waysider

I think he probably phrased it that way because his emphasis was on the constructed characteristics not on any specific specimen.

The Amazing Randi is waiting to make you a very rich man if you can run one of those programs and prove him wrong. (I wouldn't quit your day job just yet.)

Ham In your mathmatical endeavors, did you ever encounter any information theory studies that might help explain tongues?

Ham I think there needs to be a distinction made between "meaningless" (having no discernible meaning) and "worthless" (having no discernible value).

Jabberwocky Now, this one you can diagram AND present with theatrical flair. It's still not a real language.

"Similarities: Phonetic structure - both use sentences" But, they're not sentences. They just sound like sentences. Remember the old sentence diagramming from English class? (OK, maybe you're too young to remember that. ) Give it a shot. Diagram a few and compare the results of them to each other..

I, too, have heard that taught. I don't see Acts 2 declaring that to be the case, however. I'm not trying to make this doctrinal. I just think we've assumed there to be more to it than actually exists.

Here's a dumb question. If tongues, in an assembled group, is the same thing they did on Pentecost, why would we need an interpretation?

I'm not sure what that means, though I've seen the movie several times. All I can tell you is that I never tried to deliberately control any session participants. It was not an ego trip. What I did was to help people make their presentation as believable as possible. I suppose that might put me in the director's chair to some degree.

Ha! That's funny! It does illustrate an important point, though. We reached into our subconscious and pulled out whatever was most convenient to recall. I think, perhaps, that's why the standard party-line of The Way was that there is no such thing as the subconscious. If it doesn't exist, we've eliminated one more avenue of exposure. Ain't that handy?

I don't doubt that control was a strong motivating factor for some excellor session officiants. When I was primarily involved with them (1970s), however, the driving motivation was to make these messages as theatrical and believable as possible.

What would interest me is to see someone do a study based on computer science/information theory, similar to the one that was done with dolphins in the link I posted several pages ago. Information theory

Look, the whole idea behind excellor sessions is/was to make these "messages" sound authentic. Practice, practice, practice. It comes as no surprise that these messages sound real. When they didn't sound real, what did we do? We practiced some more. If they have to include elements of love, peace, Godliness, etc., how do you explain what has been done by nonreligious people?

There is a considerable amount of data currently available on the subject that includes a variety of studies. Unfortunately, much of this information is not simply "free for the asking". If you are willing and inclined to do so, you can gain access to these various studies. Personally, I'm not inclined to spend any money on the subject at the moment.

No, his conclusion is that it's not a language because it doesn't meet the necessary structural criteria to be considered a language. A language can meet the necessary criteria without anyone recognizing the specific language.

That sounds like another way of saying, "The end justifies the means.".

Oh, well, since we're having fun....... A little musical interlude: HERE

I'm curious. How does the subject present itself? Do you say, "Hey, have you ever tried.....?" or what?

No, it's not off topic. In fact, if it weren't for the fact that speaking in tongues "SOUNDS" like a real language, this thread might have died long ago. Simply stated,however, speaking in tongues doesn't meet the linguistic criteria necessary to be classified language.

You can link to "The Big Book" on line. (The A.A. "Bible") http://www.aa.org/bigbookonline/en_tableofcnt.cfm I've heard that Wierwille borrowed heavily from concepts contained in it. I haven't looked through it so I can't verify that. The link is there, though, for anyone choosing to take a closer look.

Isn't that disclaimer straight out of PFAL? The wording may have changed slightly but, the essence remains intact.

I like met this guy once who was a scientist kind of dude. He told me extraterrestrials are like real, for sure. He said they did tests and all to prove it and stuff.

Do I know where I'm going to? Nah. Most of the time I'm flying by the seat of my pants. :~)

It only stands to reason that people who are preconditioned to be anti-SIT (ex-JW) would display reluctance. I think you could attribute that to cultural conditioning. Gay people speaking in tongues? Why not? All kinds of people speak in tongues..... Christians, Jews, Pagans, Shamans, etc. The (TWI implied) "spiritual implications" of it, on the other hand, might be fodder for a interesting thread but, out of place in this discussion....In my opinion.

Consider for a moment that speaking in tongues is not an exclusively Christian activity and predates Pentecost.