Unable to load image

Do you have an internal monologue? And have you accepted that you're a subhuman r-slur if you don't?

I know this is a popular r*ddit topic, but I'm curious if rdrama bussy conniseurs overwhelmingly have an internal monologue. Despite being tards, the average user here is definitely less tarded than the average r*dditor. The vast majority of people I've seen online claiming they have no internal monologue are foids, which makes sense tbh.

60
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You're taking a very literal approach to language so I can see where the disconnect exists.

the topic was words. If you’re saying “we think in language but not in words” then that’s kinda vacuous and I don’t think it works like language but not words certainly.

A raven's capacity to solve a problem via operant conditioning is not a reflection of thought as I'm describing it.

what? They do complex problems. Not “operant conditioning”. What?

How exactly can language be formed if those exchanging it do not already possess internal language, i.e. the capacity to abstract ideas?

this is one of the places we disagree. don’t just assume it.

You are objectively incorrect in asserting that mathematics is not language.

I’m also smart and know mathematicians who disagree with your statement? Smh

coding

I have, and the complexities in said designs and interactions are not in words lol. Variable names are not the structure of code.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

what? They do complex problems. Not “operant conditioning”. What?

This is what I'm referring to. To be entirely fair to you, there is still debate on the nature of their cognition. I've acknowledged this "fuzziness" of our current discussion topic before.

I’m also smart and know mathematicians who disagree with your statement? Smh

Who would disagree and how would they do so? At the risk of being a Redditor, I'd like to see some SOOOOOURCES for this.

I have, and the complexities in said designs and interactions are not in words lol. Variable names are not the structure of code.

You would not even be able to comprehend these problems if it weren't for language. Show me a raven or a non-human primate that can architect a software system.

The idea that language isn't involved in software architecting just because you're not thinking about explicit variable names is absurd. I guess this is just another issue with our divergent approaches to what constitutes "language".

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Maybe that test could be explained like that but others are harder to

math

Google found several. It’s certainly disagreed upon

software

You would not even be able to comprehend these problems if it weren't for language. Show me a raven or a non-human primate that can architect a software system.

huh? words ~ communication, not intelligence. Intelligence is needed for words not reverse? Words may be needed to communicate how to use software, but not to directly use it

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

huh? words ~ communication, not intelligence. Intelligence is needed for words not reverse? Words may be needed to communicate how to use software, but not to directly use it

This is why I brought up multiple times that we seem to be talking about different things at this point.

Google found several. It’s certainly disagreed upon

This may be yet another subject in which we are talking past one another.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

mathematics has a language. but mathematics is not solely a language. not hard...

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Looks like you were right about there being legitimate disagreement. There are a lot of good responses in that thread.

I was approaching the situation from the perspective that mathematics necessarily requires abstraction via symbolism, and is thus inherently linguistic.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.