←back to thread

549 points orcul | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
nickelpro ◴[] No.41889798[source]
As always, barely anyone reads the actual claims in the article and we're left with people opining on the title.

The claims here are exceptionally limited. You don't need spoken language to do well on cognitive tests, but that has never been a subject of debate. Obviously the deaf get on fine without spoken language. People suffering from aphasia, but still capable of communication via other mechanisms, still do well on cognitive tests. Brain scans show you can do sudoku without increasing bloodflow to language regions.

This kind of stuff has never really been in debate. You can teach plenty of animals to do fine on all sorts of cognitive tasks. There's never been a claim that language holds dominion over all forms of cognition in totality.

But if you want to discuss the themes present in Proust, you're going to be hard pressed to do so without something resembling language. This is self-evident. You cannot ask questions or give answers for subjects you lack the facilities to describe.

tl;dr: Language's purpose is thought, not all thoughts require language

replies(7): >>41889875 #>>41889973 #>>41890007 #>>41890316 #>>41890390 #>>41890861 #>>41892886 #
1. K0balt ◴[] No.41889973[source]
A much more interesting hypothesis is that abstract thought (thought about things not within the present sensorium) , or perhaps all thought, requires the use of symbols or tokens to represent the things that are to be considered.

I think this may have been partially substantiated through experiments in decoding thoughts with machine sensors.

If this turns out to-not- to be true it would have huge implications for AI research.