Which came first: the chicken or the egg?

[uwot]

Babies still "speak" it from birth.

Sorry to be a stickler for detail, but you haven't got anything that could be mistaken for evidence to support this idea of yours, have you cladking?

[cladking]

There used to be one language that all humans understood that was like all animal languages except it was far more complex.

It is not clear that this is even true of animals; birds and cows are thought to have 'regional accents', which raises the possibility that there are some calls which are interpreted differently and that in fact, there are different languages. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5277090.stm
There are some vocalisations which are extremely common, but even the sounds that people make in response to pain or surprise are not universal, not everyone says 'Ouch!'. I'm not an expert on this; I know that there is believed to have been a Proto Indo European language; as I remember the root word 'Dyeu' occurs in sanskrit and variations like Zeus and Deus in Greek and Latin, Tiwas in Germanic and Day in English, but I'm nor aware that there is any evidence that there ever was a language that all human beings understood. Given the isolation of different populations, it seems incredibly unlikely.

When I say that there was a single ancient language I don't mean that any two people from anywhere could simply sit down and engage in conversation. There were dialects and differences in pronunciations. Since the language was metaphysical there would be isolated areas that might be behind other cultures.

But the formatting of the lnguage was the ame everywhere and this language used very few words. Words were similar everywhere so establishing perfect communication with those who spoke more exotic dialects was hardly an insurmountable problem. With nearby peoples differences would be slight.

There is almost no writing at all that survives from before 2000 BC which is when I believe the change occurred. Writing didn't survive because it wasn't translatable. The little writing that does survive is all incomprehensible gobbledty gook to my knowledge. Things like the Pyramid Texts are misinterpreted to be religious and magical mumbo jumbo because it sounds so fantastic and incomprehensible. It's actually just the ritual that was read at the funerary ceremonies for the king but it is misinterpreted because the meaning was expressed in context. We just say what we mean and each word derives its definition from context. This is different than the old metaphysical language.

[cladking]

Babies still "speak" it from birth.

Sorry to be a stickler for detail, but you haven't got anything that could be mistaken for evidence to support this idea of yours, have you cladking?

Of course I do.

Most of it is anecdotal in nature. But consider the fact that all babies everywhere make the same sounds that we call "babbling". Obviously if a baby from English speaking parents are making sounds that only occur in Finnish or Mandarin then the baby isn't picking it up from his parents. These sounds are natural to the human species and the baby is attempting to communicate in the only language it "knows". The baby isn't trying to learn language or it would be attempting to mimic the sounds and words it heard.

If we were responding in the same language the baby would quickly learn to communicate in simple concepts that would grow more complex as its brain developed and matured. You can't just put two babies together and let them reinvent ancient language because human progress, human knowledge, and human science are about language. Only language makes progress possible and a baby just like an adult needs language for self developement and for thought itself.

Try answering a baby sometimes in "babel" and you might be surprised by the result. You won't know what you're saying but the baby will have a much wider range of response than you might think possible. I seriously doubt it's possible to relearn the human language through babies and a more direct route will be necessary.

[Ginkgo]

You seem to be saying the following:

(a) There was a time when all humans had a common understanding of the world by way of a common metaphysical language.

(b) Some time in the future there was a period when this metaphysical language contributed to it own demise resulting in the demise of this language.

If both (a) and (b) then you are saying this was an historical event. If so you have some sort of creationist explanation for language.

I don't know what you mean by "creationist". If you mean that I think a "god" created the language then in the modern sense of the word "God" then absolutely not. In the ancient sense of the word "god" then, yes, the language arose through a natural process.

Specifically I believe that virtually all animals and all of creation have language. Species must recognize one another to reproduce if nothing else. This means the animals that became human had a language as well. They looked human by our standard but were not able to pass learning from generation to generation so they lacked what Gee calls an unconscious mind. They lacked all the knowledge and thought that defines the nature of humanity so they lived and acted like animals. They weren't even especially clever animals but they did work stone and control fire.

Then a natural process, a mutation, occurred that gave rise to the ability to mnipulate language extensively. Perhaps it was the second speech center in the brain but whatever it was it allowed an individual to expand on the simple animal language and better communicate with members of his tribe. This adaptation was so successful that it spread like wildfire throughout the human race. Human language gave rise to the ability to cover almost the entire planet and to invent agriculture and cities.

But make no mistake about it. The ancient language had absolutely nothing to do with beliefs and religion and it was the vary basis of their observational science which is the exact same type of science that allowed termites and beavers to invent agriculture and air conditioned cities (each in their way). This science underlies life itself.

When the language collapsed the technology survived because learning could still be passed down but new learning was almost impossible in the absense of metaphysics. It was not until the invention of modern scientific metaphysics that human progress resumed. Keep in mind though that modern progress occurs primarily in technology and to a lesser extent in theory but relatively little occurs in application. Half the planet believes in supernatural causation and in very real ways most scientists believe in this as well caused by their inability to see things they don't understand.

We are left to argue semantics and wonder why half the world starves while the other half is unfullfilled. Angst may be something of the human conditiion but it may be greatly exaggerated by language and our inability to undersatand our past and our true natures. If it were possible to make progress in philosophy using our knowledge of scientific theory to underpin it then there might be answers someday to improve the human condition for many people. Ancient learning and knowledge could play a pivotal role in this but it would first need to be redeveloped.

Of course I could be wrong about everything but it strikes me as odd that it's only me who can be wrong and everyone else is using a confused language they don't seem to notice is confused and despite entirely different beliefs they each know they are right.

"A" and "b" are essentially correct. Each person spoke and thought in the same language so would believe the same things which reflcted the premises and axioms of that language as they were applied to nature and learning. As learning was added to the language arithmatically the language became geometrically more complex until it collapsed.

If (a) and (b) are correct then it doesn't really matter in terms of God being a deity or found within nature, it still means essentially the same thing- (a) and (b) are a Genesis explanation. I coined the term "creationist theory of language", but both terms convey the same meaning. That is to say, there once was an historical time period when all humans were united in a idealized from of communication (metaphysical language). At some future stage of historical development "all of this came crashing down", or a fall from grace if you like.

P.S.


I guess what I am saying is not to confuse metaphysics with mythology

[cladking]

If (a) and (b) are correct then it doesn't really matter in terms of God being a deity or found within nature, it still means essentially the same thing- (a) and (b) are a Genesis explanation. I coined the term "creationist theory of language", but both terms convey the same meaning. That is to say, there once was an historical time period when all humans were united in a idealized from of communication (metaphysical language). At some future stage of historical development "all of this came crashing down", or a fall from grace if you like.

P.S.


I guess what I am saying is not to confuse metaphysics with mythology

We seem to be on the same page here.

Modern language has no aspects of metaphysics at all so metaphysical ideas have to be framed in modern language while ancient language was metaphysical by nature.

I believe most myth is actually a confusion of ancient history. The first modern language speakers remembered and understood the history but it was difficult to impossible to state it in the new language so the stories took on mythological overtones and then evolved as well. Most are probably based on actual events or are confusions of ancient metaphysics or science. Even religions from paganism to Christianity are mostly confusions of ancient applied science. But since these are scientific concepts at their heart they can generate truth sometimes or be applicable to humans less directly. They can ring true. This is, no doubt, part of the attraction many people feel toward the various religions. People want to feel anchored to other people and to things greater than their own temporal concerns so they turn to religion. Others can't accept beliefs that are not apparent so turn to a means to learn about nature; science. Very few people adopt no beliefs at all but, I believe, this was the state of our more ancient forebearers; they had almost no beliefs at all.

The lack of beliefs was their key to success since it promoted good observation. It allowed them to invent agriculture and cities with what we would consider highly primitive science. By the time the great pyramids were built in Egypt this science was hardly highly primitive but it still generated very little technology because this is the nature of observational science. Most modern technology is born in the lab. Every major advancement and every confirmation of theory is likely to generate new technology directly or indirectly through extrapolation of the parameters that define experiment.

Animals and perhaps all living creatures are scientists but only humans no longer are. For us scientists have to be trained first in language and nature and then in scientific protocols and procedures. Unfortunately though we don't seem to do a good job at applying scientific knowledge to everyday life or to politics. We can't seem to pick up the ball and run with it. We do a poor job at understanding the meaning of science within its metaphysics.