←back to thread

Language is not essential for the cognitive processes that underlie thought

(www.scientificamerican.com)
549 points orcul | 2 comments | 17 Oct 24 12:10 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
fnordpiglet ◴[19 Oct 24 03:16 UTC] No.41885384[source]▶
For those who can’t and don’t think in words this is unsurprising.
replies(6): >>41889526 #>>41889537 #>>41889604 #>>41889753 #>>41889769 #>>41890199 #
Razengan ◴[19 Oct 24 18:49 UTC] No.41889753[source]▶
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.

replies(10): >>41889806 #>>41889829 #>>41889888 #>>41889923 #>>41890312 #>>41890509 #>>41890908 #>>41891243 #>>41892853 #>>41896057 #
1. bonoboTP ◴[19 Oct 24 22:22 UTC] No.41891243[source]▶
I can imagine the numbers as figures (I mean that the shape of the characters 1, 2 etc), or the patterns on a dice in sequence.

This is a parallel stream, because if I count with imagined pictures, then I can speak and listen to someone talking without it disturbing the process. If I do it with subvocalization, then doing other speech/language related things would disturb the counting.

replies(1): >>41891283 #
2. aeonik ◴[19 Oct 24 22:29 UTC] No.41891283[source]▶
Wow I've never tried this before, and I feel like this is way easier than using words.