The crux of their argument is that the language faculty and other faculties (math/logic/abstract, theory of mind/social reasoning, spatial/temporal imagination, and other cognitive abilities) all evolved in parallel, so the most plausible explanation is that language is mostly independent of all those other faculties which are activated in distinct neural network areas of the human brain, based on brain scan studies…
If language is no longer part of thought, then sure, breaking down... thought... into many different mechanisms also makes sense (quite a bit of sense actually). From there, you ask: "What is the fundamental aspect underlying each of these different faculties?"
Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
81–90 of 404 posts
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#82Let's do a mental experiment: Put 2 year old Einstein on a remote island, all alone, and come back 30 years later. Assume he survives. Will he impress you with his insights? They say we don't use language for thought, but language informs our strategies and choices, and collective experience is essential for progress. We only add small increments of insight from our own experiences to the pool, but the experience cap…
I know your answer is supposed to be no, but I think there's a good chance the answer would be yes. There's a seemingly endless amount that can be learned about basically anything. And surviving for 30 years on an isolated island is going to involve developing a wide range of skills and masteries ranging from healthcare, seasonal prediction, animal habits, hunting, medicine, shelter construction, and much more. It'd…
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#83Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#84Somehow, when I say Pow-el street instead of Pow-ul street, everyone feigns ignorance, even though they completely know what I’m talking about. Doesn’t seem like language as a communication tool works well, when it is I used as a way to establish superiority.
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#85It absolutely melts my mind every time I come across the two facts that: - People experience their thoughts very differently - We all secretly believe that deep down, everyone experiences thought like we do. I've never really had a strong internal monologue when thinking, so my assumption would always be that of course, thinking isn't very linguistic (even if we can use it as a tool while thinking). It seems like the…
Not a universal law. I don’t think I work in the same way as other people at all, as I cannot see what is obvious to others, and they cannot see what is obvious to me.
I don’t think, per se, the information and the integrated results of information are just there. People call it “intuition” but it isn’t some magical sixth sense, it’s just not using one’s language centre for compute, which is what many seem to do.
The moment I start consciously considering something, it all usually goes to hell - so a large part of how I operate is preventing myself from lapsing into “conscious thought”, and instead to keep whatever it is just below the surface until it’s cooked.
I infuriated teachers throughout my childhood by apparently paying zero attention but then inexplicably having the correct answer to whatever was posed to me, and have never quite related to other people, as it usually feels like I’m trying to bridge an immense gap of comprehension - not, to be clear, that I think other people are stupid - just more like I am running fundamentally different software, and everything has to go through an extensive translation and abstraction layer to make sense to others.
If I speak my thoughts directly, then they often emerge as allegory, as it’s the only way I can try to encapsulate the otherwise rather inchoate froth of connection which leads to a result. Sometimes others understand the allegory, but more often than not, they do not, as the symbols mean something else to them.
So yeah. I don’t think my mind works like most other people I encounter. The only other person I know who I think operates in the same way is my sibling, and people who have observed our conversations find them downright bizarre. They sound like beat poetry half the time, as with five well chosen words presenting the correct allegory we can transmit deep meaning to one another.
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#86While I think this is a really interesting topic, it should also be self evident because of a simple fact. Humans developed language long after our species evolved. The most recent estimates put the development of language at as recently as 40,000 years ago. It'd be impossible to 'invent' language without thought, so therefore it must be the case that thought exists independently of language.
Other animals communicate, by our standards they have language - although their concepts and form is quite different. Language can also be non-verbal.
More likely 40,000 years ago we needed to go beyond simple concepts to more abstract ones.
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
> * 关系 (Guanxi) (Mandarin): Your network of connections that help you get stuff done in life and business. I do think in American English at least there is a phrase for this: Your Network. You even used it to explain the word :) Usually the first association to “your/the network” is social. You have to specify if you mean the technical version with computers.
The Mandarin word literally means "relationships" and the concept is well established in English. When you describe somebody as "connected", that's what you're saying. It's an incredibly poor example of an "untranslatable" phrase.
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've never really had a strong internal monologue when thinking I'm curious, what is it like when you read something? Is it just not meditated by a monologue at all?
I definitely have an inner monologue im some situations, reading is a good example. I can speed read in which case I don't really have a perception of the sounds, but if I'm closely reasing something then I do have a sense of the sounds if words as I'm reading. The idea of thinking independtly like that though seems unbearably slow to me (although lots of very clever people report doing it, so obviously it isn't for…
So, as a person who definitely has an inner monologue, I absolutely agree. It's not like I'm literally sounding out words in my mind all the time. The vast majority of things I do I do without explicit use of language.
I think my understanding (mostly coming from Chomsky and in disagreement when OP) is that language is a mechanism for thinking that is mostly not accessible through conscious introspection.
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#89In contrast to Noam Chomsky who was pushing the idea that language was developed primarily for thought [0]. I don't know how much weight should be given to this paper but, if true, directly contradicts Chomsky. Here is one quote from Chomsky: """ ... One general assumption about language, almost a dogma in philosophy ... [and] linguistics ... is that language is primarily a means of communication ... probably that's…
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#90How do you define “thinking”? To me thinking is primary tool of communication between I and “me” and it’s entirely based on sound and language. Can you think without using language? When you have song playing in your head, how is that different from your thoughts? Isn’t talking out loud just act of thinking, the output being connected to mouth? Have you ever tried to repeat mantra in your thought, slow down until com…