Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

That was easy. On the street people talk 100 kph
and I've no idea what's being said.

I can only imagine. I suspect that it would take a good deal of time to get used to that sort of speed. But that is probably true of any language new to a person.

 

[John53]

That was easy. On the street people talk 100 kph
and I've no idea what's being said.

Pardon?

 

[Audie]

Pardon?

ez moi

 

[Audie]

I would imagine I do too. Relevant to where I might be. The Ozark accent has some southern US influence, but it has its own unique flavors as well.

A tinge of Cantonese, British, and NYC.

( Note the Oxford comma)

 

[cladking]

First, they're not believers by faith, but people who are persuaded by the evidence and the arguments from evidence that evolution is real and capable of explaining many aspects of nature.

Everybody from flat earthers to Peers believes they are only persuaded by evidence. In a very real way they are because all evidence is interpreted. Everyone makes sense in terms of his premises.

Like all scientific theories, it's a work in progress, and I have no doubt it will look different in 50 years time just as it looked different 50 years ago.

We're very much in agreement.

 

[cladking]

Everybody on the planet spoke this same language but 'language" is an abstraction in our language therefore just like bees they lacked a word for language.

They called the language they used 'the words of the gods". They had no word for "language" because it is an abstraction and they understood no abstractions. There was only one "language" anyway.

Of course it can not be translated because no sentence and no word from AL can be translated. The closest interepretation I can provide is their language was known as "representations of nature". Their word "neter" meant "nature and we mistranslate it as "god'. All words were representations of something so their word "word" meant "representations" as closely as it can be translated in modern language.

 

[cladking]

They called the language they used 'the words of the gods". They had no word for "language" because it is an abstraction and they understood no abstractions. There was only one "language" anyway.

Of course it can not be translated because no sentence and no word from AL can be translated. The closest interepretation I can provide is their language was known as "representations of nature". Their word "neter" meant "nature and we mistranslate it as "god'. All words were representations of something so their word "word" meant "representations" as closely as it can be translated in modern language.

Everything they said is dismissed because it looks like magic instead of metaphysics. What I say is dismissed because I'm the first to say it.

The reality is ancient science had some things much more correct than we do. Every single thing directly related to consciousness and most things indirectly related they had closer to reality. This means their theory of change in species is much more accurate than Darwin because Darwin discounted consciousness and consciousness is foundational to behavior and change in species. We are wrong because all the assumptions generated by language and its effects in homo omnisciencis are wrong. We are not logical because language is not logical. We must depend on experiment for knowledge because everyone has his own evidence and beliefs. No paradigm is on secure footing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm trying to wrap my head around this.

Social behavior with a genetic basis has a range of fitness relevant to the social situation much as would any trait in the environment.

It has been years since I read something about it, but I will give you this. It is not established science, it is more an hypotheses.

It was written before Metoo so here it goes.
In a strong patriarchal male dominant society certain traits are selected for versus a cooperative "flat" society.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm trying to understand this. Is it fair to say you are saying within the scope of science, making wild subjective claims is a fail, but that they are widely provided in everyday life and we adjust and react to them subjectively as well?

Yes, it is culture. A child is born into a set of behaviors and grows up copying them.
I got one in the wild once I worked a place where there were children.
One child to the other: My mother says that your mother is stupid. You are stupid too.

Now make that general for psychology and that all humans are born into behavior they learn to copy and internalize as their own.
So someone is born into a (sub-)culture with a narrative about how the world is, what good and bad is and how to view other humans.

Some of us are then taught to understand that and spot it and even do it differently in some cases. But that is in effect also a (sub-)culture.
Now for the other posts about selection and replication of the fittest genes. In a sense language is a non-DNA replicated pool of different codes for how to survive and get off spring.

"Codes" for behavior: DNA, mimic behavior/learning traits, language as both mimicking behavior and a passed on set of information, technology as books and today computers.
Now notice how DNA is slow in comparison to modern science and information. We have learned to argument our DNA by moving information about what works into language, writing and then computers.
But it is still subject to nature and selection and in effect we could end up being a dead end of "too big brains" and killing ourselves off as a species.

 

[blü 2]

Everybody from flat earthers to Peers believes they are only persuaded by evidence. In a very real way they are because all evidence is interpreted. Everyone makes sense in terms of his premises.

This is where that part of reasoned enquiry known as 'scientific method' comes to the fore. Its aim is to make accurate statements about the physics of the world external to the self by exploring, describing and seeking to explain. It's based on empiricism and induction, but it takes neither of those for granted, instead calling for repeatable experiments, honesty, openness and peer reviewed publication, and so on. It acknowledges that there are no absolute statements, no protection from unknown unknowns. But there are statements good enough to put rovers on Mars, vaccines in your metabolism, car batteries which allow a range of hundreds of miles, computers, on and on.

No other system has comparable success.

That's the benefit of having an objective test for whether any statement it makes about reality is accurate or not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It has been years since I read something about it, but I will give you this. It is not established science, it is more an hypotheses.

It was written before Metoo so here it goes.
In a strong patriarchal male dominant society certain traits are selected for versus a cooperative "flat" society.

I would say that different traits are under selection in both or perhaps the traits in the former are not protected by selection in the latter.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would say that different traits are under selection in both or perhaps the traits in the former are not protected by selection in the latter.

Yeah, that is a good point.

 

[cladking]

This is where that part of reasoned enquiry known as 'scientific method' comes to the fore. Its aim is to make accurate statements about the physics of the world external to the self by exploring, describing and seeking to explain. It's based on empiricism and induction, but it takes neither of those for granted, instead calling for repeatable experiments, honesty, openness and peer reviewed publication, and so on. It acknowledges that there are no absolute statements, no protection from unknown unknowns. But there are statements good enough to put rovers on Mars, vaccines in your metabolism, car batteries which allow a range of hundreds of miles, computers, on and on.

No other system has comparable success.

That's the benefit of having an objective test for whether any statement it makes about reality is accurate or not.

I am in no way suggesting that faith and belief are superior to science.

I am suggesting that faith and belief are fundamental to the human consciousness whether one is a shaman or a scientist. I am suggesting there is far more faith and belief in Darwin than there is science.

 

[cladking]

The following is from Butler's Semiotic Metaphysics in the Book of Thoth; "The foremost also of them, he being as a lamp which is lit, while he interprets their language

I don't want to belabor this but then I do believe that change in species is principally dependent on consciousness. This is as close as ancient people come to thinking or understanding of consciousness using words. Unfortunately it is probably already translated into modern language because AL did not use simile or analogy which are abstractions. Ancient writing doesn't survive because every scrap of it was studied and restudied trying to find how the ancients became so powerful and wise. It was loved to a million pieces and lost.

"A burning lamp" sheds light on all things that are real, that exist. It sheds no light on what doesn't exist so these must be deduced. Their reality was binary and it still very much is even though we perceive it differently. Ancient Language is untranslatable. It's really more accurate to say modern language can't be translated but the point is neither can be expressed in terms of the other.

Darwin couldn't study the light from the individual fossils and didn't even realize such light existed. It never dawned on him that without it he couldn't understand the individual, the species, or why it changed.

 

[gnostic]

The tower of babel wasn't so much about the downfall of Ancient Language as it was the end of science, history, new technology, human progress, comfort, and economies.

No, the Tower of Babel is nothing more than a myth, a fiction.

Your fantasy of ancient science, is also nothing more than fiction.

You are the only person here, at this forum, believing in your narrative.

You have no evidence to support your absurd narrative. You've provided no evidence, but do you rely on confirmation bias and circular reasoning.

You have no qualifications in any fields of sciences or in the fields of history or in the fields of languages. You are just self-proclaimed "metaphysician" and "generalist", which don't require any qualifications at all.

You said you are no expert and have no expertise, and yet,

• you believe know more than all biologists about biology (including Evolution), when you don't have any experiences or qualifications in biology...
  • ...have you ever study biology of living organisms, or have you ever really study fossils before?
• you know more about history and archaeology than historians and archaeologists, when you incapable of reading any historical documents or haven't worked at any archaeological sites,
• and, you believe you know more about language than philologists, when you cannot even decipher or translate any ancient languages.

And what would you know about technology, cladking? Are you an engineer of any fields, be they civil, structural, mechanical, electronic or computer? Do you have any qualifications in any technology?

It is contradictory to claim you have no expertise, and yet claimed to be ALL-KNOWING?!

 

[gnostic]

Ancient Language is untranslatable.

If they are untranslatable, then you wouldn't know how they think or feel, cladking. You certainly wouldn't know they think logically, or have any knowledge of science.

Which mean, your whole narrative about 40,000 years old civilisation of science and language, is pure speculation.

That's what you are not understanding, cladking. You don't know the mind of people who were alive 40,000 years ago, and you are speculating and making up stories, but you have been treating your fiction as if they were facts. That's what everyone arguing about you here.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What do you think bees call the "waggle dance"?

So then language includes non-linguistic communication when you use the word. That's going to be difficult to work with if you don't modify the word. The point of prose is to be understood, and to do that, we want to narrow the meanings of our words and phrases. Poetry is different. It's art, a type of verbal Rorschach test in which the audience is encouraged to project themselves onto ambiguous language and generate different ideas from the words. But when you want to be understood, as when giving directions to get somewhere, you want to use more precise language that leaves no room for misinterpretation.

Metaphysical language is not that hard to understand. A computer program has eight words that break Zipf''s Law just like AL and it can drive the net so a 4000 word language can drive stinky footed bumpkins. Just like computer language every word bears a logical and mathematical relationship to every other word. Words were representative and no word was defined. just like computer language each word had a fixed immutable meaning that was representative instead of symbolic.

I don't know what you mean by metaphysical language, and I can't tell from the context that followed. Would the bee dance count? If so, why? If not, why? Teach me what you mean by that phrase so that I can correctly identify which languages you would call metaphysical, and also, please tell me what you call non-metaphysical languages.

I do believe that change in species is principally dependent on consciousness.

Where's your argument? Does it include evidence?

I don't agree with the assumptions that are part and parcel of modern language.

Which assumptions are those, and do you have a reason for rejecting them? At this point, I'm guessing that the answer is no, but that you will answer yes anyway while offering no argument, just more unevidenced claims. I wish I knew how to help you change that, assuming that that is something that you would consider helpful. Let's find out why you believe what you do in a way that others can follow and understand.

We tell people what we're thinking but ancient people invited them over for coffee and cookies. They were not only on the same page when they conversed but they tended to always default to about the same page.

They conversed? Does that mean using words, or does that word include the bees' communication for you? The problem for me is that I never really know what you are saying, but would like to. Unfortunately, that will be difficult to impossible without your understanding and cooperation.

They had no beliefs we have only beliefs.

I don't believe that. My dogs have beliefs.

Just because "skeptics" don't see me citing Peers or identifying the giants upon whose shoulders I work hardly means that it isn't evidence or isn't logical.

Others can't see any concealed evidence you claim supports you, and so should consider your claim unevidenced until they see evidence themselves according to Hitchens' Razor.

I've stated my motive numerous times; the human race is committing suicide through belief in survival of the fittest and not understanding our own science, the past, and consciousness itself. I would like it to stop.

I accept that.

I disagree with your reason there, but I don't disbelieve you that it is your mission here. The human race appears to be headed for two great corrections, since it doesn't seem to possess the ability to do better and avert disaster proactively: global warming and harmful artificial intelligence. I think you're tilting at windmills attacking a belief in natural selection as a threat to man.

The tower of babel wasn't so much about the downfall of Ancient Language as it was the end of science, history, new technology, human progress, comfort, and economies.

It looks like I guessed correctly. What AL meant to you. Thanks for writing it out.

I suppose that you believe that a literal tower was built that God destroyed leading to multiple mutually unintelligible languages, but as is so often the case, I don't really know just what you mean. If that's what you mean, it's an unshared premise to me, so any conclusions derived from it will be of limited value to a skeptic.

AL simply can never be translated.

My dog's non-verbal thoughts can be translated into any literal language. She does a waggle dance of her own when my wife comes home, running over to me and standing on her hind legs with her front paws on my thigh excitedly panting. In English, that translates to "Mama's home!" In Spanish, it's "¡Mamá está en casa!"

There are some interesting thoughts reported by Butler. The-one-who-loves-knowledge, he says: “I have rowed in the circuits (?) of the sea (among?) the apprentices who are in the sacred bark … Fill my fingers (with) the rudder of the field-dwellers! I spent a thousand years while I rowed therein.”13,

The-one-who-loves-knowledge, he says: “I have fished (with) the net of Shentait, Shai … the net of …” The Opener upon his Standard,26 he says: “What is the taste of the prescription27 of writing? What is this net?”28

Suddenly, I am reminded of Baha'u'llah. Those two sentences are poetry, and a good example of what I called a verbal Rorschach test. Are they from the Book of Thoth? Are they translations of the inscriptions of ancients? Is this Ancient Language to you?

 

[cladking]

No, the Tower of Babel is nothing more than a myth, a fiction.

And you've never presented any evidence for this while I've presented copious argument and evidence you are wrong. You are simply assuming that people didn't used to make any sense so stories you deem senseless can have no basis in reality. You are wrong in your assumptions and your conclusions. The only thing the writer didn't know was that it was also a speciation event. He didn't know because he didn't understand the nature of "species" and ancient people didn't believe in species.

Gainsaying and semantics are not arguments at all. They are a vacuous restatement of your own beliefs and assumptions.

Your fantasy of ancient science, is also nothing more than fiction.

I suppose bees communicate through incantation? What would you call a language that represented reality? You're quibbling over words and their meanings and I'm telling you how reality appears to actually work.

You are the only person here, at this forum, believing in your narrative.

I am the only person in the world who believes all this. I believe there's a better than 80% chance that I am essentially correct.

you believe know more than all biologists about biology (including Evolution), when you don't have any experiences or qualifications in biology...

• ...have you ever study biology of living organisms, or have you ever really study fossils before?

No! i know nothing. I do know that there is a 99% probability that Darwin believed in all of his assumptions and that these assumptions were most probably wrong. This doesn't make me an expert nor does it make me knowledgeable. Did you forget that i thought beavers ate fish from time to time? Shows what I know doesn't it?

you know more about history and archaeology than historians and archaeologists, when you incapable of reading any historical documents or haven't worked at any archaeological sites,

No. I know nothing. I believe there s a high probaility that archaeologists and linguists are completely wroing about every single thing that applied to people before 2000 BC. This does not make me an "expert" of any sort. It makes them wrong.

And what would you know about technology, cladking? Are you an engineer of any fields, be they civil, structural, mechanical, electronic or computer? Do you have any qualifications in any technology?

I've told you before technology is a parlor trick and I've excelled at it from a very young age. Technology springs from the understanding of experiment.

It is contradictory to claim you have no expertise, and yet claimed to be ALL-KNOWING?!

I know nothing. This goes against every single one of your assumptions including your reverence for Peers and belief in evidence. I'm suggesting it is you who are wrong.

If they are untranslatable, then you wouldn't know how they think or feel, cladking. You certainly wouldn't know they think logically, or have any knowledge of science.

No. AL and its meaning must be solved and deduced. I solved it first then I deduced the implications.

This was all done simultaneously with reverse engineering ancient structures and processes.

 

[cladking]

So then language includes non-linguistic communication when you use the word. That's going to be difficult to work with if you don't modify the word.

Apparently Bee used a lot of nonverbal communication. As I said I don't believe Human did.

But when you want to be understood, as when giving directions to get somewhere, you want to use more precise language that leaves no room for misinterpretation.

Most people are poor at this. Even those of us who are more adept can lose sight of our audience. Women tend to navigate by landmarks for instance. May people can't follow precise language and get lost before the end of the sentence. They might not even know they are lost because they parsed it in an unintended way that makes sense to them. We have eight billion different languages today. Homo sapiens had one.

I don't know what you mean by metaphysical language, and I can't tell from the context that followed. Would the bee dance count? If so, why?

Let me think about this. There could be an easier way to explain it.

As far as bees; all consciousness and the language unique to each species is metaphysical. The entire "language" which includes chemical, sensory, vibrational, light, verbal, and other means to create words constitutes the language. I am calling it Bee for lack of a better word. These languages are all formatted the exact same way and a great deal of interspecies communication occurs. Humans used to be in on this. All the languages are metaphysical and resonate with nature/ consciousness/ reality. All of these languages are the "words of the gods"/ "representations of nature". They all agree with the laws of nature to the degree that species can understand the laws of nature.

 

[cladking]

I don't know what you mean by metaphysical language, and I can't tell from the context that followed.

This is the only complex idea I'm trying to get across. The language isn't complex. It's so simple a caveman or a bee can do it but the concept is complex and is not apparent to people who speak symbolic, analog, and abstract language. It's easy for us to think that this is the nature of language because it's the only language we know. The language is natural to all consciousness except to consciousness that uses modern languages. It arises naturally since the first word in every language is probably "hi". This is necessary to procreation but rather than meaning "hello" as it does to us in metaphysical language it means "I am here, you are there". Soon there are lots of smaller words that come into existence and greatly increasing need for communication. Language grows with complexity of the species and the nature of the individuals in that species to interact. For, instance much feline communication is chemical (based on smell) but other species live in close contact and cooperate to prosper. Each word added to the language has a fixed concrete meaning. If the language becomes sufficiently complex such as Crow or Porpoise then grammar that parallels the laws of nature arise as well. Human was very complex so each generation could build on the work of the previous and this is what underlies human progress, not intelligence. Humans are not significantly smarter than other species and may not be smarter than all other species (any longer). We have the ability to stand on the shoulders of giants but octopi have no shoulders. They have consciousness and smarts to spare but there are no et als in the octopus world. Each individual starts at the very beginning, "I am conscious therefore I am".

You are familiar with no metaphysical languages and even imagining one will prove difficult. Mathematics has many similarities to one but ultimately it's just the logic without the communication. Computer code has only eight words and has all the logic and can not be parsed but it's only one way communication from code to output so is not two way. Just like old computers were rewired to create meaning code essentially drives meaning. Both math and code break Zipf's law just like metaphysical language.

Human metaphysical language as used by homo sapiens was probably formatted just like other species and this is based on the fact that proto-humans who existed before 40,000 years ago (before Adam [S3h]) would have had a simple metaphysical language and the complexity in language caused by "Adam's" mutation would have logically just been an elaboration on the existing language. There is no reason to believe the new more complex language was "invented". Indeed, if it were "invented" it seems highly improbable that Eve would have been capable of learning it. Adam's highly adaptive mutation would not have spread through the population if there were no one to talk to and other individuals couldn't communicate with him. Obviously the story of adam and eve could be an old wives tale told over homo sapien camp fires but the concept of an original human is very robust in Ancient Language. Adam or "S3h" it doesn't really matter if it were a real individual or not but he was necessarily a part of language and represented the first human, hence appearing in the Bible from one source or another.

I could go into many of the specifics about the nature and characteristics of AL deduced from my solution of it but have found this tends to be off putting to most people. Everything about metaphysical language and the copious evidence for it tends to be off putting. Saying that every word had one meaning and every thing (no abstractions) had three words that defined the perspective and meaning of the sentence is off putting. People just don't want to hear anything about it.

I call it "metaphysical" because every word had a mathematical (logical) relationship to every other word. It contained all human knowledge, was the means by which they thought, and contained the laws of nature as they were understood by humans and from the perspective of humans. It was highly scientific and metaphysical as evidenced by the fact an individual could learn something he didn't know by mere deduction of the words of someone more knowledgeable. The language was universal and spoken by all humans everywhere. There were mutually intelligible dialects. By the time of babel most individuals (more than 95%) spoken pidgin forms of the language which were very poor at communication and the forerunners of all modern languages. They were not mutually intelligible and so poor that even simple communication was very difficult. These languages obey Zipf's law. Indeed, it is likely that virtually everything created by homo omnisciencis obeys Zipf's law.

It's easier to understand the nature of this is you learn a few passages in AL. You must model the intended meaning by seeing the literal meaning. This, the connection between literal and intended meaning, is probably the chief reason I was even able to solve it.