Something Instead of Nothing

[Meno_]

Sure, "contradictory" can work too. But, to me, this denotes a frame of mind in which existence is either one thing or another. And that connotes the sort of precision that seems beyond the reach of "mere mortals".

[Meno_]

Sure, "contradictory" can work too. But, to me, this denotes a frame of mind in which existence is either one thing or another. And that connotes the sort of precision that seems beyond the reach of "mere mortals".

That is really the fine point encapsulating the theme here. Being or Nothingness. And the tension between Husserl and Descarts here manifests. Sartre acutely picked it up in his Being AND Nothingness.

The sustaining (bracketing) of the question as to ,which is which , is existence the nothingness or is Being? - if existence proceeds the essential, it may have preceded it, but in as , defined as the one prceeding? A nothing, or a some thing. As existence as a dream manufactured by an evil genius?

Then doubt enters in as to the primary mode of appreception,

Or maybe both are needed (To eliminate doubt, for the sake of certainty?)

But then the Kantian synthetic bursts forth, not as an existent, but a possible mode of eliminating doubt.

If so, a new logic is assumed to subsist, (Dennett)as a contingent but necessary transcendence.


Maybe absurdity has more then an emotional connotation to it, maybe the subjunctive aspects are washed, incrementally, and intentionally at times, to overcome by an act of will the looming gaps.

Letting go, and declaring all to be prevy to nature's fallacy, is , maybe just a moment's fancy, passing like bad weather.

ref:


The Logic of Appearance: Dennett, Phenomenology and Psychoanalysis


Iambiguous- this may be an intellectual contraption big time, but absolutely necessary to construct an evolving meaning out of present life-time as existence , rather then a mere reconstruction from previously staged appearance.

Revivals always tend to have short duration.


How does such transcendence work?
The transfer content change relationships to the extent that the gaps' distance change.

Interpenetribility or through mutual permeability is a probable description of the effect.

[iambiguous]

Sure, "contradictory" can work too. But, to me, this denotes a frame of mind in which existence is either one thing or another. And that connotes the sort of precision that seems beyond the reach of "mere mortals".

That is really the fine point encapsulating the theme here. Being or Nothingness. And the tension between Husserl and Descarts here manifests. Sartre acutely picked it up in his Being AND Nothingness.

Again, there's all the stuff that we think we know about being and/or nothingness and all the stuff that can be known.

We seem to exist in a somethingness such that "I" has a being that may or may not be obliterated when that somethingness is swallowed up in the oblivion that clearly seems to accompany death.

But:

We have no way of grasping -- grasping for certain -- if "I" here is instead only a character in one or another's Sim world. Or in one or another's dream world. Or if all of what is presumed to be reality is merely the embodiment of solipsism. Or if reality [however it is derived] is something that we have some capacity to choose freely.

But "something" seems to be all around us and in us and between us. "I" presumably was nothing at all, was conceived, was shaped and molded by others; and then more or less acquired his or her own "sense of identity". And then becomes nothing at all again.

Unless you count God or reincarnation or "star stuff".

But who among us has ever been able to demonstrate which one it will in fact be?

And all that speculation from Husserl and Descartes and Kant and Dennett is appreciated by folks like me because, well, they did at least take a stab at figuring "reality" out.

Unfortunately for me, nothing from them gets me up out of the hole that I have myself thought myself into; nor the oblivion that keeps getting closer and closer and closer.

[iambiguous]

Here is a classic example of just how mind-boggling it can be for the "serious philosopher" to consider something rather than nothing:

Colin Brookes from Philosophy Now

As to why this something exists, we may consider the four types of causes identified by Aristotle: the material, formal, efficient, and final causes (in The Great Philosophers, Brian Magee suggested we could think of these as ‘be-causes’). Hence there is something because of its materials. These can be given structure through a formal cause – which we can perhaps think of as a definition of what makes something that very thing – by means of an efficient cause – that is, through a process or agent – for some purpose – the last being Aristotle’s final cause. The religiously persuaded have been inclined to seek the cause of all such causes – a ‘ first cause’, evoking a supernatural deity whose necessary existence and omnipotence can be seen to resolve the problem of there being something rather than nothing.

Now, imagine taking an analysis of this sort "down to earth". Noting how in a particular context these "four types of causes" are applicable to the things that we actually choose to do!

As to the role of ‘nothing’, at the extreme, according to New Scientist editor-in-chief Jeremy Webb, among others, space and time came into existence only after the Big Bang, and before this neither existed. Asking what happened before the Big Bang’s singularity is, says Stephen Hawking, like asking what is south of the South Pole.

Or like talking about going out into space from planet earth as though planet earth is not already out in whatever space happens to be.

Or like asking what Stephen Hawking actually "is" now. Is his own "I" gone forever?

Brian Cox and Andrew Cohen maintain that after 10 to the 100th power years as regards this Universe, “nothing happens and it keeps not happening for ever.” After this unimaginably long time, then, there will be nothing rather than something – an eternity of nothingness.

Of course one supposes that all of us "here and now" will know nothing of that. But we still have no way in which to actually demonstrate that this is true.

Let alone for all of us.

[Meno_]

Sorry Iambiguous, in transit, will try reading and answering tonight or tomorrow.

Internet is gloating in and out, like consciousness and in/sub consciousness. Quick read: impressive

[surreptitious75]

We have no way of grasping - grasping for certain - if I here is instead only a character in one or anothers Sim world. Or in one or anothers dream world. Or if all
of what is presumed to be reality is merely the embodiment of solipsism. Or if reality [ however it is derived ] is something that we have some capacity to choose freely

The notion of I can be some or all of these : your physical body / your individual person / your individual mind / your self awareness

We can rule out solipsism because we cannot create mind dependent external reality as the one that we experience is the same for everyone [ with obvious caveats ]

When we die we immediately cease experiencing consciousness even though the body still exists. After cremation / burial it will still exist albeit in a different form
But the I will have died with the body as it is this that gives us our sense of individual being or self awareness and which can only be experienced when we are alive

I do not accept the notion of soul as a part of I that carries on after death as it is simply a means to grant us immortality so as to conquer our irrational fear of death
Like many religious ideas it is conveniently [ for its believers ] non testable and therefore incapable of ever being disproven. But this does not actually mean it exists

So the I is only in existence between birth and death and nowhere else. Like every other life form we are only passing through and once we are dead there is nowhere else to go. Indeed the desire for Paradise is entirely unnecessary as the end of suffering in all of its forms [ physical / psychological / philosophical ] comes with death
So there is no need to go creating imaginary Utopias when one already exists in reality

[iambiguous]

We have no way of grasping - grasping for certain - if "I" here is instead only a character in one or another's Sim world. Or in one or another's dream world. Or if all of what is presumed to be reality is merely the embodiment of solipsism. Or if reality [ however it is derived ] is something that we have some capacity to choose freely.

The notion of I can be some or all of these : your physical body / your individual person / your individual mind / your self awareness

Notion: a conception of or belief about something.

Sure, the notion of "I" can take us anywhere. It is something that is thought up in our head based on certain assumptions we make about what the ontological/ontic parameters of "I" out in a particular world understood from a particular point of view.

We can rule out solipsism because we cannot create mind dependent external reality as the one that we experience is the same for everyone [ with obvious caveats ]

Nothing would seem able to be entirely ruled out until we have the capacity to connect the dots between our ontic interactions and an ontological understanding of existence iteself.

And then there is the "external reality" that the brain/mind creates for "I" embedded in dreams. That is literally all in our head, isn't it? And yet while in the dream it seems to be anything but. At least in my dreams.

When we die we immediately cease experiencing consciousness even though the body still exists. After cremation / burial it will still exist albeit in a different form
But the I will have died with the body as it is this that gives us our sense of individual being or self awareness and which can only be experienced when we are alive

Unless you have died and were able to document the experience for all the rest of us, what can you really tell us definitively about "I" after death?

As with phenomenal_graffiti, one can create an argument "in his head" and call it "invincible"; but that doesn't make it any less just an argument. He basically abandoned an exchange with me because there apparently was no actual demonstration forthcoming to document that particular world of words.

But, psychologically, I suspect he is no less comforted and consoled by it.

Or she if that is the case.

I do not accept the notion of soul as a part of I that carries on after death as it is simply a means to grant us immortality so as to conquer our irrational fear of death

But this is just another "notion". Like me, I suspect you have no way in which to ascertain the whole truth about death and dying. In fact, if any mere mortal among us was able to grasp our fate after death -- to demonstrate the whole truth about it -- he or she would be on every newscast around the globe.

We just don't know what is to become of "I" then. There is only being able or not being able to connoct a narrative that is more or less soothing.

On the other hand, one might ponder how this...

So the I is only in existence between birth and death and nowhere else. Like every other life form we are only passing through and once we are dead there is nowhere else to go. Indeed the desire for Paradise is entirely unnecessary as the end of suffering in all of its forms [ physical / psychological / philosophical ] comes with death
So there is no need to go creating imaginary Utopias when one already exists in reality

...can possibly be soothing for you to believe.

Up to a point, I am able to convince myself of the same. After all, like nothing else, death takes away every and all manifestation of the pain and the suffering that mere mortals endure on this side of the grave. Indeed, the pain can become so severe that, however much you love your life, you might find yourself begging to die: https://youtu.be/0B0sFtRTlx4

And then the part where you congratulate yourself for having understood all of this better then those who don't. You have the intellectual integrity and courage to face oblivion squarely.

Or something like that.

[Meno_]

Have a few minutes between planning eternal moving about here.

The eternal contraption is AS necessary as its opposite nothingnessp(in the sense that as a lack of contraption) Aristotlian vise as its appearent diminution into nothingness. Ill work this out in conjunction with the above, in an effort to 'make sense'

Because literally and figuratively we are constantly in search of sense


------

'can possibly be soothing for you to believe.-------

I believe this is a fragment , a partial truth. A soothing feeling may be appreciated as registering an associative idea differential in aspect of reducing stress, uncertainty. It is leveled both universally and situationally, trying to find a progressively repetitive state, where such can be re-played- experienced..
The idea begins its mindedness on the archaic idea via association . This level is unfathomable, the abyss of the basic unavaible minima of conconsciousness. Here form and function are the basic as baseline into future epoche states to be, undifferentiable and fixed as a full nothingness as something.



Again merely the basis upon to conjecture.hopefully developed further, assuming the previous to be partial truisms.


Now, at this level it can , flip, hopefully using its more literal connotation and seek a reduced form of historically staged epochs of interpretation as the ' evil genius, simulating all this, and necessating the construction(contraption) as a way to exit in its Sartrean future would like to have it, in a more sense of trying to 'figure or in his sense of configuration (pattern)

Here the beginnings of dread through Descarte's doubt germinate as a sense of duplicity, -what if THEY, the evil genius and his assistants are staging this absolutely, in order to find the philosopher's stone of an absolute certain redemption? What may be the case, that a linear logic can be transcended within the scope of an absolute revival? What if Descarte's doubt, leading to Nietzche's transvaluation can literally evade the modern and tragic forms of fear, and angst, which certainly will lead to the only real historical remedy and cure, WAR? Social fear can only be held at bay only for so long, without the beginning of social ostracism, intolerance.

The Nitzchean revolt against this absolute sense of EVIL, is negated, by the superman who can do it, by placing his self above it.

But does it work? And if it does, how long can that go on?

We are living proof of that issue.

Polanyi has a flip side to, before breaking up the idea of fixed (embedded) truths, the basic assumptions may transfer to more different spheres, where they may functionally distort this whole 'contraption'? In other words, how long before super duper man may return to doubt the reality of A1, the Big Brother? In real political terms, Uncle Sam)

[Meno_]

now the most basic exit in the sense of including all sets within that set which includes its own sense of itself, is the sudden drop to the either,/ or of -AND the either , and , simulteniousy, with Jung's Simultaneous occurance, within this backdrop.
At this point, the existential lunge / leap , becomes manifest, again in the sense of an either or, and it is here where Sartre's LOOK states, contrasts singularly into the eye , and contrasts the 2 differing logics.

The either or/or//and at this point it transferred to substantiality/insubstantility of this transfer -to an IN/OUT, via pattern grouping. On this level the patently reduced content is proof PARTIAL of an almost obsessive phobic need to escape the totally absurd reduction ( that some feel more comfortable with rather then a new contradiction qua negation toward a mystical participation as a simulated epoch of a veritable foundation.

[Meno_]

Here in the Phillippines the familial organization can may be described in terms of relatively overlapping circles or even spheres of relevance, where the degree of set overlap spaced out by variously expressed signs of relative value attempt to define, situationally, a state of being.
Here if we were to fathom the relative focus to being locked into these formal states of being, versus giving reign to allowing the appearance of less focus on being free, the former is vastly more veritable then the later.

Up to now , the above comments are ment to be more suggestive then definitive in line with IT'S self, as some kind of formal argument, and here also to be noted the fact, that an informal integration of either this , or that, more , much more often then not, may become a futile attempt.

[Meno_]

And all that speculation from Husserl and Descartes and Kant and Dennett is appreciated by folks like me because, well, they did at least take a stab at figuring "reality" out.

Unfortunately for me, nothing from them gets me up out of the hole that I have myself thought myself into; nor the oblivion that keeps getting closer and closer and closer.


This is clearly understandible, but really very hard to refute, and the length of this forum is a clear indication of that. But an absolute impossibility is never an accepted state, as is an absolute possibility. And that pretains not only to the realm of an individual being like Descartes, but to a modern philosopher like Dennett, working primarily from the sphere of social positions of perceived value.

But this is again tentatively,is an attempt to make arguable sense.

Your problem, again arguably, may only begin to make sense when even the most probable possibility approaching the absolutely probable, or even infinitely probable~necessarily begins to enlighten some sense of escape through self delivering a notion through the least crack in the universal door , through the entrance of the slightest sliver of light, into the darkness within.

Don't know a better way to describe it it's application down to earth is not a contraption , nor an effort of candywrapping, it is by way of necessity that the universe not play games, and can eternally exist, through infinitely repeated simulations, so it's BEING can lay its own sensible foundation.


Now how to do this? Well this is the most improbable act ever attempted: that is bound up with reflection, the Myth of Sysiphus, and finally the recreding feeling of dread with invisibility. The fear associated with believing only in those things that are visible. ref: ' The visible and the invisible, which is very difficult to read, but worth a try. I hope to read this sometime when the higher powers allow me.

But the difference begins to notice , that when you may go ahead with it, some sign starts to make sense of this difference()between them.(visibility/invisibility as contradiction or/and an absurd notion.


Ref: http://www.nupress.northwestern.edu/con ... -invisible

[surreptitious75]

Unless you have died and were able to document the experience for all the rest of us what can you really tell us definitively about I after death

I cannot be separated from the body in the same way that the the mind cannot be separated from the brain
And since there is precisely zero evidence of any [ permanently ] dead body surving death then logically the I ceases to exist upon point of death

[surreptitious75]

And then the part where you congratulate yourself for having understood all of this better than those who dont . You have the intellectual
integrity and courage to face oblivion squarely

Have never congratulated myself as it is not my reason for doing this and also ego affects rational thinking so is something always to be avoided
Instead I favour my position simply because it has logical consistency to it and so it will be the default position unless a better one is discovered

[iambiguous]

The eternal contraption is AS necessary as its opposite nothingnessp(in the sense that as a lack of contraption) Aristotlian vise as its appearent diminution into nothingness. Ill work this out in conjunction with the above, in an effort to 'make sense'

Because literally and figuratively we are constantly in search of sense

This sort of speculation -- abstruse? obtuse? -- will only make sense to me given the extent to which you are able to intertwine it in a context in which flesh and blood human beings actually interact. And then speculate about how their understanding of those interactions might be applicable to their understanding of nothing at all. Or something other than what they think they understand here and now. In, say, a parallel universe. Or in a world created by God. Or in a dream world or a sim world.

And then [of course] that gap between our own existential search of sense and a sense that might be grasped by a being in sync with an understanding of existence itself.

[iambiguous]

Unless you have died and were able to document the experience for all the rest of us what can you really tell us definitively about I after death

I cannot be separated from the body in the same way that the the mind cannot be separated from the brain
And since there is precisely zero evidence of any [ permanently ] dead body surving death then logically the I ceases to exist upon point of death

And that might be perfectly clear if you were then able to connect the dots between what you think in your head here and now about it and all that can be known -- must be known -- about existence itself in order to confirm that it is beyond all doubt and in fact true.

I'm with you in that until others like phenomenal_graffiti are able to connect those self-same dots between an argued for life after death for "I", and an ontological understanding of existence, things are looking bleak for any particular "I" that topples over into the abyss.

But given that logic is an invention of the human species and that the human species is no doubt but an infinitesimally insignificant speck in the vastness of what way well be the multiverse, well, what does that tell us about logic itself?

Also, what if logic too is but an inherent manifestation of the laws of matter? Matter encompassed in minds encompassed in brains that are among nature's most sophisticated set of dominoes "set up" -- by what? by who? -- to topple over only as they ever could have?

[Meno_]

Imbigious, having technical problems, so I can only comment on Your reply here, in this manner.

I do understand Your point of view, and the point of view is not arguable as such, because, it appears, that we are operating in a feedback system. By 'we' I mean You and I and anybody reading this now, or in the future, including the structural build up of all the prior constructed analysis, reasoning, and tentative conclusions of it with tentative reification, epoches and inquires, fed back repeatedly within the scope of noticeable and in-noted material.

This material, is, as a down to earth examplefecation is obtuse/obstruct, within or without specifications deemed for assignment.

Moral applications can be bracketed within, for general specification, or without, whete particular case by case analysis need to exemplify any substantial qualification.

Whenever a jury of 12 suffices to adjudicate an agreed upon moral justification, it is deemed ethically right, even if the content of which is mistaken, or even wrong morally.

In case of that being down to the realms of agreed upon understanding, the doubt can never be transcended, and Your point is totally agreeable.
For that reason, the categorical imperative must over come the naturalistic fallacy , even if ' by fiat'.
Otherwise this argument fails S well, by appeal of the hypothetical Absolute, which must, necessarily be, pre-supposed.

For me, no two ways about it.

[iambiguous]

Michael Brake from Philosophy Now.

Leibniz himself believed that “sufficient reason for the existence of the universe cannot be found in the series of contingent things” in the world, therefore “the ultimate root of the world must be something which exists of metaphysical necessity.” He concludes, the “final reason for things is called God.” This argument doesn’t cut much ice with non-believers, since it prompts the question: Why is there a God rather than nothing?

And what might "metaphysical necessity" be contingent upon? Sooner or later the words that we can connect to actual "things" must give way to the words that we can only connect to other words.

Lawrence Krauss develops the idea of self-creating universes. First, he challenges the question itself. He suggests that people who ask the question usually mean ‘How is there something?’ (a scientific question) rather than ‘Why is there something?’ (a metaphysical question).

No, any number of us are far more fascinated with the question "why is there something that we can grapple with in order to explore how it came to exist at all?"

One way or another the part about science is going to bump into the part about metaphysics.

He then describes how a quantum theory of gravity permits universes to appear spontaneously from the quantum vacuum with their own time and space.

He describes it. Maybe even "proves" it mathematically. But where are these universes actually observed?

On, say, youtube?

Unless of course this part is just way over my head.

[Meno_]

It is notnreallu a matter of.god existing or not, but which way is the trend following: toward or away from what is considered good or bad. Without this dialectic the whole of morality could could not have been constructed.

This energy of constructing ideals come from the very progression of ideals of.which Leibnitz is referring to, of course in terms of the religious, the constituents for whom he was writing.

Having tech problems, so Imbigious I can only post new ideas and cannot refer to Your post, sorry.

[Meno_]

I don't want to reduce the existence of.God to am either or proposition, either , but what may be more likely is, that morality is auto generated coincidentally with the advent of conacioisness.

That probably is the foundation from which all arguments descend on a hopeless efforts to disentangle the long lines of fed back inputs.

[Meno_]

And what might "metaphysical necessity" be contingent upon? Sooner or later the words that we can connect to actual "things" must give way to the words that we can only connect to other words.

---------------------


Contingent upon the appearance of the beginning of the word.

Without which the question of this forum could not possibly even considered, or even posed.

Religious faith has only contingent validity about this, or faith, or anything else similar as a possible scenario.

Now, if any THING is to believed, the above is necessary by way other then contingency, thereby negating itself, establishing the elemental(substantive) faith in nothingness, and by that token getting caught in infallibility of the insubstantility of that very substance.

Here substance is a duplex of both some thing and no thing.

Prior to this , a pre symbolic manifestation gave rise to sub stance-standing below some thing, or foundation to it. (The pre symbolic)

If bi -logically considered, but bio-logically must be understood.

This is basically or, probably the manner in which Platonic ideas animate from the cave of both: Plato and Nietzsche, the latter comes through as in a Repetition which overlays the aesthetic principles.

No need to group and limit/ in a sequential spatial temporal sequence because its Being is embedded in a transcendentalky tacit knowledge.
(POLANYI)

Filter out what is not derivable in possible situations , such , which present options. The non optional situations for close on this linear and contradictory option, hence as soon as it attempts it It quickly enclosed itself into the Absolute.

So the Critiques ( Kant) are again metaphorically rigid, so as to simulate the absolute set in terms of partial differentiation. (Per: Your initial point made)

[Meno_]

Science Newsfrom research organizations
Did humans speak through cave art? Ancient drawings and language's origins
Date:
February 21, 2018
Source:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Summary:
When and where did humans develop language? To find out, look deep inside caves, suggests a professor.
Share:

FULL STORY

Ancient art in the Altai Mountains, Russia. While the world’s best-known cave art exists in France and Spain, examples of it abound throughout the world.

When and where did humans develop language? To find out, look deep inside caves, suggests an MIT professor.



More precisely, some specific features of cave art may provide clues about how our symbolic, multifaceted language capabilities evolved, according to a new paper co-authored by MIT linguist Shigeru Miyagawa.

A key to this idea is that cave art is often located in acoustic "hot spots," where sound echoes strongly, as some scholars have observed. Those drawings are located in deeper, harder-to-access parts of caves, indicating that acoustics was a principal reason for the placement of drawings within caves. The drawings, in turn, may represent the sounds that early humans generated in those spots.

In the new paper, this convergence of sound and drawing is what the authors call a "cross-modality information transfer," a convergence of auditory information and visual art that, the authors write, "allowed early humans to enhance their ability to convey symbolic thinking." The combination of sounds and images is one of the things that characterizes human language today, along with its symbolic aspect and its ability to generate infinite new sentences.

"Cave art was part of the package deal in terms of how homo sapiens came to have this very high-level cognitive processing," says Miyagawa, a professor of linguistics and the Kochi-Manjiro Professor of Japanese Language and Culture at MIT. "You have this very concrete cognitive process that converts an acoustic signal into some mental representation and externalizes it as a visual."

Cave artists were thus not just early-day Monets, drawing impressions of the outdoors at their leisure. Rather, they may have been engaged in a process of communication.

"I think it's very clear that these artists were talking to one another," Miyagawa says. "It's a communal effort."

The paper, "Cross-modality information transfer: A hypothesis about the relationship among prehistoric cave paintings, symbolic thinking, and the emergence of language," is being published in the journal Frontiers in Psychology. The authors are Miyagawa; Cora Lesure, a PhD student in MIT's Department of Linguistics; and Vitor A. Nobrega, a PhD student in linguistics at the University of Sao Paulo, in Brazil.

Re-enactments and rituals?

The advent of language in human history is unclear. Our species is estimated to be about 200,000 years old. Human language is often considered to be at least 100,000 years old.

"It's very difficult to try to understand how human language itself appeared in evolution," Miyagawa says, noting that "we don't know 99.9999 percent of what was going on back then." However, he adds, "There's this idea that language doesn't fossilize, and it's true, but maybe in these artifacts [cave drawings], we can see some of the beginnings of homo sapiens as symbolic beings."

While the world's best-known cave art exists in France and Spain, examples of it exist throughout the world. One form of cave art suggestive of symbolic thinking -- geometric engravings on pieces of ochre, from the Blombos Cave in southern Africa -- has been estimated to be at least 70,000 years old. Such symbolic art indicates a cognitive capacity that humans took with them to the rest of the world.

"Cave art is everywhere," Miyagawa says. "Every major continent inhabited by homo sapiens has cave art. ... You find it in Europe, in the Middle East, in Asia, everywhere, just like human language." In recent years, for instance, scholars have catalogued Indonesian cave art they believe to be roughly 40,000 years old, older than the best-known examples of European cave art.

But what exactly was going on in caves where people made noise and rendered things on walls? Some scholars have suggested that acoustic "hot spots" in caves were used to make noises that replicate hoofbeats, for instance; some 90 percent of cave drawings involve hoofed animals. These drawings could represent stories or the accumulation of knowledge, or they could have been part of rituals.

In any of these scenarios, Miyagawa suggests, cave art displays properties of language in that "you have action, objects, and modification." This parallels some of the universal features of human language -- verbs, nouns, and adjectives -- and Miyagawa suggests that "acoustically based cave art must have had a hand in forming our cognitive symbolic mind."

Future research: More decoding needed

To be sure, the ideas proposed by Miyagawa, Lesure, and Nobrega merely outline a working hypothesis, which is intended to spur additional thinking about language's origins and point toward new research questions.

Regarding the cave art itself, that could mean further scrutiny of the syntax of the visual representations, as it were. "We've got to look at the content" more thoroughly, says Miyagawa. In his view, as a linguist who has looked at images of the famous Lascaux cave art from France, "you see a lot of language in it." But it remains an open question how much a re-interpretation of cave art images would yield in linguistics terms.

The long-term timeline of cave art is also subject to re-evaluation on the basis of any future discoveries. If cave art is implicated in the development of human language, finding and properly dating the oldest known such drawings would help us place the orgins of language in human history -- which may have happened fairly early on in our development.

"What we need is for someone to go and find in Africa cave art that is 120,000 years old," Miyagawa quips.

At a minimum, a further consideration of cave art as part of our cognitive development may reduce our tendency to regard art in terms of our own experience, in which it probably plays a more strictly decorative role for more people.

"If this is on the right track, it's quite possible that ... cross-modality transfer helped develop a symbolic mind," Miyagawa says. In that case, he adds, "art is not just something that is marginal to our culture, but central to the formation of our cognitive abilities."



Story Source:

Materials provided by Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Original written by Peter Dizikes. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference:

Shigeru Miyagawa, Cora Lesure, Vitor A. Nóbrega. Cross-Modality Information Transfer: A Hypothesis about the Relationship among Prehistoric Cave Paintings, Symbolic Thinking, and the Emergence of Language. Frontiers in Psychology, 2018; 9 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00115
Cite This Page:
MLA
APA
Chicago
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Did humans speak through cave art? Ancient drawings and language's origins." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 21 February 2018. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180221122923.htm>.
advertisement


RELATED STORIES
Scarcity of Resources Led to Violence in Prehistoric Central California
Feb. 17, 2017 — A longtime anthropology professor who studies violence among prehistoric people in California has published his work, outlining that there are two views related to the origins of violence and warfare ... read more
Cave Discoveries Shed New Light on Native and European Religious Encounters in the Americas
July 19, 2016 — Archeologists have discovered remarkable evidence which shows how the first generations of Europeans to arrive in the Americas engaged with indigenous peoples and their spiritual beliefs deep inside ... read more
Neanderthals Used Fire in Caves: French Cave Sheds New Light on the Neanderthals
June 1, 2016 — Deep inside Bruniquel Cave, in the Tarn et Garonne region of southwestern France, a set of human-made structures 336 meters from the entrance was recently dated as being approximately 176,500 years ... read more
Climate Affects Development of Human Speech
Jan. 23, 2015 — A correlation between climate and the evolution of language has been uncovered by researchers. To find a relationship between the climate and the evolution of language, one needs to discover an ... read more
Copyright 2018 ScienceDaily



Now I am anticipatimg an objection here, regarding how to connect the above possibility with its religious counterpart, via: "in the beginning was the word'. Ex post facto can the two ideas be connected dericotovely?

In a version quoted above on sponteniois generation, the quantum based idea can indeed extrapolate the idea gained by an initial choice: obviously sourced from an exclusion of any kind of probability function other than a total exclusion of effective cause from internal sources.

There was a minimum of internal analysis available and a maximum of causative outer effective agents.

That understood from a point of view of outer to inner continuous generational quantum choices , could not occur to early man. He at first thought of the word of god, (GOD) to express his inability to include an Absolute as an inclusion of everything, including his self, or, himself. It is the later that he could in any possibility conceive , his self dis not consider early on , at least to the time beyond Narcissua. He could not reflect of his self on the basis of himself sans his self consciousness.

At this stage , a goddess punished him for this error, .and this disconnect showed a later trend where the self and consciousness could differentiate and form a gap.

This ideation went on until Jesus in the Western World, where God the Father gained wisdom and sacrificed His Son, in fact Himself to show this differentiation necessitated IT's Self,

That is how difficult the word was thought to be by the very earliest Holy Fatthers who wrote of the Word.

Little did they fathom that even the incredible job it took to reify ' The Word' , it would be their undoing

The connection was broken into two. the primal contradiction was reconstructed by the will to power over god, .

God exists.by utility, and as the early agnostic god of.dyanisus overboard any semblance of the appolonoan relic, the force of kumdalini was finally instrumental in extinguishing its serpent fire.

Is there a correlate that's more down to earth?

Certainly. Our very developmental beginnings , more serpent like then human, was able to deceive Adam through Eve, his double, and they lost the actual but unknown to them Paradise. .

God had to sacrifice love, in order to teach the lesson of love. Contrarily, starting from the ground up, ezxeprinf some miracles harboring the transcendental

The early word was such a tool, whereby it too can lead to Paradise, through the only way possible, through its metaphysical-quasi religious argumemt. The thousand year old argument over.the transcendental, east and west, NECESSITATES its eternal inclusion, in and out of IT's. self.

The closer we.get.to the promised Singularity , forecasted in about less them a generation, the more acute it will get.to close.that.gap, WHICH will finally avert the coming of to solve this problem of Some THING or.No.Thing

[Meno_]

Do to technical problems I am unable to edit the above. Will do so as soon as I get back to the states. Please omit any unreadable worda, but for the most part such words can be ommitted without losing sense.
I apologise, but the tech problem in addition to a displacement of.eye glasses is the cause.

[iambiguous]

And what might "metaphysical necessity" be contingent upon? Sooner or later the words that we can connect to actual "things" must give way to the words that we can only connect to other words.

Contingent upon the appearance of the beginning of the word.

Without which the question of this forum could not possibly even considered, or even posed.

Again, to the extent that we are able to understand it, the evolution of matter in the universe begets life begets consciousness begets self-consciousness begets philosophy. And [among our species] it is all bursting at the seams with words.

On the other hand, language was created not in order to philosophize but in order to facilitate subsistence and reproduction; and, having achieved this, any number of other human interactions that revolve less around needs and more around wants.

And, in regard to this, we have invented any number of words that can be connected to actual things. And these words either describe these things as they in fact are or as they in fact are understood by "I" to be.

Then communication revolves around the extent to which the words we use are successful in conveying information about "I" out in a particular world with others.

Do we merely think that the words we use [regarding anything] are in sync with reality, or can we go further and demonstrtate that in fact all rational people are obligated to think the same?

Really, what else is there [for all practical purposes] in probing the relationship between words and worlds?

But when words are used only to define and to defend other words, what happens when there are no "things" to connect them with?

Well, among other things, in my opinion, we get assessments of this sort:

Now, if any THING is to believed, the above is necessary by way other then contingency, thereby negating itself, establishing the elemental(substantive) faith in nothingness, and by that token getting caught in infallibility of the insubstantility of that very substance.

Here substance is a duplex of both some thing and no thing.

Prior to this , a pre symbolic manifestation gave rise to sub stance-standing below some thing, or foundation to it. (The pre symbolic)

If bi -logically considered, but bio-logically must be understood.

This is basically or, probably the manner in which Platonic ideas animate from the cave of both: Plato and Nietzsche, the latter comes through as in a Repetition which overlays the aesthetic principles.

No need to group and limit/ in a sequential spatial temporal sequence because its Being is embedded in a transcendentalky tacit knowledge.
(POLANYI)

Filter out what is not derivable in possible situations , such , which present options. The non optional situations for close on this linear and contradictory option, hence as soon as it attempts it It quickly enclosed itself into the Absolute.

So the Critiques ( Kant) are again metaphorically rigid, so as to simulate the absolute set in terms of partial differentiation. (Per: Your initial point made)

A world of words in which we are only able to discuss if what you thnk they mean is, in turn, what all reasonable men and women are obligated to think they mean too.

And all I can do is to ask what on earth you are talking about here in regarding to actual human behaviors or interactions.

As that relates to something rather than nothing at all.

[Meno_]

Removed for over redundancy

[Meno_]

Removed for over redundancy

Here, instead of writing the usual complex and oft confusing analysis, a better way may be had by referring to a source who may help clarify this problem at hand:


From Denney and Sellars, this: ( however such fragment may not clear up the problem in total, I will print out the website, for a further look.


'We shall take the cogito only as a means of suspending objectivity claims and of thereby inducing infallibility in what remains of the objectivity claim after suspension. This last point is important. For every objective truth claim, in which I am invariably fallible, there is a corresponding trivial truth claim, in which I am infallible, a truth claim which is fulfilled by the sheer fact that I seriously and honestly claim so. For every objective, thick truth claim, that p, there is a corresponding trivial, thin truth claim, that I think that p (or that it seems to me that p)' (p. 73).

Now if we take two propositional ideas, one substantive , the other claimed insubstantive, for the claim given appears to favor SOMETHING via a first person singular look, here is a way, attained through a test included in the referred test, which sets up correlation between it and objectivity.
I recall mentioning this in another forum I believe , but in this context, it appears to solve the problem of conflicted values and the existential reductio.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5572271/

This would set a minimum epoche, or context from within which the connection to without which may be grasped and connected.

Here phenomenology, structural neurology may be conjoined by psychoanalysis. Where the analytical search for causation could be bonded with the phenomenological reduction , by validating Dennet's centerpiece basis.

My starting point was, whete several ILP members charged a psychological weakness as the low point where arguments clashed (unambiguous counter argument's partial claim), in addition to understanding the structural similarities between a phenomenological reduction, versus a psychoanalytical search for effects of casual analysis, especially in drastic psychic regression affects.

I saw and still see no problem in this way of looking at from the point of view of searching for Iambiguous' problem of his repeated charge of devising merely intellectual contraptions.

The reason why, in his narrative, there can not be any connection, whereby the aforementioned test may offer to approach some measure of linkage.