Further education

[Valec]

I wouldn't say alot as I doubt alot of our pauses were missing before the rules for using commas were added.

It's "a lot". Alot isn't a word.

Sorry, I couldn't resist in a grammar thread.

[Zavon]

Keep in mind, that in actual conversation, there rarely is a pause at all. In fact, words don't even have spaces in everyday speech. Listen to yourself next time you talk. It all blurs together like one gigantic word.

[VKhaun]

Keep in mind, that in actual conversation, there rarely is a pause at all. In fact, words don't even have spaces in everyday speech. Listen to yourself next time you talk. It all blurs together like one gigantic word.

No it doesn't. I pause all the time. That was my whole gripe to start with. People all pause differently and you need the ability to express it differently when communicating the spoken word using the written word. Punctuation rules allow for that with symbols others than commas though and I see now that commas do have a purpose. I will refrain from hitting the comma key until I've furthered my education appropriately. :P

[Mute]

If commas constitute pause, then I'd hate to read any letters written by William Shatner.

[Zavon]

No it doesn't. I pause all the time. That was my whole gripe to start with. People all pause differently and you need the ability to express it differently when communicating the spoken word using the written word. Punctuation rules allow for that with symbols others than commas though and I see now that commas do have a purpose. I will refrain from hitting the comma key until I've furthered my education appropriately. :P

Yes, it fucking does. Read my message out loud. Watch a clip on youtube. ANY Clip. Notice how during the course of a conversation every word rolls together in one gigantic mouth moving extravaganza. Words, in speech, do not have spaces. Theyallgotogetherlikethiswhenwetalkbro.

[Sillywilly]

If commas constitute pause, then I'd hate to read any letters written by William Shatner.

LMFAO

Oh yeah, shut up Zavon and look outside the window cause there's, someone on the wing! Some, thing!

[Zavon]

LMFAO

Oh yeah, shut up Zavon and look outside the window cause there's, someone on the wing! Some, thing!

[VKhaun]

Yes, it fucking does. Read my message out loud. Watch a clip on youtube. ANY Clip. Notice how during the course of a conversation every word rolls together in one gigantic mouth moving extravaganza. Words, in speech, do not have spaces. Theyallgotogetherlikethiswhenwetalkbro.

How about we watch the Shatner clip posted before this quote, and you admit you're wrong?

[Zavon]

How about we watch the Shatner clip posted before this quote, and you admit you're wrong?

I'm not wrong. This is a corner stone of Psycholinguistics. In fact, there is a whole series of measurements centered around the length of syllables (if you will) to represent the same idea in different languages constitutes longer cognitive processing "run times". In other words, it takes a lot more syllables to count to 10 in Chinese than in does in English-- to say it outloud. I am not talking out of my ass here.

Do you still not get it? Try looking at yourself in the mirror, and say, "Hey good looking, how are you doing?". Notice that your mouth never quits moving. The sounds you utter have no break in them. Watch anyone speaking. All of our words come out as one long jumbled sound.

[Zavon]

Here, you might find this interesting:

In a funny way, this makes sense of the difficulty of drawing. If you could consciously experience a purely visual picture, untainted by any depth, meaning, or organization, then to draw what is in front of you, all you would have to do is replicate that picture on the piece of paper. In fact, your supposed visual conscious experience that is imbued with depth, meaning, and organization. It takes skill to actually perceive the purely visual aspects of a picture. For example, once I needed to draw an ellipse. I had seen ellipses and I thought I could visualize an elllipse, but when I tried to draw one on paper, it didn't look right. (That means my brain knew what an ellipse looked like well enough to tell me that I wasn't drawing an ellipse.) Then I had an insight -- if I took a coin and viewed it an angle, the outline of the coin would be an ellipse. So I just tried to copy on paper what I was "seeing" when I looked at a coin at an angle. That didn't help, it still didn't look like an ellipse.

Similarly, when you listen to language, you don't hear sounds, you hear parts of our alphabet, which are called phonemes. So you hear things like the 't' sound and the 'd' sound. It is very difficult to hear the underlying sound. That makes it very difficult to learn a foreign language that sorts sounds differently from ours. For example, in Hindi, there is a 't' phoneme, a 'd' phoneme (usually spelled dh), and a third phoneme right in between these two. You have to practice just to hear the difference between the phonemes -- your Inferential System naturally just splits things into the English 't' and the English 'd'. You think you are hearing the real sound, but you are not.

Similarly, if you listen to someone speaking a language you do not know, it will sound like they are talking fast and that there is no space between the words. That is correct; in fact, there is rarely any real space between words when people speak. However, it is the same for English. When you listen to English, you "hear" a space between words, but that is just your brain sorting the sound into words. Someone who did not know English would hear you as talking fast with no space between words.
Combining Sensory Systems
Suppose a subject is listening, via earphones, to a repetition of the sound “ba.” Meanwhile, the subject is looking at a video of someone repeatedly saying “ga”, in synchrony with the sound “ba.” The subject will hear the sound “da.” This is called the McGurk effect. "Da" is in between "ga" and "ba" in terms of where the constriction of your vocal tract occurs, and hence is in between the two in sound. So the subjects are "simply" averaging the two sounds.

Why does visual input influence what subjects hear? "Ba" is the only real sound going into the auditory system, so you would expect subjects to just hear "ba".

But you do not become conscious of that auditory system, at least not directly. Instead, it feeds its information into your Inferential System. Meanwhile, the visual system is also feeding information into your Inferential System. In the case of reading lips, that information is converted to auditory information. You can experience this if you turn off the sound on your TV and just look at the people talking. Occasionally, you will hear a word or phrase. It won’t sound like actually speech; it might sound like when you talk to yourself. The point remains that you will getting an auditory experience from just a visual picture.

These two different pieces of auditory perception are then combined together in the Inferential System. The Inferential System can't produced two auditory images. So it assumes that there is one sound, averages the two inputs, and concludes "da".

The usual perceptual experience is of course that we DO know what sensory modality is producing our perceptions. For example, you will look at a cat, perceive a cat, think that your percpeption of the cat is based on visual perception, and be correct. If the cat meows, you know you are also using auditory information.

It is rare that we do not know what sensory modality is responsible for our conscious experience, but that situation can occur. Once my wife was going to say something, then she changed her mind and said nothing. To encourage her to say what she wanted to say, I said “What?” Then she told me what she was going to say. I had done this several times before -- known that she was going to speak but didn't. So this was not unusual. However, in the past, I had used visual cues. Or at least I thought I was using visual cues -- I would see her mouth open, but then she wouldn't say anything. This time, as I realized soon after, my wife was in one room and I was in another, and I couldn't see her. That puzzled me for a while -- how did I know she was going to speak if she didn't speak and I couldn't see her?

I finally realized that she might have made sounds. For example, she might have made a sound in drawing a breath. Or she might have made a sound in closing her throat while air was being exhaled. The point is, I did not know what sensory system had provided the information needed to conclude that she was going to speak but did not, even though I was quite confident in my conclusions. Actually, I assumed I was using visual information until I realized I didn't have any visual information.

More commonly when we do not know what sensations are producing a conclusion from the Inferential System, we are likely to call it an intuition. In my grilled-cheese example, the visual image of a cooked sandwich could have been produced by the visual input of bubbles or olfactory input. At the time, I had no idea that any sensory system could provide cues.

Another time I had an intuition that my soup was boiling. Because I thought my soup had not been cooking long enough to boil, I ignored my intuition and returned to my work. I was again interrupted by the thought that my soup was boiling. I thought about if there could be any cues that my soup was boiling. That brought my attention to smell, and yes, I could smell my soup. And yes, when I finally checked, it was indeed boiling. If I had known that my first thought was produced from olfactory information, I would have examined smell immediately.

Source: http://somepsychology.com/psisper3.htm

[VKhaun]

Do you still not get it? Try looking at yourself in the mirror, and say, "Hey good looking, how are you doing?". Notice that your mouth never quits moving. The sounds you utter have no break in them. Watch anyone speaking. All of our words come out as one long jumbled sound.

You have no feet. Just look down and you will see that there are no feet on the end of your legs.

[Zavon]

You have no feet. Just look down and you will see that there are no feet on the end of your legs.

Nope. I refuse to believe you are this retarded. We must simply be misunderstanding each others stances for whatever reason.

Carry on.