Re: Darwin's principle of divergence - Tautology

backspace wrote:
On Aug 5, 1:44 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Not quite, his argument is unusual (and badly put) but within his
context, it makes sense. Sort of two pronged attack: he is quite happy
that people like Samarin or Goodman provide secular explanations to the
type of Glossolalia practised by Pentecostals

Very happy actually the truth matters and nothing but the truth.
Xtians can't lie for Jesus anything that is false must be exposed. A
PHD in fact did listen attentivly to my tongues and told me the
following: "..... I can't help you further with this because of the
effect it will have on my career......" He then cut-off all further
communication...... he doesn't have tenure yet.

heaven to be occupied just by him)but argues that the one he does is
different, so that the Samarin and Goodman explanations do not apply.
No, they do apply everything Samarin says is correct in the same way
that describing a white swan is correct, that is until one day you
find a black swan.

The rest is then an argument from ignorance with some further
complications, running a bit like this: Samarin et al have shown
Pentecosytal glossolalia is just learned behaviour.
Agreed

My glossolalia can't be learned behaviour
True never heard the words in my life before, as I speak I google for
some of the words I sort of make out (about 5%) and get 3mil , 2mil
google hits form Latvian, Serbian, Spanish, Greek, Turkish. The
langauge sort of sounds Greek, but why don't you listen to it here:

http://www.esnips.com/web/TongueSpeaker1

http://www.esnips.com/web/Tongues45Transcribed

http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Tongues45Transcribed

http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/22Apr2007With200GoogleHits


Therefore, my glossolalia can't be explained by science and hence is true.
Incorrect, linguists can transcribe my language but seem to terrified
to do it.

I would not count that as an explanation, just as a tool. my statement should have read more accurately: "Science at present cannot offer a secular explanation of what I'm doing"

If I can create a list of words running at over 100 words
which I found on Google why can a linguist not listen to my language
and write down individual words? I spoke to Samarin but he does't have
time, he is waisting his time listening to babble rubbish, finally
somebody contacts him that actually can speak in tongues..... such is
life ....... sigh ......(:


The logical problems are of course obvious (for starters, in his case
one would also want to rule out the older explanation by George Cutten
first)

Please do inform me the more ways of falsifying my tongues you can
find , by all means. I have nothing to hide all that matters is the
truth - so help me God. If I am deceiving myself then prove it, it
will ruin my life I might even kill myself if I find out that I have
just been babbeling like a fool. Think about that as a way of getting
rid of me no more posts to this forum , just show using the tools of
linguistic scientific analysis that those words I find on Google after
speaking it for the first time never heard it before was generated by
my mind alone. How could anybody be that clever?

The problem with that is the private language argument - the very concept of a language spoken only by one person is incoherent. And this is also why Samarin was so careful in his methodology when he writes " it is not a specimen of human language because it is neither internally organized nor systematically related to the world man perceives" Language is a tool to convey information from one person to another. Only as a special practice, we can distinguish meaningless babble from meaningful speech. Language not used to communicate between people - and the research amongst the Pentacostians shows that they do not understand each other either - is not a language that linguistics can say much about. So as long as you can't link parts of your speech to objects outside you and in tat way give them meaning (essentially, perform translation task) there is little linguistics can do.

At best, you could try a neurological analysis to see if parts of your brain light up that are normally associated with language processing. I think Andrew Newberg did research in this area.

To me Jesus is everything, without him I would have killed myself a
long, long time ago........

And you want me on this basis to develop arguments and experiments to show that you are wrong? Thanks but no thanks, that looks like seriously bad Karma. Especially as I was always of the opinion that people can bloody well believe in any deity they want, as long as a) they do not want me to exclusively believe in it too and b) it does not cause them to be nasty to others.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Word 2003 VB IDE & VB2005
    ... For a good explanation of this, ... Visual Studio Magazine - Guest Opinion - Office and .NET: ... Very little, if anything, has changed in the language since the ... The most recent one I enjoyed was "Professional Excel ...
    (microsoft.public.word.vba.general)
  • Re: consciousness, was Re: etc.
    ... What constitutes an explanation? ... been writing in a foreign language. ... The basics of conditioning are simple and trivial. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Help Constructing Fictional Cross-Religious Movement
    ... >feature of the explanation of "what's an object?" ... >this is a crucial distinction, and tend to think it's already implied by ... just a subroutine in a language that implicitly makes multiple independent ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Man-eaters
    ... evolution that are much easier to explain; ... the FORM of the explanation ... The only form I employ is that of natural selection. ... Whereas complex language has evolved ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
Loading