Thursday, 4 April 2024
------------------------

Hello. All is well. In chapter eight, we learn about syntax, the arrangement of words in sentences. We formalize the rules of arrangement with syntactic rules.

Generative grammar is a small set of rules that allow you to generate near infinite sentences. In syntactic analysis, we learn of the deep structure (structure of phrases), which then surface structure, e.g. phonological structure arise from. We make symbols for syntactic categories (parts of speech). N (Noun), V (Verb), NP (noun phrase), VP (verb phrase),
Art (article), Adj (adjective), Pro (pronoun), PN (proper noun). Proper noun is a name for person or place, e.g. Alex, Madagascar. 

This allows for static analysis: "the cat chases the mouse". "the cat" is NP, "chases the mouse " is VP, where 'chases' is V and "the mouse" is NP. 

We can make things more dynamic. '->' means consists of. '()' means optional. '{}' means only one of the elements. '=>' means transformation to. 

Okay, lets define some rules. A noun phrase consists of an article and a noun, with an optional adjective, so we write: "NP -> Art (Adj) N". But wait, we can replace NP with pronouns and proper nouns, so we rewrite: "NP -> {Art (Adj) N, Pro, PN}". Let's define verb phrase too, consisting of a verb and a noun phrase: "VP -> V NP". Finally, we define sentence: "S -> NP VP". 

As you can see, a hierarchy with multiple levels emerges. We can use tree diagrams to visualize this, but we'll have to stick with text, heh. Let's try with "Tom chases the mouse". Level one for S we have NP (Tom) and VP (chases the mouse). Level two for NP, we have PN (Tom). Level two for VP, we have V (chases) and NP (the mouse). Level three for NP, we have Art (the) and N (mouse). 

We can add more to our sentence rule, like adding the verb's category of tense: "T -> {present, past, modal}", `S -> NP T VP`.

We use lexical rules to define what words can be used in each syntactic category, e.g. `Art -> {a, the}`, `Modal -> {can, will}`.

With movement rules we can define transformations, like how we turn "Tom can catch Jerry" into a question: `NP T VP => T NP VP`, becoming "can Tom catch Jerry".

These rules are for English only and very minimal, obviously not exhaustive. But it was fun to try.

In the second chapter (secondary book), we learn about ways we try to investigate the brain for autism by neuralimaging. Structurally, there's not a significant difference between autistic and neurotypical brains. Differences become more distinct when you look at the connections in the brain, places with higher and lower connections than average. More common traits of autistic brains is larger amygdala, macrocephaly (larger head), less cortical activity when looking at faces.

What I found interesting is that how autistic people respond to eye contact is the opposite to neurotypical people. My assumption is that how we perceive eye contact depends on perceptional social function. It'd be interesting to know if neurotypical's response would match, if they were looking into the eyes of a wild wolf. Though I know about anthropomorphism, so it may not change much. I encounter dogs frequently when I'm running, and I've read that it's usually not a good idea to look into their eyes. Dependent on the dog, I assume some have more relation to wolves whereas some dogs may be more domesticated and better respond to eye contact. But even wolves have social functions. Actually I think it's mainly if whether the dog has been trained to socialize with humans or if its wild, stray. What I mean is that if your perception does not have a social function, you'll perceive eye contact as hostility and aggression.

The enlarged amygdala thing is interesting too. The author says it serves to explain why she has more anxiety. I'm not saying this is incorrect, but I think it's interesting to wonder if there's more to it. From the emotion book, we learned that the amygdala isn't necessarily for processing emotions of fear and anxiety but novelty. Could it be that a larger amygdala means that you experience more novelty or novelty is processed more intensely?

We know amygdala activity is heightened when learning too. Perhaps our brain is trying to explain this heightened activity in the context by the emotions it constructs? Not that the amygdala is directly linked to a specific emotion. Personally, I've struggled with anxiety most of my life, but after reading the emotion book and trying to find other reasons for why I feel anxiety, it's like it completely vanished from one day to the other. I have short moments where I feel it, but instead of paying too much attention to it, I try to think of what could be the cause. I think it makes a lot of sense that if you don't have the same perceptual social function, that being around people, can feel more like being around a pack of wolves, especially if ones early experiences has been like that. The brain is unable to predict, experiencing more novelty. I think we then use emotions to try and reason the increased activity in amygdala. I've been experimenting a bit with this. Do we experience anxiety and fear? Or do we experience excitement and interest? Or do we experience love and compassion? Could it be possible to shift the brain's emotional construction? I do think so, but a requirement being that it's appropriate for your environment. I think loving kindness is a way to make this change possible. I think I will formalize it more and attempt to structure my own practice. I've not been consistent, but I know it's incredibly powerful from own experience. I've always felt fear while sitting in a bus with other people. But during the period I was very consistent with my compassion practice, I've been able to shift from intense feelings of fear to intense feelings of love, as if the strangers were my nearest family members. I just think we experience everything more intensely perhaps?

It's interesting that the author mentions she is a visual thinker. For myself, I was never able to get anything from compassion practice by the words they usually use. I completely made my own thing that involves visualizations. I can make myself cry from joy within 10 seconds of doing my visual version of compassion practice. I didn't think of this when my instinctive survival mode was triggered the other day. If I get into that state again perhaps I should see if I can reduce the time. It took me around 5 hours last time. I'll write more about this later, what I visualize, but I think everyone has to personalize their practice. I think the more you practice, the easier it becomes to do it when you're under pressure perhaps? Well that makes senses with the idea or neuroplasticity, those wirings becoming stronger, more prone to firing.