Science cannot solve the final mystery

[Valjean]

Technical terms? There have been technical terms for a long time.

 

[paarsurrey]

There must first be a will.

What do you mean by "natural language"?

"What do you mean by "natural language"?"

In neuropsychology, linguistics, and the philosophy of language, a natural language or ordinary language is any language:

• that has evolved naturally in humans
• through use and repetition
• without conscious planning or premeditation.

Natural languages can take different forms, such as speech or signing. They are distinguished from constructed and formal languages such as those used to program computers or to study logic.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_language

*“The language instinct seems to be:

• a uniquely human genetic endowment:
• nearly all children exposed to language naturally acquire language
• almost as if by magic.”

*“The natural ability for acquiring language:

• normally diminished rapidly somewhere around the age of puberty.
• There is a critical age for acquiring fluent native language.”

These are some aspects of a natural and or ordinary language.

Regards
______________
* http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/ling201/test4materials/language_and_the_brain.htm

 

[paarsurrey]

It can be argued from the contents of my post #922 that:

Word/s come into being "without conscious planning or premeditation" by the humans, so it is a misconception that any person can invent a word or words. G-d designed it by His grace , as He claims in Quran, in our genes that we can express sensations caused to our senses and communicate them to our fellow beings in eloquent word/s, sentences and discourse/s.
Isn't it a Sign of His existence for the believers, please?
The non-believers could argue it differently , it is their right, but what water their reason/argument will have?

Regards
______________
[55:2]اَلرَّحۡمٰنُ ۙ﴿۲﴾
It is God, the Gracious
[55:3]عَلَّمَ الۡقُرۡاٰنَ ؕ﴿۳﴾
Who has taught the Qur’an.
[55:4]خَلَقَ الۡاِنۡسَانَ ۙ﴿۴﴾
He has created man.
[55:5]عَلَّمَہُ الۡبَیَانَ ﴿۵﴾
He has taught him plain speech.
alislam.org/quran/55

 

[Valjean]

It can be argued from the contents of my post #922 that:

Word/s come into being "without conscious planning or premeditation" by the humans, so it is a misconception that any person can invent a word or words. G-d designed it by His grace , as He claims in Quran, in our genes that we can express sensations caused to our senses and communicate them to our fellow beings in eloquent word/s, sentences and discourse/s.
Isn't it a Sign of His existence for the believers, please?
The non-believers could argue it differently , it is their right, but what water their reason/argument will have?

Regards

Huh?

 

[Polymath257]

It can be argued from the contents of my post #922 that:

Word/s come into being "without conscious planning or premeditation" by the humans, so it is a misconception that any person can invent a word or words.

No, your previous post says that *languages* arise naturally. That is very different from the individual words not being invented. It is actually very common for words to be coined, although you have rejected all of the examples given in another thread.

Yes, typically words are coined to be similar to other words in the language in order to make understanding easier. But words 8are* invented by people.

G-d designed it by His grace , as He claims in Quran, in our genes that we can express sensations caused to our senses and communicate them to our fellow beings in eloquent word/s, sentences and discourse/s.
Isn't it a Sign of His existence for the believers, please?
The non-believers could argue it differently , it is their right, but what water their reason/argument will have?

Regards

If a specific language was genetic, everyone would be able to understand that language. And yet, there is no spoken language everyone understands. There is no 'God given' language.

What is genetic is the *ability* to learn language, not the language itself. A child can learn any language it has around it, whether English, Chinese, Arabic, or !Kung. The words in these languages, however, are very, very different. The grammar is widely different. The use of sounds is widely different. Even the *sounds* themselves used are different (!Kung is a 'click' language).

 

[paarsurrey]

No, your previous post says that *languages* arise naturally. That is very different from the individual words not being invented. It is actually very common for words to be coined, although you have rejected all of the examples given in another thread.

Yes, typically words are coined to be similar to other words in the language in order to make understanding easier. But words 8are* invented by people.



If a specific language was genetic, everyone would be able to understand that language. And yet, there is no spoken language everyone understands. There is no 'God given' language.

What is genetic is the *ability* to learn language, not the language itself. A child can learn any language it has around it, whether English, Chinese, Arabic, or !Kung. The words in these languages, however, are very, very different. The grammar is widely different. The use of sounds is widely different. Even the *sounds* themselves used are different (!Kung is a 'click' language).

I understand that one got me wrong. I didn't say that G-d has endowed humans only one language. G-d set a process under which human life evolved in millions of years, under this design where-ever there were humans they learnt how to speak and communicate. In this sense,G-d taught all the humans to speak*. Right, please?

Regards
_________________
*[55:2]اَلرَّحۡمٰنُ ۙ﴿۲﴾
It is God, the Gracious
[55:3]عَلَّمَ الۡقُرۡاٰنَ ؕ﴿۳﴾
Who has taught the Qur’an.
[55:4]خَلَقَ الۡاِنۡسَانَ ۙ﴿۴﴾
He has created man.
[55:5]عَلَّمَہُ الۡبَیَانَ ﴿۵﴾
He has taught him plain speech.
alislam.org/quran/55

 

[Valjean]

"What do you mean by "natural language"?"

In neuropsychology, linguistics, and the philosophy of language, a natural language or ordinary language is any language:

• that has evolved naturally in humans
• through use and repetition
• without conscious planning or premeditation.

Natural languages can take different forms, such as speech or signing. They are distinguished from constructed and formal languages such as those used to program computers or to study logic.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_language

*“The language instinct seems to be:

• a uniquely human genetic endowment:
• nearly all children exposed to language naturally acquire language
• almost as if by magic.”

*“The natural ability for acquiring language:

• normally diminished rapidly somewhere around the age of puberty.
• There is a critical age for acquiring fluent native language.”

These are some aspects of a natural and or ordinary language.

Regards
______________
* http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/ling201/test4materials/language_and_the_brain.htm

Way too complicated.
A natural language is one that developed on its own, as opposed to constructed languages like Esperanto or Volapük.

 

[Valjean]

I understand that one got me wrong. I didn't say that G-d has endowed humans only one language. G-d set a process under which human life evolved in millions of years, under this design where-ever there were humans they learnt how to speak and communicate. In this sense,G-d taught all the humans to speak*. Right, please?

Your argument is based on unestablished premises: that there is a God, and that he endowed humans with a language -- presumably a fully-formed language. There is no evidence for this. The evidence indicates that man developed gradually, by natural means, from previous forms. Nor is there any evidence for an original, fully-formed, universal human language. Of course, without writing, an inchoate language would leave no evidence, but nevertheless its hard to conceive how something as complex as a language, could suddenly poof fully-formed into existence. We see none of this magic poofing happening today, and there's no reason to believe such miracles were any more common in ancient times.

I see language as an emergent property of certain neurological features coupled with a certain oro-pharyngeal anatomy and a social culture where communication would confer a selective advantage.

 

[Valjean]

I understand that one got me wrong. I didn't say that G-d has endowed humans only one language. G-d set a process under which human life evolved in millions of years, under this design where-ever there were humans they learnt how to speak and communicate. In this sense,G-d taught all the humans to speak*. Right, please?

Well, that makes more sense, but it's a pretty broad perspective. The God part, though, is just speculation.

 

[paarsurrey]

There must first be a will.

What do you mean by "natural language"?

"will"

It is the will of G-d that he wanted to create the human species who could do good or evil on his own choice in this world and those who do good for love of goodness against all odds, they would be rewarded in the Hereafter. G-d commanded the word "be" and the process of creation of humans started naturally million of years ago.
G-d new that humans would need some medium to communicate with the fellow humans and also to Converse with Him and also to understand His message/s from Him, so along-with human creation he endowed humans with natural language/s- having words, sentences and discourses.
Right, please?

Regards
_______________
[55:2]اَلرَّحۡمٰنُ ۙ﴿۲﴾
It is God, the Gracious
[55:3]عَلَّمَ الۡقُرۡاٰنَ ؕ﴿۳﴾
Who has taught the Qur’an.
[55:4]خَلَقَ الۡاِنۡسَانَ ۙ﴿۴﴾
He has created man.
[55:5]عَلَّمَہُ الۡبَیَانَ ﴿۵﴾
He has taught him plain speech.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 55: Ar-Rahman
[76:3]اِنَّا خَلَقۡنَا الۡاِنۡسَانَ مِنۡ نُّطۡفَۃٍ اَمۡشَاجٍ ٭ۖ نَّبۡتَلِیۡہِ فَجَعَلۡنٰہُ سَمِیۡعًۢا بَصِیۡرًا ﴿۳﴾
We have created man from a mingled sperm-drop that We might try him; so We made him hearing, seeing.
[76:4]اِنَّا ہَدَیۡنٰہُ السَّبِیۡلَ اِمَّا شَاکِرًا وَّ اِمَّا کَفُوۡرًا ﴿۴﴾
We have shown him the Way, whether he be grateful or ungrateful.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/76

• "Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man") is the scientific name for the human species. Homo is the human genus, which also includes Neanderthals and many other extinct species of hominid. H. sapiens is the only surviving species of the genus Homo. Modern humans are sometimes called "anatomically modern humans"."Homo sapiens - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• "3- Lexical level: deals with lexical meaning of a word. 4- Syntactic level: deals with grammar and structure of sentences. 5- Semantic level: deals with the meaning of words and sentences. 6- Discourse level: deals with the structure of different kinds of text."Natural Language Analysis

 

[Valjean]

"will"

It is the will of G-d that he wanted to create the human species who could do good or evil on his own choice in this world and those who do good for love of goodness against all odds, they would be rewarded in the Hereafter. G-d commanded the word "be" and the process of creation of humans started naturally million of years ago.
G-d new that humans would need some medium to communicate with the fellow humans and also to Converse with Him and also to understand His message/s from Him, so along-with human creation he endowed humans with natural language/s- having words, sentences and discourses.
Right, please?

How are we to know whether this is right or not? There is no real evidence one way or the other.
Right?

 

[Swami]

“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”


Relativity, the Absolute, the Human Search for Truth: Nobel Laureate and Quantum Theory Originator Max Planck on Science and Mystery

Perhaps the following can serve as one example:

Finally, science traditionally seeks facts - observations - that are independent of the observer; this supposes that the observer can be separated from the observed (another aspect of the subject-object distinction). However, in confronting the hard problem we cannot separate the observer and the observed, for consciousness is observation, the subject experiencing the object. That is, experience comprises both observer and observed, the termini of the arrow of consciousness. Separating the two breaks the very connection that we aim to study.

Dr. Bruce MacLennan Article: THE ELEMENTS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

If there is anything to add here it is that Eastern thinkers have already discovered fundamental reality. Western scientists do not know how to transcend the mind, senses, (these 3 are filters/distractions) and even self in order to perceive reality as it is.

 

[ecco]

If there is anything to add here it is that Eastern thinkers have already discovered fundamental reality. Western scientists do not know how to transcend the mind, senses, (these 3 are filters/distractions) and even self in order to perceive reality as it is.

Eastern thinkers wade deeply into the woo. That's what happens to people when science becomes too difficult for them. Make-believe is so much easier.

Western scientists continue to use science in order to explore the realities of nature. It's harder, but far more rewarding.

 

[atanu]

Perhaps the following can serve as one example:

Dr. Bruce MacLennan Article: THE ELEMENTS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

If there is anything to add here it is that Eastern thinkers have already discovered fundamental reality. Western scientists do not know how to transcend the mind, senses, (these 3 are filters/distractions) and even self in order to perceive reality as it is.

I think that there are scientists, philosophers, people of humanities, and religious/spiritual people in West who know the dictum “Know Thyself”. The OP is an example of a scientist highlighting this point.

But indeed there are some people who are unthinking votaries of scientism. They ridicule knowledge of self to be woo, while clinging to the mythical thinking that their reality is electrochemical reactions.

...

 

[ecco]

But indeed there are some people who are unthinking votaries of scientism. They ridicule knowledge of self to be woo, while clinging to the mythical thinking that their reality is electrochemical reactions.

Yes, some people prefer science to superstitious nonsense. The computer you are looking at is one result of that kind of thinking.

On the other hand, the woosters create ads like...

1. Best Psychic Readings & Advice | Best Personal Readings 24/7‎
   
   Adpsychic-reading.thetop10sites.com/Psychic/Reading‎
   
   Get All Your Questions Answered: Mind Blowing Accuracy With Top Online Psychics!
2. Top 5 Psychics Online | Find The Right Psychic For You‎

...and take money from the gullible.

Others sell books like...

...to get your money.

But indeed there are some people who are unthinking votaries of scientism.

"Unthinking votaries"? It's the very process of thinking that makes us reject your woo. Everyone should try it.

 

[cladking]

Perhaps the following can serve as one example:

Dr. Bruce MacLennan Article: THE ELEMENTS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

If there is anything to add here it is that Eastern thinkers have already discovered fundamental reality. Western scientists do not know how to transcend the mind, senses, (these 3 are filters/distractions) and even self in order to perceive reality as it is.

Good article and the conclusions are likely fairly sound. But I would suggest that;

. Consciousness is our opening to the world; it is the vehicle by which we experience anything. Therefore we cannot observe consciousness per se, since we observe through consciousness.

Only humans can discuss these things and have advanced to the point we can. Obviously we are missing the very nature of consciousness itself. I propose what we are missing is that we do not directly perceive reality at all. We each experience our beliefs in terms of the very language we use to communicate. This opens up other ways to see the "mystery" and attack solutions.

 

[paarsurrey]

Good article and the conclusions are likely fairly sound. But I would suggest that;

Only humans can discuss these things and have advanced to the point we can. Obviously we are missing the very nature of consciousness itself. I propose what we are missing is that we do not directly perceive reality at all. We each experience our beliefs in terms of the very language we use to communicate. This opens up other ways to see the "mystery" and attack solutions.

" I propose what we are missing is that we do not directly perceive reality at all. We each experience our beliefs in terms of the very language we use to communicate. This opens up other ways to see the "mystery" and attack solutions."

It is out of the domain of Science to know the "first mystery" so how it could know the "final mystery".
I agree with one that "we do not directly perceive reality at all", only ONE knows the reality who bestowed the
consciousness to the human beings. Or if He at his own will discloses it to his truthful Prophet/Messenger by His truthful Word of Revelation. I understand, the issue is in the domain of Religion not in the domain of Science. Right, please?

Regards
_____________
"The “old mysterians” were dualists who believed in nonmaterial properties, such as the soul*, that cannot be explained by natural processes.
The “new mysterians,” Flanagan says, contend that consciousness can never be explained because of the limitations of human cognition. I contend that not only consciousness but also free will and God are mysterian problems—not because we are not yet smart enough to solve them but because they can never be solved, not even in principle, relating to how the concepts are conceived in language. Call those of us in this camp the “final mysterians.” "
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...mysteries-of-consciousness-free-will-and-god/

*[17:86]وَ یَسۡـَٔلُوۡنَکَ عَنِ الرُّوۡحِ ؕ قُلِ الرُّوۡحُ مِنۡ اَمۡرِ رَبِّیۡ وَ مَاۤ اُوۡتِیۡتُمۡ مِّنَ الۡعِلۡمِ اِلَّا قَلِیۡلًا ﴿۸۶﴾
And they ask thee concerning the soul. Say, ‘The soul is by the command of my Lord; and of the knowledge thereof you have been given but a little.’
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 17: Bani Isra'il
Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge & Truth | Islam Ahmadiyya by Mirza Tahir Ahmad page 179-181 "evolution of consciousness"
https://www.alislam.org/library/articles/Human-Soul-and-Science-201009.pdf
https://exploredunexplre.wordpress.com/2017/01/09/nafs-ruh/

 

[atanu]

Good article and the conclusions are likely fairly sound. But I would suggest that;

Only humans can discuss these things and have advanced to the point we can. Obviously we are missing the very nature of consciousness itself. I propose what we are missing is that we do not directly perceive reality at all. We each experience our beliefs in terms of the very language we use to communicate. This opens up other ways to see the "mystery" and attack solutions.

Yes. Our knowledge is always mediated via mind-senses.

If, the mind-senses are fundamentally mechanism, then there ought to be no reason why the mechanism should enable us to acquire true knowledge of universe. Whoever or whatever is the source of the mechanism has no compulsion to tell the created intelligences the truth/reality. Also, if different discrete intelligences are being generated in discrete pieces of brains, then what is the basis of shared common understanding of the universe?

Therefore, for human projects (intellectual or otherwise) to have true value it is essential that consciousness be true. If the consciousness is not the ontological primitive, then our knowledge of the ontology can only be mental-sensual, which cannot be but representational.
...

 

[cladking]

" I propose what we are missing is that we do not directly perceive reality at all. We each experience our beliefs in terms of the very language we use to communicate. This opens up other ways to see the "mystery" and attack solutions."

It is out of the domain of Science to know the "first mystery" so how it could know the "final mystery".
I agree with one that "we do not directly perceive reality at all", only ONE knows the reality who bestowed the
consciousness to the human beings. Or if He at his own will discloses it to his truthful Prophet/Messenger by His truthful Word of Revelation. I understand, the issue is in the domain of Religion not in the domain of Science.

Good points.

Obviously the first mystery is time/ God/ whatever. The true origin of reality probably lies outside our ability to solve it even if everything did spring from an imaginary point in an instant.

I wouldn't agree that religion is an answer but can't disagree either.

 

[cladking]

Yes. Our knowledge is always mediated via mind-senses.

If, the mind-senses are fundamentally mechanism,...
...

It is but it is programmed by modern language. Not only is the human brain infinitely programmable but there are other types of language as well as the ability to model them; in other words, other ways to operate the mind with our language. We are our beliefs and we choose all of those beliefs. We can model any beliefs we choose.