I'd like to explore this further, if you don't mind. FYI, I'm not attempting to defend any particular stance and I don't have anything invested beyond curiosity. I don't understand why you belive a Dunyain can't exist and I want to know why .
Absolutely no problem! A wall of text follows.
How long does it take for a neural pathway to form? Is that a specific measurement that you're aware of?
As far as I'm aware of new developments in the field of neuroscience, neurogenesis occurs at a certain rate (some information on the subject:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4394608/). Synaptic plasticity is, too, not instant (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synaptic_plasticity). The research is, of course, ongoing, but it corroborates the fact that learning languages takes years. We obviously don't exactly know
how we learn, but there are statistical measurements of learning new languages. The timeframe doesn't vary that much. I'm of the opinion it's physiologically based. There is a rate of development for memory and learning-related biological structures, and it cannot be accelerated significantly (not by orders of magnitude, certainly, since it's already pretty efficient). Our bodies have clear-cut limits. To transcend them, another framework is needed, be it electromechanical or built on other biological principles.
Returning to language, there is also the question of practice. You very well can understand a language, but not be able to speak it correctly (a requirement of sorcery, I must note) because your muscles aren't used to making the movements necessary. So it's also about muscle memory, which is acquired by training.
I'm fairly sure Bakker is proficient only in his native language, thus lacking the experience of learning another one (or more) and then comparing your level of proficiency in it to your native one. Otherwise he would've been more realistic in his description. Basically, he not only contradicts my (layman) knowledge, he also contradicts my personal experience. For those yet unaware, English is not my native language (Russian is), and I additionally have a cursory knowledge of two more languages (French and Japanese) in the sense that with ample time and a dictionary I can understand 80% of the texts written in them.
So a Dunyain would basically be an adult that can form neural pathways like a child, maybe? What do you call that, brain elasticity or something?
I don't think there's a biological limitation to that, is there?
There very much is, and a huge one at that. But there is no way to know if it means that adults learn worse than children, instead of learning differently. For example, Bakker likes to call the processes going on in the human brain throughout adulthood neural pruning (he is aware of the limitations in question), while I think he's jumping to conclusions.
A human generally has an easier time learning multiple languages after they learn a 2nd, right? More so if they learned multiple language as a child.
Here I should make a disclaimer. It's not so much proven as implied, and there are issues with the ways the data for this conclusion was gathered. Basically, the problem is in the fact that the studies are too narrow, since a whole lot of things are important here. Like, let's say a child is not bilingual, but was exposed to a huge amount of classical literature. How would it affect their intellectual abilities? There are some studies that conclude children who were constantly intellectually engaged in their formative years are way more adept at learning than their not-so-lucky peers. Which begs the question of what's important here, the nature of engagement or the levels of engagement?
Obviously, learning a language is a complex and time-consuming task, but it's also an intuitive one for the teachers, while a more structured field like literature can easily facilitate drops in engagement that would not be evident for all involved.
Besides, knowing something would, of course, make you better at that particular something, any general intellectual benefits notwithstanding.
I can outline some examples of why knowing multiple languages will help learn others, not even necessarily related ones, but it will take some time and effort to understand them, so I'm not sure it's needed.
'Smart' would just be, again, the ways that Kellhus is smart and able to manipulate people because of it. How much more complex does that definition need to be for this conversation?
This is not at all a definition of anything, since the way Kellhus manipulates people is fictional through and through.
However well you're able to twist words, at some point you will encounter a primitive notion, a desire of the person you're trying to manipulate that would contradict your agenda. That desire is unconquerable, because of its undefinable and inherently contradictory nature. That person is not you, they want things for them and not for you, and it's more important than any words you can concoct. It comes
before words.
This desire is fueled by the strength of character of the person in question, and that's another weakness of the Dunyain concept. I feel here Bakker has it both ways - the Dunyain are spiritually weak, but they impose their spirits on the world around them all the same, easily outweighing every other, more powerful spirit. That's not to mention that the problem of motivation is not even addressed. The Dunyain almost snuffed out emotion, so what makes them act? What enforces
their desire? How are they motivated, when they so weakened the mechanism of motivation?
I don't know how to define 'smart' as it pertains to this. Can I call it 'Dunyain like' for clarity, or does something more rigorous need to be defined so a conversation can happen at all?
I'm not sure how I can help here, because almost everything pertaining to the fantastical nature of the Dunyain is, well, fantastic in my eyes for a variety of reasons. Their strength begs the question of biological feasibility, since our muscles are pretty much the best we can have in our particular case (not the strongest possible in nature, but extremely efficient for our specific place in it). The same goes for their reflexes, but here the conductive speed of nerves is in question, as well as the speed at which the brain processes information.
But their verbal manipulation techniques are the most fantastic of all, since that's not even how discussions work in the real world, as I've outlined above.
Incremental, but infinitely so. This is a concept, not a production line.
Is 0,0001% a difference that will play an important role or even be noticed? It's like I outlined here:
http://www.second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=2257.msg41232#msg41232Another line of questions, is a person from, say, 10,000 years ago intellectually identical to a person today?
This is actually a question that's debated ad nauseam. At this point, the answer is - we don’t know.
But there are, always, constraints and trade offs. We want brain efficiency, so we get a huge head that creates problems during birth, which has an effect on our population. We want endurance, so we sacrifice strength (many apes are way stronger than humans, but humans can go on longer and in more diverse environments). There is also always the matter of size. Sure, some neural networks can consistently beat a professional human player at chess or Go, but they have entire buildings dedicated to their operation, while a single human is relatively small and autonomous.
100% feasible to me still. I still don't see any problems.
At this point I must note that I'm obviously grossly overthinking it.
"We said Superman is a flying brick, so shut up and enjoy the comics!"