←back to thread

273 points geox | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
gcanyon ◴[] No.40712874[source]
You have to think that there were breakthroughs in communication technology — not just language in general but possibly also one individual who happened to be good at explaining things, either before or after language, who both taught more people, but also taught them how to teach — that led to step changes in technology.
replies(8): >>40713012 #>>40713840 #>>40713885 #>>40714141 #>>40714994 #>>40716449 #>>40717648 #>>40718490 #
dboreham ◴[] No.40713012[source]
Theory: there are no humans without language. Consider: what language do you think in?
replies(7): >>40713064 #>>40713200 #>>40713207 #>>40713659 #>>40713766 #>>40713849 #>>40714603 #
mkl ◴[] No.40713064[source]
Quite a lot of humans don't think in language, or do only some of the time, see e.g. https://www.iflscience.com/people-with-no-internal-monologue..., https://www.livescience.com/does-everyone-have-inner-monolog..., https://www.bustle.com/wellness/does-everyone-have-an-intern....
replies(4): >>40713166 #>>40713436 #>>40713482 #>>40714498 #
olalonde ◴[] No.40713482[source]
I'm highly suspicious that the whole "inner vs no-inner monologue" thing doesn't actually exist and has more to do with these things being extremely hard to explain using language, and people describing their subjective experience in subtly different ways.
replies(2): >>40713731 #>>40716430 #
1. card_zero ◴[] No.40716430{3}[source]
Good, I have the same suspicions about "no mental imagery vs. vivid mental imagery". Perhaps people who claim either thing are just being, uh, imaginative.