Home   |         NEW: (hypothetically starring) VIC REEVES as LUKE SKYWALKER .. in "Waiting for Godot, the hollywood version".

"'Cause I don't have the time for your overloaded lines, so you better be good to me" (Tina Turner)   Share:  
Thrust of argument: So, I must address TVhobo's "critical" and keen perception to not the flaws of the worst of you and the mediocre, as has often been the case, but now the best. I have to start to emphatically and forensically explore the matter of language and thought, the important keys Chomsky's works have helped me use to unlock many of the otherwise blocked pathways of analysis. Direction of resistance / implied resistance: To begin with just a very short overview of only the key point which needs to be made. The best way to make this point is to quote the key science, verbatim, the Chomsky. Fortunately already recorded on the grid: << So we're interested in what's come to be called i-Language, internal individual language, viewed intentionally, we care about the actual system of rules, not just some class of objects you might enumerate. .. In the background is a concern to try to show how this biological system could have originated. What's misleadingly called 'evolution of language'. Of course it's misleading because languages don't evolve, but the language capacity, U.G. (universal grammar), does evolve, or must have evolved .. you can derive some surprising conclusions: one of them is that the output of the generative system yields the proper forms for semantic interpretation in quite complex structures .. so that means that what's generated is essentially a language of thought, maybe, I suspect, the only language of thought. The second conclusion is that externalisation .. is just an ancillary process, it's not part of the core of language. .. (these externalisations are) reflexes of the sensory motor system and the nature of the externalisation depends on which sensory motor system you're using .. the sensory motor system is not specifically adapted to language, it was apparently around hundreds of thousands of years before language suddenly emerged and there are many ways to map one to the other and it's a hard process and in fact what we find is that the complexity of language which you have to learn when you learn a language is almost entirely externalisation >>.

 

 

Enter your DOMAIN NAME to
collect this point:

 

Removal of resistance: Douglas Adams would be pleased to know that that quote is to be found on grid point number forty two. Additionally this quote, the next part of what Chomsky was saying there, is fundamental to also read, immediately after that one, but for the short interlude by the compere/mc/etc: << most of the doctrines about the nature of language and related fields .. most of them are just flat wrong. There's a doctrine which is held virtually at the level of dogma. The way it's put is the function of language is communication. It's a kind of a curious notion because biological systems don't have functions. .. the dogma is that language, uniquely among biological systems, has a function and the function is communication, but if these first two conclusions are correct that has to be false because communication is based on externalisation and if externalisation is an ancillary property of language then communication is even more so >>. Unification: Anyway, that's the really basic, simple, simplistic overview bit of one of the handful of key main points to come dealt with initially anyway, for now, although it has been mentioned before and will be again, no doubt with much much further exemplification and discussion MERELY of the above, in its own right, a fundamental thing to understand, as well as all the other tricky business to come. So yes, if this site is to now take aim at the biggest target of all, all good and wise people who are almost, but not quite, at the level of understanding what it is Chomsky and science in general has shown about a number of key issues at the heart of so much of what you currently call your 'world'. TVhobo costs about 1000 pounds a year to run, because it is built in a proper hardcore techie way, with a solid software basis, capacity for HUGE audience, and basically a whole lot more. The servers it runs on were there for other online commercial activity attempts, but the attempts were abandoned eventually and replaced with investigation into financial science. As a research tool TVhobo's software was a vital part of that investigation and of achieiving success. Given its scientific contribution to my life, even if I felt that it no longer had a political purpose (if Jeremy Corbyn becomes Prime Minister, the degree to which change will come about will mean that my 'journalism' will not be able to achieve anything which the new government and a largening segment of society will be doing a hundredfold. At least the important stuff, even if the best stuff remains fairly unique to this site and those teachers and thinkers and writers using the same principles as has been here in all my work, software, literary, financial scientific and any other).

Naturally the paragraph above, remarking about the simple overview, is far more complex than the simple overview, and is followed by yet more complication and hassle, yes.

Of course this means that on its own this document is useless for dealing with those people I mentioned as they are the ones with the least patience when it comes to reading all of Rumpole's and Chomsky's evidence! Let alone the new Rumpole and the new Chomsky, without the official seal or the fan club, well, visible fanclub, anyway.

I like this new project because it means TVhobo is now moving the battle to the last needed area. By helping to turn as many almost-Chomskys in the world into actual-Chomskys, I can push towards the finish of the job TVhobo has played a role in but which has been going on in so many other forms and forces in so many ways throughout human history and will continue.

Who are the almost-Chomskys and what is an actual-Chomsky? Well the really-existing would-be-Chomskys are almost-Chomskys but not quite, eg they don't get the truth about language, communication, ego, to start with. And that's why I have to incorporate some key Idries Shah extracts into that first bit of teaching because only between Chomsky and Idries Shah on this topic can I properly demonstrate to the almost-Chomskys how to be an actual-Chomsky.

And then, well - there's still a tonne more in so many directions, so much stuff to bring out, into one new singularly directed stream of idea, argument and research/reasoning, aimed, as I say, at converting a vast array of almost-Chomskys into actual-Chomskys. There's a fair bit of Feynman to bring up also, only touched on so far at tvhobo, relating to some of the maths at the heart of the "world view" of people like Feynman, no doubt Hawking too, and any genuinely brilliant minds alive today with sufficient awareness of the 'findings' of humanity's "great minds" (like Feynman and Bohr). (Not to mention Chomsky and apparently Kant).

Once modern intellectuals etc understand all which needs to be taught on the above topic, there is no doubt that the many of them who treat my 'lengthy' writings differently to the 'lengthy' writings/lectures of Chomsky or Feynman or any number of professors at any number of universities will be more like the few who do not. This will have untold practical value which that few understands well enough.

Anyway, as for its cost, tvhobo's cost could, theoretically, be directed at a trading fund instead. I could shut off the site, it could vanish into nonentity, and that'd be that. But what a waste. The aesop story about geese springs to mind! No. Unthinkable. But just for theory's sake, I mention it, ie there is even, technically, an available 'fund' for the algorithm to use, and grow, larger and larger, although 1000 quid a year is pretty paltry, better to have my website, let it be wondrous and meanwhile use literally zero pounds to generate a trading budget according as does the will of the universe, so to speak, the landscape of probability, the arrival of trades and the inevitable probability-maths-demonstrated profits. The web site is mightier than the trading budget.
Rebut this point   Support this point   Edit this point

(TVhobo's estimated size of readership since 2013, mainly in the UK and USA, with Germany in third place:
over 200,000 readers across approximately 200 cities/towns

 

Copy/paste point into your work:

Type: Open statement

6 versions:

1. Server time: 20:50:31 on 3/12/2019
2. Server time: 20:52:15 on 3/12/2019
3. Server time: 20:57:37 on 3/12/2019
4. Server time: 21:0:37 on 3/12/2019
5. Server time: 21:21:27 on 3/12/2019
6. Server time: 11:19:30 on 4/12/2019

Related points:

References:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC5E8ie2pdM

 

 

previous point on the grid   |   next point on the grid

 

Click here to read about Shams Pirani, the editor and chief author on this grid - note, if you can actually prove anything written above wrong, I would gladly, if the proof is sufficient, correct what I've written and what I think - if I could, however, prove your attempted proof wrong, then I would accordingly say so and maintain whatever point of view is completely based on fact and proof.

Simple text version.

"'Cause I don't have the time for your overloaded lines, so you better be good to me" (Tina Turner)

So, I must address TVhobo's "critical" and keen perception to not the flaws of the worst of you and the mediocre, as has often been the case, but now the best. I have to start to emphatically and forensically explore the matter of language and thought, the important keys Chomsky's works have helped me use to unlock many of the otherwise blocked pathways of analysis.

To begin with just a very short overview of only the key point which needs to be made. The best way to make this point is to quote the key science, verbatim, the Chomsky. Fortunately already recorded on the grid: << So we're interested in what's come to be called i-Language, internal individual language, viewed intentionally, we care about the actual system of rules, not just some class of objects you might enumerate. .. In the background is a concern to try to show how this biological system could have originated. What's misleadingly called 'evolution of language'. Of course it's misleading because languages don't evolve, but the language capacity, U.G. (universal grammar), does evolve, or must have evolved .. you can derive some surprising conclusions: one of them is that the output of the generative system yields the proper forms for semantic interpretation in quite complex structures .. so that means that what's generated is essentially a language of thought, maybe, I suspect, the only language of thought. The second conclusion is that externalisation .. is just an ancillary process, it's not part of the core of language. .. (these externalisations are) reflexes of the sensory motor system and the nature of the externalisation depends on which sensory motor system you're using .. the sensory motor system is not specifically adapted to language, it was apparently around hundreds of thousands of years before language suddenly emerged and there are many ways to map one to the other and it's a hard process and in fact what we find is that the complexity of language which you have to learn when you learn a language is almost entirely externalisation >>.

Douglas Adams would be pleased to know that that quote is to be found on grid point number forty two. Additionally this quote, the next part of what Chomsky was saying there, is fundamental to also read, immediately after that one, but for the short interlude by the compere/mc/etc: << most of the doctrines about the nature of language and related fields .. most of them are just flat wrong. There's a doctrine which is held virtually at the level of dogma. The way it's put is the function of language is communication. It's a kind of a curious notion because biological systems don't have functions. .. the dogma is that language, uniquely among biological systems, has a function and the function is communication, but if these first two conclusions are correct that has to be false because communication is based on externalisation and if externalisation is an ancillary property of language then communication is even more so >>.

Anyway, that's the really basic, simple, simplistic overview bit of one of the handful of key main points to come dealt with initially anyway, for now, although it has been mentioned before and will be again, no doubt with much much further exemplification and discussion MERELY of the above, in its own right, a fundamental thing to understand, as well as all the other tricky business to come. So yes, if this site is to now take aim at the biggest target of all, all good and wise people who are almost, but not quite, at the level of understanding what it is Chomsky and science in general has shown about a number of key issues at the heart of so much of what you currently call your 'world'. TVhobo costs about 1000 pounds a year to run, because it is built in a proper hardcore techie way, with a solid software basis, capacity for HUGE audience, and basically a whole lot more. The servers it runs on were there for other online commercial activity attempts, but the attempts were abandoned eventually and replaced with investigation into financial science. As a research tool TVhobo's software was a vital part of that investigation and of achieiving success. Given its scientific contribution to my life, even if I felt that it no longer had a political purpose (if Jeremy Corbyn becomes Prime Minister, the degree to which change will come about will mean that my 'journalism' will not be able to achieve anything which the new government and a largening segment of society will be doing a hundredfold. At least the important stuff, even if the best stuff remains fairly unique to this site and those teachers and thinkers and writers using the same principles as has been here in all my work, software, literary, financial scientific and any other).

Naturally the paragraph above, remarking about the simple overview, is far more complex than the simple overview, and is followed by yet more complication and hassle, yes.

Of course this means that on its own this document is useless for dealing with those people I mentioned as they are the ones with the least patience when it comes to reading all of Rumpole's and Chomsky's evidence! Let alone the new Rumpole and the new Chomsky, without the official seal or the fan club, well, visible fanclub, anyway.

I like this new project because it means TVhobo is now moving the battle to the last needed area. By helping to turn as many almost-Chomskys in the world into actual-Chomskys, I can push towards the finish of the job TVhobo has played a role in but which has been going on in so many other forms and forces in so many ways throughout human history and will continue.

Who are the almost-Chomskys and what is an actual-Chomsky? Well the really-existing would-be-Chomskys are almost-Chomskys but not quite, eg they don't get the truth about language, communication, ego, to start with. And that's why I have to incorporate some key Idries Shah extracts into that first bit of teaching because only between Chomsky and Idries Shah on this topic can I properly demonstrate to the almost-Chomskys how to be an actual-Chomsky.

And then, well - there's still a tonne more in so many directions, so much stuff to bring out, into one new singularly directed stream of idea, argument and research/reasoning, aimed, as I say, at converting a vast array of almost-Chomskys into actual-Chomskys. There's a fair bit of Feynman to bring up also, only touched on so far at tvhobo, relating to some of the maths at the heart of the "world view" of people like Feynman, no doubt Hawking too, and any genuinely brilliant minds alive today with sufficient awareness of the 'findings' of humanity's "great minds" (like Feynman and Bohr). (Not to mention Chomsky and apparently Kant).

Once modern intellectuals etc understand all which needs to be taught on the above topic, there is no doubt that the many of them who treat my 'lengthy' writings differently to the 'lengthy' writings/lectures of Chomsky or Feynman or any number of professors at any number of universities will be more like the few who do not. This will have untold practical value which that few understands well enough.

Anyway, as for its cost, tvhobo's cost could, theoretically, be directed at a trading fund instead. I could shut off the site, it could vanish into nonentity, and that'd be that. But what a waste. The aesop story about geese springs to mind! No. Unthinkable. But just for theory's sake, I mention it, ie there is even, technically, an available 'fund' for the algorithm to use, and grow, larger and larger, although 1000 quid a year is pretty paltry, better to have my website, let it be wondrous and meanwhile use literally zero pounds to generate a trading budget according as does the will of the universe, so to speak, the landscape of probability, the arrival of trades and the inevitable probability-maths-demonstrated profits. The web site is mightier than the trading budget.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC5E8ie2pdM