Language & Self-Consciousness - The Great Leap Forward
-
Peace all,
The more I think about it, the more I realize human language is a key component to the puzzle of our existence insofar as it arose concurrently with a consciousness of self.
231 "And He taught Adam the names of all things, then He displayed them to the angels and said Inform Me of the names of these if you are truthful."
This verse is often taken to mean that God gave humanity the gift of knowledge. And while I certainly think that is part of it, I actually think the verse may be referring more to the gift of language. Metaphorically, language is the ability to "name things."
But, it is much more than that. Certainly, the main distinction one can draw between human beings and other animals is that, while animals have consciousness, human beings have self-consciousness. We are aware of our own consciousness. We know that we know. I think, in a very real way, human language -- this ability given to us by God -- is a window to the Divine. With the gift of language, a mental revolution occurred. A new realm of existence opened up. And I'm not being facetious, I mean that literally. With language, the human being -- a local animal constrained by a primate nervous system -- was able to experience the non-local realm of the Divine, was able to transcend spacetime and engage in otherworldly activity for the first time.
Think of it our souls, our sense of self, would not exist if not for language. They go hand in hand. When you are alone in your head, navigating the interior that is your mental space, you are inevitably engaged in an inner dialogue, an expression of language. You think "I am hungry," "I am happy," "I am CavemanDoctor," etc. etc. These are all inner expressions of language. Without language, there would be no sense of "I" with which you identify. You would not feel a separateness at all. The language-less soul-less organism would merely be a facet of the universe doing its thing, not unlike a star spewing out radiation, an ocean crashing onto a shore, or an orange tree spawning an orange.
But with this gift given to us by the Divine, the human being has been able to transcend the universe. Through this transcendence, the universe doubles back on itself. The human being becomes the eyes through which the universe sees itself, the vehicle through which the universe becomes cognizant of its own existence. God has given us this gift, and concomitant responsibility. The human being has become the "khalif" of this material universe (230) because he has been given the ability to "name things."
Language and self-consciousness are two sides of the same coin. The coin is the soul.
Remarkably, paleontological evidence closely aligns with this line of thought. Date ranges vary but, roughly speaking, the human being (Homo sapiens sapiens) emerged onto the scene roughly 200,000 years ago. Anatomically speaking, if we were to find a perfectly preserved specimen from 200,000 years ago, it would resemble me and you today. If you'd carve open its cranium, you'd see the same brain that me and you carry around in our heads today. And yet, that human being was a drastically different organism. He used very rudimentary stone-axes, and was by almost all accounts, just an animal. He might have been able to grunt and point but he had no use of language in the sense we are talking about here.
This continued for 150,000 years or so. Then, about 50,000-40,000 years ago, something bizarre happened. Though the anatomy stayed the same, the human being almost overnight completely and utterly changed. Tools became inexplicably advanced, visual expression found its way onto cave walls, and by most accounts, human language arose. This is one of the modern mysteries of evolutionary biology. So drastic was the change that paleontologists call it The Great Leap Forward. Language, art, and culture sprang forth from the same brain that existed for 150,000 years prior. And what bothers evolutionary biologists is that it happened so suddenly. Materialist reductionists like to think everything happens randomly within the confines of natural selection, and therefore changes are made gradually. But, the evidence in this case, disagrees. 150,000 years nothing....then suddenly, BOOM. Massive, massive changes in human behavior without any anatomical change. Biologists have been backed into a corner and speculate as to a "neural rewiring of the brain" due to some "major genetic mutation." Of course, this is wild speculation.
It was as if...gasp, a soul had been suddenly inculcated into Homo sapiens sapiens, changing it from an advanced primate into a full-fledged human being. The Creator introduced the soul, a Divine spark, into the advanced primate, simultaneously giving rise to language and a concept of consciousness of self.
-
hmm..tht does to some degree seem like a possible hypothesis..i always had questions about wat are these "names" tht God taught Adam. very interesting and plausible, though may i ask what are your sources for the evolutionary claims uv posted here regarding this "leap"...would be very interesting to read more abt this.
-
rraza,
Any decent text on human evolution will talk about it. In the technical literature, it's known as the Upper Paleolithic revolution.
-
I think I posted something about this a while back. Perhaps that spark of languistic ability is the "ruh" of God talked about in the quran. Look at the way the creator worked to create us - he used language to code everything from our shape to our personalities. Imagine C++ got so complex that a certain specific line of code gave your program the ability to write programs itself. It would require the support structure & routines of the rest of the program (the brain) to do anything but that single function is "I".
hrough this transcendence, the universe doubles back on itself. The human being becomes the eyes through which the universe sees itself, the vehicle through which the universe becomes cognizant of its own existence.
This is perhaps the most baffling thing - a human being is like a mirror walking around inside of a hall of mirrors. I wonder if there is something like a single photon trapped perfectly inside the human brain, just oscillating back and forth, the candle that lights them all, never burning away. Something like a miniature singularity. The secret is hidden in every single human egg and sperm cell.
-
I think I posted something about this a while back. Perhaps that spark of languistic ability is the "ruh" of God talked about in the quran. Look at the way the creator worked to create us - he used language to code everything from our shape to our personalities. Imagine C++ got so complex that a certain specific line of code gave your program the ability to write programs itself. It would require the support structure & routines of the rest of the program (the brain) to do anything but that single function is "I".
This is perhaps the most baffling thing - a human being is like a mirror walking around inside of a hall of mirrors. I wonder if there is something like a single photon trapped perfectly inside the human brain, just oscillating back and forth, the candle that lights them all, never burning away. Something like a miniature singularity. The secret is hidden in every single human egg and sperm cell.
Great C++ and hall of mirrors analogies. Agreed.
I'd be really interested in reading your post if you could dig it up OPF.
-
Caveman Doctor...very interesting. Do you think this ability could "evolve" further?
Language is a fascinating tool. I used words for the outside world. But recently, I discovered the true "power" of language for my own self-discovery. Not just the words in themselves, but the way they are used, the hints and insinuations that make one think. To convey...perhaps transfer my thoughts to another. It is a beautiful gift that we have. On a personal level, if I try to read the unspoken language of a person, then I am able make a higher connection with them.
On that note, I shall remain silent....
-
Peace CM,
Language and the conscious self hmm maybe. What is our conscience self.. our inner thoughts? Do you ever wonder why some feel guilty and others don?t? Is the mind a conditioned phenomena? A social condition maybe.. maybe not but at least influenced by it. Language evolves, societies evolve, social structures/practices evolve...
Language is part of knowledge.. it?s amazing how we can learn from reading text, images, sounds(different semiotics). from no internet to open exposure to so many books/resources. Language itself has evolved from looking from Shakespeares time till our time the amount of words in a dictionary, to short hand texting. might be interesting to compare today?s English to back then..
i know it sounds weird i feel like i?m talking about human development. People go on that these days people don?t create much.. but look at solar energy, computer tech etc.. its all development and i?d say language has a huge play in this
964 (Asad) who has taught the use of the pen
But i guess you might think what?s so great about that.. whats that got to do with self-consciousness. All these developments are primarily for humans, for us. Would you think the idea of the self is the driving force for human development. Like if one was to compare humans with other animals we?re rulers of the world.. it has been given to us by God we?re the khalaif elard..
So we?re just executing out self conscience in a way? Do i make sense
i know you talk about self identity.. i?m just trying to think if animals grieve. I know for some animals it is survival of the fittest.. not sure about others.
I would say animals communicate (use language) though in a different platform than humans..Hmm realm of the divine you say. For some reason i thought of malaika. How they mention ?adam?(231) will spread corruption etc (230). Realm of divine in that we have free choice and that trust. Or rather we took the pledge.
about the human being 200,000 years ago it makes me wonder how this kind of data can actually be accurate or even be gathered. The great leap forward might have some gaps too. But interesting there is no actual known reason just somehow people became people.
-
Peace Sarah and Maisha. Great posts. I'm loving the discussion.
Sarah, you mentioned "language is part of knowledge." While, in a sense, I agree with you, I think it is much more.
When I use the word "language" here, I don't simply mean communication. After all, almost all life forms communicate in some fashion, not just humans. Language is not just an accumulation of words that are used to communicate to others. It is that, of course, in some sense. But, again it's much more.
Trying to express my thoughts as clearly as I can (ironic, given the topic, heh), but having trouble. Basically, I think the universe and everything in it did not feel a sense of separateness (the converse of having a sense of "I" until the human being came along. And language (in the meta way I'm using it here) is a symptom of this separateness. Before human beings, the universe was just one internal system. Stars, rocks, even lower animals, all did their thing. They were all merely different facets of the universe doing their thing. Different masks of the created unity interacting with each other.
Then a change happened. The introduction of the 'nafs' into a particular animal (in this case, an advanced primate) resulted into what we now call human beings. And what are human beings? They are the exit out of the chain of this internal feedback loop known as the universe. They are discontinuity personified. Little chunks of separateness. Before human beings, the universe was just the universe. It only appears as a bunch of separate entities to you or I because we are conditioned as human beings, i.e. I-possessing beings, to think this way. But this was not always the case. The introduction of the nafs was mediated through the Divine spark, the Ruh of Allah. This broke open the the internal loop that was the pre-human universe. Something which was part of the universe, the human being, was for the first time able to transcend the universe. Able to step outside of it. It was literally a second Big Bang, if you want to think about it that way, a second creation. The first Big Bang was the creation of spacetime and its requisite physical laws. After almost 14 billion years, a second Big Bang occurred. This time, the creation of self-consciousness. The universe, through the human being, was finally able to experience itself as a subject experiencing an object.
And here's where language comes in. Our sense of I, the separateness, goes hand in hand with language. Language isn't just an accumulation of words. Words are the superficial tools of a deeper structure. That structure is the subject/object schism, something which did not exist prior to us. We go through our lives feeling the immediacy of the subject/object split at all times.
By that, I mean, we see ourselves as experiencers (subjects) of experiences (objects). What do we learn, as children, that every sentence needs? A noun and a verb. A thing which experiences, and an experience which is experienced, in other words. And this is part of how we approach the world, of course. It's self-evident. We think "I am so and so," "I am hungry" "He is over there", etc. This subject/object split was not possible without the nafs, with language being a symptom of the soul.
Just thinking out loud. Rambling really.
-
Peace CavemanDoctor
Remarkably, paleontological evidence closely aligns with this line of thought. Date ranges vary but, roughly speaking, the human being (Homo sapiens sapiens) emerged onto the scene roughly 200,000 years ago. Anatomically speaking, if we were to find a perfectly preserved specimen from 200,000 years ago, it would resemble me and you today. If you'd carve open its cranium, you'd see the same brain that me and you carry around in our heads today. And yet, that human being was a drastically different organism. He used very rudimentary stone-axes, and was by almost all accounts, just an animal. He might have been able to grunt and point but he had no use of language in the sense we are talking about here.
What you are saying about Homo sapiens is theory from conventional science, and it is not based on facts. The theory of evolution has been disproved by archeological evidence. Archeological evidence shows us that Modern human beings have existed for millions of years on earth (not just 200.000 years).
In the book, Forbidden Archeology, by Michael A.cremo and Richard Thompson, the following things are stated
...Over the past few decades, scientists in Africa have uncovered fossil bones that look remarkably human. In 1965, Bryan Patterson and W. W. Howells found a surprisingly modern humerus (upper arm bone) at Kanapoi,Kenya. Scientists judged the humerus to be over 4 million years old.
In 1979, researchers at the Laetoli, Tanzania, site in East Africa discovered footprints in volcanic ash deposits over 3.6 million years old.Mary Leakey and others said the prints were indistinguishable from those of modern humans. To these scientists, this meant only that the human ancestors of 3.6 million years ago had remarkably modern
feet......In the decades after Darwin introduced his theory, numerous scientists discovered incised and broken animal bones and shells suggesting that tool-using humans or human precursors existed in the Pliocene (2-5 million years ago), the Miocene (5-25 million years ago), and even earlier. In analyzing cut and broken bones and shells, the discoverers carefully considered and ruled out alternative explanations--such as the action of animals or geological pressure--before concluding that humans were responsible. In some cases, stone tools were found along with the cut and broken bones or shells.
A particularly striking example in this category is a shell displaying a crude yet recognizably human face carved on its outer surface. Reported by geologist H. Stopes to the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1881, this shell, from the Pliocene Red Crag formation in England, is over 2 million years old. According to standard views, humans capable of this level of artistry did not arrive in Europe until about 30,000 or 40,000 years ago. Furthermore, they supposedly did not arise in their African homeland until about 100,000 years ago.
Also, see the information in the link below
Ancient Skulls and bones
http//www.forbiddenarcheology.com/skbones.htmThen, about 50,000-40,000 years ago, something bizarre happened. Though the anatomy stayed the same, the human being almost overnight completely and utterly changed. Tools became inexplicably advanced, visual expression found its way onto cave walls, and by most accounts, human language arose.
No. Tools didn't became inexplicably advanced 50.000-40.000 years ago. Archeological evidence shows us that tools have been advanced for millions of years. Here are 7 advanced tools from the past
- A metal vase from the precambrian period which was created 600 000 million years ago.
- Flint tools from the miocene, 10-12 million years ago have been found in Burma.
- Metallic spheres that have been found by South african miners in precambrian mineral deposits, are 2.8 billion years old.
- A mortar and pestle found by by J.H Neale, is 33-55 million years old.
- Broken stone pestle from Table mountain is more than 9 million years old.
- A coinlike object in Illinois, was found 114 feet below surface in deposits that are between 200,000 and 400,000 years old.
- The kingoodie hammer (also called the london hammer), from scotland, was made 360-408 million years ago.
As you can see, from what archeologists have found, advanced tools have existed for millions of years. By the way, how could ape like creatures create such advanced tools? That would be nonsense. The tools are not created by ape like creatures. These tools are without a shadow of doubt created by human beings. The scientists who promote the theory of evolution, are building the theory on foundations of falsehood. And the theory contradicts lots of archeological evidence.
It was as if...gasp, a soul had been suddenly inculcated into Homo sapiens sapiens, changing it from an advanced primate into a full-fledged human being. The Creator introduced the soul, a Divine spark, into the advanced primate, simultaneously giving rise to language and a concept of consciousness of self.
The theory of evolution tells us that Mankind were ape like creatures and evolved into human beings. But how can something perfect evolve? That would be illogical. Since god creates everything perfect, there is no need for evolution. Something which is created perfect does not need to be improved. God created everything perfect
Quran 327
The One who perfected everything He created and He began the creation of the human from clay.Quran 1528
Your Lord said to the angels "I am creating a human from hardened clay of aged mud."Quran 1529
"So when I perfect him, and blow of My Spirit in him, you shall fall prostrate to
him."Quran 7927
Are you a more powerful creation than the sky which He built?Quran 7928
He raised its height, and perfected it.The archeological evidence that shows us that modern human beings have lived for millions of years, proves without doubt that apes were not our ancestors. This is fact. I higly recommend the book "Forbidden Archeology" by Michael A.cremo. However, the book is very long, and takes some time to read. So if your time is limited, you can watch the controversial NBC film, were Michael A.cremo, Graham hancock and other researchers explain why the conventional archeological theories are wrong and are based on falsehood. The information in the book I recommend, is also explained in the film. The film consists of 35 parts on youtube
http//www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Mysterious+origins+of+man1+of+35&aq=f
You can read about the film here
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mysterious_Origins_of_Man
Reference
http//www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_forbiddenarcheology01.htm
http//www.book-of-thoth.com/thebook/index.php/Kingoodie_hammer -
In the book, Forbidden Archeology, by Michael A.cremo and Richard Thompson, the following things are stated
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/groves.html
I'd say your source is bunk.
Creationism The Hindu View
A Review of Forbidden Archeology, by Michael A. Cremo and Richard L. Thompson. Badger, CA Govardhan Hill Publishing. 1994. ISBN 0-9635309-8-4
By Colin Groves
When a big square package, weighing over 3.5kg, arrived in my pigeon-hole, a number of thoughts flitted across my mind. Which student hates me enough to send me a letter bomb? Will the postman sue me because of his hernia? After the package, when unwrapped, proved to contain a 914 page book, I felt like the Prince Regent on being presented by Edward Gibbon with a copy of his "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" "Another great damn thick square book! Always scribble, scribble, scribble, eh, Mr. Gibbon?". And then that final, heart rending, cry, "Why me?".There is a letter from the senior author, Michael Cremo, accompanying the book. "Because your work, or that of your colleagues, is discussed in my new book Forbidden Archeology, I am sending you an advance copy." Can this be conspiracy theory as applied to archaeology by someone who feels that The Truth has been suppressed by The Establishment? It can. The letterhead is "Bhaktivedanta Institute, San Diego". Can this be a representative of that other fundamentalism, the Hindu variety? It can.
Remind ourselves what fundamentalist Hindus believe. Like fundamentalist Christians and Jews, they dismiss evolution. Unlike the latter, who believe the world has existed only six to ten thousand years, fundamentalist Hindus believe it has been going for billions and billions of years - far more than geology allows, in fact. And human beings, and indeed all living creatures, have been here all along. But in the event, it is going to make little difference; an apologia will consist of a recital of long-forgotten (long-suppressed, in their view) "evidence" of humans coeval with trilobites and dinosaurs, and arguments that supposed ape/human intermediates really aren't that at all.
But this time we get nearly a thousand pages! Gish, Bowden and Lubenow, the Christian creationists, can't raise even half of this between them. The difference is that Cremo and Thompson have read much, much more of the original literature than the other creationists, and their survey is correspondingly more complete. Yet I can't really say that their understanding is much greater, for all that; their tone of argument is as perverse, they are just as biased.
The fossil and archaeological evidence for human and cultural evolution is not all of consistently high quality. In the nineteenth centure, human remains and artefacts were usually found by accident and by amateurs; they would be dug up, removed from context, and presented with a flourish to the nearest "expert". Controlled excavation was not a widely practised are; photography of a find in situ was an unusual occurrence. The finds' stratigraphy was often vague in the extreme; those re-examining their significance in later times had to rely on the fading memories of untrained workmen who had been enlisted by the finder.
This state of affairs improved as archaeology and palaeontology developed, and contextual information came to be recognised as crucial. Today, accidental discoveries are rarities; usually specimens turn up because someone has an idea where to look, given the prevailing geology and landscape, and an excavation is mounted with all kinds of specialists - geomorphologists, geochemists, taphonomists, above all photographers - riding along to ensure that everything about the site and its contents is recorded.
Cremo and Thompson seem not to understand this; they seem to want to accord equal value to all finds. One of many, many "out-of-context" human fossils which they discuss is the Foxhall jaw, a specimen of modern Homo sapiens discovered in 1855 and commonly ascribed at the time to the Late Pliocene, when (as we now believe) the human lineage was represented by just a bunch of near-apes called the australopithecines. The jaw was found by workmen, one of whom sold it to Dr. Collyer, a passing American physician, for the price of a glass of beer, and Collyer showed it to the luminaries of the day - Owen, Prestwich, Huxley, Busk - who expressed a variety of opinions, that it could or could not have come from the site and level claimed for it, and so that it could or could not be an example of "Pliocene Man". The jaw not long afterwards disappeared.
The authors quote the palaeoanthropologists Boule and Vallois in 1947 "It requires a total lack of critical sense to pay any heed to such a piece of evidence as this", and I can only agree; but, oddly, Cremo and Thompson disagree. Their opinion has nothing to do with the obvious fact that the whole case for the specimen's Pliocene origin was based on hearsay and supposition, and because the fossil has since disappeared, but because the stratigraphic provenances of other, nowadays widely accepted, fossils - "Java Man" and the Heidelberg jaw - were likewise based on flimsy evidence, and the original "Peking Man" fossils have likewise disappeared!
One has only to turn to their accounts of these fossils, and to read between the lines, to see why these other fossils are today taken seriously whereas Foxhall is not other "Java Man" and Heidelberg-like fossils are known, whose stratigraphy has been exhaustively studied; excellent photographs, radiographs and casts survive of the lost "Peking Man" fossils, and others exactly like them have turned up since. But the same sort of non-evidence (Galley Hill, Clichy, Castenedolo, Calaveras, all Homo sapiens fossils briefly famous in their day because their finders thought they were Miocene, Pliocene or whatever) is taken seriously by the authors, who then completely miss the point when they imply, or claim boldly, that the evidence for the australopithecines, habilines and so on is also somehow flimsy.
There is an Appendix on the dating of fossils, mainly radiocarbon; Potassium-Argon dating is given the hatchet job in the main text (section 11.6.5). Devastating "exposure" of the alleged deficiencies of radiometric dating is obligatory in all creationist texts on fossils, and this one is no different. There they all are the 160 million to 2.96 billion year dates for Hawaiian lava flows known to be less than 200 years old; the supposed "cover-up" of discrepant dates; the arguments over the correct date of the KBS Tuff at Koobi Fora, whether it was laid down 2.6, 2.4 or 1.88 million years ago. It is as if Cremo and Thompson think that an invention, as soon as it is made, either works or it doesn't; of course, the understanding of new methodologies - potassium-argon dating like any other - improves as its practitioners make mistakes (and, alas, are often embarrassed enough about their mistakes to keep quiet about them) and learn from them.
Potassium-argon dating and its now more generally used successor, the Argon/Argon method, are by now rather well understood. It is understood, for example, that mineral erupted from a volcano will release its store of radiogenic argon, resetting the "clock", only if it reaches a high enough temperature, and that the lava from deep-sea eruptions is chilled and does not usually reach this temperature; so that if you measure argon in an undersea lava flow (say, for the sake of argument, in Hawaii) you will be measuring what has been stored up over millions and millions of years, not just what has accumulated since the eruption.
It is understood, too, that tuffs are volcanic products brought down by water and deposited alongside other, much older sediments; so that if you simply pick up some grains from a tuff (say, for the sake of argument, at Koobi Fora) you are very likely to get some very ancient ones along with your recent volcanic ejecta, and unless you clean the smaple very carefully you will get anomalously high readings because of this mixture. This all seems very obvious nowadays, but the earlier practitioners of the method had to learn it the hard way. And in the main it is not suppressed their errors are in the literature for all to see, and for creationists to point out with a delighted "see, it doesn't work!".
Now, palaeoanthropology is a speciality of mine, but archaeology is not, so I showed the book to a couple of colleagues whose speciality it is. Dr. Andr?e Rosenfeld was not highly delighted, but offered some comments on the book's long, long, discussion of Eoliths. These are (no, were) supposed stone tools from extremely ancient deposits, believed in by many archaeologists in earlier generations but now universally discounted.
"The problem", Andr?e explained, "lies in their selective emphasis and choice of language; have they not heard of semiotics? For example, on p 106 they quote an early objector to eoliths, Worthington Smith in 1892, and totally misunderstand its significance; eoliths can be extracted from any gravel from any period, whether with or without other artefacts, and with any range of patina - eoliths in fact only ocur, as far as I am aware, in gravel or similar deposits." That is to say, in any deposit with lots of small stones in it, you are going to find some stones that by chance resemble crude artefacts! "They have not examined eoliths, but present a value laden discussion of the lterature. The question is not 'could such fractures arise from hominid action' but could such fractures (or other marks) arise naturally - and if so, they cannot be taken as evidence for hominid presence."
Eoliths are not commonly featured in creationist texts - after all, here are Hindu not Judaeo-Christian creationists - but there are other bits and pieces in the book which I have met with before. On p 811 we have the famous "Meister print", a supposedly shoe-like print, associated with trilobite fossils, in Cambrian deposits in Utah. The junior author, Thompson, examined the print in 1984 and (p 812) saw "no obvious reason why it could not be accepted as genuine" despite the careful arguments to the contrary by a geologist, Stokes, quoted in two previous paragraphs.
Where I had met the Meister print before was in the frst edition of a (Christian) creationist pamphlet, Bone of Contention by Sylvia Baker, MSc, and where I failed to meet it again was in the second edition of said pamphlet; presumably Ms. Baker learned of Stokes's analysis and quietly dropped it.
Another bit and piece and which I have met with before is a "carved shell from the Red Crag, England (Late Pliocene)", a period long before art was supposed to have existed, of course. This is a shell with what looks like two little round eyes, a simple triangular nose and a slit of a mouth carved into it; it resembles a Halloween pumpkin. Where I had met this one before was in an issue of Creation Ex Nihilo some four or five years ago, and I must say that when I saw it there I laughed out loud. Here it is again, just as chuckleworthy, on pp 71-72. See above, under Eoliths.
Andr?e Rosenfeld again "What is curious is that an essentially religious organisation feels the need to justify themselves by recourse to science - but their discourse is scientistic, not scientific." In this, they are no different from any other creationists. Try to think ourselves into the mindset of a religious fundamentalist "I believe in my sacred texts. I am aware that science does not support their veracity. My belief is not wrong - that is axiomatic - therefore science must be. I must look into this science business, to find out where it went wrong."
The fundamentalist convinces him/her/itself as supposed holes in the scientific fabric turn up, and wow! this can be used to convince others too! It's a kind of top-down learning experience; what is missing is what students get as they learn their science bottom-up context. That, really, is why it is so difficult to actually open a dialogue with the creationist why it is that scientists debating with creationists are effective mainly when they are pointing out their opponents' ignorance, stupidity or outright lies. Their opponent - let alone the audience - simply has no conception of context.
A book like this, simply because it is superficially scholarly and not outright trash like all the Christian creationist works I have read, might indeed make a useful deconstructionist exercise for an archaeology or palaeoanthropology class. So it's not without value. You could do worse, to, than place it in front of a Gishite with the admonition "Look here these guys show that human physical and cultural evolution doesn't work. Therefore it follows that the Hindu scriptures are true, doesn't it?".
Dr. Colin Groves is a paleoanthropologist, and Reader in Biological Anthropology at the Australian National University.
Dr. Andr?e Rosenfeld was a Reader in Archaeology at the Australian National University (now retired).
This review was previously published in The Skeptic by the Australian Skeptics, Vol 14, No 3, pp43-45, 1994. Many thanks to Colin Groves for making it available.
-
Peace Andya
You have not read the book of Michael A.Cremo, and you haven't been able to disprove his arguments. You are focusing on the man instead of his message. This is a classic mistake. And you are judging his book before you have read it.
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." - Albert Einstein.
The evidence in his books are clear. And any one who uses Logic and Reason will see the absurdity and falsehoods of theory of evolution (if they read the book of Michael A.cremo). I advice you to first read the book, then come back to this thread.
"Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for granted ...but to weigh and consider." - Francis Bacon
Instead of disproving his theories, you are referring to an article, where the author use the following logical fallacy
Ad Hominem
Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.
Source http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
-
Peace David,
I'm not going to get into a debate about evolution in here. And since I have not read Cremo's tome, I'm in no position to discuss it directly. My spidey sense tells me that it's likely to be a text similar to the ones put out by fundamentalists, albeit likely more sophisticated and exhaustive, given its length. But, again, I have not read it so I cannot say that for certain. I did want to make a few general comments about the rest of your post(s) in the thread, however
- I am not an evolutionary biologist. I'm pretty sure you are not either. My thoughts on the issue are a result of a) the books I've read on the matter, and b) my interpretation of the qur'an, which unlike you, I think clearly implies human evolution. At any rate, I have never followed 'mainstream' science for its own sake, the way most materialist reductionists do. In fact, for years now, I have been drawn to 'alternative' strands of scientific thought, almost to a fault. Whether it be the controversial theories of Rupert Sheldrake (biology), Fred Alan Wolf/Paul Davies/Amit Goswami (cosmology and quantum mechanics), Dean Radin (psi phenomena), and a host of others, I have had no problem veering from 'conventional' science. I only say that so you do not think I am wedded to this view out of some dogmatic allegiance to Western scientism. Couldn't be farther from the truth. I would have no issue accepting a view different from mainstream science when it comes to human evolution.
With that said, the review Andya posted seems to uncover some pretty substantial flaws with the book. While the reviewer borders on some ad hominem attacks at times, your calling the review, as a whole, an ad hominem attack is hardly an accurate appraisal. The reviewer, having dealt with the myriad of fundamentalist creationist texts (which tend to be very poor in quality), is giving the reader a quick heads-up that the authors of this text are also creationists. He does this largely to tip off the reader to possible motivations for why the authors interpret the fossil record the way they do. He then spends a large chunk of the review discussing some of the evidence the authors use, and why it's not up to snuff.
-
The main reason why I do not want to get into a debate about evolution is because it is outside the scope of this thread. Even if you completely disagree with the range of dates given, or with the idea that there were precursors to human beings, the import of the thread remains largely the same God imbued a physical organism with a soul, simultaneously giving rise to self-consciousness and a language faculty.
-
Finally, I do take issue with some of what you imply about evolution vis a vis the qur'an, and with the general mentality of many people who seem to think a belief in a creator precludes having a belief in a theory of human evolution.
But how can something perfect evolve? That would be illogical. Since god creates everything perfect, there is no need for evolution. Something which is created perfect does not need to be improved.
Your statements contain hidden assumptions that I'm not sure you're aware of. Even if we were to suppose the qur'an merely said God created human beings (it does not only say this, but more on that in a minute), the process of creation itself can happen in various ways. It can happen in an instant, or it can happen over time. To think that an act of creation is equivalent to an organism arriving on the scene wholesale in an instant, is an assumption on your part.
Many theists seem to have difficulty with this because of the apparent conflict between creation and evolution. They don't realize that creation vs. evolution is a false dilemma.
God creates. How? Through evolution. It's that simple. It is no different than creating the universe and, through cosmic evolution, the stars and planets. The laws which God created act upon the universe in a way which gives rise to stars, planets, organisms, and eventually human beings. It is an unfolding of God's plan through natural means.
God created everything perfect
Quran 327
The One who perfected everything He created and He began the creation of the human from clay.Quran 1528
Your Lord said to the angels "I am creating a human from hardened clay of aged mud."Quran 1529
"So when I perfect him, and blow of My Spirit in him, you shall fall prostrate to
him."Quran 7927
Are you a more powerful creation than the sky which He built?Quran 7928
He raised its height, and perfected it.But, of course, the qur'an does not merely state that God created human beings. It implies evolution. There's actually a decent article on the FM homepage about this http//www.free-minds.org/evolution
A couple points
-- You quote 327, which says God 'began' (bada'a) the creation of the human being. Since we know God chooses his words carefully, this verse naturally begs the question why 'began' ? Why did God not just say He created the human being. 'Began' implies a process, an initial step. This is not surprising in the least given the plethora of other verses that describe the various stages of the creation of the human being (which all neatly happen to coincide with modern theories of human evolution by the way).
-- The same can be said of verses like 1529 and 7928 with the use of 'perfect' (sawwa). Meanings to level, complete, arrange, make uniform, even, congruous, consistent in parts, fashion in a suitable manner, make adapted to the exigencies or requirements, perfect a thing, put a thing into a right or good state. Other verses like 329 and 827 speak of it too. It implies a process, an initiation from something that was not yet 'perfect' and which, through creative action by the Divine (in this case, as manifested through the auspices of biological evolution), became 'perfect.'
-
Peace Sarah and Maisha. Great posts. I'm loving the discussion.
Sarah, you mentioned "language is part of knowledge." While, in a sense, I agree with you, I think it is much more.
When I use the word "language" here, I don't simply mean communication. After all, almost all life forms communicate in some fashion, not just humans. Language is not just an accumulation of words that are used to communicate to others. It is that, of course, in some sense. But, again it's much more.
Trying to express my thoughts as clearly as I can (ironic, given the topic, heh), but having trouble. Basically, I think the universe and everything in it did not feel a sense of separateness (the converse of having a sense of "I" until the human being came along. And language (in the meta way I'm using it here) is a symptom of this separateness. Before human beings, the universe was just one internal system. Stars, rocks, even lower animals, all did their thing. They were all merely different facets of the universe doing their thing. Different masks of the created unity interacting with each other.
Then a change happened. The introduction of the 'nafs' into a particular animal (in this case, an advanced primate) resulted into what we now call human beings. And what are human beings? They are the exit out of the chain of this internal feedback loop known as the universe. They are discontinuity personified. Little chunks of separateness. Before human beings, the universe was just the universe. It only appears as a bunch of separate entities to you or I because we are conditioned as human beings, i.e. I-possessing beings, to think this way. But this was not always the case. The introduction of the nafs was mediated through the Divine spark, the Ruh of Allah. This broke open the the internal loop that was the pre-human universe. Something which was part of the universe, the human being, was for the first time able to transcend the universe. Able to step outside of it. It was literally a second Big Bang, if you want to think about it that way, a second creation. The first Big Bang was the creation of spacetime and its requisite physical laws. After almost 14 billion years, a second Big Bang occurred. This time, the creation of self-consciousness. The universe, through the human being, was finally able to experience itself as a subject experiencing an object.
And here's where language comes in. Our sense of I, the separateness, goes hand in hand with language. Language isn't just an accumulation of words. Words are the superficial tools of a deeper structure. That structure is the subject/object schism, something which did not exist prior to us. We go through our lives feeling the immediacy of the subject/object split at all times.
By that, I mean, we see ourselves as experiencers (subjects) of experiences (objects). What do we learn, as children, that every sentence needs? A noun and a verb. A thing which experiences, and an experience which is experienced, in other words. And this is part of how we approach the world, of course. It's self-evident. We think "I am so and so," "I am hungry" "He is over there", etc. This subject/object split was not possible without the nafs, with language being a symptom of the soul.
Just thinking out loud. Rambling really.
It's quite an interesting discourse rambling P but what do you exactly mean by this 'Something which was part of the universe, the human being, was for the first time able to transcend the universe. Able to step outside of it.' ? By human being, did you mean it as the 'self-consciousness', that you referred to as part of the universe? Because it sounds to me that you suggested/implied that the universe has its own "limits/boundaries", for the "human being" to transcend/"step outside" of it.
Could it be that this self-consciousness, though able to "experience" the universe, does not necessarily become part of it? Or another interpretation to another rambling about generative code or something
Language is a tool for mankind to create their own universe (or space, or life, whatever fits you).
Then that's why i mentioned the keyword "limits/boundaries", because no matter how you or anyone else claimed that we are the ones able to "transcend" this universe, the truth is, in the current universe/space/life we're experiencing, we experience also limits and boundaries.We can't do magic, we can't do a God, we must, like it or not, follow the nature's laws etc. But still, through language (conceptual knowledge?) we're capable of creating our own universe/space/life, up to some degree. What i'm saying is, we're like children messing around in the playground (sandbox). We're sandboxed.
So, to ramble further, are we even part of this universe? Are we in it?
Reminds me of this "Mindfulness" practice, in which we try to experience our "being" as "the observer" without the "I"... the language-aware self which itself can not be reached/explained by language, it's just there all this time, somewhere behind your busy mind, watching...
Just responding ramblingly
-
Wanted to add something totally off topic bro David since you mentioned Graham Hancock. If you haven't already, you should read his book Supernatural. It's seriously fascinating stuff, even if not wholly true. I'm a fan of his but he does tend to overextend himself.
-
It's quite an interesting discourse rambling but what do you exactly mean by this 'Something which was part of the universe, the human being, was for the first time able to transcend the universe. Able to step outside of it.' ? By human being, did you mean it as the 'self-consciousness', that you referred to as part of the universe? Because it sounds to me that you suggested/implied that the universe has its own "limits/boundaries", for the "human being" to transcend/"step outside" of it.
Could it be that this self-consciousness, though able to "experience" the universe, does not necessarily become part of it? Or another interpretation to another rambling about generative code or something
Language is a tool for mankind to create their own universe (or space, or life, whatever fits you).
Then that's why i mentioned the keyword "limits/boundaries", because no matter how you or anyone else claimed that we are the ones able to "transcend" this universe, the truth is, in the current universe/space/life we're experiencing, we experience also limits and boundaries.We can't do magic, we can't do a God, we must, like it or not, follow the nature's laws etc. But still, through language (conceptual knowledge?) we're capable of creating our own universe/space/life, up to some degree. What i'm saying is, we're like children messing around in the playground (sandbox). We're sandboxed.
So, to ramble further, are we even part of this universe? Are we in it?
Reminds me of this "Mindfulness" practice, in which we try to experience our "being" as "the observer" without the "I"... the language-aware self which itself can not be reached/explained by language, it's just there all this time, somewhere behind your busy mind, watching...
Just responding ramblingly
San! Nice to have another fellow rambler! Relieving, to say the least. D
To quickly answer your last question, at the risk of sounding hoky, I don't really think we are part of the universe. I think we are the universe. Borrowing this formulation from Buddhist philosopher Alan Watts. We tend to think of ourselves as alien to the universe, as if we are something growing on its surface, like some virus. We tend to have an adversarial view of existence, like it's us against everything else, using phrases like "taming mother mature" and "conquering outer space."
But the reality is we are the process of the universe unfolding itself. Alan Watts put it better than I ever could. Here's the relevant excerpt
"But the other people say there was a primoridial explosion, an enormous bang billions of years ago which flung all the galaxies into space. Well let's take that just for the sake of argument and say that was the way it happened.
It's like you took a bottle of ink and you threw it at a wall. Smash! And all that ink spread. And in the middle, it's dense, isn't it? And as it gets out on the edge, the little droplets get finer and finer and make more complicated patterns, see? So in the same way, there was a big bang at the beginning of things and it spread. And you and I, sitting here in this room, as complicated human beings, are way, way out on the fringe of that bang. We are the complicated little patterns on the end of it. Very interesting. But so we define ourselves as being only that. If you think that you are only inside your skin, you define yourself as one very complicated little curly q, way out on the edge of that explosion. Way out in space, and way out in time. Billions of years ago, you were a big bang, but now you're a complicated human being. And then we cut ourselves off, and don't feel that we're still the big bang. But you are. Depends on how you define yourself. You are actually--if this is the way things started, if there was a big bang in the beginning-- you're not something that's a result of the big bang. You're not something that is a sort of puppet on the end of the process. You are still the process. You are the big bang, the original force of the universe, coming on as whoever you are. When I meet you, I see not just what you define yourself as--Mr so-and- so, Ms so-and-so, Mrs so-and-so-- I see every one of you as the primordial energy of the universe coming on at me in this particular way. I know I'm that, too. But we've learned to define ourselves as separate from it."
And with that said, I think it goes a step further. I think we are not only the process of the universe unfurling itself. All of creation is that, after all. Human beings, however, are something more. We are not only the process, but are also aware that we are the process. We were instilled with self-consciousness by something not of this universe (the Divine will), which allowed us to transcend it. To use an analogy, before the human being, the universe was an insular game played with certain internally consistent rules. A bounded unity, with limits, to answer your question. Parts of the universe (pre-human creation), whether they be stars or animals, were not aware that they were facets of a game playing itself, because of course awareness did not exist. With the advent of the human being, however, the game suddenly became self-aware. It realized it was a game. With this realization, it was able to step outside of itself (and I mean that in the same sense you do; I don't mean physically leaving the universe). And this realization could only be given by something outside it. If we are to think of the universe and all within it, as horizontal action taking place, then we can say with the introduction of the human being, vertical action was able to take place for the first time. An upward-downward principle. This is how transcendence was possible. An ongoing two-way vertical process between this creature, part of a bounded universe, and the Divine outside it.
So, while we are still physically bounded to this universe while alive, we are given access to a realm outside it, as you yourself implied. To use your imagery, the universe is the sandbox, and our mental space is the vast expanse surrounding the sandbox. So, I agree with you. We are allowed entry into this space through uniquely human things such as language, art, music, strokes of genius and inspiration, ecstasy, and peak religious experiences.
-
Peace Brother CavemanDoctor
Thanks for your reply.
- I am not an evolutionary biologist. I'm pretty sure you are not either. My thoughts on the issue are a result of a) the books I've read on the matter, and b) my interpretation of the qur'an, which unlike you, I think clearly implies human evolution. At any rate, I have never followed 'mainstream' science for its own sake, the way most materialist reductionists do. In fact, for years now, I have been drawn to 'alternative' strands of scientific thought, almost to a fault. Whether it be the controversial theories of Rupert Sheldrake (biology), Fred Alan Wolf/Paul Davies/Amit Goswami (cosmology and quantum mechanics), Dean Radin (psi phenomena), and a host of others, I have had no problem veering from 'conventional' science. I only say that so you do not think I am wedded to this view out of some dogmatic allegiance to Western scientism. Couldn't be farther from the truth. I would have no issue accepting a view different from mainstream science when it comes to human evolution.
I have never believed that you wedded this view out of some dogmatic allegiance to Western scientism. I have read your posts and know that you are an open-minded person who don't follow the majority. Also in your first post in this thread you showed us that your view is different than materialist reductionists, which shows us that you make your own opinions )
I just wanted to show you that there exist other views than the theory of evolution, views that are based on archeological evidence. The book "Forbidden Archeology" is an underground classic, and contains lots of evidence that shows us that the theory of evolution has major flaws, and that modern human beings have existed for millions of years (and maybe even more than a billion year). Here is an interesting review from amazon
History you won't see taught in school...
After having spent best part of the last 6 months reading this juggernaut and cross-checking references, I can only say that the authors have done a tremendous job of proving that the evidence for the great antiquity of man is at least as strong as much of the evidence commonly accepted today as proof of human history. Those reviewers who claim the authors do not know their subject, or that they employ junk science or bad archaeology, quite simply have not read the book. Those claims are based more upon the (often very impressive) ignorance and preconceptions of the reviewers; do not be put off by them. Examine the evidence and judge for yourself.
Not only do they present a very strong case that we should either open our minds or discard most, if not all, of the commonly accepted evidence of human antiquity, but they demonstrate very clearly how the process of knowledge filtration works to preserve orthodox beliefs and bury contradictory evidence. This is a very important part of the discussion because it needs to be understood why a lot of evidence which was once widely accepted is now widely regarded as mythical or having never existed at all (look at some of the early reviews for this book, mostly from Mr. A Customer, which show how widespread that view is).
I started reading this book with no preconceptions at all except for a nagging suspicion that large parts of the history we are asked to uncritically swallow are wrong and known to be wrong by certain small groups of people. It strikes me from the evidence discussed that not only is the accepted version of human history inaccurate, it is almost completely wrong!
A note of caution the above does not mean that I believe that every artefact uncovered is unequivocal proof that human beings were around millions, and hundreds of millions, of years ago. Nor do I believe every piece of evidence the authors present. Indeed, they make it abundantly clear that they themselves do not. As in all such situations, the point is that ALL of the evidence should be publicised, examined and analysed - evenhandedly. In too many walks of life there is a dogmatic and dangerously arrogant attitude that all there is to know has already been discovered. This is rarely true; this book is yet more evidence of that. Those who insist that works such as this should be consigned to the scrap heap are blissfully unaware of a very basic fact; that their ignorance is total.
Source http//www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Archeology-Hidden-History-Human/dp/0892132949/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1288265132&sr=8-1
CavemanDoctor, I'm glad to hear that you have drawn to alternative strands of scientific thought. Personally I support both conventional science and unconventional science.
With that said, the review Andya posted seems to uncover some pretty substantial flaws with the book. While the reviewer borders on some ad hominem attacks at times, your calling the review, as a whole, an ad hominem attack is hardly an accurate appraisal. The reviewer, having dealt with the myriad of fundamentalist creationist texts (which tend to be very poor in quality), is giving the reader a quick heads-up that the authors of this text are also creationists. He does this largely to tip off the reader to possible motivations for why the authors interpret the fossil record the way they do. He then spends a large chunk of the review discussing some of the evidence the authors use, and why it's not up to snuff.
I didn't call the review as a whole an ad hominem attack. But when someone uses Ad hominem, it is obvious that they have bias and don't want to honestly examine all the evidences of Michael A.cremo. Besides, one review of 1-2 pages can never address all the evidence found in the book. Why? Because 1-2 can not address all the evidence found in a book which has more than 900 pages (and has not adressed all the evidence neither). The reviewer clearly only addresses some of the evidence in the book, not all.
When his review is compared to the evidence in the book, we can see that he has confirmation Bias
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
- The main reason why I do not want to get into a debate about evolution is because it is outside the scope of this thread. Even if you completely disagree with the range of dates given, or with the idea that there were precursors to human beings, the import of the thread remains largely the same God imbued a physical organism with a soul, simultaneously giving rise to self-consciousness and a language faculty.
I agree.
- Finally, I do take issue with some of what you imply about evolution vis a vis the qur'an, and with the general mentality of many people who seem to think a belief in a creator precludes having a belief in a theory of human evolution.
Your statements contain hidden assumptions that I'm not sure you're aware of. Even if we were to suppose the qur'an merely said God created human beings (it does not only say this, but more on that in a minute), the process of creation itself can happen in various ways. It can happen in an instant, or it can happen over time. To think that an act of creation is equivalent to an organism arriving on the scene wholesale in an instant, is an assumption on your part.
I see your point. And I acknowledge that the process of creation can happen in various ways. However, to think that an act of creation is equivalent to an organism arriving on the scene wholesale in an instant, is not an assumption on my part. My view is based on archeological fossil findings, which clearly shows us that lots of organisms arrived no the scene wholesale in an instant. For example one of the organism that is encountered in the fossil record is the crab. They found a crap in a fossil, which lived more than 23 million years ago. This crab is the same as the ones living today. This proof shows us that there is no difference between the crabs of millions of years ago and then ones who are alive today. Have you watched the video "Collapse of theory of Evolution"? It is one of the best films I have ever seen about the theory of evolution.The evidence in the video, proves without a shadow of doubt that ape like creatures were not our ancestors. And no one has been able to disprove all the arguments in the film. I highly recommend this video Brother. And I recommend the video to other members as well. I would like to hear your thoughts about the video. Can you watch the video?
Collapse of the theory of evolution
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5sfHz3xyNc
-
Wanted to add something totally off topic bro David since you mentioned Graham Hancock. If you haven't already, you should read his book Supernatural. It's seriously fascinating stuff, even if not wholly true. I'm a fan of his but he does tend to overextend himself.
I have heard about the book, but I haven't read it. Thanks for your recommendation. Graham Hancock is an exellent researcher. And he supports the ideas of Michael A cremo by the way.
-
Thanks for the video recommendation. I'll check it out.
-
Youre welcome. I'm looking forward to hear your thoughts about the video.
David_K.
