Newsgroups: alt.consciousness,comp.ai,comp.ai.alife,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!uunet!ncrgw2.ncr.com!ncrhub6!daynews!intruder.daytonoh.ncr.com!news
From: David E. Weldon, Ph.D. <David.E.Weldon@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM>
Subject: Re: Computers--Next stage in evolution? Hmmmmmm.....
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: 149.25.61.42
Message-ID: <D6E43F.81D@intruder.daytonoh.attgis.com>
Sender: news@intruder.daytonoh.attgis.com (News administrative Login)
Reply-To: David.E.Weldon@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM (WELDOD)
Organization: AT&T Global Info Solutions
X-Newsreader: DiscussIT 2.0.1.2 for MS Windows [AT&T Software Products Division]
References: <3lehjg$hjc@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 1995 04:21:15 GMT
Lines: 53
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:28703 comp.ai.alife:2923 comp.ai.philosophy:26495


@==========Paul Wolf, 3/30/95==========
@
@>>If a child borns and grows without contact with creatures able to 
@use some
@>>language (humans and a lot of other animals), then do this child 
@become a
@>>thoughtless adult?
@>>
@>
@>Children such as these have been found. They are called feral
@>(I believe) children. They were abandoned as infants
@>and grew up without any contact with humans.
@>
@>As I recall, they, in general, never learned to speak
@>if they were beyond 13 or so (this age could be wrong)
@>when found. However, they could learn to dress
@>and do other "civilized" actions.
@>
@>So, it seems that they do have thoughts, but do
@>not have a spoken language.
@>-- 
@
@There is an interesting book by Julian Jaynes called "The Origin 
@of 
@Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind."  His 
@idea is that 
@before language was developed, the thinking of man was more 
@like that of 
@other animals.  Man reacted on a more instinctual level, 
@manipulating 
@memories instead of the simplified symbols which make up a 
@language.  The 
@development of language was necessary for complex thoughts to 
@be put 
@together. 

You pre-suppose that humankind thinks in language.  I don't necessarily the
case.  Consider the visual rotation experiments.  Also, how do you handle
blind and deaf people before braille and sign language.  There is too much
data that casts serious doubt on the "we think in our native language"
hypotheses.  It also runs counter to personal introspection, at least for me
and my colleagues.  Just try to think in complete sentences--as if you were
contructing an argument in favor of the language hypothesis.  It should feel
very ponderous and awkward.  This is because thinking in language is strictly
linear and propositional; whereas, pure thoughts seem much more jumbled,
tumble over each other much faster, etc.  I do not wish to imply that thoughts
are processed in parallel, since rumination appears to be episodic, but there
is a clear temporal difference between the two.

Regards,
Dave W.
 
