chockfull

I don't find it a logical viewpoint that somehow SIT would have a "normative" definition and expectation that it would not be understood in a worship setting, yet somehow magically this definition would change if you removed the speaker and placed them in a lab setting. I don't even find this to be a doctrinal difference of opinion. It simply is illogical. And the attempts to make this illogical viewpoint seem more logical by attacking the straightforward logical explanation like it is some kind of retrofit is simply laughable. I'm sure a trained actor could set up an improve class to have people faking messages from God. I'm just more skeptical that you can do it without the participant knowing about it and effectively in a short period of time. And there's a whole lot of people doing this without trained actors involved. I've seen people go through the INT class and with next to zero instruction or coaching do very well. There is no proof involved in this, I guess it's an area where it is much more readily accepted that there is no way to prove it. I'm just including it in the discussion.

The last time I asked you to expound upon your views on scripture or to present what you believe related to this, you answered with a one word post - "No."

But of course you won't put forth an interpretation of I Cor. 14:2 that people could judge whether or not is more accurate.... socks has a claim about SIT. you have a claim about SIT. It is as equally likely that you did genuinely SIT and are now renouncing the practice due to a change in beliefs that it is that socks witnessed Asian speakers promulgating a fraud. And we should trust you and not socks because you're such a nice guy, right? If it's such a misapplication then please by all means enlighten me and provide the correct interpretation of "no man understands" and I Cor. 14:2.

The consonant mapping I saw Samarin with had promise - it was just very rudimentary. If you could plug that into computer statistical analysis such that you could run that on English samples to build up a database, then compare glossa samples consonant maps against known language consonant maps in English, with a large enough sample size of known language you could draw some more supported conclusions. Possible null hypothesis test possibility: 1) Glossa sample is the same as speakers native language - alternative hypothesis could show marked differences in the percentages of the consonant maps. NOTE: for more conclusive proof it's not enough to say the native language consonants appeared - with native samples you can project the % occurrences of the consonants too. Like playing Scrabble you know that "e" is the most commonly used vowel. Vowels are notoriously harder to distinguish, which is why they use consonant maps. You could map native language appearance consistency % against the same consistency % in the glossa.

This is a false premise. God states in I Cor. 14:2 that you are speaking to God and others won't understand. I simply believe that verse. The quote if you read it in its entirety is doing exactly what I said it was - holding you to the same standard of proof that you faked it that you are to those presenting anecdotal evidence.

So back to scripture discussion, we were doing word studies of the word "glossa" in the NT, or rather Raf was, and came up with the position that because he thought the word "glossa" meant languages that it is some kind of guarantee that linguists can understand the tongue. I see a direct scripture contradiction to this in I Cor. 14:2. Basically, it states "no man understands". This is a direct statement related to the topic. The use of the word "glossa" to indicate languages in that verse may or may not be an accurate interpretation - it also could be a figurative reference to the human organ as it is in certain places in the NT. Regardless of which way you interpret the word directly, if it does mean languages there is still no direct promise indicating it will be a language designed for use between humans and spoken on the earth currently. Indications in scripture are that it is designed for speaking to God (I Cor. 14:2), which is different than human use exclusively. So scripturally, I see the premise for testing SIT to see if it's a human language in operation today and thus disproving modern SIT as a genuine act to be a false premise.

I never asked for proof in the first place. You did, when rejecting anecdotal accounts of SIT being understood natively. Now you're struggling like a shark on a fish line when faced with living up to your own standard.

Good idea. After pages of derail by the three of you where you successfully chased off Sanguineti.

Look, you want to look at weird videos purporting to be SIT? Here's one where someone is using their mouth as a percussion section and saying it's SIT. I don't think so. But I can't prove it's not. It just sounds like a joke. I can't prove there were no ancient aborigines that did this kind of thing and invented the language all to speak with percussion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdIqbaYPFqw

Nope. Holding you to the same standard of proof you introduced on the thread.

Well, looking at the fruit of what this produced, you've got a mausoleum dedicated to enshrine VP called TWI, and $52 million dollars. It's all about the Benjamins.

One more time, I'm not demanding proof. I'm holding your claims of lying and faking to the standard of proof you introduced evaluating socks anecdote. Maybe if I repeat that a few more times you'll get it. If there was a clear way to prove ANY of this we wouldn't be having this argument. God requires faith or believing for any of His power to work. We live in a time after Christ where you believe first then see.

No. I'm tired of you making this about the consistency or not of your own words. All that does is put your words in type one more time, which advances your rhetoric. Your words are not what's worth discussing. Scripture is. Scientific facts are.

I've seen weirder practices in person associated with the Pentecostals. I went to this one tent revival meeting where there was a guy making noises like a goat in the corner all by himself, people sprinting in an entire circle around the tent during the middle of the teaching, elders smacking people in the forehead, similar gibberish sounds, and a preacher at 120db shouting on the mic about someone who "got the holy ghost" and "cut his hair" - all with what kind of sounded like a ska band as a backup. That experience was so shocking I didn't even wonder about anyone SIT or not, just about how quickly I could get the h out of there. All the men? Bowl cuts. Apparently the "holy ghost" in addition to inspiring them to try and SIT also was inspiring them to use the same bowl for haircuts thus giving up their former sinful long-haired ways.

Yes, looking at Pentecostal practices that are emotional and not so decent and in order are a great scare tactic that has been used by generations by preachers against SIT. Pick the most inflammatory, like the snake handlers or this one, project guilt by association, and you have a winning mind picture. I have distant relatives that are Jehovah's Witnesses that are particularly adept at doing this to convince people that SIT is from the devil. You don't even need logic doing all that.

No, just suggesting a scriptural solution for the dilemma you are expressing. You are free to take it or leave it. Let me see - the "mechanism by which people fake SIT". That would be "the mouth" for $500 Alex. I'm not so big on people making up fake scientific words for using the mouth and then trying to use their own definitions as proof. That's kind of like nailing your foot to the floor and trying to run a mile. And linguists are free to call any gloss sample "non-language" - it's a free country and expressing their opinion in print is their right. I even understand when some of them explain what they mean by "non-language" is that it isn't considered in the same categories as conversational language. I don't consider it in the same category as conversational language either. And since it's a free country, I'm free to examine their methods on language determination, compare it to known methods for proving things when people are talking about what is "proven", and note the differences. I don't think for one second any of that consists of proof that people SIT are not producing languages though. The evidence is simply lacking for that. And lastly, I simply don't understand chaining yourself to the spotted owl habitat tree over whether or not real human languages are produced every time someone "prays in the spirit" or not. To me I can't find one scripture where that is important, and the exegesis I've examined on I Cor. 14:2 to date which contains the phrase "nobody understands" and other scriptures I find ample ground for considering the definition to be talking about a figurative representation of the human organ - at least as much ground there as I do defining the definition "languages". Even if I was 100% sure on the "language" definition, I don't see where that makes a huge difference. I guess it must be instrumental to rejecting the entire body of teaching or something.

The "ridiculous standards" were introduced by you when not accepting anecdotes of accounts where tongues were natively understood in modern times. I'm sorry you find your own standards unreasonable when applied to you too. I could recommend some word studies on "love without hypocrisy" if that would help you feel better.

And PRESTO, after confronting them, now magically misinformation stops and we have returned full circle to where we were days or weeks ago. SIT resembles human language. Samarin notes it's different from a human language in that it's not primarily used for communication (between humans). He notes exceptions to Hockett's rules, doesn't really need to say he concluded glossa meets criteria in the other 10, like using the vocal-auditory channel, as it is SO OBVIOUS only an idiot could conclude differently. So a few pages ago, we have "SIT bears no resemblance to human language". You either said it or supported WordWolf saying it - I'm not playing your word games. Now we have "I have always conceded that SIT resembles human language".

It's a bunch of people excited about something on a video. I have no idea what they are excited about because other than hymns at the end there is really no detail about what's happening. So I respectfully submit nobody has a way of determining whether or not it is genuine. But I'm glad you're having such a great time at my expense ridiculing the practice those people are involved in and laughing at my beliefs. Or more likely he believed what he was doing then, has since changed his beliefs to doubt the experience, and now feels it was a lie. Kind of like you. So if you have anything to share besides ridicule and profanity, like how possibly you could prove that you were faking back then, I'm all ears. Or I guess you could go back to the laughing hyena action. That behavior looks so good on you.

To you maybe. I have no way of verifying your claims about faking. Neither do any other thread readers. And I would hate to be accused by you of naivety for accepting claims without proof. I already clearly refuted this as a "basic human capacity" by inventing a word called "self mouthnoiseization". I enacted the exact same logical fallacy and showed how it plays out. For the readers wondering about this, by defining a word to be the meaning of what you are trying to prove is a logical fallacy. It proves nothing other than your creativity for defining terms. All language is a "code". You understand a message if you understand the language, the key to the code. This is very ably documented in the movie "Wind Talkers". If language was not a code, then it couldn't have been used to encrypt transmissions in WWII that couldn't be detected by the enemy. I don't know one way of the other. I was just using the same terms regarding the group Samarin did. My experience as it relates to being an untrained actor is not irrelevant. And I find it hilarious that you're accusing me of being the improv technique trainer when I myself couldn't fake a 6 sentence improv of TIP to make it sound believable at all. Next up is me teaching people to be concert pianists when I can't play.

Drop it per modgellan. I don't have the energy to go and clean up all the places I'm accused of being a liar on the other thread or report those posts. Good. I'll take this as your official retraction of the statement about SIT bearing no resemblance to language then. As I see you admitting matching Hockett criteria. I'll also consider this as your admission that the statement that SIT bears no resemblance to language is misinformation. I still don't understand how you justify blanket statements like "modern SIT bears no resemblance to language" when you readily admit there are points of resemblance. I guess you don't care about (to put this as diplomatically as I can without violating rules) being truthful and accurate in these blanket statements being made.

Let me simplify this for you. socks made a claim. you made a claim. you imposed a burden of proof on socks. that burden of proof then applies to you by proxy to keep things fair. Understand yet? Ah yes, the old "define the terms as a mechanism of fakery" to prove fakery. That's the problem with that logical fallacy. When you remove the term, the proof is gone. I remain optimistic about the field of linguistics. I enjoyed reading about the substance of how they try to identify languages through consonant maps and measuring statistics. I saw far too few studies with that level of detail. I saw one on brain waves that had a good scientific research writeup. They bit off a small chunk and proved it, as opposed to biting off a large chunk, not proving it, and expressing a lot of opinionated conclusions. I'm still waiting for the following to see in linguistics around this topic: 1) Someone putting together an organized database of glossa samples that multiple research articles could access and use for research. 2) More statistical analysis like Samarin started in the '70's that utilizes some of the modeling and compute power we have today. 3) Other language identification methods in use and the detail of them. It is true that a coded message using language as a vehicle is a very effective encryption tool, as shown by the movie "Wind Talkers", depicting the use of the Navajo language for WWII transmissions that was never broken throughout the duration of the war, despite the continued efforts of linguists and cryptologists. Well, the conversations with mediums if included in the same category would be a proof its possible to fake. And possibly trained actors could fake TIP. I find it not impossible, but improbable that the common man with the instruction I've seen given could fake as well as I see happening.

Oh snap?

Well, you guys have been doing a pretty good job of that with all the research ever since we started the thread discussion.

And why your logic is a fallacy is that I did not present a conclusion at all. I'm beginning to understand what my problem is with you guys. You are used to people summing up a lot of detail into one opinionated bottom line statement. And you call that a "conclusion". I like to look through detail and expand my knowledge. At this point I have many more questions about this topic than I ever have. What little knowledge I have is far exceeded by how much I don't know. Yes many of Hockett's attributes are superficial. As you would expect for linguists to detail out what makes a language. But all those superficial details are what makes the one big bottom line ststement you guys want to make either a lie or the truth. Glossa "bears no resemblance to language". LIE. Glossa "has a superficial resemblance to language phonetically, and the message content cannot be determined to meet other criteria or not until it can be successfully decoded or understood natively". TRUTH. Or if you need a shorter version "glossa has some similarities and some differences with natural languages". Just thought I'd post up the truth out there in case there might be someone that would recognize it.