Language & Self-Consciousness - The Great Leap Forward
-
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.
-
David,
Watched the video. Made sure to watch it really carefully and even took notes during it to discuss some highlights.
All in all, I thought it was an incredibly poorly made video. The first 26 minutes was essentially one baseless assertion after another with no evidence to back up the statements. Several times, the video would show complex animals doing their thing, while the narrator said "life is too complex to be due to random chance." And that's it. In these 26 minutes (Part 1), there was precious little in the way of evidence.
Similarly, the last 12 minutes (Part 3) or so were also relatively pointless, though less so. This part mainly discussed a couple of the hoaxes perpetrated by a few paleontologists, as if to imply that that fact was damning of the science as a whole. One prevalent theme throughout the video was the implication that not having all the answers somehow rendered the science as a whole invalid. See this a lot in this type of media and literature. It's really unfortunate. Absence of evidence is not evidence for absence, as the saying goes.
At any rate, the middle part of the video (Part 2) did bring up some points that are often used in more sophisticated creationist presentations. Unfortunately, the video just briefly glossed over them and did not discuss them in detail at all. I understand that is partly a function of the length of the video, but really, this should have been the bulk of the presentation.
Still, I'd like to discuss a few of the points brought up, and why they are common misconceptions
- The video mentioned "irreducibile complexity." It didn't really explain it but the concept has been around for some time, most recently through the work of biochemist Michael Behe (he wrote a book on it called Darwin's Black Box). His basic idea is this many functions in organisms are the result of an interlocking of several parts, the absence of any of which would result in the destruction of the entire function. The point being that it would be unlikely for many coincidences to happen at once to give rise to some overall function, without knowing in advance what the function would even be.
While this sounds convincing, Behe's claims have been debunked. He talks about various structure-function types that he calls irreducibly complex. One is the evolution of the flagellum. It's been effectively shown the flagellum is not irreducibly complex (good article on it here http//www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html). There are rebuttals for the other examples he gives too.
-
The video briefly asks the question of whether a random genetic mutation has ever lead to an increase of information in a genome. It even uses the oft-used Richard Dawkins clip of him being "stumped" by the question. I'm no fan of Dawkins generally (incredibly arrogant militant atheist) but this clip of him is peculiar. Either out of context, or bad editing, or something else. I say that because he's been answering this question for years now just fine. And the literature is replete with examples of genetic mutations resulting in increases of genomic information. It is true that it's incredibly rare for a 'single mutation' to result in an increase but single mutations aren't really what evolution is all about. Cascades of mutations occur, sometimes many years apart, which do result in information increases. Very brief primer on some examples http//www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
-
Finally, the video talks about a lack of intermediate transitional forms in the fossil record. If we believe small gradations occur over time between organisms, we should expect to see half-formed organs, fish-amphibian hybrids, etc. And we don't see them in the fossil record, the creationists claim.
Two responses to this
a) It's true that there aren't as many transitional forms as we would expect found in the fossil record. But there are reasonable explanations for why this is the case http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#gaps
b) With that said, there are transitional forms found in the record. See here for many, many examples http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html -
Peace Brother CavemanDoctor
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I will check out those links.
-
Very interesting topic thanks for some insightful posts CavemanDoctor. I tend to lean towards believing Adam was the first 'modern man' being taught language by God and not the traditional thought of being first specie of man.
What I struggle to tie into all of this is the concept of 'hell' and 'heaven.' Why is it of paramount importance for the modern man to acknowledge God, do good deeds, acknowledge 'next life' in order to move forward to heaven whatever that maybe. Why not just good deeds to move forward?? Did we choose to be a self conscious being by the story of adam(mankind) disobeying God??
peace
-
Interesting you bring up Alan Watts, I just read it the other day and found it a superb read, particularly this excerpt
But of course in Oriental cultures, they don't think of God as an autocrat. God is the fundamental energy of the world which performs all this world without having to think about it. Just in the same way that you open and close your hand without being able to say in words how you do it. You do it. You say 'I can open and close my hand.' But how? You don't know. That only means, though, that you don't know in words. You do know in fact, because you do it. So in the same way, you know how to beat your heart, because you do it, but you can't explain it in words. You know how to shine the sun, because you do it, but you can't explain it in words, unless you're a very fancy physicist, and he's just finding out - what a physicist is doing is translating what he's been doing all along into a code called mathematics. Then he says he knows how it's done. He means he can put it into the code - and that's what the academic world is. It's translating what happened into certain codes called words, numbers, algorhythms, etc., and that helps us repair things when they go wrong.
The emphasis the quran places on human language is fairly significant given that it is such a concise book. We have a clue here, I will get to its significance eventually
And when your Lord said to the angels, I am going to place in the earth a khalif, they said What! wilt Thou place in it such as shall make mischief in it and shed blood, and we celebrate Thy praise and extol Thy holiness? He said Surely I know what you do not know.
My reasoning is fairly simple. The touch of the creator is infinitely subtle yet perfect. Imagine you have a room full of skittles randomly arranged, and a bowling ball, you can only hit a single skittle but you must knock them all down with one throw. If you throw the ball perfectly, you can knock down every single skittle in the room by making them tip into each other. And this is exactly what we are, the big bang being the throw.
Given that things had a beginning and we aren't in paradise already, it is reasonable to believe that God's omnipotence is not a "I wish this exists right now - pop" kinda thing, just as you cannot magic all the skittles to the floor - you must throw the ball first. This doesn't take anything away from omnipotence at all - if the creator wishes for a certain something to be somewhere at a certain time he can easily do so given his dominion over time & physical law. It's like the skittles game, except you know the mathematics behind the situation, making everything effortless. The irony of this is that people believe that God's dominion works like some kind of magic yet they fail to realise that God is timeless, inherently free of desire. The only reason you want magic is to satisfy desire!
Yet the creator must know all. How could things exist if the creator did not know how to create them! And here is where we get to the root of the problem. Remember that energy cannot be created or destroyed? At the beginning of the universe there existed exactly the same amount of energy as there is now. Yet at the beginning, everything was one - the universe was like a blank hard drive.
As time unfolds in this universe, we note a few things. First, entropy increases over time. At the beginning there was only 1 location anything could be in. Then perhaps there could have been 2 locations, 4 locations, etc, the details are irrelevant. Nowadays there are an astonishing number of possible states the universe can occupy. With each instance of time, the universe picks a single state out of all the possible states it can be in, based on the states it occupied in the past. So for example, we are in a human shape now because in the past, there was a set of possibilities corresponding to all the possible creatures that could arise, and over time, the universe kept selecting the states that allowed us to come to being. It is a process of creating, filtering and refining. And now we see how God "learns", despite knowing all there is.
Now this process of systematic elimination of unbalanced states is what I believe is what the quran refers to here -
And We did not create the heaven and the earth and what is between them for sport.
Had We wished to make a diversion, We would have made it from before Ourselves by no means would We do (it).
Nay! We cast the truth against the falsehood, so that it breaks its head, and lo! it vanishes; and woe to you for what you describe;Now we see why 230 is interesting - perhaps our creator knew all the possible futures that could come from humanity and decided it was in the best interests of all to proceed. So what role does language play? In truth, all names are imaginary, so language creates the illusion of separation as has been said. But this also confers upon us a supreme advantage, language is the fastest way in time of distinguishing truth from falsehood. It is also intimately connected to things like entropy - we can work against the flow of time very easily. It takes many years for a wall to be eroded but it takes a human all of 2 hours to repaint it.
Language is merely the manipulation of information. And funnily enough, the universe IS information. So be careful, words are just sticks and stones in a different form.
-
Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup
They slither while they pass, they slip away across the universe...Pools of sorrow, waves of joy are drifting through my open mind
Possessing and caressing me,
Jai Guru Deva OM.
Nothing's gonna change my world...Melikes your posting of the song, Brother!
-
Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup
They slither while they pass, they slip away across the universe...Inspiring! An insight flashed into my mind upon reading; to speak one must use energy, which is a given. However the actual information content in its most concise form takes up a certain minimum amount of energy from the universe. So say you write a paragraph which takes up 200 bits of information, that is 200 bits that could have been anywhere in the universe but it so happens to be taken up by your speech.
Now most problems in life are like finding the perfectly shaped lego block to complete the puzzle, a striking example is mathematics whereby the solution to a problem can take up a very small amount of data. So for example you take all the information you have which is the metaphorical puzzle minus one piece, and the solution is a single perfectly shaped piece that connects every other part of the puzzle together.
However unlike real puzzle pieces, words are recyclable! So a single puzzle piece can go around as many times as needed, to whoever wishes to recieve it. The quran is a perfect example, one puzzle piece that some 1.5 billion people use (or try to, anyway). This makes words rather sacred, because they are not destroyed by the passage of time. They carry power, the quran being an example, another such as the phrase "I have a dream", etc.
Language is a tool for mankind to create their own universe (or space, or life, whatever fits you).
Superb description! Anyway, the thing is that truthful statements must be inherently sacred. For one, they may be reused indefinitely and they are TIMELESS. For two, every truthful word automatically demolishes an entire set of possible falsehoods (just as 2118!). There are an infinite amount of ways to get an exam wrong, but there is exactly ONE way to do it correctly! You cannot reasonably after having seen truth then say anything else!
Language allows us as humans to be ENERGY EFFICIENT. Nature itself is not energy efficient in this particular sense - it's more of a case of throw everything you got and pick up what's left, then throw it again! Over 4 billion years, this inevitably created so many perfectly energy efficient life forms. However because of the miniscule amount of energy words consume, they are VERY powerful - it's like having a 1 coin that can potentially get you a hundred houses. Words essentially perform the same function as a transistor - they amplify energy expenditure in a controlled manner. Of course this means that speaking falsehood will result in a lot of human energy going into destructive efforts, just as truth results in that energy going into good works.
-
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."
Language and self-consciousness are two sides of the same coin. The coin is the soul.
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.
Thanks Caveman,
A beautifully written prose.. I agree to it almost 100% as I've been thinking along the same path as you do...
The ability to "Refer" towards a concept whether it is an abstract thing or non-abstract things is what really makes Human species different to others..
Naming is a way to put label towards a 'thing' for easy referencing in order to COMMUNICATE.
And names of things is the first thing homo sapiens parent teaches to their children.As thus Homo Sapiens / Bani Adam were designed by their Creator to be a social being in the first place..
Where they share and manipulate thoughts among each others..I don't really believed that "Adam" was living outside of this planet.
Or he was created out of "thin air" from "clay", his physical appearances was the result of million years of species evolutions which created from earthly substance (read raw material from this planet we called earth). Although now we have a more proper name for it instead of "clay" it should be "cells". Apparently the so-called 'djinns' are not made out of 'cells' yet from 'smokeless fire' (read plasma) and 'angel' from 'light' (read photon particles).He was the first initial cells structured primate species being enlightened with gift of speeches and also the ability to 'grasp' advanced conceptualization and awareness.
Which marks the birth of a new species we called now as "Homo Sapiens".
There could be others 'hominid' species living around his time, but he was the first to be 'enlightened' in such manner.The 'perfecting of homo sapiens / bani Adam' apparently did not stop there.. it is still an ongoing process up until now.
Where new generation are better than their previous one.. more enlightened in "Creator's light and knowledge".
And for those who stray out of the Creator's intention are left to demise and extinct.. just like what eventually happens to other hominids...
The survival of the nicest...Salam / Peace
-
Credits to our late John Lennon for Across The Universe... (and all praises to The One in the first place )
Superb description! Anyway, the thing is that truthful statements must be inherently sacred. For one, they may be reused indefinitely and they are TIMELESS. For two, every truthful word automatically demolishes an entire set of possible falsehoods (just as 2118!). There are an infinite amount of ways to get an exam wrong, but there is exactly ONE way to do it correctly! You cannot reasonably after having seen truth then say anything else!
Language allows us as humans to be ENERGY EFFICIENT. Nature itself is not energy efficient in this particular sense - it's more of a case of throw everything you got and pick up what's left, then throw it again! Over 4 billion years, this inevitably created so many perfectly energy efficient life forms. However because of the miniscule amount of energy words consume, they are VERY powerful - it's like having a ?1 coin that can potentially get you a hundred houses. Words essentially perform the same function as a transistor - they amplify energy expenditure in a controlled manner. Of course this means that speaking falsehood will result in a lot of human energy going into destructive efforts, just as truth results in that energy going into good works.
Very interesting view, OPF-- I found it not only inspiring but the timing is also perfect for my own situation atm. I'm tuning my language back in (to whatever life i want/able to create). Day in, day out. It's just that i was seeking for the bright blue sky while i was caving in the dark dungeons. And it has successfully gotten me nowhere. So basically now i'm on my way to integrating "language", "imagination", and "act" all together. Wonderful clues all around. An exciting year ahead.