No, I am not saying that the human brain designs language. I am saying that the capacity for language is already "hard-wired" into the human brain, somewhat as a computer is hardwired to respond to machine language.
This is why all human languages are as similar as they are, intertranslatable, and consisting of nouns, verbs and adjectives, etc, and capable of transmitting complex and abstract ideas. The human brain does not need to design language. The question is instead, is the human brain itself the product of blind, indifferent and random forces of nature? Or was it designed by some overarching organizing principle that was already inherent in the primordial point particle that gave rise to the Big Bang? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Apr 24, 4:20 pm, einseele <[email protected]> wrote: > Are you saying that the human brain designs language > > On 24 abr, 16:11, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > The design for language is in the human brain. > > Otherwise, you would not have the situation in which > > all languages seem to share common principles. > > ------------------------------- > > > On Apr 24, 8:27 am, einseele <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Also, I would add that to see certain "design", and to derive a > > > "designer" from there is a common place in many instances. > > > For instance, in language. > > > Does a two years old boy know grammar? > > > Yes and no, no because he had no time to go through those classes, and > > > yes because he is able to talk and express subjects, verbs and the > > > chain, even if with difficulties. > > > Languages' rules are not previous to language, nobody seated there to > > > design language, but they exist. > > > Everybody can see certain pattern in language, that does not mean > > > there was a designer > > > > As there wasn't either in some beautiful little lambs I can see in > > > clouds shape > > > > On 22 abr, 23:28, allknowingfrog <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > This discussion has shot through a number of complicated questions > > > > and > > > > theories about time, and I would like to voice my own perspective on > > > > the nature of the beast. > > > > > If we except the prevailing theory that the universe can be traced to > > > > a singularity, then I would argue that just as matter began at the > > > > singularity, so too did time and space, because both are ultimately > > > > measures of matter. Space is a measure of the distance between bits > > > > of > > > > matter, while time is a measure of changes in matter. Without matter, > > > > both measurements are meaningless. If everything that exists truly > > > > originated from the singularity, it is meaningless to talk about > > > > "before" the singularity, because the singularity was static. Without > > > > change, there is no time. > > > > > The other issue I would like to address is with the original post. It > > > > is really just the argument from design, i.e. "the universe is > > > > designed and must therefore have a designer." I agree that there are > > > > principles by which the universe is organized, but to conclude that > > > > those principles must be an intelligent force is a non sequitur. If > > > > the universe is so complicated as to necessitate an intelligent > > > > designer, imagine how much more complicated the designer must be. > > > > Following the same logic, the designer's level of complexity also > > > > necessitates an even more complicated designer. With that conclusion, > > > > we've come back to the "infinite progression" that the original > > > > poster > > > > so ardently criticized. > > > > > On Apr 17, 5:36 am, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > What is the Organizing Principle of the Universe? > > > > > > Obviously, the universe is organized. From quarks, to subatomic > > > > > particles, to atoms and molecules, to dust and planets and stars and > > > > > galaxies, we can trace a hierarchy of structure. > > > > > > We can also see that the universe is organized into four contextual > > > > > components: space, time, energy and mass. These four components are > > > > > so strongly inter-related as to be considered a single thing, space- > > > > > time and energy-mass, or space-time-energy-mass. > > > > > > Time seems to consist of three components in continual flux--- past, > > > > > present and future. Although in some cosmological models, all three of > > > > > these are really the same thing, and our perception of the passage of > > > > > time is an illusion. > > > > > > However little we understand the structure of the universe, it becomes > > > > > clear to us that there is, in fact, a structure, an organization of > > > > > the universe into discernible "parts," so to speak. > > > > > > This brings us to the question: what principle organizes the universe > > > > > into the way we see it organized? > > > > > > Remember that prior to the big bang, the universe was (theoretically) > > > > > a point particle, homogenized, with neither discrete components nor > > > > > passage of time. Nevertheless, in order for the universe to organize > > > > > itself afterward, there had to be inherent in that primordial point- > > > > > particle, the principle which eventually gave rise to what we see. > > > > > > This is a crucial idea: that there should be some fundamental > > > > > governing principle which gives rise to observed phenomena. > > > > > > Such an idea is itself axiomatic, defying definition. And as with all > > > > > axioms, the best proof of its truth is to examine what would be the > > > > > case if the axiom were not true. > > > > > > Gravity is a subordinate of the central organizing principle. Gravity > > > > > explains our observation of falling objects (among other > > > > > observations). If there were no gravity, we would not see objects > > > > > falling. > > > > > > In like manner, if there were no organizing principle of the universe, > > > > > we should expect there to be no organization observed. > > > > > > Then the question proceeds to infinite sequences of principles. By > > > > > what principle is the principle brought into being? > > > > > > As always in such cases, we must settle on the idea of an ultimate, > > > > > self-existent absolute. It simply is. Nothing brings it into being, > > > > > but rather, it is the final principle upon which all else is founded. > > > > > > Some thinkers deny that there is any final principle, but only an > > > > > infinite progression of them. But even that begs the question, since > > > > > by what principle is there an infinite progression of principles? > > > > > > It is axiomatic that there is a final, underlying reality upon which > > > > > all else is founded. Denial of the axiom brings us only to an endless > > > > > sequence of useless conclusions. > > > > > > But when we admit of a final, ultimate absolute, we are confronted > > > > > with the question of an inherent life force, an inherent > > > > > consciousness, intelligence, and supreme being overarching all of > > > > > nature, all of reality. > > > > > > We, finite and transient mortals, can never hope to know anything > > > > > whatsoever about this ultimate absolute except for two possibilities: > > > > > it reveals itself to us, and it endows us with the capacity to > > > > > understand what it reveals. > > > > > > We could never reason our way to God. On the contrary, we are utterly > > > > > dependent upon Him to show Himself, and to give us eyes with which to > > > > > see Him. > > > > > > -- > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > > > Groups "Epistemology" group. > > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > > [email protected]. > > > > > For more options, visit this group > > > > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > > > > -- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > > Groups "Epistemology" group. > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > [email protected]. > > > > For more options, visit this group > > > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > > "Epistemology" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > [email protected]. > > > For more options, visit this group > > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.-Hidequoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Epistemology" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
