Talk:Language of thought hypothesis

Untitled

This article seems to be a very bad abstraction and rewrite of the article on the SEP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.160.123 (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

should we have a link to lojban here?

First person is generally not accepted in Encyclopedias. I figure we should either choose a gendered singular pronoun, or use the "one" phrasing. Posiduck 04:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We could use you, as in "you might believe X". One seems too formal and rather pedantic. Perhaps we could use "a person", e.g. "a person might believe X, or they might simply suspect X" (assuming you have no objection to singular "they"). Cadr 18:05, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd prefer any solution that does not make use of the first or second person. Those both seem less than suited for an encyclopedia. Posiduck 16:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shouldnt we just delete a dead link. IFixThings (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

?* IFixThings (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Article name question

Isn't 'Language of Thought Hypothesis' (LOTH) more standard than LOT? There is already a redirect from Language of thought hypothesis (and I added one from LOTH) but should the main page be there?

Ncsaint 23:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The Connectionism/Classicism Debate

The conclusion that "Mary loves John" is a sentence that can be constructed 'if' the sentence "John loves Mary" can be constructed is based on the fallacy of ignorance. i.e., My brother went off to college,when he returned for the holidays he was madly in love with a girl whom he had met at school.

I can observe my brothers behavior, and through intimate discussions, can deduce he is in love with this girl. But having that knowledge does not allow me to conclude that the girl is in love with him. The girl may very well be repulsed by my brothers infatuation.

The article also fails to raise the LOT inflections, and reflexivity. This goes to Fodor's three tier theory. Take for example comedy, more specifically satire. It is not the actual languge that external subjects would find humorous, but the inflection of that language. An effective satirist in the United States may be a total flop in Germany. Inflection is determined by the subjective environment. Lot, on the three tier level, can assimulate that distinction in cultural norms and how then to ridicule such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.77.176.100 (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Language of thought hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911081630/http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/19720629.htm to http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/19720629.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Language of thought hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080918085626/http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/maydede/LOTH.SEP.html to http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/maydede/LOTH.SEP.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Having an opinion while listening to someone talk

If you listen to a youtuber, for example, and find that you increasingly disagree with him - seems like the only way you could do that is if you form an opinion in "mentalese". If we thought in language, then it would follow that a speaker (at least a RAPID speaker) would entirely fill our mind and we could only form our own opinion once he stopped talking. I think everyone will agree that the human brain can't process two running "strings" of language at the same time - if you disagree, try writing an e-mail while the TV is on (if you can do it, it simply means you tuned out the TV mentally and could not repeat a single word that was said while you were writing). So if the person is talking and you're having an opinion about what he's saying, your opinion is non-verbal - and yet it can be intelligent, not merely "emotional" or "irrational". (I don't know if this argument has been made by someone, I would love to know.) 2A03:EC00:B17B:4CCE:2562:A980:BBAD:2429 (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)