or other now-unknown mechanisms for manipulating same.

The difference is that FTL and teleportation and so on are clearly
*technologies* -- something that was invented and built through advanced
science and engineering. If you posit telepathy that works through
brain implants purchased from Audible Thought Inc., then sure, that's in
the same class as FTL and teleportation. But if you posit telepathy as
something that some people are simply born with, then that's magic, not
technology.

Something some people are simply born with sounds more like biology
than either.

In article . com,
"TBerk" wrote:

No psychic phenomenon has ever been scientifically verified on even the
remotest
level - no remote viewing, no telepathy, no telekinesis - NONE of it.

The real criterion for science fiction is not "proven to be possible"
but "not proven to be impossible." I defer you to James Randi's
description of trying to prove that sheep can't fly: Take a bunch of
sheep up to the roof of a tall building and throw them off one by one.
No matter how many plummet to the street, it could be that you just
haven't gotten to one of the ones that can fly.

And don't get me started on the energy storage requirements for
hand-held phasers.

Wayne Throop wrote:
:: But do deaf infants in a signing environment make gestures the way
:: hearing infants in our rehearse vocalizations by babbling?

: Joe Strout
: Yes, such infants babble in sign.

Nifty!

Actually, they do both. Even deaf infants babble vocally, and up to
age 6 months or so they babble just like hearing infants. However,
after that point their babbling fails to advance phonologically the way
hearing infants do. This is a fairly recent discovery:

http://jslhr.asha.org/cgi/content/abstract/28/1/47

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

:: Or putting it another way, are the linguistic centers of the human
:: brain preferentially associated with sound?

: No, the higher language centers are fairly plastic, though of course
: they're supported by the appropriate sensory areas too.

Note that I didn't say "exclusively", so being plastic, even highly
plastic, doesn't contradict the hypothesis that there's a preference.

Right. It's pretty clear that we're hardwired for audio, and
developmentally programmed to become vocal speakers. In deaf children,
this hardwired programme is frustrated.

However, as Joe points out, there are alternative paths to language,
and they share many traits (such as gestural 'babbling'). There is
evidence that kids (deaf or hearing) who learn a gestural language as a
milk tongue acquire language skills earlier than purely vocal learners.
There even seems to be a gestural analog to 'motherese' baby talk.
Quoting from a master's thesis I found online:

Infants may be born to pay attention to certain types of motherese.
Motherese talk is used to serve three purposes. First, it is able to
grab and maintain the infant's attention. Second, it positively affects
the language development of infants when they are spoken to in a
motherese tone. Third, infants can discriminate certain language
characteristics, thus enhancing and expediting verbal development
(Masataka, 1996). Japanese sign language is quite different from ASL.
When the Japanese mothers are signing to their infants, their signs
come much slower than mothers using ASL do. This is also slower than
when Japanese women are talking to their adult friends. When signing to
their infants, Japanese mothers tend to go slower and also to repeat
the same sign over and over. These actions have been related to the
American form of motherese, where the mother talks in a slower tone and
repeats things over and over to her child (Masataka, 1996). Using this
information, researchers have come to the conclusion that an infant may
be able to interpret motherese whether it is spoken or given in sign.

Reference: Masataka, N. (1996). Perception of Motherese in a Signed
Language by 6-Month-Old Deaf Infants. Developmental Psychology, 32,
874-879.

David Tate

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.arts.sf.science.]
On 2006-09-14, David Johnston wrote:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:50:09 -0600, Joe Strout wrote:

In article , (Wayne Throop)
wrote:

: Eivind Kjorstad
: Telepathy is unrealistic. We have no indication whatsoever that it ever
: existed, nor does it, as commonly understood, even fit with our
: understanding of basic physics.

Well sure, I agree, mostly. But to get back to the original point, how
does this differ from FTL, teleportation, and so on? One can handwave
about wormholes and spacetime bubbles and such, and mechanisms now unknown
for manipulating same, but then one can handwave about bio-eeg or fifth
(or nth) forces or other now-unknown mechanisms for manipulating same.

The difference is that FTL and teleportation and so on are clearly
*technologies* -- something that was invented and built through advanced
science and engineering. If you posit telepathy that works through
brain implants purchased from Audible Thought Inc., then sure, that's in
the same class as FTL and teleportation. But if you posit telepathy as
something that some people are simply born with, then that's magic, not
technology.

Something some people are simply born with sounds more like biology
than either.

What, and now biology isn't a suitable science for science fiction?
Puh-lease.

--
Aaron Denney
--

In article ,
David Johnston wrote:

But if you posit telepathy as
something that some people are simply born with, then that's magic, not
technology.

Something some people are simply born with sounds more like biology
than either.

Right, biology, not technology, ergo magic.