The Need to Start From Scratch

[cladking]

It depends on what you mean by language, and thought for that matter. Can you string together a series of mental abstractions without their being language?

I can sometimes but most people don't seem to do it at all.

You can also "exist" without language but this tends to be fleeting for me as well.

Well, yes. It is reasonable to anticipate that more complex creatures have more complex communication, but there are examples of animals passing knowledge from generation to generation, dolphin hunting techniques, primate tool use, regional 'accents' in birdsong, for example.

Most or possibly all animals pass knowledge down to their off spring. But they do it
by example and not complex language. This isn't to say that there can be no complexity
in animal languages just that so far as we know there must not be very much. I believe
crows are reputed to have one of the more complex languages but no doubt elephants
and whales should be included.

Maybe it did, but what is your evidence of any such language? Do you mean something like P.I.E?

No. This is a very distinct language. The most similar thing like it today would be a com-
puter language or perhaps the babel that is called "instructions" and comes with computer
and electronic equipment or your new refrigerator.

To my knowledge almost nothing at all survives from before 2000 BC other than an entire
corpus of "ritual" that we call the "Pyramid Texts".

http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/

The only way to find out if we have reached the limits of experiment, is to experiment.

The failure of experiment is the complexity of developing new experiment. How do you
devise an experiment to show that experiment will continue to work?

Formalizing definitions will impede progress.

I agree. I don't mean that all words should be formalized, merely that words related to
philosophy and science should be formalized.

We should have learned our lesson the first time.

I think a broad education is commendable, what tends to happen is that people's education becomes more specialized the more they do. They don't generally forget everything hey learnt in the process.

As people age they do tend to forget.

But this isn't so much the issue as is the perspective that comes with all specialization.
The more an individual specializes the more he comes to see the world from a single
perspective. Some people should be taught generalization and some people are natur-
ally highly prone to be generalists. Such people tend to be called unemployed now days
but they could constitute a very valuable asset in all walks of life.

It's very obvious that specialization causes more waste than war and disease put toget-
her but people don't notice. Specialization is critical in modern society and, I agree, that
a broad education is desirable for almost everyone. I simply believe that "generalism"
needs to be taught as a specialty.

If you are to persuade individuals with two brain cells to rub together, you will need more than words.

Of course.

I believe this will become more apparent in time.

[cladking]

I am not all that comfortable with the idea that science is in some sort of crisis.

Which scientists are challenging the fundamental assumption of their enterprise, that our relationship with knowledge should be "more is better"?

If such a conversation is underway in earnest, I would agree science is not in crisis. If there is no such conversation to any meaningful degree, it is.

I don't so much think a crisis exists in science as we are simply reaching the
end of the usefullness of science. Obviously enough theory exists to keep the
technologists busy for another century but theory has pretty much stagnated
since the 1930's. Most existing hypotheses are simply not falsifiable by any known
means and some of them are inane.

[Ginkgo]

You probably mean that language was explained in terms of metaphysical explanations. There is no language of metaphysics. Prior to Newton there was no science as a discipline. If you are talking about 'science' based only on logic and observation prior to Newton then we are talking Aristotelian ontology.

The first human language arose as a result of a biological mutation. This mutation
arose in a very human like animal and was very important to survival so it was passed
on from generation to generation until in a very short time all individuals had the mu-
tation. This first individual didn't simply invent language because his animal forebearers
already had a language and he simply was able to elaborate on this. This first language
was very complex but it was an animal language and this language survived for some
40,000 years and was used by all humans during this time. There were dialects but the
language was the same everywhere. The language was inate to humans and people were
born with a mostly undeveloped ability to use it.

But the language had the same properties that all animal languages probably have. This
language incorporated new ideas into its vocabulary and grammar. All human knowledge
was added year by year and this knowledge became the means by which people thought.
"Scientific" words were specially delineated and had strict definitions. Other words weren't
used to formulate statements or express beliefs but to paint a picture in the mind of the
listener and this was the means by which they communicated ideas. This language due
to its very nature was metaphysical. People used science founded of observation and log-
ic that had theory confirmed through further observation and language was its metaphysics.
It's likely this is how termites invented agriculture and and conditioning and beavers invented
water worlds for themselves. Humans were a little more clever but more importantly they
possessed the ability to pass knowledge from one generation to the next. Language was
the metaphysics of the ancient science. The ancient science in effect was built around the
human brain and the ancient people modeled all of nature around humanity.

This language looks very distinct from modern language. It has been misinterpreted ever
since the "tower of babel". No books survive from the first 1200 years of writing because
they couldn't be translated so they were simply discarded or allowed to disintegrate.

Can you cite the source please?

[cladking]

Can you cite the source please?

Is there a specific statement for which you seek a source?

Most of this is based on observation and logic. It is based on 500 years of modern science
and 40,000 years of ancient science with which it is discontinuous. This is what the evidence
that exists says is the reality if it's true that the pyramid really was built with water and the
Pyramid Texts says this. It is based on my understanding of consciousness and is supported
by a lifetime of observation.

You can simply dismiss it because no famous person said it but the fact remains that it's the
only theory that actually explains all the evidence. People are superstitious, suffer confirma-
tion bias, and aren't intelligent and naturally they resist this. This suggests that we must sig-
nificantly modify our beliefs and our education practices to better suit human needs. We are
likely at a crossroads as it concerns modern science anyway since most hypothesis appears to
be unfalsifiable going forward.

Doesn't it seem just a little bit inconsistent with the widespread belief in human omniscience
that we don't know any more about gravity than the pyramid builders and that with all our roc-
ket science we can't even figure out how the pyramids were built? Isn't it highly inconsistent
with the scientific spirit that Egyptologists won't even apply existing technology to answering
these questions?

We don't notice the inconsistencies like bees building hexagonal hives or doing their "waggle
dance" because we are so superstitious and dismiss or are blind to inconsistencies.

[Ginkgo]

Can you cite the source please?

Is there a specific statement for which you seek a source?

Most of this is based on observation and logic. It is based on 500 years of modern science
and 40,000 years of ancient science with which it is discontinuous. This is what the evidence
that exists says is the reality if it's true that the pyramid really was built with water and the
Pyramid Texts says this. It is based on my understanding of consciousness and is supported
by a lifetime of observation.

You can simply dismiss it because no famous person said it but the fact remains that it's the
only theory that actually explains all the evidence. People are superstitious, suffer confirma-
tion bias, and aren't intelligent and naturally they resist this. This suggests that we must sig-
nificantly modify our beliefs and our education practices to better suit human needs. We are
likely at a crossroads as it concerns modern science anyway since most hypothesis appears to
be unfalsifiable going forward.

Doesn't it seem just a little bit inconsistent with the widespread belief in human omniscience
that we don't know any more about gravity than the pyramid builders and that with all our roc-
ket science we can't even figure out how the pyramids were built? Isn't it highly inconsistent
with the scientific spirit that Egyptologists won't even apply existing technology to answering
these questions?

We don't notice the inconsistencies like bees building hexagonal hives or doing their "waggle
dance" because we are so superstitious and dismiss or are blind to inconsistencies.

Yes, I would like the academic source if applicable. What you have presented here appears to be a variety of sources that have been cobbled together to present your particular point of view. Normally when someone puts forward a definitive quote as proof of a position then the source is usually required. If the quote is largely your interpretation of historical events then that it fair enough.

[cladking]

Yes, I would like the academic source if applicable. What you have presented here appears to be a variety of sources that have been cobbled together to present your particular point of view. Normally when someone puts forward a definitive quote as proof of a position then the source is usually required. If the quote is largely your interpretation of historical events then that it fair enough.

This is all my own work. I could cite sources such as Darwin but I believe
he was wrong about much more than he was right and failed to identify the
primary driver of evolution; near extinction events. "Survival of the fittest"
may be nearly inconsequential to gross evolution. "Survival of the most con-
scious" might be a little more important but there are important aspects of
evolution which simply weren't known in the 19th century.

The nature of human language is such that it must have arisen from mutation
and might have been a part of a near extinction event.

Some of my ideas now actually arise from my understanding of the ancient
science that I've been trying to reconstruct from clues left in the rituals they
read to the crowds at the king's funeral. Ancient science was far more ad-
vanced than is realized. The knowledge was not readily adaptable to technol-
ogy so we tend to grossly underestimate it.

[Ginkgo]

Can you cite the source please?

Is there a specific statement for which you seek a source?

Most of this is based on observation and logic. It is based on 500 years of modern science
and 40,000 years of ancient science with which it is discontinuous. This is what the evidence
that exists says is the reality if it's true that the pyramid really was built with water and the
Pyramid Texts says this. It is based on my understanding of consciousness and is supported
by a lifetime of observation.

You can simply dismiss it because no famous person said it but the fact remains that it's the
only theory that actually explains all the evidence. People are superstitious, suffer confirma-
tion bias, and aren't intelligent and naturally they resist this. This suggests that we must sig-
nificantly modify our beliefs and our education practices to better suit human needs. We are
likely at a crossroads as it concerns modern science anyway since most hypothesis appears to
be unfalsifiable going forward.

Doesn't it seem just a little bit inconsistent with the widespread belief in human omniscience
that we don't know any more about gravity than the pyramid builders and that with all our roc-
ket science we can't even figure out how the pyramids were built? Isn't it highly inconsistent
with the scientific spirit that Egyptologists won't even apply existing technology to answering
these questions?

We don't notice the inconsistencies like bees building hexagonal hives or doing their "waggle
dance" because we are so superstitious and dismiss or are blind to inconsistencies.

I'm still not sure what you mean by the language of metaphysics? The language of metaphysics is usually understood in terms of, being, substance and essences.


We do know a lot about gravity. Our knowledge can be explained as a process starting with Aristotle and going through to quantum mechanics.

In the philosophy of science the terms "falsifiable" is more to do with a means of demarcation, or the distinction between science and non-science. Only hypotheses that can be subject to the scientific method are classified as science.

[cladking]

We do know a lot about gravity. Our knowledge can be explained as a process starting with Aristotle and going through to quantum mechanics.

Since I started using the statement that we know no more about gravity than
the pyramid builders it has become a little less true. The speed of gravity was
determined a couple years back. We can measure it and predict its effects with
good accuracy but so could the pyramid builders. One of the jobs was "Weigher/
Reckoner" who apparently determined the weights of the stones sent up the pyr-
amid. Gravity is best defined as a force on the surface of the earth and "weight"
is that force.

I think it's more accurate to say that science wasn't truly born until its metaphysics
was formalized in the 11th century. It didn't produce a lot of results at first and
little technology.

I'm still not sure what you mean by the language of metaphysics? The language of metaphysics is usually understood in terms of, being, substance and essences.

By "metaphysical language" I mean that the language is metaphysical in nature.
There are no such languages today other than, probably, all animal languages. To
use such a language requires the speaker to be aware scientific developments since
these form the basis of the language.

Modern thought is founded on the concept "I think therefore I am" but ancient thought
was based on the idea that "I am therefore I think". It wasn't only the speaker who
was dependent on percieved reality but language itself. Without knowledge of the real-
ity one couldn't speak. Reality underlay the language so by its very nature the language
was metaphysical. It expressed not only the findings of science but the means by which
science was pursued.

This is a very highly efficient mode of thought but was highly limited because it became
much more complicated with even small gains in theory. It was this efficiency of thought
that made ancient people so powerful in the real world and so wise about human concerns.
Modern language is confused. If it weren't for the fact that we each know what we ourselves
mean it would be wholly unworkable. Communication is poor. We need to address and re-
dress these weaknesses. We need to tweak systems. But most of all we must recognize the
issues to prevent misunderstandings.

[uwot]

Since I started using the statement that we know no more about gravity than
the pyramid builders it has become a little less true.

It's been a little less true since at least the time of Galileo. I don't know enough about Egyptian science to categorically state that they had only a very limited understanding, but I'm fairly useful with the ancient Greeks. They went on educational tours of Egypt and Mesopotamia, because at the time they were the most advanced civilisations that were accessible to Greece. There is no record, that I am aware of, that suggests the Egyptians understanding of gravity extended beyond start wide if you want to build high. If the Greek understanding of gravity is anything to go by, the Egyptians will have attributed any force they discovered to a version of 'life force' which they will quickly have anthropomorphised into a god.

The speed of gravity was
determined a couple years back.

No. That was Galileo, lots of years back. He may or may not have dropped different weights from the leaning tower of Pisa, he certainly rolled different weights down slopes and discovered that 'weight' had nothing to do with the speed at which objects accelerated. They all do so at roughly 9.8 metres a second each second on Earth.

We can measure it and predict its effects with
good accuracy but so could the pyramid builders. One of the jobs was "Weigher/
Reckoner" who apparently determined the weights of the stones sent up the pyr-
amid.

I imagine such a persons job was to work out how many people would be needed to drag a particular stone. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to hear it.

Gravity is best defined as a force on the surface of the earth and "weight"
is that force.

No it isn't. It is much better to define gravity as a force exerted by any body with mass on any other body with mass, as Newton did.

I think it's more accurate to say that science wasn't truly born until its metaphysics
was formalized in the 11th century. It didn't produce a lot of results at first and
little technology.

I've done a fair bit on the history of science, but I have no idea which 11th century formalization you are referring to, unless you mean Avicenna.

Modern thought is founded on the concept "I think therefore I am"

It's often said that Descartes was the first modern philosopher, but that is different to saying everything we think is based on 'I think therefore I am.' and definitely not science, which ultimately is empirical, rather than rational.

but ancient thought
was based on the idea that "I am therefore I think".

Do you have an example of anyone ancient using that phrase, or anything similar?
Put us out of our misery, Cladking, is this 4000 year old, near extinction event anything to do with a flood?

[Ginkgo]

Since I started using the statement that we know no more about gravity than
the pyramid builders it has become a little less true. The speed of gravity was
determined a couple years back. We can measure it and predict its effects with
good accuracy but so could the pyramid builders. One of the jobs was "Weigher/
Reckoner" who apparently determined the weights of the stones sent up the pyr-
amid. Gravity is best defined as a force on the surface of the earth and "weight"
is that force.

Acceleration in relation to gravity should not be confused with the force of gravity. You example above is actually "force" of gravity. The force of gravity was familiar throughout the ancient world. The thing not familiar was "acceleration". Uwot outlined this particular aspect.

I think it's more accurate to say that science wasn't truly born until its metaphysics
was formalized in the 11th century. It didn't produce a lot of results at first and
little technology.

I am not sure what you men in terms of metaphysics being somehow formalized. Do you mean"formalized" in the Aristotelian sense?

By "metaphysical language" I mean that the language is metaphysical in nature.
There are no such languages today other than, probably, all animal languages. To
use such a language requires the speaker to be aware scientific developments since
these form the basis of the language.

Modern thought is founded on the concept "I think therefore I am" but ancient thought
was based on the idea that "I am therefore I think". It wasn't only the speaker who
was dependent on percieved reality but language itself. Without knowledge of the real-
ity one couldn't speak. Reality underlay the language so by its very nature the language
was metaphysical. It expressed not only the findings of science but the means by which
science was pursued.

This is a very highly efficient mode of thought but was highly limited because it became
much more complicated with even small gains in theory. It was this efficiency of thought
that made ancient people so powerful in the real world and so wise about human concerns.
Modern language is confused. If it weren't for the fact that we each know what we ourselves
mean it would be wholly unworkable. Communication is poor. We need to address and re-
dress these weaknesses. We need to tweak systems. But most of all we must recognize the
issues to prevent misunderstandings.

[/quote]


I'm at a loss as to how to address the above.

[cladking]

There was most assuredly no flood. If the flood myths have any basis in reality
then they are probably referring to the cessation of floods rather than their onset.

It's often said that Descartes was the first modern philosopher, but that is different to saying everything we think is based on 'I think therefore I am.' and definitely not science, which ultimately is empirical, rather than rational.

We're talking right past one another. What you're saying is true but what I'm saying
is also true. "I think therefore I am" is most assuredly not the basis of science but it
it is at the root of almost all philosophical discourse. It is the basis of thought and it
is at the root of how most scientists think. It will necessarily form the basis of hypoth-
etis for those individuals. Observation and experiment are the root of modern science
but observation takes place within a brain that functions on language and the belief that
"I think therefore I am". This forms a large part of perspective in the last few centuries.
Perspective determines everything from what we see to how it is percieved.

It always gets right back to the real problem; confused language. It is this confusion
that masks itself and has led to the need to start from scratch.

I fear the topic is drifting and am not sure how to proceed without disrupting Wandering-
Land's thread. My problem here is not enviable since I not only have to show in confused
langauge that language is confused but then have to show how this was found. Ultimately
everything will rest on people being able to see sense in something that is mistranslated,
and misinterpreted. Ultimately everything rests on extremely broad and extremely shallow
physical evidence and a great deal of logic. All the evidence and all the logic are with me
but it requires a different perspective to see. It cuts across all human knowledge so tak-
ing a different vantage is no mean feat.

[cladking]

The acceleration due to gravity is indeed 32 ft / s ^ 2. The speed of gravity was recently
measured at between .8 and 1.2 c. An even more recent measurement narrows it down
even further but both of these neasurements are disputed by some.

Ancient science was not "formal" and its metaphysics was exceedingly complex. Essentially
it started with a few common sense truisms like events that follow other events can not be
their cause, reality is as it is percieved, and observation must be used to support existing
theory. This worked very well because the total amount of theoretical knowledge was very
limited. A metaphysical language only gets complicated when enough theory exists to com-
plicate the phraseology.

The science that collapsed in 2000 BC was quite similar to our own simply because it studied
the same nature that exists today. It was a very different means of study that was more suit-
ed to learning about zoology than optics. Much of their understanding was very similar. For
instance rather than using a meaningless term like "gravity" they used the concept of "tefnut"
which essentially meant something like "downward" while it's opposite "shu" (inertia) literally
meant upward. Rather than measuring pressure in inches of water or pounds per square inch,
they measured kebehwet in "fingers" (a unit of distance of about three quarters inch) of water.
Not all of their science is so easily recognized. Their math hasn't been deciphered yet because
it is alien to ours.

Ancient people had a very different orientation and perspective of nature and their role in dis-
cerning its laws. They simply chose a perspective from inside of things and then defined any
other perspective or change in perspective. We just assume other people share our perspective
and usually see things from infinitely far away like a blueprint.

I am not sure what you men in terms of metaphysics being somehow formalized. Do you mean"formalized" in the Aristotelian sense?

Most of our axioms and definitions involve math. We use experiment to develop theory and
the axioms and theory are the foundation for the invention of hypothesis which must be isolated
in further experiment. Essentially modern science is founded on observation and experiment
while ancient science was founded on observation and logic. It's this logic that was extremely
complex and mirrored the wiring of the human brain and was language.

[Ginkgo]

We're talking right past one another. What you're saying is true but what I'm saying
is also true. "I think therefore I am" is most assuredly not the basis of science but it
it is at the root of almost all philosophical discourse. It is the basis of thought and it
is at the root of how most scientists think. It will necessarily form the basis of hypoth-
etis for those individuals. Observation and experiment are the root of modern science
but observation takes place within a brain that functions on language and the belief that
"I think therefore I am". This forms a large part of perspective in the last few centuries.
Perspective determines everything from what we see to how it is percieved.

It always gets right back to the real problem; confused language. It is this confusion
that masks itself and has led to the need to start from scratch.

"I think therefore I am" is not the basis of ALL philosophical discourse, it is one formulation out of any number of possible formulations of Rationalism. Spinoza for example, made a subjective and objective distinction as a rationalist philosopher.

In terms of the scientific methodology a theory is never intended to reveal the 'truth' behind the observational aspects of nature. The scientific method threats the theory in light of the observable. This is what distinguishes science from metaphysics.

I fear the topic is drifting and am not sure how to proceed without disrupting Wandering-
Land's thread. My problem here is not enviable since I not only have to show in confused
langauge that language is confused but then have to show how this was found. Ultimately
everything will rest on people being able to see sense in something that is mistranslated,
and misinterpreted. Ultimately everything rests on extremely broad and extremely shallow
physical evidence and a great deal of logic. All the evidence and all the logic are with me
but it requires a different perspective to see. It cuts across all human knowledge so tak-
ing a different vantage is no mean feat.

If someone were to have difficulty with Newtonian mechanics then tackling harder scientific questions would be rather difficult, or impossible. One needs to have a very good understanding of the basics before moving on. The same type of argument can be applied to philosophy. As I said previously, Rationalism is only one branch of philosophy. Philosophy may well be rational, but that doesn't make all philosophies rationalist.

[cladking]

One needs to have a very good understanding of the basics before moving on. The same type of argument can be applied to philosophy. As I said previously, Rationalism is only one branch of philosophy. Philosophy may well be rational, but that doesn't make all philosophies rationalist.

So... ...if you asked 100 scientists how they know they exist what do you think would be the consensus?

My contention is basically that we need to start from scratch for the reasons WanderingLands identified and which are generally obscured by confused language. "I think therefore I am" is only a part of this confusion but, I believe, it is a very widely shared part.

[Ginkgo]

So... ...if you asked 100 scientists how they know they exist what do you think would be the consensus?

Not sure who or what you mean by "they exist".




P.S. I see. Do you mean the scientists?