okay. i cant type much now so will leave it at this
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, I fyou see learning a language as a matter of translation, that is
the only point (it comes from the empiricist tradition, in QUINE IT is
explicit)
Me personally? No, I do not think language acquisition is an activity of
trasnlating
*From:* lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@
freelists.org] *On Behalf Of *Omar Kusturica
*Sent:* Monday, March 20, 2017 6:34 PM
*To:* lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [lit-ideas] Re: fod -ideas] Re: e: Language of thought
the point is the ability to acquire language needs not be conceptualized
as being ITSELF a language
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
well, i am unclear on whether you agree with Fodor, so... as you want
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 5:20 PM, palma <palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I am unclear on whether you ask the questions to me or to Fodor.
in my case I think it not very useful, in Fodor's case abilities are not
languages, except language. The extended argument is indeed available in
between the views of Modularity of the Mind and The Language of Thought (to
be understood as titles)
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
and why should inborn cognitive abilities be framed as language
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
why should language be a special case
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 4:20 PM, palma <palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
tennis is not a language (eg it does not have comp and creat/ accordin to
fodor, I am unsure whether that is the disucssion to be had)
On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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>
