Menu
The study of how language influences thought has a long history in a variety of fields. There are two bodies of thought forming around this debate. One body of thought stems from linguistics and is known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. There is a strong and a weak version of the hypothesis which argue for more or less influence of language on. “In the absence of a formally agreed, worldwide dictionary definition of 'Quotography' (in 2016), here are my two cents worth: 'Quotography is the art of pairing unique quotations with complementary images in order to express thought-provoking ideas, challenging concepts, profound sentiments'.” ― Alex Morritt, Lines & Lenses. By saying that language influences the way we think, it should be understood that this does not mean that it absolutely determines the way we think 100% of the time. Certain tribes in Papua New Guinea for example do not use language to communicate thought-forms and yet they seem to perceive things just as others do.
![Different Different](/uploads/1/2/6/5/126571162/698510212.jpg)
![For For](https://habrastorage.org/getpro/habr/post_images/65b/296/c8a/65b296c8a008bba18d9448f9bc8a5713.png)
Something I was thinking about today. While we think with language, thought is not dependent on language. Thought precedes the development of language. If that were not so, language would never develop. Learning a language is the process of learning established signs and symbols that correspond to, and help us express our pre-existing thoughts. If we had no thoughts, there could be no correspondence, and we would be incapable of using the signs and symbols of language to convey meaning.
So what would it be like to think without the use of language? I don’t know. Infants must do it, but none of us remember what it was like to be an infant, so I imagine this is an unanswerable question. It’s interesting nonetheless.
Languagesfont For Thought Quotes
A philosophical refashioning of the Language of Thought approach and the related computational theory of mind.
Different Language Fonts
The language of thought (LOT) approach to the nature of mind has been highly influential in cognitive science and the philosophy of mind; and yet, as Susan Schneider argues, its philosophical foundations are weak. In this philosophical refashioning of LOT and the related computational theory of mind (CTM), Schneider offers a different framework than has been developed by LOT and CTM's main architect, Jerry Fodor: one that seeks integration with neuroscience, repudiates Fodor's pessimism about the capacity of cognitive science to explain cognition, embraces pragmatism, and advances a different approach to the nature of concepts, mental symbols, and modes of presentation.
According to the LOT approach, conceptual thought is determined by the manipulation of mental symbols according to algorithms. Schneider tackles three key problems that have plagued the LOT approach for decades: the computational nature of the central system (the system responsible for higher cognitive function); the nature of symbols; and Frege cases. To address these problems,] Schneider develops a computational theory that is based on the Global Workspace approach; develops a theory of symbols, 'the algorithmic view'; and brings her theory of symbols to bear on LOT's account of the causation of thought and behavior. In the course of solving these problems, Schneider shows that LOT must make peace with both computationalism and pragmatism; indeed, the new conception of symbols renders LOT a pragmatist theory. And LOT must turn its focus to cognitive and computational neuroscience for its naturalism to succeed.