|
|
Post by greay on Apr 7, 2015 2:39:22 GMT
You can't go against nature, because when you do go against nature, it's part of nature, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Apr 7, 2015 5:49:38 GMT
Just as I said, they aren't "started" in the first place. They are formed by subconscious. And if you don't know what I'm talking about, then just shut up instead of twisting my own words in entirely different direction. Could you clarify what a "naturally forming" religion is? The problem with this statement is that it is impossible to prove whether a religion comes about as a conscious action or "formed by subconscious." So, unless you have first-hand accounts of the feelings and motivations of a religion's initiators, you have no basis with which to determine a religion's legitimacy. Heck, that's assuming you have any honest basis for your declaration of how they form. What you're encountering is people refusing to blindly accept your declarations as fact and bring up flaws in your stance. This isn't the first person in this discussion you've dismissed because they "don't know what I'm talking about." Perhaps you're making assumptions that others don't accept as fact, you aren't doing a good job communicating your stance, or you're wrong and acting haughty and arrogant to avoid admitting it. Why, it is possible. Even now children objectify their fear of the dark and give a name to the "scary person" in there. And true religion is just that - objectification of different concepts. Or do you really think that cult of bear was really started by someone? |
|
|
|
Post by nikink on Apr 7, 2015 10:59:58 GMT
I think, if a human is doing it, a human started it.
|
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Apr 7, 2015 12:46:08 GMT
So walking is also started by one human? Was language made by one individual?
|
|
Lord Ba'al
Supreme Deity
Posts: 6,260
Pledge level: Half a Partner
I like: Cats; single malt Scotch; Stargate; Amiga; fried potatoes; retro gaming; cheese; snickers; sticky tape.
I don't like: Dimples in the bottom of scotch bottles; Facebook games masquerading as godgames.
Steam: stonelesscutter
GOG: stonelesscutter
|
Post by Lord Ba'al on Apr 7, 2015 13:35:42 GMT
So walking is also started by one human? Was language made by one individual? Someone had to be the first. I remember back in the days when we were crawling everywhere. It was agony. Whoever invented walking is awesome. |
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Apr 7, 2015 14:37:07 GMT
So walking is also started by one human? Was language made by one individual? Someone had to be the first. I remember back in the days when we were crawling everywhere. It was agony. Whoever invented walking is awesome. We weren't crawling everywhere. We just had a mutation that made our arms too short and started crouching. We couldn't even get our legs straight because of the way our knees were built. But if you think mutation is caused by conscious actions, think again. |
|
|
|
Post by engarde on Apr 7, 2015 14:53:44 GMT
Aside from consciously remaining in an area where mutations might be caused by the environment...
|
|
Casinha
Master
Posts: 217 
Pledge level: Partner
|
Post by Casinha on Apr 7, 2015 15:19:17 GMT
So walking is also started by one human? Was language made by one individual? Someone had to be the first. I remember back in the days when we were crawling everywhere. It was agony. Whoever invented walking is awesome. I wonder if when the first person started walking everyone looked on muttering "Who the pre-historic equivalent of hell is this joker? Looks like a nutter." And then they were all eaten by sabre-tooth tigers or mammoths while said person outran them all. |
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Apr 7, 2015 17:42:33 GMT
Someone had to be the first. I remember back in the days when we were crawling everywhere. It was agony. Whoever invented walking is awesome. I wonder if when the first person started walking everyone looked on muttering "Who the pre-historic equivalent of hell is this joker? Looks like a nutter." And then they were all eaten by sabre-tooth tigers or mammoths while said person outran them all. Nah. They were eaten by the family of those squat-walkers. And whet Homo Erectus got their legs straight, they skewered all another species around with their shortbows and throwing spears. Not to mention superior speed. |
|
|
|
Post by nikink on Apr 7, 2015 21:02:25 GMT
So walking is also started by one human? Was language made by one individual? Someone had to be the first. I remember back in the days when we were crawling everywhere. It was agony. Whoever invented walking is awesome. Ah right. I knew you'd equate religion with autonomic-type functions. Woo!  Because they're so obviously the same thing. Like knapping flint 'just happened'. |
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Apr 7, 2015 22:14:54 GMT
It isn't knapping flint. It's closer to language. To be more precise, the core of actual religions is in cognition which is anything but a conscious process.
|
|
|
|
Post by earlparvisjam on Apr 8, 2015 0:35:59 GMT
It isn't knapping flint. It's closer to language. To be more precise, the core of actual religions is in cognition which is anything but a conscious process. You're trying to claim that language formation was not a conscious process? Good luck proving that. It's like claiming the process of teaching is subconscious. Rather than bother with a long-winded argument about your oversimplification of the "core of actual religions," I will counter claim that the core of actual religions is cognitive interpretation of environmental observations. A number of religious tenets are attempts at explaining things for which there is no known explanation. Interpreting a thunder storm as giants fighting in the clouds doesn't have to be political, requires faith, and springs directly from conscious thought. You may blithely claim it an invalid religion, but that's just because of your personal interpretation of validity. There isn't a single religion that couldn't be invalidated by your self-imposed criterion. The way you've been approaching this whole discussion seems to imply you expect everyone to come to this conclusion. If that's the case, then you probably should do more proving and less declaring. |
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Apr 8, 2015 10:36:41 GMT
Thank you for wishing me luck. |
|
|
|
Post by earlparvisjam on Apr 9, 2015 6:31:33 GMT
Thank you for wishing me luck. There's nothing in that first link that proves language is formed by the subconscious. The same goes for that video. Are you just trolling me now or are you seriously trying to use those two links as evidence to support your stance? Sigh, it sounds like you've taken Philosophy 101 and convinced yourself you're the next Noam Chomsky. Good luck with that as well. If that's not the case, you really need to clarify just what the heck you're trying to say. |
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Apr 9, 2015 11:49:57 GMT
Thank you for wishing me luck. There's nothing in that first link that proves language is formed by the subconscious. The same goes for that video. Are you just trolling me now or are you seriously trying to use those two links as evidence to support your stance? Sigh, it sounds like you've taken Philosophy 101 and convinced yourself you're the next Noam Chomsky. Good luck with that as well. If that's not the case, you really need to clarify just what the heck you're trying to say. But there is. First link shows that language is based of gesture mechanism which is unconscious. Then it reminds that speaking/writing is unconscius action just like walking - you can start doing it, you can stop it, you can try to modify how you do it, but then the action itself collapses and your effort required increases a lot. Second video tells people who actually listen to it that the role of teacher isn't to actually pass experience or knowledge - it is to keep students interested through social emotional protocols which are - surprise! - unconscious. Of the kind that is too simple to be comprehend with conscious, like all emotions. |
|
|
|
Post by earlparvisjam on Apr 10, 2015 1:51:46 GMT
There's nothing in that first link that proves language is formed by the subconscious. The same goes for that video. Are you just trolling me now or are you seriously trying to use those two links as evidence to support your stance? Sigh, it sounds like you've taken Philosophy 101 and convinced yourself you're the next Noam Chomsky. Good luck with that as well. If that's not the case, you really need to clarify just what the heck you're trying to say. But there is. First link shows that language is based of gesture mechanism which is unconscious. Then it reminds that speaking/writing is unconscius action just like walking - you can start doing it, you can stop it, you can try to modify how you do it, but then the action itself collapses and your effort required increases a lot. Second video tells people who actually listen to it that the role of teacher isn't to actually pass experience or knowledge - it is to keep students interested through social emotional protocols which are - surprise! - unconscious. Of the kind that is too simple to be comprehend with conscious, like all emotions. Nope, the first link proves nothing. It also doesn't agree with your assertion. I'd suggest you reread the whole link, rather than the parts you personally agree with. Here, I'll give you a hand: "The term modality means the chosen representational format for encoding and transmitting information. A striking feature of language is that it is modality-independent. Should an impaired child be prevented from hearing or producing sound, its innate capacity to master a language may equally find expression in signing. Sign languages of the deaf are independently invented and have all the major properties of spoken language except for the modality of transmission.[10][11][12][13] From this it appears that the language centres of the human brain must somehow have been designed to function optimally irrespective of the selected modality." Perhaps, you're mistaking formed with performed. While the idea that using a language can be performed using actions guided by the gesture mechanism, it was formed by conscious effort. This is the same thing that can be applied to the video, and where it fails to support what you're saying. (Assuming you agree with the theories that there is a subconscious) The act of teaching is a conscious effort that uses social emotional protocols (subconscious motivators). A teacher has to do a lot more than just build enthusiasm for the subject matter. They also need to actually present the material in a manner that makes sense to the students and ensure the students are retaining what was presented. Motivating students is just the first step, not the destination. |
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Apr 10, 2015 10:49:56 GMT
But there is. First link shows that language is based of gesture mechanism which is unconscious. Then it reminds that speaking/writing is unconscius action just like walking - you can start doing it, you can stop it, you can try to modify how you do it, but then the action itself collapses and your effort required increases a lot. Second video tells people who actually listen to it that the role of teacher isn't to actually pass experience or knowledge - it is to keep students interested through social emotional protocols which are - surprise! - unconscious. Of the kind that is too simple to be comprehend with conscious, like all emotions. Nope, the first link proves nothing. It also doesn't agree with your assertion. I'd suggest you reread the whole link, rather than the parts you personally agree with. Here, I'll give you a hand: "The term modality means the chosen representational format for encoding and transmitting information. A striking feature of language is that it is modality-independent. Should an impaired child be prevented from hearing or producing sound, its innate capacity to master a language may equally find expression in signing. Sign languages of the deaf are independently invented and have all the major properties of spoken language except for the modality of transmission.[10][11][12][13] From this it appears that the language centres of the human brain must somehow have been designed to function optimally irrespective of the selected modality." Perhaps, you're mistaking formed with performed. While the idea that using a language can be performed using actions guided by the gesture mechanism, it was formed by conscious effort. This is the same thing that can be applied to the video, and where it fails to support what you're saying. (Assuming you agree with the theories that there is a subconscious) The act of teaching is a conscious effort that uses social emotional protocols (subconscious motivators). A teacher has to do a lot more than just build enthusiasm for the subject matter. They also need to actually present the material in a manner that makes sense to the students and ensure the students are retaining what was presented. Motivating students is just the first step, not the destination. I think you mean: Which doesn't shake my point in the slightest. Not even to mention that the centres of language are modality-dependent (you can lose your ability to understand spoken language and you will keep understanding gestures and text) and form in secondary cortex of respective organ (in either sensory or motor cortex). It's just they can form for any modality due to structure of neocortex. And the reason I can't agree with you that language is conscious process is that you can't have clear conscious without language as foundation. Clear conscious is defined as aility of abstract thinking, which is founded on using language as a part of cognition (boy, that's not easy to try and explain in English). Uznadze have proved that human motivation does not work without object of need (returning to the original argument, this is actual source of religion - need to create an imaginary object to assign the emotions to, which was done automatically and unconsciously. People who suffered from the same need simply borrowed the image from the people they knew. This is, incidentally, is proven by the origin of Shinto). Motive is always a need with an object to apply to. Cognition itself works only with the objects - that's the main idea beyond the camouflage (that's why the German and Russian camouflage was the best during WWII - we had better geschtaltists, who found those characteristics out). Piaget shows us that the stage of concrete operations comes only after the language is mastered (seriously, it comes after 7 years), which is, though, a weaker argument and I admit it. But I can bet you my fingers that the way you see abstractions is through language's symbols and that already moves the language outside consciousness, making it a foundation of it. Now about learning being conscious effort. Not really. As I said, it is close to walking or chewing. You can start walking and stop it, but you can't really influence the process itself (since the whole process will break apart and you will need to restart the movements all over again), which is confirmed in the video. So no, conscious learning is clear bullshit, which is especially proved in learning of language, since you can learn it by just watching movies in that language for, like. two years, tarting from watching 'em with subtitles. (I learned some spoken Japanese that way, though I still can't read Kanji) Formation of language, moreover, is absolutely not influenced with conscious since the reasons and the way languages change have nothing to do with thinking nor effort (except the time when you have to name an invention or brand product; counter to this exception would be the verb "to google", which simply came naturally, unconsciously, and was unconsciously internalized and propagated). We're not talking about argo or ciphers, we're talking about language. The conscious side of teaching, by the way (it is the side argument, after all), is concentrated on giving the material and not doing the function described in the video, so the main role of teacher still lies in the unconscious and you're just trying to move my focus from the subject. |
|
|
|
Post by morsealworth on Apr 10, 2015 19:27:26 GMT
Oh, and I forgot. The biggest fault in your argument is the area. You claim it to be philosophy. Yet the language formation is in the area of anthropology and psychology, there's simply no place for undefined, inaccurate philosophy to fit in. The biggest problem of mine - lack of translations of Soviet psychologists who still are far ahead than English-speaking ones in study of unconscious.
|
|
Aug 21, 2024 19:32:37 GMT
Aug 21, 2024 19:32:37 GMT
