Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
rodentraiser

Why is it spirituality vs skepticism?

1,062 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Mr Walker
22 hours ago, back to earth said:

We know .... you tried very hard to point out you had a religion and it was your own religion constructed by you ;

 

 

Then you went on to dispute with J about how valid it was and the definition of religion and all this stuff to prove your point that you had a religion.

Now you are denying you ever said that.

and, as usual, its all our fault .... again         :)  

 

No thanks ... I am not a masochist !    Besides, I only need to go back to last Wednesday ;

 

 

 

Nice try, but it totally contradicts the argument you had with J

 

......   wait   for   it .....

 

 

Image result for wiggle   gif

 

 

 

 You need to read all i wrote, in context.

 I constructed a religious form which fits the social norms of my society (as i ve said many times if i lived in a country with a different religion i would simply reconstruct my form to fit their society  and appear more jewish, muslim, jainist buddhist etc.)

  That doesnt mean I am religious.  I do not act based upon beliefs. i dont have codified laws that  i have to obey based on theology.  i have no church, no theology, and no   faith.

 What i do, is to construct, from a variety of religions, a framework upon which i can live with a clear conscience. However none of it contradicts my ealry humanist secular values  

That is what i meant about it maybe being too complex for you to get. I wasnt being rude.

There is a small but very clear distinction between being a religious person or having a religious belief, and living what appears to be a religious based life  which is actually based on objective best practices of behaviour.

 There are individuals who have individual religions I am not one of them. I have constructed an individual religious framework  from many different faiths beliefs and moralities including humanism  and then placed it in the social framework of christianity in order to fit into my society.

Becsue i have an individual personal relationship with god I dont need any internal belief structure, however everyone needs to accommodate themselves to the society in which the y live.

 it would be dumb for me to act like a pagan or a buddhist where i live as it just would not work.  Neither would living my previous life as an atheist because now i know that god is real powerful and connected to me   So to an observer i would look like a christian But when i do psychological profiles on my religious leanings they come up all over the place, from buddhist and jainist, through pagan, to seventh day adventist (probably my wife's influence) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
11 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

No actually what I saw was you changing like a 180 degrees and countering your position black and white are fairly obvious no matter how grey it may look to you, and childhood memories are how you try to distract form the obvious discrepancy. Just like you did with your religion of one. AND right now I don't want to take you to task on the rest of this mental mess you wrote, one thread max for shut-down okay, or you can come to the Derailers Anonymous thread and work out these oddities there.

jmccr8

Sorry if you can't follow it.  I am not a simple person. See my post to BTE for how i look at it The childhood bit was to reinforce the understanding that i created my value lines, ethics and moralities, world views and philosophies, while still a young person and an atheist secular humanist,  and have never altered them Thus there do not exist the dichotomies you perceive All is consistent albeit complex. if I am challenged on my truthfulness or my understandings then i will reply   I don't see either why that should cause a thread to be shut down or even considered derailment I simply reply to any challenge thrown down.

I dont want to go outside of linear discussions within a thread   There are many cases of irrelevancy and social chit chat which go on for pages and no one complains   i simply present ideas, challenge other ideas, and justify my own. SOmetimes we move outside the original purpose of the thread but always the discussion flows logically and in a linear progression  sometimes with good strong debate of ideas and beliefs As long as it sticks to ideas and not people i am happy to discuss and argue anything.    

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Sorry if you can't follow it.  I am not a simple person. See my post to BTE for how i look at it 

Don't worry I can follow and so can BTE maybe you should try following for a while and that is the end do you not understand all of my last post or do I have to type it slower for you.

jmccr8

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
5 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Don't worry I can follow and so can BTE maybe you should try following for a while and that is the end do you not understand all of my last post or do I have to type it slower for you.

jmccr8

I understand, but disagree with you, for the reasons posted above.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth
32 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

 You need to read all i wrote, in context.

 I constructed a religious form which fits the social norms of my society (as i ve said many times if i lived in a country with a different religion i would simply reconstruct my form to fit their society  and appear more jewish, muslim, jainist buddhist etc.)

  That doesnt mean I am religious.  I do not act based upon beliefs. i dont have codified laws that  i have to obey based on theology.  i have no church, no theology, and no   faith.

 What i do, is to construct, from a variety of religions, a framework upon which i can live with a clear conscience. However none of it contradicts my ealry humanist secular values  

That is what i meant about it maybe being too complex for you to get. I wasnt being rude.

There is a small but very clear distinction between being a religious person or having a religious belief, and living what appears to be a religious based life  which is actually based on objective best practices of behaviour.

 There are individuals who have individual religions I am not one of them. I have constructed an individual religious framework  from many different faiths beliefs and moralities including humanism  and then placed it in the social framework of christianity in order to fit into my society.

Becsue i have an individual personal relationship with god I dont need any internal belief structure, however everyone needs to accommodate themselves to the society in which the y live.

 it would be dumb for me to act like a pagan or a buddhist where i live as it just would not work.  Neither would living my previous life as an atheist because now i know that god is real powerful and connected to me   So to an observer i would look like a christian But when i do psychological profiles on my religious leanings they come up all over the place, from buddhist and jainist, through pagan, to seventh day adventist (probably my wife's influence) .

 

 

Interesting how you try to argue your way out of it  but did not show the passage I was referring to in my above quoted post    

 

      On ‎14‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 5:48 PM, Mr Walker said:

Fraid not. Religion is religion I basically constructed my own  Many, if not most, humans modify an existing religion and live by it in a way which works for them Almost no one lives by every word of a religion. I think I agree with your principle however even tough i see it as a religion Every individual must create their own psychological understanding of self and nonself and, in doing so, reach an understanding of the importance spirit, belief, and faith, play in their life   

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
2 minutes ago, back to earth said:

 

 

Interesting how you try to argue your way out of it  but did not show the passage I was referring to in my above quoted post    

 

      On ‎14‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 5:48 PM, Mr Walker said:

Fraid not. Religion is religion I basically constructed my own  Many, if not most, humans modify an existing religion and live by it in a way which works for them Almost no one lives by every word of a religion. I think I agree with your principle however even tough i see it as a religion Every individual must create their own psychological understanding of self and nonself and, in doing so, reach an understanding of the importance spirit, belief, and faith, play in their life   

Holy bubble babble batman Kapow I am really tempted to get in on this but I think I should go to the other thread .:whistle:

jmccr8

Edited by jmccr8
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

If some people talked a bit more sense about spirituality , I would not be so sceptical in the first place  .

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rodentraiser
On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Mr Walker said:

Funny i was just considering this question myself.

Let's set aside beliefs, and answer it about my values and thus my ethics  I was taught to develop ethics based upon values along a value line.

The way i was taught to prioritise values, and hence my ethics, was in two ways First what was my intent  and second what would be the outcome  if i put my ethical values into action.

So take abortion In principle i believe it is wrong to take the life of an unborn human being who will become a unique living human being in time. It ends one full human potential before it can even begin. However  making abortion totally illegal does great harm and  forces it underground. Hence a woman's rights to an abortion must be considered and weighed. And if there are good logical reasons which outweigh a childs life then abortion should be allowed (and paid for by the state like all other medical bills) 

While my values and ethics evolved a little in childhood they haven't changed much since.  I was raised an ethical secular humanist and find the ethics of christianity sit quite comfortably  with those values so long as i adopt and adapt them to modern social realities.

Because my values are outcome based i don't change them unless i learn that doing something today produces a different outcome from doing it in the past  Thus i do not always open a door for a woman, stand when one comes to the table, or walk on the street side of the kerb   However i still do those things with women who value them.  Intrinsically to me they are still the right thing to do UNLESS the woman perceives them as wrong

I don't have a religion I have a personal relationship with a god And i have an internalised set of ethics and moralities which i consistently live by These predate my first meeting with god and so are not basically religious, but humanist

 HOWEVER if i acted on belief based values, and a set of internal laws i had constructed on a religious basis, then i would be a religious person, and have my own personalised religion

I agree with you very much that KNOWLEDGE  changes (or should change) our values and thus ethics and moralities. With any logical person, new knowledge will change behaviors, to take advantage of the new knowledge.   

So then from what I am taking away from all this is just about every person here is basically spiritual, whether you call it religion or ethics. And it seems like religion isn't that important, but some people are professing a close relationship with a higher force or with a god. The only thing that is disturbing to me is that everyone is basing their beliefs and feelings on something they feel. Likewise some people here are making their god to be whatever they want him to be. And you all feel legitimate about how you perceive your god to be.

I can't argue with that, but there's a big BUT attached to it: what happens when someone else has their own personal relationship with god and his god tells him it's OK to kill people because of their gender or the color of their skin? What makes his personal relationship any less legitimate than yours?

That's a general question to everyone, not just to Mr. Walker.

 

On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Mr Walker said:

A child who is not taught to speak, will not learn to think with language of the mind either. 

 

Helen Keller did. So do deaf children.

From a study made with infants, children are born to be able to hear any sounds humans can make. At about 6 months of age, their brain starts to specialize on the language a child is hearing on a daily basis. That's why it's so hard for older people to speak a new language fluently. Some people, though, retain the ability to learn a new language as an adult and are able to speak it like a native. It's thought in those people, the parts of the brain that were supposed to shut down so the child can concentrate on his native language have some of those pathways left open for some reason.

The same thing is thought to happen when it comes to people with anesthesia - people who see letters and numbers in color and can sometimes taste colors and shapes. Pathways that were supposed to shut down between the distinct senses remain open and no one knows why.

OK, a little off topic, but still interesting.

 

Edited by rodentraiser
because my computer is being an IDIOT tonight!
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
4 minutes ago, back to earth said:

If some people talked a bit more sense about spirituality , I would not be so sceptical in the first place  .

I can agree with that, I like to keep it simple and mostly I see it as how I share myself with my environment, be positive move forward in all ways. I can be pretty stubborn in that I won't let life defeat or overcome me by focusing on what do I really want and share the benefits of my success. 

jmccr8 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rodentraiser
On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 8:04 PM, back to earth said:

 

Lucky you. I have different visitors in my yard .... it very dry at the moment so I put out water for them which attracts them more .

 

Paddymelon

Image result for pademelons

 

Ringtail possum

Image result for rinbg tail possom 

 

Feather tail glider

Image result for Feather tail glider

Image result for Feather tail glider

 

 

 

Feather

 

On Friday, September 15, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Hammerclaw said:

Southern-Flying-Squirrel-Images.jpg5427512483_3e66dd0ee2_z.jpgI never know who'll come calling.Red-Fox-1557.jpg

I'm jealous. I want a fox.

The only problem I had with my raccoons was one of them wasn't afraid of anything. When the landlord was refinishing the empty trailer next door, Jupiter wandered in through the open door and grabbed the landlord by the pants cuff, practically sending my landlord through the ceiling and giving him cardiac arrest. It didn't help that Jupiter tracked muddy paw prints across the new living room carpet either. I'm sure my landlord was seeing visions of Daniel Boone and coonskin caps at that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
7 hours ago, rodentraiser said:

So then from what I am taking away from all this is just about every person here is basically spiritual, whether you call it religion or ethics. And it seems like religion isn't that important, but some people are professing a close relationship with a higher force or with a god. The only thing that is disturbing to me is that everyone is basing their beliefs and feelings on something they feel. Likewise some people here are making their god to be whatever they want him to be. And you all feel legitimate about how you perceive your god to be.

I can't argue with that, but there's a big BUT attached to it: what happens when someone else has their own personal relationship with god and his god tells him it's OK to kill people because of their gender or the color of their skin? What makes his personal relationship any less legitimate than yours?

That's a general question to everyone, not just to Mr. Walker.

 

 

Helen Keller did. So do deaf children.

From a study made with infants, children are born to be able to hear any sounds humans can make. At about 6 months of age, their brain starts to specialize on the language a child is hearing on a daily basis. That's why it's so hard for older people to speak a new language fluently. Some people, though, retain the ability to learn a new language as an adult and are able to speak it like a native. It's thought in those people, the parts of the brain that were supposed to shut down so the child can concentrate on his native language have some of those pathways left open for some reason.

The same thing is thought to happen when it comes to people with anesthesia - people who see letters and numbers in color and can sometimes taste colors and shapes. Pathways that were supposed to shut down between the distinct senses remain open and no one knows why.

OK, a little off topic, but still interesting.

 

yes every human being  (with a functioning mind) is spiritual  it is an evolved product of human cognition and self aware consciousness.

it is not based on an emotional  feeling, but an intellectual cognitive construct or awareness,  like an appreciation of beauty or love.

These are learned. but all functioning humans have the abilty to learn them.  

You use common sense. :)    If any voice in your head tells you to do something destructive, you seek medical help. 

A personal connection to a god is probably rare.  Generally it is the words from theologies religions  books etc which tell peole to kill or hurt others  The god I know has never been anything but loving and protective, although somewhat of a practical joker at times

It is less necessary to seek help for a voice which imparts real wisdoms, knowledge,  skills or abilities. Basically if something is constructive it is worth listening to, if it is destructive it is not 

All  personal relationships with a god (either real or self constructed/imagined)  may be legitimate, but not all are constructive or beneficial. 

Helen Keller learned/was taught, to speak a t least 4 difernt languages, plus braille and sign language So yes she would have had a language of the mind  operable in several languages. She learned to speak by touching lips to feel vibrations, and touching faces to feel how to shape the face to make a sound This is like a child, but using  touch rather than vision.

I was speaking of children who are never taught how to speak. There have only been a few in recorded history. Unless you can construct oral language you cant construct an inner language (but it is possible to earn an inner language even if physically mute)  There will be an equivalency of vocab, sophistication of language  abilty to think/speak  in symbolic  or abstract terms etc between a person's inner language and their spoken language This will  apply across multiple languages    Eg if you are good at speaking english and poorer at thinking french then you will be able to "think" better in english as well 

i did a lot of work on children's language and cognitive development as part of my teaching qualifications, It continued to fascinate me for the rest of my life. For example early speech involves observation and mimicking of facial muscles etc used to construct sounds.  

While it is true that young people's brains have greater plasticity, and thus abilty to learn languages and also assimilate information knowledge etc., it has been found recently that adults retain plasticity of the brain This is now used to help people with brain damage or strokes, to relearn language, and motor function,  by teaching the brain to find and use new neural pathways when old ones are damaged.

Basically,functions are rerouted past areas of damage in the brain.  Luckily there is a great deal of redundancy in our brains.  

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
8 hours ago, rodentraiser said:

I can't argue with that, but there's a big BUT attached to it: what happens when someone else has their own personal relationship with god and his god tells him it's OK to kill people because of their gender or the color of their skin? What makes his personal relationship any less legitimate than yours?

That's a general question to everyone, not just to Mr. Walker.

And a good question to ask all, I find. :yes:  (still trying to keep up in all the threads, or some, and probably failing....... :cry:  ) 

I often have thought abut this myself. Because, it seems, that every personal relationship is different from my perspective of talking to and seeing this from many people. A personal relationship, in one sense when thinking is spiritual, I believe I get this. I feel, I have a personal relationship.............. *thinks about it* or maybe close to it, with my spirituality and probably the higher power to that. But, if I think about it on another level, to me personal relationships would require actual two in the mix, to show it being personal. Or, I feel it's just a personal relationship with one's spirituality, that is topped off with a higher power or two or more. One can have personal relationships with loved ones, in my thinking, and I can really believe that, because both sides are real. In my perspective, and I think this based on my spirituality, I think I have a personal relationship with my inner self and the belief that comes with it. Having it with an 'entity' if I can delicately put it, meaning if you want them to call you, more than likely they will and have the essence to do so. Other wise, it's just within yourself, in my feeling. The way I see it within myself. 

Well, that's how I see it. :)  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
9 hours ago, rodentraiser said:

So then from what I am taking away from all this is just about every person here is basically spiritual, whether you call it religion or ethics. And it seems like religion isn't that important, but some people are professing a close relationship with a higher force or with a god. The only thing that is disturbing to me is that everyone is basing their beliefs and feelings on something they feel. Likewise some people here are making their god to be whatever they want him to be. And you all feel legitimate about how you perceive your god to be.

I can't argue with that, but there's a big BUT attached to it: what happens when someone else has their own personal relationship with god and his god tells him it's OK to kill people because of their gender or the color of their skin? What makes his personal relationship any less legitimate than yours?

That's a general question to everyone, not just to Mr. Walker.

 

 

Helen Keller did. So do deaf children.

From a study made with infants, children are born to be able to hear any sounds humans can make. At about 6 months of age, their brain starts to specialize on the language a child is hearing on a daily basis. That's why it's so hard for older people to speak a new language fluently. Some people, though, retain the ability to learn a new language as an adult and are able to speak it like a native. It's thought in those people, the parts of the brain that were supposed to shut down so the child can concentrate on his native language have some of those pathways left open for some reason.

The same thing is thought to happen when it comes to people with anesthesia - people who see letters and numbers in color and can sometimes taste colors and shapes. Pathways that were supposed to shut down between the distinct senses remain open and no one knows why.

OK, a little off topic, but still interesting.

 

To me God is created by man to have human qualities and depending on location and circumstances individuals are manipulated by smooth talkers to believe that god talks through them. In places where there is or has been conflict and there has been personal loss of family members they are wounded souls so speak and are emotionally distressed making it easier for self righteous bigots to use those losses for their own purpose. Belonging to a religious community creates a comfort or bond that unifies them and gives them an identity within the group, much like street gangs give comfort and security for those that have no or poor family relationships. In a sense one can see the same effects in any organized group, police, military etc.in that they give meaning, identity, recognition reward.

My personal view of what God is does not enable me by giving god a form or personality so in a sense life is the guide I follow if one man wrongs me I don't hold that against anyone but that man and if a person is good then I recognize the goodness of that person.

jmccr8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rodentraiser
15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Helen Keller learned/was taught, to speak a t least 4 difernt languages, plus braille and sign language So yes she would have had a language of the mind  operable in several languages. She learned to speak by touching lips to feel vibrations, and touching faces to feel how to shape the face to make a sound This is like a child, but using  touch rather than vision.

 

Helen Keller was mute - she never learned to speak any language except by sign.

 

I'm editing this to add, that many, many young animals use touch to to learn. Foals will lip things that are new to them. Raccoons are constantly using the pads of their paws to feel for things, usually food. Humans using touch to learn isn't all that unique.

Edited by rodentraiser
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rodentraiser

Well, I have to admit, I don't have a personal view or relationship with God or a god or much else at the moment. I'm sort of leaning towards the Klingon view: "If there are gods, they do not help..."

I always think if there is a benevolent god and he or she is all powerful, then as long as evil exists and people get hurt through no fault of their own, then those gods are meaningless in my life and in all life. I can't be responsible for what god does or doesn't do if he exists. That's on him/her. I am just responsible for what I do.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
3 hours ago, rodentraiser said:

Helen Keller was mute - she never learned to speak any language except by sign.

 

I'm editing this to add, that many, many young animals use touch to to learn. Foals will lip things that are new to them. Raccoons are constantly using the pads of their paws to feel for things, usually food. Humans using touch to learn isn't all that unique.

As far as i know, and i read her story long ago she was not mute. She was deaf and blind  If she had been mute it would have been much more difficult for her to learn languages 

https://www.biography.com/people/helen-keller-9361967

Determined to communicate with others as conventionally as possible, Keller learned to speak, and spent much of her life giving speeches and lectures on aspects of her life. She learned to "hear" people's speech by reading their lips with her hands—her sense of touch had heightened. She became proficient at using braille[23] and reading sign language with her hands as well. Shortly before World War I, with the assistance of the Zoellner Quartet, she determined that by placing her fingertips on a resonant tabletop she could experience music played close by.[24]

 

It seems to be a common perception that she was mute, but she was not. Also she only became blind and deaf after an illness at about 18 months ( scarlet fever i think)  As i said she learned to speak in a total of 4 languages and did speaking tours around the world,  although she always  expressed regret that she could not speak more clearly  Some of her speeches are available on you tube.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rodentraiser

I think what you refer to as heightened touch and using Braille is more under the category of communication, and communication isn't always done by speech.

In the past I trained my dog in Obedience, Schutzhund, and SAR. I've raised mice and held them from just a couple hours after birth. I've had cats and worked with horses. I feel competent to say that these animals are very communicative. I can tell you by how they stand, what they look at, how they hold their ears and from their "expressions" how they feel and are going to act in the next couple of minutes. It's simply a communication learned from long association with these creatures. I've never taken care of an elephant or cattle, so I would have no way to "read" them. If I was close to an elephant and he lifted his trunk, I'd have no idea why. But an elephant keeper would.

To say that you can't construct an inner language unless you can construct oral language is absurd.

Helen Keller had an inner language before she met Annie Sullivan. She knew the members of her family and had her own signs to communicate with them, and she knew how to ask for things she wanted. In other words, despite the fact that she couldn't hear, see OR speak, she was able to communicate.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
On 9/19/2017 at 5:52 PM, rodentraiser said:

Helen Keller had an inner language before she met Annie Sullivan. She knew the members of her family and had her own signs to communicate with them, and she knew how to ask for things she wanted. In other words, despite the fact that she couldn't hear, see OR speak, she was able to communicate.

I have often read and heard how twins, seem to have their own language to each other. The need to communicate, I think is there, it's just how it's done. I often wonder at how each area of the world and how language in it's areas, becomes defined by environmental encouragement. How is it each area has a different accent in fact. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only_

*Snip*

Edited by TruthSeeker_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
On 20/09/2017 at 7:22 AM, rodentraiser said:

I think what you refer to as heightened touch and using Braille is more under the category of communication, and communication isn't always done by speech.

In the past I trained my dog in Obedience, Schutzhund, and SAR. I've raised mice and held them from just a couple hours after birth. I've had cats and worked with horses. I feel competent to say that these animals are very communicative. I can tell you by how they stand, what they look at, how they hold their ears and from their "expressions" how they feel and are going to act in the next couple of minutes. It's simply a communication learned from long association with these creatures. I've never taken care of an elephant or cattle, so I would have no way to "read" them. If I was close to an elephant and he lifted his trunk, I'd have no idea why. But an elephant keeper would.

To say that you can't construct an inner language unless you can construct oral language is absurd.

Helen Keller had an inner language before she met Annie Sullivan. She knew the members of her family and had her own signs to communicate with them, and she knew how to ask for things she wanted. In other words, despite the fact that she couldn't hear, see OR speak, she was able to communicate.

 

 

 

No it is not absurd NOn human animals do not have a language based communication, either in their minds or verbally. They have evolved signals for specific purposes. 

To try and equate the mind and communication skills of a non human animal with those of a human animal is  what is  absurd.

 Keller was NEVER physically mute.she just did not know how to construct words out loud until she was taught how to and always struggled with speaking clearly .  She also had a human, not an animal, mind  so yes she could learn sign language  And thus would  also  acquire  some inner language of the mind although at a low level. I think some primates have been taught how to communicate basic things in sign languages.

This does not mean the y can think like a human being However helen had the potential in her brain and mind to be able to think and to speak  And so she could be taught to speak orally and inside her mind, And she was so taught.

  In humans, sign language can be complex and  abstract and represent complex and conceptual thinking  But this must be taught and constructed, both with the sign language and with the inner language of the mind.     Oral language is tied to the abilty to think non orally in the mind. So is sophisticated sign language.

Helen actually began speaking and developing an inner language before her illness, which enabled her to pick it up when older.  

 Helen was born a normal child. She started speaking when she was six months old. By the time she was a year old, she was able to communicate with her parents and she had also learned to walk. When Helen was eighteen months old an illness developed that the doctor described as brain congestion. She ran a high fever for many days, and then the fever was gone. Helen was left deaf and blind from the illness. Helen became a very wild, unruly child. She would scream and kick when she was angry and giggle and laugh when happy. She developed many of her own signals to communicate her needs with her parents.

At the age of ten Helen decided she wanted to speak aloud and spent 25 years learning to do so.   It took that long for her oral speech tp be clearly understandable to others But as with a child her inner language would have been much more sophisticated. it was a physical disability not a mental one which prevented her from clear speech. There was no such barrier to clear thought She knew what she wanted to say but could not physically form the words clearly  because she could not hear the results.

 
Helen wanted to learn to speak, and in 1890 she began taking speech classes at the Horace Mann School for the Deaf in Boston. She worked diligently at learning to speak. After twenty-five years of hard work and practice, Helen was able to speak in a voice that others could understand.

Read more: http://www.notablebiographies.com/Jo-Ki/Keller-Helen.html#ixzz4tHZoO47q
Read more: http://www.notablebiographies.com/Jo-Ki/Keller-Helen.html#ixzz4tHZHiaXR 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rodentraiser

Well, I'm not going to argue about Helen Keller. I wasn't aware that she learned to speak and so I learned something new. The thing is, even if she hadn't wanted to learn how to speak, even if she had been born mute, she still would have had an inner language because she still would be able to communicate with others. The inner language comes first and isn't dependent on any oral language.

And we're going to have to agree to disagree on whether animals have a language based communication. If you'd ever built a bond between yourself and an animal, you'd never say they don't have a language based communication. Maybe they don't have "language" the way we do, but many deaf people never learn to speak either (many deaf people are also deaf from birth) and yet you can't say they don't have a language based communication. Their language is in their hands and their expressions.

An animal communicates with their entire body and sometimes with their sounds as well. When I had a front yard with a locked gate, my dog would woof at people who might be walking by as long as that's all they did. When someone stopped outside the gate, his tone changed to a very sharp bark and that would bring me out to see what was going on. If dogs didn't communicate and "talk" with their partners, there wouldn't be any working dogs in the world. They'd be useless as SAR dogs, guide dogs, cattle dogs, watch dogs, etc. And I'm sure other people feel the same way about the animals they've worked with.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rodentraiser
5 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I have often read and heard how twins, seem to have their own language to each other. The need to communicate, I think is there, it's just how it's done. I often wonder at how each area of the world and how language in it's areas, becomes defined by environmental encouragement. How is it each area has a different accent in fact. 

 

I think twins have to let themselves feel the bond they have. My mother is a twin and she and her sister get along great and even finish each other's sentences. My brothers are twins and I don't know if they've even talked with each other in the last 20 years or so. They weren't even especially close as children (but then, we had a weird family, too).

I don't remember if I posted this or not, but I had a friend who went over to see two brothers (twins) and they were working on a wall at their house. He told me one twin would put out his hand and the other twin would just give him whatever tool he needed, and neither one of them ever had to say a word. When my friend questioned these guys, they told him they always worked like that.

What would be just as interesting wold be to study Abigale and Brittany Hensel. As conjoined twins, they not only have to communicate orally, but also physically when they ride a bicycle or drive a car.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abby_and_Brittany_Hensel

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 hour ago, rodentraiser said:

Well, I'm not going to argue about Helen Keller. I wasn't aware that she learned to speak and so I learned something new. The thing is, even if she hadn't wanted to learn how to speak, even if she had been born mute, she still would have had an inner language because she still would be able to communicate with others. The inner language comes first and isn't dependent on any oral language.

And we're going to have to agree to disagree on whether animals have a language based communication. If you'd ever built a bond between yourself and an animal, you'd never say they don't have a language based communication. Maybe they don't have "language" the way we do, but many deaf people never learn to speak either (many deaf people are also deaf from birth) and yet you can't say they don't have a language based communication. Their language is in their hands and their expressions.

An animal communicates with their entire body and sometimes with their sounds as well. When I had a front yard with a locked gate, my dog would woof at people who might be walking by as long as that's all they did. When someone stopped outside the gate, his tone changed to a very sharp bark and that would bring me out to see what was going on. If dogs didn't communicate and "talk" with their partners, there wouldn't be any working dogs in the world. They'd be useless as SAR dogs, guide dogs, cattle dogs, watch dogs, etc. And I'm sure other people feel the same way about the animals they've worked with.

 

I agree that  inner language is not dependent on being able to speak an oral language.  For example, a person born  physically mute, but sighted and able to hear, could more easily develop an inner language of the mind. than a blind and deaf person.  In humans the two develop together in infancy but inner language slightly precedes spoken language, because spoken language is physically more difficult and complex  to enunciate 

i don't dispute that animals can communicate.  However,   they do not appear able to use language (with perhaps one or two individual exceptions  And there isn't a scientist on earth who argue s tha t any non human animals have anything approaching the complexity of human language. 

 

https://evolutionnews.org/2016/07/do_animals_have/

Researchers say that animals, non-humans, do not have a true language like humans. However they do communicate with each other through sounds and gestures. Animals have a number of in-born qualities they use to signal their feelings, but these are not like the formed words we see in the human language.Apr 20, 2012

ps We have three dogs and a cat currently who are members of our family. The maximum animals we had while living on our small farm was 13 hand raised sheep, 24 bantams, 2 peacocks, 2 guinea fowl, A few ducks, 8 dogs, a cat, a rabbit,  a dozen gold fish, plus numerous native birds and reptiles which we provided food and water for.

It is not that we don't love animals or care for them, or support their right to be free from cruelty. We donate several thousand dollars  each year to IFAW,  national parks and wildlife,  and the wwf  and write letters, postcards, and petitions, to govts and world leaders on animal welfare.

I also have money direct debited every month for two protection sanctuaries in africa and asia  But i studied human language and cognition a t university and   it  is clear that humans are unique in their abilty to think and speak in a formal language, with abstract, symbolic and conceptual  meanings. It would appear that this comes from a  particular genetic evolution about 70000 years ago which allowed humans to move from animal style communications, identifying objects and using simple concrete words like nouns,  to human style, complex thought and language  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
4 hours ago, rodentraiser said:
10 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I have often read and heard how twins, seem to have their own language to each other. The need to communicate, I think is there, it's just how it's done. I often wonder at how each area of the world and how language in it's areas, becomes defined by environmental encouragement. How is it each area has a different accent in fact. 

 

I think twins have to let themselves feel the bond they have. My mother is a twin and she and her sister get along great and even finish each other's sentences. My brothers are twins and I don't know if they've even talked with each other in the last 20 years or so. They weren't even especially close as children (but then, we had a weird family, too).

I don't remember if I posted this or not, but I had a friend who went over to see two brothers (twins) and they were working on a wall at their house. He told me one twin would put out his hand and the other twin would just give him whatever tool he needed, and neither one of them ever had to say a word. When my friend questioned these guys, they told him they always worked like that.

What would be just as interesting wold be to study Abigale and Brittany Hensel. As conjoined twins, they not only have to communicate orally, but also physically when they ride a bicycle or drive a car.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abby_and_Brittany_Hensel

I don't know if twins have to let themselves feel a bond, I think it comes naturally. I am reflecting on your mother and her twin. My younger brother and sister are twins, ( of course, fraternal ;) ((though I joke they're identical :wacko: ))) and despite I'm not even a full two years older than they are, they do seem to have a closeness that I can't seem to feel the same with. Though, I am close with both of them. In fact, Heck, we also grew up with two older brothers, 8 and 9 years older than us, and we ended up being a subgroup of siblings from them. But yet, there is something that my younger brother and sister share, I just simply can't. 

I just recently bought and started reading "It Takes Two" the autobiography of the Scott Brothers, (who are identical twins)  which starts off with a bit from their parents, and even they were saying that at such a young age, before they learned to talk the usual language, they had their own language with each other. 

I remember reading articles about toddler twins who had their own language with each other. I find it mindboggling and fascinating. :) 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I agree that  inner language is not dependent on being able to speak an oral language.  For example, a person born  physically mute, but sighted and able to hear, could more easily develop an inner language of the mind. than a blind and deaf person.  In humans the two develop together in infancy but inner language slightly precedes spoken language, because spoken language is physically more difficult and complex  to enunciate 

i don't dispute that animals can communicate.  However,   they do not appear able to use language (with perhaps one or two individual exceptions  And there isn't a scientist on earth who argue s tha t any non human animals have anything approaching the complexity of human language. 

 

https://evolutionnews.org/2016/07/do_animals_have/

Researchers say that animals, non-humans, do not have a true language like humans. However they do communicate with each other through sounds and gestures. Animals have a number of in-born qualities they use to signal their feelings, but these are not like the formed words we see in the human language.Apr 20, 2012

ps We have three dogs and a cat currently who are members of our family. The maximum animals we had while living on our small farm was 13 hand raised sheep, 24 bantams, 2 peacocks, 2 guinea fowl, A few ducks, 8 dogs, a cat, a rabbit,  a dozen gold fish, plus numerous native birds and reptiles which we provided food and water for.

It is not that we don't love animals or care for them, or support their right to be free from cruelty. We donate several thousand dollars  each year to IFAW,  national parks and wildlife,  and the wwf  and write letters, postcards, and petitions, to govts and world leaders on animal welfare.

I also have money direct debited every month for two protection sanctuaries in africa and asia  But i studied human language and cognition a t university and   it  is clear that humans are unique in their abilty to think and speak in a formal language, with abstract, symbolic and conceptual  meanings. It would appear that this comes from a  particular genetic evolution about 70000 years ago which allowed humans to move from animal style communications, identifying objects and using simple concrete words like nouns,  to human style, complex thought and language  

It is closer to 500,000 yrs and several hominid lines that have had the ability to speak I will look for links when I get on my computer as I am using my phone now and can't access the from here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.