Science cannot solve the final mystery

[ecco]

How many times have I said that humans know virtually nothing at all and are confused by language into believing they do.

I don't know how many times you said that humans know virtually nothing at all and are confused by language. Perhaps that is because I, a human, know virtually nothing at all because I am confused by language.

 

[paarsurrey]

Do you really expect me to spend hours upon hours to draw out logic charts parsing your words to show I can deduce your assumptions?
Even if I did it you would dispute both the logic and my own assumptions.

Do you not understand that "demonstrate" has an infinite number of meanings because this is the way our language works? Each definition
in the dictionary is composed of words which in turn have numerous definitions. Every word has connotations and shades of meaning.

How many times have I said that humans know virtually nothing at all and are confused by language into believing they do. Now you ask
me to take upon myself the mantle of omniscience just to prove you have assumptions and see the world in terms of your beliefs which
are derived of those assumptions. Is it really so astounding that it's possible to deduce that someone who uses the term "bifurcate" might
have built models of experiment in his bifurcated mind?

Many people wouldn't even know what you're talking about here because they know no definition of "demonstrate" that makes your sentence
intelligible.

I notice you don't deny a single one of the assumptions I have ascribed to you. I'm sure you could use some good ol' semantics to do just that.

You seem to have forgotten what started all this (pg 39).



You arrange your facts and models logically while everyone else does not? We have 7 billion religions and 7 billion languages and we are each
the only one correct. We each believe someone will have the answer to any question. Obviously if I don't agree with you then I'm the one whom
is wrong.

All models are wrong. All beliefs are wrong and all assumptions merely determine the conclusions. My assumptions have led me to where I am,
and your assumptions have led you to where you are. Different things are more readily visible from different vantages. Even though we can
never really be "right", we can still use tools like facts and reason to make prediction and to understand. We can (all of us) get peeks at reality
but these peeks are still dependent upon our vantage point.

"Do you not understand that "demonstrate" has an infinite number of meanings because this is the way our language works? Each definition
in the dictionary is composed of words which in turn have numerous definitions. Every word has connotations and shades of meaning."

A word tells the history of the people who used it and how it traveled to different places and got new meaning.
It is called , one must be already knowing, by the experts "Etymology":

"It is science of the study of the history of words. By extension, the phrase "the etymology of [some word]" means the origin of the particular word."
The words don't confuse, it is the people who use them who get confused.

Some times ago, I wrote following words about Quran in an another thread:

"The meaning of a word is best understood in the verse/sentence it is used, and the true meaning of a sentence is best understood in the passage (some preceding and some following sentences of the verse in focus ), a passage could be best understood in its chapter, and so on a chapter is best understood in the whole book or Quran. Then there is a context of a place (space) and time, there could be many correct translations to a word (or say a verse/sentence/passage/chapter) if the context is not against it (rather approves and supports it). If somebody assumes a wrong meaning, the context could out-rightly reject it. When one tries to understand the things deeply then one has to resort to etymology of the words and etymology of a word brings forth a new realm of meaning, its history, culture etc."

Regards

 

[cladking]

I don't know how many times you said that humans know virtually nothing at all and are confused by language. Perhaps that is because I, a human, know virtually nothing at all because I am confused by language.

If I said humans are confused by language I misspoke. Well, indirectly we are confused by language but people
can think well enough with modern language because we always know just what we mean. But we rarely notice
the other guy has nary a clue to what we mean. It's not unusual to hear two people having two distinct conversa-
tions without even noticing it. But we still model reality with assumptions and models that explain and predict
what we always see. We don't see reality, we see our assumptions.

Once you accept these simple self evident truths it will be much easier to see my point and the nature of the final
mystery. We must change perspectives when one doesn't work. To see nature we must either step away from it
or we must see our place in nature. Because of our beliefs caused principally by language neither of these is easy.

 

[ecco]

If I said humans are confused by language I misspoke. Well, indirectly we are confused by language but people
can think well enough with modern language because we always know just what we mean. But we rarely notice
the other guy has nary a clue to what we mean. It's not unusual to hear two people having two distinct conversa-
tions without even noticing it. But we still model reality with assumptions and models that explain and predict
what we always see. We don't see reality, we see our assumptions.

Once you accept these simple self evident truths it will be much easier to see my point and the nature of the final
mystery. We must change perspectives when one doesn't work. To see nature we must either step away from it
or we must see our place in nature. Because of our beliefs caused principally by language neither of these is easy.

OK. I'm not confused by modern language, at least not modern American English. However, that doesn't that everyone can use it to communicate intelligibly. Your posts are examples thereof.

 

[cladking]

OK. I'm not confused by modern language, at least not modern American English. However, that doesn't that [...] everyone can use it to communicate intelligibly. Your posts are examples thereof.

Thank you for admitting you don't understand.

If I were in your position I would ask for clarification of elaboration.

 

[ecco]

OK. I'm not confused by modern language, at least not modern American English. However, that doesn't that everyone can use it to communicate intelligibly. Your posts are examples thereof.

Thank you for admitting you don't understand.

If I were in your position I would ask for clarification of elaboration.

If I thought it would actually provide clarification, I would.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hold on to your hat; most of what people believe today will be shown to be essentially wrong in the future, too!

Some things, sure.
Most things, almost certaintly not.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

I don't think this follows, logically.

Uhhh, yeah it does. Does a squirrel know how it is created? Does it know what happens after its death? No. Because it's an animal that is part of nature and understands only its senses. Likewise, science is based on only senses, and while those are good at determining repeatable results such as figuring out what conduxts electricity in a storm, it can't reasonably explain why cut wood is an insulator while live wood can sometimes conduct (it explains that one has electrolytes, but not why they suddenly left on the plant's death). Religion, contrary to dumb scientists that think religion is all belief, actually uses logic but it is different logic, it's philosophy and theology. Sorta "how can we know there is an afterlife," and they have a whole set of If this Then that assertions. Science cannot answer such questions because their ideas deal only in the senses. Science cannot answer whether our reality is an illusion, or anything that involves uncertainty .

 

[tas8831]

Do you really expect me to spend hours upon hours to draw out logic charts parsing your words to show I can deduce your assumptions?

What an annoyingly long-winded and pompous way of admitting that your assertions are garbage and you lied when you said you knew what my assumptions were.

Pathetic, even for you.

As I informed you that I am taking a break responding to your farcical assertions and attempts at revisionism, this will be my standard reply until such time as I feel like wasting time on you again. A sampling of your ‘greatest hits’ – things you biffed, ignored, re-asserted despite never supporting, etc.

cladking:
Your assumptions are riddled with errors and half facts.

Provide 5 examples of my assumptions. Demonstrate how you know what MY assumptions are, and then demonstrate - using supporting documentation and evidence - that they are, in fact, wrong.

Otherwise this will just be chalked up as Cladking Unsupported Fantasy Assertion (aka lie) #261,

cladking:
The fixed speech center is natural to humans (all animals) and the Broca's area is unique to Homo Omnisciencis because we need a translator between the analog brain and the digital speech center.

Broca's area AND Wernicke's area are "fixed" (though they generally switch hemispheres in left-handed people). The anatomical landmarks of Broca's area are even seen in non-human primates.
There is no such thing as "Homo Omnisciencis" but in your and Graham Hancock's dopey fantasies. Nobody will accept your fantasies as having merit until you present EVIDENCE of the sort that sane, educated, experienced people accept as such. This does NOT include your confident reiterations of unsupported assertions, I am happy to say.

cladking:

Show evidence of a speech center in a newborn.

Right after you show evidence that Homo Omnisciencis occurs outside of your fantasy world. Show evidence that here is a "bifurcated speech center in the middle of the brain." Show evidence that an infant decides to grow a Broca's area.

And lastly, here you are claiming that you never wrote what you had written repeatedly, all in a failed attempt at saving face once you realized you have no actual evidence for your counterfactual assertions:

You wrote, foolishly:

"I never said "behavior alone causes speciation". I never suggested any such thing. You simply see what you want to see."​

Proof of your fibbing:

Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

"Every single time we have observed speciation it happened at a population bottleneck. There is no reason to assume nature, God, happenstance, or any other thing to call reality changes species in another way. Change is the result of behavior and consciousness and happens suddenly every time we observe it....There is no survival of the fittest. Behavior drives evolution and not fitness."

What Causes or Motivates the Anti-scientists?

"Every time we see change in species it is sudden and was begotten by the consciousness and behavior of the individuals."
​

Fascinating!

"Usually this selection will occur based on "behavior" rather than chance."

Science cannot solve the final mystery

"Many things lead to species change but primarily from what we see it's caused by behavior."

Argumentum ad populum

"I don't doubt that there is Change in Species. I doubt that it is caused by Evolution. All empirical and anecdotal evidence shows all changes in life are sudden. There is no such thing as "evolution" and Darwin set us on the wrong path because he believed that populations are stable over the long term and that the forces that caused elimination of individual genes worked through random chance and the adaptability of individuals. The reality is that genes are eliminated based on behavior"


Argumentum ad populum

"New "species" arise suddenly from parents which survived a bottleneck because of their distinctive behavior."


Argumentum ad populum
"...As I said several times before "species" arise suddenly from parents with a shared gene(s) which allowed them to survive a bottleneck brought about naturally which selected for BEHAVIOR."​

Show me this second motor speech area.

Show me the experimental evidence that behavior alone causes speciation, which is "sudden."

Show me that there is a genetic difference between natural and man-made bottlenecks.

Show me that you actually know what is meant by "survival of the fittest."

Define "peer" as in 'peer review".

Do these things, do not just re-assert the same tired verbiage with no support at all.

My understanding is the natural speech center (wernicks'e area)

Your understanding, as is the norm, is that of a child.

"Natural speech area"? More fabricated concepts/terminology to substitute for your clear ignorance of the subject - so special. Wernicke's is NOT 'the speech area.' It is referred to as the general interpretive area.

Golly - even your Wernicke's wiki link that you provided to try to rescue your exposed ignorance yet again cuts your legs out from under you:

" It is involved in the comprehension of written and spoken language (in contrast to Broca's area that is involved in the production of language). "​

Do you EVER get tired of making a fool of yourself?

does have the same "borders" from one individual to the next (and it is at least partially bifurcated).

LOL!

Amazing - the lengths you will go to to try to rescue your erroneous notions. Again, YOUR OWN link:

Neuroimaging

suggests the functions earlier attributed to Wernicke's area occur more broadly in the temporal lobe and indeed happen also in Broca's area.

“ There are some suggestions that middle and inferior temporal gyri and basal temporal cortex reflect lexical processing ... there is consensus that the STG from rostral to caudal fields and the STS constitute the neural tissue in which many of the critical computations for speech recognition are executed ... aspects of Broca’s area (Brodmann areas 44 and 45) are also regularly implicated in speech processing.

... the range of areas implicated in speech processing go well beyond the classical language areas typically mentioned for speech; the vast majority of textbooks still state that this aspect of perception and language processing occurs in Wernicke’s area (the posterior third of the STG).[12]”

Support for a broad range of speech processing areas was furthered by a recent study caried out at the University of Rochester in which American Sign Language native speakers were subject to MRI while interpreting sentences that identified a relationship using either syntax (relationship is determined by the word order) or inflection (relationship is determined by physical motion of "moving hands through space or signing on one side of the body"). Distinct areas of the brain were activated with the frontal cortex (associated with ability to put information into sequences) being more active in the syntax condition and the temporal lobes (associated with dividing information into its constituent parts) being more active in the inflection condition. However, these areas are not mutually exclusive and show a large amount of overlap. These findings imply that while speech processing is a very complex process, the brain may be using fairly basic, preexisting computational methods.[13]​

Curious - do you ever read the entirety of ANYTHING you link to in your own "support"? Given that such is a rarity (you trying to provide external support for your false and dopey claims), I should think that you should have plenty of time to do so.
So, I will not hold my breath waiting for you to provide evidence that Wernicke's is now "is at least partially bifurcated" as opposed to your previous most-certain and frequently asserted (with no support, of course) position that there is a (unnamed) bifurcated speech center in the' middle of the brain'.

Because Wernicke's is also not in the middle of the brain.

Keep in mind that when I say your biology claims are like those of a child I am not being dismissive or insulting - I am drawing conclusions. The level of knowledge you exhibit on these issues - the incorrect spellings, the off-the-wall depictions and descriptions of location and function, the certainty with which you present totally incorrect claims, your refusal to admit error, etc. - reminds of the way a child acts.

There's more than one way to skin a cat and there are an "infinite" number of perspectives and ways to process what is known.

Maybe - but at some point these different ways of processing should converge on the same 'truths' to be considered valid and useful. Your way seems to rely on farcical and fantastical notions that run counter to even basic information, all pointing to a counterfactual and indefensible position.

We are just in the habit of seeing things in about the same way as we learned about them. We used reductionism to see bits and pieces of reality so now we look at the bits and pieces instead of all of it at once.

And if you are implying that your way is to look at something all at once, I submit that you may want to reassess the reliability and utility of that child-like antic.

Despite the fact we know the brain isn't a clockwork we use a clockwork science to investigate a clockwork reality.

Your way tells us things that your own Wiki links debunk. I think you should try a new, valid way of looking at things.

 

[tas8831]

Uhhh, yeah it does. Does a squirrel know how it is created?

Does a human?

Lots of humans merely believe they are because of what they have been indoctrinated with at their places of worship.

Does it know what happens after its death? No.

Nor do any human. They think they do, again due to their indoctrination, but there is no evidence.

 

[gnostic]

Religion, contrary to dumb scientists that think religion is all belief, actually uses logic but it is different logic, it's philosophy and theology.

Religion is about belief and faith.

And where is the logic in believing in an invisible god and worshipping a god that most likely don’t exist.

And logics and philosophies are all man-made, so they can be wrong, philosophers and logicians can make mistakes.

People who think philosophy is infallible or inerrant, are stupid and biased people.

There are many different philosophies, can they all be right, when they contradict each other?

Philosophy is like religion in many ways.

Philosophers will often defend their philosophy against other schools of thoughts, and they are rarely impartial, and seldom they will admit they are wrong.

And religious philosophies are even worse.

And logic, by itself, can only provide abstract solution. Sometimes logic and evidence support each other, but sometimes they don’t.

What would happen if logic goes against evidence, eg evidence disagree or don’t support the logic? Do you stick with logic, despite evidence support the opposite?

In the real world, it is always better to choose evidence over logic, when they disagreed with each other.

One of the most useful logic, is maths. Mathematics is a very useful tools, especially when used with science, and they are often seen as equations, formulas or constants.

If maths don’t agree with the evidence, then it is most likely the maths is wrong.

 

[ecco]

science... can't reasonably explain why cut wood is an insulator while live wood can sometimes conduct

Seriously? One minute on Goggle would have saved you a lot of embarrassment.

 

[ecco]

Sorta "how can we know there is an afterlife,"

Please do explain how you know there is an afterlife.

 

[cladking]

What an annoyingly long-winded and pompous way of admitting that your assertions are garbage and you lied when you said you knew what my assumptions were.

I notice you don't deny I was exactly right.

I could probably get a lot more right as well.

 

[paarsurrey]

Do you really expect me to spend hours upon hours to draw out logic charts parsing your words to show I can deduce your assumptions?
Even if I did it you would dispute both the logic and my own assumptions.

Do you not understand that "demonstrate" has an infinite number of meanings because this is the way our language works? Each definition
in the dictionary is composed of words which in turn have numerous definitions. Every word has connotations and shades of meaning.

How many times have I said that humans know virtually nothing at all and are confused by language into believing they do. Now you ask
me to take upon myself the mantle of omniscience just to prove you have assumptions and see the world in terms of your beliefs which
are derived of those assumptions. Is it really so astounding that it's possible to deduce that someone who uses the term "bifurcate" might
have built models of experiment in his bifurcated mind?

Many people wouldn't even know what you're talking about here because they know no definition of "demonstrate" that makes your sentence
intelligible.

I notice you don't deny a single one of the assumptions I have ascribed to you. I'm sure you could use some good ol' semantics to do just that.

You seem to have forgotten what started all this (pg 39).



You arrange your facts and models logically while everyone else does not? We have 7 billion religions and 7 billion languages and we are each
the only one correct. We each believe someone will have the answer to any question. Obviously if I don't agree with you then I'm the one whom
is wrong.

All models are wrong. All beliefs are wrong and all assumptions merely determine the conclusions. My assumptions have led me to where I am,
and your assumptions have led you to where you are. Different things are more readily visible from different vantages. Even though we can
never really be "right", we can still use tools like facts and reason to make prediction and to understand. We can (all of us) get peeks at reality
but these peeks are still dependent upon our vantage point.

"Do you not understand that "demonstrate" has an infinite number of meanings because this is the way our language works? Each definition
in the dictionary is composed of words which in turn have numerous definitions. Every word has connotations and shades of meaning."

Another complaint of the Science people against the natural language and the natural words is that these have many meanings. So, many of such people openly express their hatred/indignation against semantics that it creates confusion. While it is they themselves who have created this confusion.
Science itself has created no natural language, and they cannot do it themselves. So, the Science people have to borrow words from the natural language. They make a term from the borrowed word and give it a specific meaning. Or, they give a little twist to the borrowed word/root-word to make a term and give it specific meaning . Nothing wrong with it, but then they forget the word has been borrowed and the natural language has its won rules. It does not follow them, hence the confusion. The lexicon usually mention these as scientific terms else science dictionaries of these terms are published separately. Right, please?

Regards
____________
#902

 

[cladking]

"Do you not understand that "demonstrate" has an infinite number of meanings because this is the way our language works? Each definition
in the dictionary is composed of words which in turn have numerous definitions. Every word has connotations and shades of meaning."

Another complaint of the Science people against the natural language and the natural words is that these have many meanings. So, many of such people openly express their hatred/indignation against semantics that it creates confusion. While it is they themselves who have created this confusion.
Science itself has created no natural language, and they cannot do it themselves. So, the Science people have to borrow words from the natural language. They make a term from the borrowed word and give it a specific meaning. Or, they give a little twist to the borrowed word/root-word to make a term and give it specific meaning . Nothing wrong with it, but then they forget the word has been borrowed and the natural language has its won rules. It does not follow them, hence the confusion. The lexicon usually mention these as scientific terms else science dictionaries of these terms are published separately.

____________
#902

I'm a proponent of the development of a scientific language where many words are assigned a single meaning. Science naturally does this to some extent but it needs to be greatly expanded. Some grammar can be standardized as well.

I believe religion usurped a great many words but so long ago it has been forgotten. At one time it appears words like "prophesize" once meant "to predict using scientific knowledge". "Worship" meant "study, etc etc. Indeed, "Temple" once meant "a place where theory was observed and studied" but now the closest word is "laboratory".

There is assuredly a great deal of confusion in scientific papers and writings. Most things are easily misinterpreted and can be incomprehensible. Styles of scientific writing come and go so older writing can be especially problematical. I'm sure many et als never intended that for which they are being quoted.

 

[paarsurrey]

I'm a proponent of the development of a scientific language where many words are assigned a single meaning. Science naturally does this to some extent but it needs to be greatly expanded. Some grammar can be standardized as well.

I believe religion usurped a great many words but so long ago it has been forgotten. At one time it appears words like "prophesize" once meant "to predict using scientific knowledge". "Worship" meant "study, etc etc. Indeed, "Temple" once meant "a place where theory was observed and studied" but now the closest word is "laboratory".

There is assuredly a great deal of confusion in scientific papers and writings. Most things are easily misinterpreted and can be incomprehensible. Styles of scientific writing come and go so older writing can be especially problematical. I'm sure many et als never intended that for which they are being quoted.

"scientific language"

Little questions, please:

• How many words of this "scientific language" have been formed?
• Are these current among the scientists?
• Do they speak with one another in this language?
• Do these words belong to the old root words borrowed from the other existing natural languages?
• Or new word roots have been coined?

I assume that this "scientific language" will be a non-starter. It will never become a natural language.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I'm a proponent of the development of a scientific language where many words are assigned a single meaning. Science naturally does this to some extent but it needs to be greatly expanded. Some grammar can be standardized as well.

I believe religion usurped a great many words but so long ago it has been forgotten. At one time it appears words like "prophesize" once meant "to predict using scientific knowledge". "Worship" meant "study, etc etc. Indeed, "Temple" once meant "a place where theory was observed and studied" but now the closest word is "laboratory".

There is assuredly a great deal of confusion in scientific papers and writings. Most things are easily misinterpreted and can be incomprehensible. Styles of scientific writing come and go so older writing can be especially problematical. I'm sure many et als never intended that for which they are being quoted.

"believe"

Isn't against the norms of a scientific person to "believe"?
It sounds like a religious connotation. Right, please?

Regards

 

[cladking]

"believe"

Isn't against the norms of a scientific person to "believe"?
It sounds like a religious connotation.

No.

 

[cladking]

"scientific language"

Little questions, please:

• How many words of this "scientific language" have been formed?
• Are these current among the scientists?
• Do they speak with one another in this language?
• Do these words belong to the old root words borrowed from the other existing natural languages?
• Or new word roots have been coined?

I assume that this "scientific language" will be a non-starter. It will never become a natural language.

There must first be a will.

What do you mean by "natural language"?