...
Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
141–150 of 404 posts
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
> * 積ん読 (Tsundoku) (Japanese): Buying books and never reading them, just letting them pile up. i don't speak Thai or Mandarin, so I can't speak to the other 2, but this one is a pun (combining tsundeoku, pile up, and dokusho, book reading) that survived in the language due to its catchiness. A bit like "hangry" (hungry + angry) in English. I have a hard time interpreting the existence of those words as an indication…
> arbitrary phonetic properties of the language. Along the lines of a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenning#Old_English_and_other_... , english could contain "book-dragon".
Book-dragon is a fantastic word. Thank you for that!
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#143Does anybody else often visualie memories as they would watch them via a movie camera? I do. I can see myself walking in places with a cinematic camera movements and angles. Haven't heard much others having the same.
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#144It 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…
Can you clap your hands to the syllables of the Happy Birthday song without singing it? That's all an "internal monologue" is.
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#145It 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…
> We all secretly believe that deep down, everyone experiences thought like we do. 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…
I can totally relate. In my case I feel deeply connected to Poincare writings about unconscious processing. It’s not that I have sudden eureka moments, but I observed that if I try to consciously search for an answer, I just won’t find it, like I need to soak on information and do something else to actually get the result after a while.
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#146Agreed.
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#147It 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…
> People experience their thoughts very differently
what does this mean?
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#148It 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…
Often times i can actively feel how laggy my brain is in wrapping the thoughts in language. Before i even have the words ready, my thinking is already way ahead at the next thought. Not sure if that's just ADHD. I like to think secretly it's because i am not too dumb and actually a quick thinker. On the other hand, my analytical thinking is not that good. While i enjoy the process of thinking about things alone for h…
[deleted]
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is related but not really the same thing. The Language of Thought may or may not be closely related to human language. (Some animals may also have concepts and compositional mental representations.)
I didn't read the SEP article, but is the language of thought hypothesis perhaps already verified by our ability to do some sort of logic on neural network embeddings? E.g. queen-royal=woman.
Fundamentally LoT is a hypothesis about human (and possibly animal) cognition, not a hypothesis about what artificial neural network models can or can't do. But you can see Fodor and Pylyshyn's thoughts on 'connectionist' models (as they were known at the time) in this extensive article from 1988: https://ruccs.rutgers.edu/images/personal-zenon-pylyshyn/pro... The discussion on p. 14 is particularly relevant.
Re: Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought [pdf]
#150It 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…
Are humans just a thin common interface covering our messy implementations underneath?
Or "is language just a thin common interface covering a variety of internal implementations?"