String theory, Relativity, and angels

by onacruse 133 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Terry

  I offer an apology for being wordy. Brevity is the soul of wit. I'm a half-wit.

  Innate language and Noam Chomsky?

  He, (Chomsky) is not saying that language itself is born into us (babies don't speak French or Polish from birth) but the sense of grammar is born into us. That is, the ability to create useful rules to organize expression.

  As far as being born with an angel inside of us or as a part of our consciousness and then being our consultant------all I can say is---wow! Is that just an assertion hanging in space like a cloud or do you have some fact, data, or experiment that would test it? I'm open. How do we test that?

  Multiple personality disorder demonstrates that we can form (like those nested dolls, one inside the other) layers of personality distinct from one another to protect ourselves in the face of trauma. But, it IS A FORM OF INSANITY. Which is to say, not a source of data.

  I'll shut up now or I'll be wordy again.

  Thanks for calling me on that. I have to work on that.

  Terry
• 

  Pole

  Innate language and Noam Chomsky?

  He, (Chomsky) is not saying that language itself is born into us (babies don't speak French or Polish from birth) but the sense of grammar is born into us. That is, the ability to create useful rules to organize expression.

  Hello? Did you even read my post? I'm very specific about linguistics. I wrote: "Universal, innate grammar", not a specific language. That babies don't speak French from birth goes without saying - that wasn't my argument at all and I made it clear. It doesn't take a linguist to state that, so don't put these words in my mouth.

  And you're wrong when you say "the sense of grammar".

  Edited: or when you say "the ability to create useful rules to organize expression".

  It's much more than just "an ability". Chomsky was a MIT mathematician he spent half of his life trying to come up with a body of specific context-free transformational rules (= a body of knowledge) which would correspond to the innate Universal grammar. So it was much more than merely "the sense of grammar". What do you mean by that anyway?

  As far as being born with an angel inside of us or as a part of our consciousness and then being our consultant------all I can say is---wow! Is that just an assertion hanging in space like a cloud or do you have some fact, data, or experiment that would test it? I'm open. How do we test that?

  I didn't say that, it's not my argument. But now I see why you wanted this example...
• 

  frenchbabyface

  Terry : Is that just an assertion hanging in space like a cloud or do you have some fact, data, or experiment that would test it? I'm open. How do we test that?

  I should have shut my mouth ... (I don't want to talk about it cause it is related to numerology - and its basic applications : there are different kinds - but not in the way we hear about it ...) also it could be long and boring to talk about (unless with people who are really interested in the matter ) also for now I don't have the time for that.

  I've tried to post a topic on the matter last year ... and decided to not go further on it by now.
• 

  frenchbabyface

  Pole : which would correspond to the innate Universal grammar

  the scientist are talking about a cosmological code which work like a mathematical formula (so why not based on 1 to 9 in begining by the start 0) Ok ... I stop NOW
• 

  Terry

  Pole: It's much more than just "an ability". Chomsky was a MIT mathematician he spent half of his life trying to come up with a body of specific context-free transformational rules (= a body of knowledge) which would correspond to the innate Universal grammar. So it was much more than merely "the sense of grammar". What do you mean by that anyway?

  *************************************************************************************************************

  If I understand you correctly (not at all sure I do) you are making an appeal to Authority. That authority is Noam Chomsky. You are asserting that Chomsky gave an example of innate data that I had asked for when I decried mystics. Right so far?

  Now our current problem seems to be what the nature of Chomsky's proof is. Did he offer proof? You assert he did. But, darned if I can figure out what it is. If reductio ad absurdum on my part didn't pry it out of you; it certainly got your attention :)

  I'm obviously too dense to ferret out your Authority's proof of innate data, knowledge or information. Please spoon feed it to me so that my fragile widdle bwain can gum it into a digestible paste.

  *********************************************************************************************************

  Concerning the "innate angel" question and numerology-----I don't mean to imply I'm ready to jump down your throat or trap you into making a fool of yourself. I am just a naturally curious person. In my narrow, claustrophobic world there are only two ways to get extraordinary information:

  1.Dig it out, hypothesize it, analyze it, test it, prove it.

  2.Make it up out of thin air and pretend it comes from a mystical source of hidden information.

  Number One of the above is Primacy of Existence.

  Number Two is Primacy of Consciousness.

  That is all in the world I was trying to say. But, I'm like a fat gasbag full of wind and stumble over my own profusion of words.

  Terry
• 

  Pole

  :: If I understand you correctly (not at all sure I do) you are making an appeal to Authority.

  You asked for examples of "data that we are born with". I thought that you meant any examples of such data, and - being a naturally helpful person - I gave you the example from the field of human language acquisition. I paid some lip service to Chomsky - that's true, but I'm not sure at what point it became "an appeal to authority".

  Then you came up with your exclammation:

  :: Innate language and Noam Chomsky?

  :: He, (Chomsky) is not saying that language itself is born into us (babies don't speak French or Polish from birth) but the sense of grammar is born into us. That is, the ability to create useful rules to organize expression.

  The answer to your surprisal and the contradiction that followed is this again:

  Chomsky didn't just mean "the ability to create useful rules to organize expressions". I don't think Chomsky would have ever become known if this had been his main point, Terry :)

  Mystical as it may sound, what Chomsky in fact claimed was that there is a set of ready-made rules on which all natural languages are based, and that all children must have access to those rules in order to develop language-specific communication skils. THese rules can be represented as logical expressions of the form: A --> B + C

  In other words, French, Chinese and English have all a common denominator in the form of an abstract Universal Grammar. With time Chomsky even began to claim that there is a "language acquisition device" - a neurological entity (ie: piece of brain) which encompasses this inborn knowledge.

  This is not an appeal to authority. I'm just commenting on what you said Chomsky's view on language acquisition was.

  Now what is the evidence that you asked about? Agan my disclaimer comes here: I'm not totally convinced by this evidence - but I find it hard to ignore altogether.

  1) Language universals
  2) The poverty of stimulus argument
  3) Language acquisition studies (the critical age hypothesis)

  There's no point in trying to elaborate on all of that now, I'm just giving you some pointers:

  1) Let's skip it for now.

  2) The poverty of stimulus argument means that there are "principles of grammar that cannot be learned on the basis of positive input alone, however complete and grammatical that evidence is".

  In other words, there's not much evidence to the effect that all language can really be acquired in this paradigm:

  stimulus - response - feedback -
  stimulus - better_response - more feedback -
  stimulus - even better response - even more feedback etc...

  unless you assume that some set of of universal rules are "encoded" in our brains prenatally.

  3) Acquiring language is different from learning it. The fact that language can only be "fully" acquired before the critical age of 12-14 is sometimes explained with the claim that it is the only time in your neurological development when "the language acquisition device" gets activated. After this period you can only learn the language by understading the rules of grammar and consciously learning from your mistakes and so forth.

  ---------------

  So what? So although Chomsky is not my greatest linguistic authority, I find some of his observations abuot language acquisition irrefutable. It's reasoning by negation, but it makes me think twice before I say that there are no examples of innate knowledge. In other words:

  I do believe that some aspectc of linguistic knowledge are inborn!!!!

  Hope it does it for you, Terry. If I'm still not clear enough, forget it, as it is probably due to the fact that my language acquisition device was only exposed to Polish and not English when before I reached the critical period.

  Confusing Pole
• 

  logansrun

  Funkyderek,

  My concluding thoughts:

  Empiricism has it's limitations and modern science is not as "neat" as we would sometimes like to think.

  Rationality is essential to human knowledge, although it too has it's limitations and "pure rationality" is neither possible nor desireable.

  Other than that, have a nice day.

  B.
• 

  SAHS

  Since there is a relativity theory, a quantum theory, and now a grand unified theory (?GUT?), which seeks to amalgamate the relativity and quantum theories together using the common denominator of ?super strings,? I have always surmised that logically there must also be (in theory) an ultimate, all-encompassing theory which would empirically quantify not only all the other theories of matter and energy as we know it but also incorporate that which would constitute the essence and substance of the ?spirit realm.?

  This might sound somewhat simplistic, but think about it: if the physical realm of matter and energy exists (which it does, since you exist along with the computer screen you are reading right now), and if the ?spirit realm? exists (i.e., including whatever entity that would constitute a ?cause? of our matter/energy world), then there must be, on some ultimate, all-encompassing level, a ?theoretical theory? which would mathematically quantify both together. (I say ?theoretical theory? because it must exist as a virtual concept, but as yet remains unformulated.)

  I would call such a theory the ?Ultimate grand unified theory,? or ?U-GUT,? which would link everything?atomic, sub-atomic, super strings, relativity, as well as the ?spirit realm? (i.e., angels, holy spirit, God)?together in a physically-quantifiable model. I believe that the ?spiritual? is really the ?undiscovered physical??as we could apply the same sort of rigorous ?laws of physics? to it if we only had such laws to encompass it.

  In other words, if it ?exists,? then it can be ?quantified??and ?unified? with anything else that exists?whether ?it? be a proton, neutron, electron, quirk, quark, neutrino particle, takion particle, magniton, photon, that elusive ?graviton? (when are they ever going to find that one!), super string, or whatever ?-ton? particles or strings make up a ?spirit being? or ?spirit force/matter.?

  Could it be that perhaps what we call ?God,? ?Jesus,? ?angels,? and even the ?holy spirit? are also composed of super strings?the same as the super strings which make up all the various ?-ton? particles of matter and energy as we know it, but with those super strings vibrating at a different frequency? If so, could that ?different frequency? be construed as a different ?phase,? or ?phase shift?? Could that explain the interaction of spirit ?creatures? and spirit ?forces? with people and things in our world? In other words, could it explain how the ?spirit realm? and ?physical realm? can exist in the same place at the same time?

  What do you think? Is it possible that a ?spirit? entity is really just some higher-order manifestation of super strings? Could that be the ultimate common denominator?the ultimate ?holy grail? which would amalgamate the scientific with the so-called ?theological?? (Any thoughts appreciated.)

  ?SAHS
• 

  Terry

  Okay Pole,

  I think I understand what you are offering by way of example.

  I am reminded of a tale that Herodotus (Ancient Greek Historian,5th Century BC) tells about an ancient ruler who wanted to know what the "original" language was. He proposed an experiment. An infant, when born, would not be allowed to received spoken language cues from anyone until it spoke. Then, whatever language the child spoke would be the "innate" language.

  Notice all the hidden presuppositions in that!

  **********************************************************************************************************

  I would suggest concerning Noam Chomsky that part of what is going on in the case of language is in the eye of the beholder (or the ear). Making sense of language is an interpretive function.

  The "innate" function of a leg is to be able to walk. The fact that a child eventually is able to get up and walk using the leg is part of what a human being has, by nature, become.

  The innate function of an eye is to see. Being able to see and making sense out of what is seen is certainly "built in" to this capacity. I personally see no difference with the brain and speech. The speech center in the brain is like the sight center or the legs/walk center, etc.

  The nature of those functions is different from what I was discussing in terms of primacy of consciousness.

  We do not use our langauge to gain knowledge or data about language. A child who speaks does not come ready wired with the data of nouns, verbs, direct objects, predicate nominatives, etc. That is my dichotomy between innante functional propensity by way of physical development and the "data" per se of concepts, definitions, axioms.

  This probably isn't even worth fighting about, is it? I certainly am no expert. I am not fit to untie the shoe laces of an expert. I'm just one of those annoying people who reads too much and then opens his mouth like he actually knows what he is talking about.

  Thanks,

  Terry
• 

  Pole

  Terry,

  First of all:

  :: We do not use our langauge to gain knowledge or data about language. A child who speaks does not come ready wired with the data of nouns, verbs, direct objects, predicate nominatives, etc. That is my dichotomy between innante functional propensity by way of physical development and the "data" per se of concepts, definitions, axioms.

  ::This probably isn't even worth fighting about, is it? I certainly am no expert. I am not fit to untie the shoe laces of an expert. I'm just one of those annoying people who reads too much and then opens his mouth like he actually knows what he is talking about.

  If by "knowledge" you mean conscious, reflective knowledge as opposed to subconscious competence , then I can possibly understand your position.

  However, I'm still unwilling to accept the assertion that "unconscious knowledge" is no knowledge at all. Probably because of my background - I'm a computational linguist (not a very good one anyway) who's trying to feed lingustic "knowledge" in a computer. The machine is totally unaware of this fact, but I still call the general rules of interpretation that I provide to it "a knowledge base" . Maybe I just need this presupposition.

  As for your little anegdote:

  :: I am reminded of a tale that Herodotus (Ancient Greek Historian,5th Century BC) tells about an ancient ruler who wanted to know what the "original" language was. He proposed an experiment. An infant, when born, would not be allowed to received spoken language cues from anyone until it spoke. Then, whatever language the child spoke would be the "innate" language.

  I have a possible ending (true story), which I'm pasting below.

  Peace be with you.

  Pole

  ---------------------
  "An interesting example of this is the case of Genie, otherwise known as "The Wild Child". A thirteen-year-old victim of lifelong child abuse, Genie was discovered in her home on November 4th, 1970, strapped to a potty chair and wearing diapers. She appeared to be entirely without language. Her father had judged her retarded at birth and had chosen to isolate her, and so she had remained up until her discovery. It was an ideal (albeit horrifying) opportunity to test the theory that a nurturing environment could somehow make up for a total lack of language past the age of 12. Sadly, she was unable to acquire language completely. Due to this and other complications, she eventually ended up in an adult foster care home.

  "Detractors of the "Critical Age Hypothesis" point out that in this example and others like it (see Feral children), the child is hardly growing up in a nurturing environment, and that the lack of language accquisition in later life may be due to the results of a generally abusive environment rather than being specifically due to a lack of exposure to language."

  "However, there exists emerging evidence of both innateness of language and the "Critical Age Hypothesis" from the deaf population of Nicaragua. Until approximately 1986, Nicaragua had neither education nor a formalized sign language for the deaf. As Nicaraguans attempted to rectify the situation, they discovered that children past a certain age had difficulty learning any language. Additionally, the adults observed that the younger children were using gestures unknown to them to communicate with each other. They invited Judy Kegl, an American linguist from MIT, to help unravel this mystery. Kegl discovered that these children had developed their own, distinct, Nicaraguan Sign Language with its own rules of "sign-phonology" and syntax. She also discovered some 300 adults who, despite being raised in otherwise healthy environments, had never acquired language, and turned out to be incapable of learning language in any meaningful sense. While it was possible to teach vocabulary, these individuals seem to be unable to learn syntax."