zlacker

[return to "Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought"]
1. fnordp+8i4[view] [source] 2024-10-19 03:16:43
>>orcul+(OP)
For those who can’t and don’t think in words this is unsurprising.
◧◩
2. Razeng+Bq5[view] [source] 2024-10-19 18:49:30
>>fnordp+8i4
Can you count without using a "language"?

Try it now: Tap your hand on the desk randomly. Can you recall how many times you did it without "saying" a sequence in your head like "1, 2, 3" or "A, B, C" etc?

If yes, how far can you count? With a language it's effectively infinite. You could theoretically go up to "1 million 5 hundred 43 thousand, 2 hundred and 10" and effortlessly know what comes next.

◧◩◪
3. datame+Ms5[view] [source] 2024-10-19 19:08:03
>>Razeng+Bq5
I can remember the sequence of sounds and like a delay line repeat that sequence in my head. This becomes easier the more distinguishable the taps are or the more of a cadence variability there is. But if it is a longer sequence I compress it by remembering an analogue like so: doo doo da doo da doo da da doo (reminiscent of morse code, or a kind of auditory binary). Would we consider this language? I think in the colloquial sense no, but it is essentially a machine language equivalent.

For context I have both abstract "multimedia" thought processes and hypervisor-like internal narrative depending on the nature of the experience or task.

[go to top]