Thus, I could never learn how to play tennis unless I already knew some
other game subconsciously... does not sound very plausible
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Now I see that your name must be Vidanovich,
You are right, though the LOT of Fodor is not a metalanguage. J A FODOR
take sit to be a language, full stop-
In case you care I wrote about it (I find it missing some of the key
ingredients of being a language)
The ingredient that is to be understood, is that Fodor (circa 1970’s)
understands learning as a process of translation/induction, hence no 1st
language is learnable at all unless and until learner x Has A LANGUAGE,
since x learns L1, x has a language which is not Russian, Turkish, church
slavnic etc. (it is.. a language of thought)
best
*From:* lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@
freelists.org] *On Behalf Of *Djordje Vidanovic
*Sent:* Monday, March 20, 2017 12:50 AM
*To:* lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [lit-ideas] Re: e: Language of thought
Dr Palma, to add an author who might have shed some light on our little
problem: Jerry A Fodor, still alive. The author of Language of Thought
(1975, I believe). I was playing devil’s advocate, extending his ideas
that I do not necessarily subscribe to. Nevertheless, I do believe that
whenever we think we might think about what we think that should be viewed
as a meta stance towards a (language of) thought. Which is preconscious,
mostly, just like we drive our car from point A to point B, never actively
or consciously thinking about what we have done. So I reckon that we just
may possess the same ability to mull over what we think. I could be wrong,
utterly wrong, of course. Enjoy your Monday.
Djordje Vidanovic
==============
You can access my papers on SSRN at: http://ssrn.com/author=1543272
<http://hq.ssrn.com/GroupProcesses/RedirectClick.cfm?partid=1543272&corid=649&runid=15115&url=http://ssrn.com/author=1543272>
On Mar 19, 2017, at 11:11 AM, Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Dr Djordje, in one sense it is trivially true: assuming there is a
medium of thinking -- one may call that a language-- any consideration OF
thinking is a metalanguage.
In such a view, e.g., memory is a metalanguage
I suggest
Proust M
Proust J
Koriat A
The 1st the long dead famous French artist, the others alive and working
on METAcognition, precisely what you suggest
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@
freelists.org <lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>] On Behalf Of Djordje V
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 8:05 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Language of thought
I believe that the moment one starts to think about possible answers to
this, one is involved in a metalanguage of thinking (about a language of
thought). Humans do that all the time, unconsciously or rather
preconsciously.
Djordje
--------
On Mar 17, 2017, at 1:39 PM, -tor <phatic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Can there be a metalanguage of thinking?
--
Best regards,
-tor
http://torgeirfjeld.wordpress.com/
* * *
"It makes no difference to me at what point I begin, for I shall
always come back again to this. It is necessary both to say and to
think that being is; for it is possible that being is, and it is
impossible that not-being is; this is what I bid thee ponder." -- The
Goddess of Parmenides
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
