"Gene Mutations Linked to Language Development", By Justin Gillis, Washington Post Staff Writer, Thursday, August 15, 2002; Page A13
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17863-2002Aug14.html
"`It's a very exciting discovery,' said Steven Pinker, a top language expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. `This could be a watershed, because now that the technique has been successfully used, we can apply it to other genes with psychological effects. I think it opens the door for a new field of study.'"
[Copyright 2002, by the Washington Post.]
I stand on what I've posted.
k. p. collins
Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
"Language Gene Is Traced to Emergence of Humans", By NICHOLAS WADE
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/15/science/15LANG.html
"The gene came to light through studies of a large London family, well known to linguists, 14 of whose 29 members are incapable of articulate speech but are otherwise mostly normal."
"In a report being published online today by the journal Nature[...]"
"The only change of sufficient magnitude, in his view, is acquisition of language."
[Quotes, above, Copyright 2002, by the New York Times.]
I expect that it's more of a case in which evolutionary convergence upon 'language' 'finally' became functionally-integrated within the "internal frame of reference" [IFR] in a way that 'verbs' map IFR directionality in accord with external WDB2T.
I expect that this can be verified via continued work with the graciously-cooperating subject family.
Still, the result substantiates that 'language' exists 'only' as an interface to deeper cognition - one which, as I've discussed in prior msgs, allows directed, group-wise, exertion of force within external WDB2T - and intergenerational accumulation of knowledge via preserved symbolic representation of bits and pieces of 'knowledge' that've been acquired during individual and group experience.
The difference is, to me, 'hilarious' because it 'replicates' my own circumstance so closely.
I've the 'language'-interface stuff, but my work is 'censored', so there's no communication, so the knowledge, inherent, 'cannot' act within external WDB2T :-]
"Censor his words. They are too powerful." :-]
It's all so 'interesting'.
Group-wise 'language' censoring 'language' - in which the fact that 'language' is but interface-stuff, with respect to 'deeper' TD E/I-minimized-with-respect-to-that-which-is-merely-familiar 'cognition' is, once again, obvious :-]
k. p. collins
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://iubio.bio.indiana.edu/bionet/mm/neur-sci/attachments/20020817/7e061796/attachment.html
