Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Language and the Tower of Babel
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 95 (427312)
10-11-2007 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Vacate
10-10-2007 6:33 PM


quote:
Given that we know heaven is not just outside the atmosphere and the construction project was doomed to failure why would God bother to do what he did? Since man has been able to overcome the language barrier what point did the punishment serve?
That is right, but not applicable to the time of Babel, when there was a spiritual level nearby. Period.
quote:
This sounds familiar. Are there any barriers to this rolling along and evolving theory of yours?
Well, the kinds would not turn into another kind. Since we don't know precisely what the created kinds were, there is a lot of leeway there. But man was a kind, so we did not come from monkeys, if that was on your mind.
quote:
If what you are after is simplicity - It all started last tuesday. Takes a bite out of textbook sales though.
No, I am after reality that meets the evidences, that is as simple as possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Vacate, posted 10-10-2007 6:33 PM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by arachnophilia, posted 10-11-2007 2:15 AM simple has replied
 Message 27 by bernerbits, posted 10-11-2007 8:43 AM simple has replied
 Message 29 by bernerbits, posted 10-11-2007 8:49 AM simple has not replied
 Message 38 by Vacate, posted 10-11-2007 11:05 AM simple has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 17 of 95 (427316)
10-11-2007 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by simple
10-11-2007 2:00 AM


quote:
Given that we know heaven is not just outside the atmosphere and the construction project was doomed to failure why would God bother to do what he did? Since man has been able to overcome the language barrier what point did the punishment serve?
That is right, but not applicable to the time of Babel, when there was a spiritual level nearby. Period.
please re-read what vacate wrote. you didn't answer or even address his point. you just repeated the same nonsense.
why, if babel had no hopes of ever reaching heaven, would god be threatened enough to stop their work? if they could not reach heaven, because it was not a physical place just outside our atmosphere, couldn't god have just let them toil on in futility?
Well, the kinds would not turn into another kind. Since we don't know precisely what the created kinds were, there is a lot of leeway there. But man was a kind, so we did not come from monkeys, if that was on your mind.
what this has to do with the topic is completely lost on me.
No, I am after reality that meets the evidences, that is as simple as possible.
i cannot believe for a second that you are after reality or evidence. you aren't even seriously after a proper reading of the bible. you're after distorting reality and evidence and the bible to meet your particular hare-brained theory of the month. you have no respect for reality, or evidence, or the bible, and that much has been tirelessly demonstrated by you in your posting history here.
i also strongly suspect you are after purposefully derailing every thread in which you participate. it's always the same topic you post about, and it's never has much to do with the original topic. and at every opportunity, you throw some curveball to misdirect people off in some other direction. please try to post with some real arguments. with content, and support. and, as a christian, try to pay some respect to faithfully representing what the bible means, at least on the surface.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
Edited by arachnophilia, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by simple, posted 10-11-2007 2:00 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by simple, posted 10-11-2007 3:43 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 18 of 95 (427318)
10-11-2007 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by simple
10-11-2007 1:52 AM


I happen to be of the opinion that Babel just happened to be at the time of a big change in the universe, I won't go into here. This also was the [t]ime of ... lifespan shortening ...
i do believe we've already discussed this. as i recall it, you lost. rather spectacularly -- because unlike some other people, i am willing to read, analyze, think about, and perform basic arithmetic on the genealogies found in the book of genesis.
the argument that lifespans suddenly got shorter around the time of peleg/babel just does not match what the bible says. but i see you still touting this particular point -- which means that you neither are willing to learn, nor actually read the bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by simple, posted 10-11-2007 1:52 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by simple, posted 10-11-2007 3:24 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 19 of 95 (427327)
10-11-2007 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by bernerbits
10-10-2007 6:31 PM


Re: My 'theory'...
Interesting. But all known languages rely on phonemes which rely on sounds. Does this mean that proto-hominids used imagined sounds to represent thought in their heads even before they were able to produce such sounds?
What do you mean by "imagined sounds?" This correlates somewhat to a question that many hearing people wonder (at least as far as I have asked) about deaf people. Do they (deaf people) think in sound or in gesture or in concept? A good friend of mine is an ASL interpreter for the NYC school system and she doesn't have a complete answer (I don't personally know any deaf people). Likely it is because she is not deaf and those whom she encounters may have a hard time distinguishing sign from concept just as hearing people have a hard time distinguishing sound from concept. To me, "imagined sounds" just means concepts - warnings, needs, frustrations, angers, wants, boundaries, desires, rules, and on and on.
Both hearing and deaf people can look at a STOP sign and know what it means without consciously thinking about it.
I think the concepts came first. I think the concepts are there in many "non-speaking" animals (as evidenced in previous threads about Koko and Alex, besides other studies of other "pack" animals). We just evolved certain physiological capabilities and then the psychological capabilities followed and (much like the "race" between predator and prey) they built on each other.
As for the Tower of Babel story, all you have to do is look at the progression of language all around you. I haven't formally studied linguistics (although I have a passing interest in it). People are clever and they make up words and combine words and expressions all the time. The "mother language" is long gone. Language changes from personal affectations, silliness, songs, travel, education, hybridization, literacy, schoolyard slang, etc.
Why should we believe in a God (or at least the story in which he is portrayed in the myth) who was so jealous of his own creation's creativity and intelligence that he actively worked to confuse us and cause enmity among us by distorting the "one true tongue?"
Those who think that language involves "speech" are fools. Those who think that speech is only spoken are fools. Speech only exists as a symbol of a concept. At least, IMHO.
I may be so inclined to back my post with links if I am asked. I am sick with the regular October flu, tho (I always get it before everyone else...I am beginning to think that I am the seasonal carrier for the East Coast LOL). Lemme know and I will start digging.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by bernerbits, posted 10-10-2007 6:31 PM bernerbits has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by arachnophilia, posted 10-11-2007 3:10 AM Jaderis has replied
 Message 30 by bernerbits, posted 10-11-2007 9:19 AM Jaderis has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 20 of 95 (427329)
10-11-2007 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Jaderis
10-11-2007 3:02 AM


Re: My 'theory'...
Do they (deaf people) think in sound or in gesture or in concept? A good friend of mine is an ASL interpreter for the NYC school system and she doesn't have a complete answer (I don't personally know any deaf people). Likely it is because she is not deaf and those whom she encounters may have a hard time distinguishing sign from concept just as hearing people have a hard time distinguishing sound from concept. To me, "imagined sounds" just means concepts - warnings, needs, frustrations, angers, wants, boundaries, desires, rules, and on and on.
i would imagine it also varies depending on when the person went deaf (or if it was from birth) and the degree of hearing loss. from my ASL courses, i know that varies pretty widely.
Both hearing and deaf people can look at a STOP sign and know what it means without consciously thinking about it.
well, let's look at more coherent example: written chinese. there many different dialects spoken in china (2 main ones, but a lot of regional ones too), but a single written language, based around symbols: essentially pictographs. so it's entirely possible to have a written language that does not rely on sounds.
it's also worthwhile to point out that the original written languages were ALL pictographic, and the construction of phonetic written languages were a later adaptation of the symbols.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Jaderis, posted 10-11-2007 3:02 AM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Jaderis, posted 10-11-2007 4:16 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 21 of 95 (427330)
10-11-2007 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by simple
10-11-2007 1:52 AM


Well, no. I happen to be of the opinion that Babel just happened to be at the time of a big change in the universe, I won't go into here. This also was the eime of the ice age, continental separation, mountain building, lifespan shortening, slowing of evolution speeds, plant growth. and etc etc.
If there was no change, then, yes, we would still have one language.
Oh, and for your last point, I include life. Yes. I believe we were endowed with the ability to evolve at creation, but the change at the time of Babel reduced that to a crawl as well.
OK...so now you're becoming more honest about this magical time of change that you and RAZD hashed out in the "Age of the Earth" thread.
So the magical time didn't actually end with the flood?
It ended after Nimrod's (the son of Cush, the son of Ham, the son of Noah...quite a few years after the flood no doubt?) kingdom of Babel? Interesting. Could you possibly pinpoint the date for us so that we no longer go floundering in the midst of all the confusing carbon dating, tree-ring dating and all of the other methods we use to date the evidence (including crazy fundie biblical dating)? Here we thought that the magical, fuck-physics time ended with the end of the flood (whenever that was...). Silly us.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by simple, posted 10-11-2007 1:52 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by simple, posted 10-11-2007 3:31 AM Jaderis has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 95 (427331)
10-11-2007 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by arachnophilia
10-11-2007 2:23 AM


I will admit, that the picture is less than real clear on the lifespans.
But, it fits.
No one seems to live more than 240 years after Peleg. Now, if he was born about a century after the flood, that seems to say a lot. No?
Correct my math if I missed something, but from Peleg, to the father of Abraham was only 222 years. That means, from a first glance, here, that Peleg was only deceased about 13 years (if he lived 209 years) when Abraham's dad was born!
That seems to take it pretty nicely from the older lifespans to the modern era.
There was a big drop from Noah, of course, to Shem, and so on as well. Remeber, however, that Peleg was born when all those guys were alive, so the big factor still may be the split.
From the graph, we can see that the bulk of the life span shortening came in the century after the flood, till the days of Peleg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Edited by simple, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 10-11-2007 2:23 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by bernerbits, posted 10-11-2007 9:32 AM simple has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 95 (427332)
10-11-2007 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Jaderis
10-11-2007 3:24 AM


Sure. About 4400 years ago. About a century or so after the flood. No floundering involved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Jaderis, posted 10-11-2007 3:24 AM Jaderis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by bluegenes, posted 10-11-2007 7:42 PM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 95 (427333)
10-11-2007 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by arachnophilia
10-11-2007 2:15 AM


quote:
please re-read what vacate wrote. you didn't answer or even address his point. you just repeated the same nonsense.
why, if babel had no hopes of ever reaching heaven, would god be threatened enough to stop their work? if they could not reach heaven, because it was not a physical place just outside our atmosphere, couldn't god have just let them toil on in futility?
Ah, I do not believe that Babel was really all that important, and, yes, God was not pleased that they would try to bypass the promised savior, Jesus, and get there by themselves. But I think that this happened to fall at a time when something else was happening ANYHOW. Something that the Almighty Himself, said would come down to man in 120 years. Babel just happened to be, (I think, unless I am way off here, correct it if you can) at the end of that 120 year warning! The warning that I calculate was something like 19 years or some such before the flood. That means Babel would be, if I have it close here, about the time of Peleg.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by arachnophilia, posted 10-11-2007 2:15 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by arachnophilia, posted 10-13-2007 1:37 AM simple has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 25 of 95 (427334)
10-11-2007 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by arachnophilia
10-11-2007 3:10 AM


Re: My 'theory'...
i would imagine it also varies depending on when the person went deaf (or if it was from birth) and the degree of hearing loss. from my ASL courses, i know that varies pretty widely.
Absolutely...and I originally wanted to expand my post to include exceptions, but I decided that the point was better served by suggesting deaf from birth (or before acquiring speech). That was more for myself because I don't have as hard of a time imagining someone who became deaf after knowing sounds as I do (as a hearing person) as wondering how I could "think" not ever knowing sound.
That was my point. Supposedly some people can meditate to a point where they don't even "hear" their own thoughts. Some supposedly think nothing at all, but there has got to be something in between. Images? Sensations? Is nothing a sensation?
So does someone who has been deaf from birth (or before) think in concepts or signs? What about those who have never learned (or created for themselves) an "official" sign language?
That is why I think the concepts came first.
well, let's look at more coherent example: written chinese. there many different dialects spoken in china (2 main ones, but a lot of regional ones too), but a single written language, based around symbols: essentially pictographs. so it's entirely possible to have a written language that does not rely on sounds.
it's also worthwhile to point out that the original written languages were ALL pictographic, and the construction of phonetic written languages were a later adaptation of the symbols.
Again, absolutely. Speech is a symbol, pure and simple.
Written speech is a secondary symbol. And all writing is pictographic, even if it is phonetic. Letters are pictures. We just sound them out to create pictures in our head.
Except the deaf...they don't sound them out, they associate signs (symbols) with concepts or, possibly, concepts with concpets.
Or the blind? They can hear and speak, but some of the concepts are totally unknown to them.
And what about the deaf-blind?
The three latter categories may not be able to process certain symbols the same way that hearing and/or seeing persons can, but we would not deny them their speaking/communicating abilities.
Speech, in whatever form it comes in is symbolic of what the speaker knows.
But it remains a symbol of something tangible, no matter what it's form.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by arachnophilia, posted 10-11-2007 3:10 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 26 of 95 (427340)
10-11-2007 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Jon
10-10-2007 7:44 PM


Re: My 'theory'...
Right you are: ASL.
D'oh. Aight. (/me dusts self off) So would you think deaf people think in hand gestures, assuming language is the basis of thought? Did Helen Keller think in Braille, Sign Language, or combinations of vocal positions and vibrations?
I'm just working through the ramifications here. If some animal or another is born with a genetic anomaly that gives a somewhat more complex brain that enables higher thought via some form of internal context-sensitive symbolic pattern structure... then the immediate benefit is he can use "language" to reason with himself more clearly about finding food or a mate, escaping/foiling predators, etc. Obvious benefit so it propagates quickly. Do you think people who grow up as feral or neglected children create some form of internal language for themselves?
There it gets sticky. For language to be useful in communication you have to be able to both make it and understand it. Though I suppose you could argue that with the ability to reason with it in your head, and the obvious ability of all mammals to communicate in some form or another, comes a natural ability to infer deeper meaning from communication. So I suppose natural selection would favor people who could translate those thoughts into meaningful actions. Though we clearly see this ability in other animals, especially when trained by humans, so maybe this kind of behavior is innate and is a form of exaptation.
Anyway. I'm not totally convinced that language is the basis for all human thought but I know it's a popular school of, er, thought. I'll give you that language holds a commanding portion of most conscious thought, but I think subconscious thought deals more with stuff like patterns and associations, and maybe actually putting those things together to actually form something like language.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Jon, posted 10-10-2007 7:44 PM Jon has not replied

  
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 27 of 95 (427341)
10-11-2007 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by simple
10-11-2007 2:00 AM


Well, the kinds would not turn into another kind. Since we don't know precisely what the created kinds were, there is a lot of leeway there. But man was a kind, so we did not come from monkeys, if that was on your mind.
Macro and Micro. A distinction that doesn't exist. Man and monkey came from a common ancestor, not one from another. But this is OT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by simple, posted 10-11-2007 2:00 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by simple, posted 10-11-2007 3:36 PM bernerbits has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 28 of 95 (427343)
10-11-2007 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Jon
10-10-2007 6:25 PM


Re: My 'theory'...
There is no means to think without language.
There is no means to think with language. Language has no problem solving capability. (Assuming you mean language as in natural language; if you're broadening the term to include all forms of symbolic representation, then it's a different matter).
What's more there is no evidence that language shapes thought (with one exception, knowing a specific word for a colour does produce a measurable effect in the ability to remember that colour) and many simple demonstration that we don't think in language: ever not had the word to express what you're thinking? Ever come across a new word and realised it describes exactly what you wanted to say? How about animals? We know many animals that can't speak, or understand language, yet they are capable of quite impressive intellectual feats.
Otherwise, you have a mostly non-functioning organ that just keeps increasing for no reason until one day: BAM, language... seems silly. Now, at what point the 'internal' language actually became externally used for communication, I haven't a clue.
Imagine this instead: language evolved from simpler forms of communication. We know simpler forms of communication exist because they're used throughout all forms of life on earth, from bacteria to dolphins. Some are auditory, some are visual, some are olfactory. Among our nearer relatives the monkeys and the great apes there are even some with basic pseudo-grammars. The advantage to greater levels of communication are fairly obvious and pretty linear. Try this simple experiment: go to France (assuming you don't speak French) and try to get around. To begin with you'll only know a few words and have to point and gesture and be unable to get your point across in many cases. Learn a few more and things become easier. A few more and it gets easier still. The same principle applies with the evolution of language.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Jon, posted 10-10-2007 6:25 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by bernerbits, posted 10-11-2007 9:41 AM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 35 by bernerbits, posted 10-11-2007 9:58 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 29 of 95 (427345)
10-11-2007 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by simple
10-11-2007 2:00 AM


That is right, but not applicable to the time of Babel, when there was a spiritual level nearby. Period.
OK. When did God decide that he was tired of hanging out in the earth's atmosphere and move the spiritual realm somewhere else less tangible (or at least further away)?
On what evidence or study are you basing your claim that there used to be a spiritual realm hovering just out of our reach that God decided to move at some point in history, and when do you claim that God removed or relocated this spiritual realm?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by simple, posted 10-11-2007 2:00 AM simple has not replied

  
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 30 of 95 (427349)
10-11-2007 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Jaderis
10-11-2007 3:02 AM


Re: My 'theory'...
I may be so inclined to back my post with links if I am asked. I am sick with the regular October flu, tho (I always get it before everyone else...I am beginning to think that I am the seasonal carrier for the East Coast LOL). Lemme know and I will start digging.
Just getting over that one actually. Gave it to my girlfriend and now she's topic... topic...
I think the concepts came first. I think the concepts are there in many "non-speaking" animals (as evidenced in previous threads about Koko and Alex, besides other studies of other "pack" animals).
The physiology of even the dumbest neural network leaves no doubt in my mind that it's about concepts. Things turn on which turn other things on. It's about associating things with other things. It's just that the more gray matter you have, the more things you can associate and the more concepts you can fit up there.
The nerve evolved as a means of having quick reflexes to advantageous/dangerous situations. But it also had the side effect of when you bundled a bunch of them together and timed the pulses just right, they could perform more and more complex reflexes depending on experience and context until you had something a whole lot like thought. (I simplify of course. A biologist may help me out here.)
Converting concepts into actions is really not much more complex than: "Hungry" *look for food* "Apple" *eats the apple* "Happy" *sleeps*. Language (in addition to communication) seems to be a more abstract form of converting concepts into actions that relies on the cooperation of others to help fulfill our biological/reproductive needs. Humans (and Dolphins, though I haven't looked into that rigorously) seem to learn language instinctively, while animals like gorillas and parrots can still be taught to use language in limited fashion.
We just evolved certain physiological capabilities and then the psychological capabilities followed and (much like the "race" between predator and prey) they built on each other.
Certainly. It's just very interesting to consider what environmental conditions favored something so intricate as language (let alone weird stuff like religion and music and our obsession with comfort and luxury), when "hungry, get food", "bad mushroom, no eat" and "tiger, run away" seem like they could suffice in evolutionary terms.
Edited by bernerbits, : qt=qs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Jaderis, posted 10-11-2007 3:02 AM Jaderis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Dr Jack, posted 10-11-2007 9:29 AM bernerbits has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024