Chapter 1: The Divergence of Experience and Explanation

In the realm of science, advancements have long sparked philosophical discussions surrounding spiritualist versus materialist interpretations of reality. Recent developments in neuroscience, which offer intricate insights into brain function, have reignited debates regarding the essence of the mind. Are our mental processes merely byproducts of brain activity, or is there something more profound at play?

Many of these disputes may be resolved by distinguishing between two fundamental uses of language: describing our experiences and providing explanations.

Consider the familiar phenomena of sunrise and sunset: daily, we witness the sun appearing to rise in the east and set in the west. Yet since Copernicus, we have learned that this perception results from the Earth's rotation rather than the sun's movement. This understanding could lead us to redefine "sunrise" as "the sun becoming visible," perhaps even inventing a concise term for it. However, the vividness of our experience with the sun's journey across the sky makes it unlikely that many would adopt such a change.

Nonetheless, the Copernican model has proven invaluable in our exploration of space and our expanding comprehension of the universe. By concentrating on this perspective, we can even cultivate a new appreciation of our existence as passengers on a colossal, rotating sphere, oscillating in and out of the sun's shadow, which itself is a massive, heat-producing sphere millions of kilometers away.

The same applies to our understanding of the mind. We encounter emotions like "love" and "anger," and we describe mental attributes using terms such as "conscience." Regardless of how adeptly neuroscience elucidates the brain's role in generating these feelings and characteristics—through chemistry, electricity, and anatomy—we are unlikely to modify our descriptions of our mental experiences significantly.

However, for someone grappling with issues like "a quick temper" or "anger management," understanding that they may have "an overactive amygdala inadequately regulated by an underactive prefrontal cortex" (assuming my neuroscience terminology is mostly accurate) could be beneficial. This insight might help them recognize that their heightened anger stems from brain structure and functionality, which could be addressed through cognitive behavioral therapy or suitable medications. This approach might prove more advantageous than older explanations attributing their behavior to demonic possession.

When considering which language use—describing experience or explaining—is more fundamental, it seems evident that humans begin with experiential language. As children, we perceive and articulate the world from our unique perspectives, gradually learning to employ explanatory language. Both forms serve vital roles in human communication.

The "spiritual" terminology surrounding concepts such as "mind," "soul," and "God" largely reflects experiential language; many individuals feel a direct connection to these notions. In contrast, the "scientific" vocabulary involving terms like "brain," "atoms," "molecules," "electromagnetic fields," and "cosmic expansion" represents language of explanation, which most people do not experience firsthand. Both linguistic approaches can generate intriguing and beneficial ideas for others.

Misunderstandings arise when we conflate these two uses of language. Historically, explanations often stemmed directly from personal experience and were framed in anthropomorphic terms, such as deities depicted as charioteers guiding the sun across the sky or winds as divine breaths from gods. The concept of a chief deity often mirrored our childhood relationships with parental figures.

Contemporary scientific language strives to eliminate explanations derived from personal experience or other beings’ experiences, aiming for descriptions that yield more accurate predictions or reliably influence events affecting many. While scientists indeed share personal experiences during experiments and observations, they articulate these in ways that others can replicate.

Comprehending the causes of diseases or droughts through lenses other than sin or demonic influences has proven more effective in preventing or alleviating their impacts than mere prayers. Likewise, recognizing the brain's intricate functions can enhance our awareness of the need to protect it from harm.

It would be beneficial for both types of language to coexist harmoniously. We can respect others' experiential descriptions, even when they diverge from our own. Yet, I believe it is crucial to scrutinize explanations, discerning those that are genuinely useful from those that may be trivial or detrimental.

The first video, "STRATEGY: LANGUAGE EXPERIENCE APPROACH," delves into how language shapes our understanding of experiences and the implications for education and learning.

The second video, "Language Experience Approach," explores practical applications of the language experience approach in fostering effective communication and comprehension.