Latin, the Enlightenment, and science
in [Math]
|
Prev: Latin, the Enlightenment, and science
Next: question on Artwork and what is legal in altering a signed painting #24 South Dakota cat laws
From: Harlan Messinger on 28 Dec 2009 17:51 Peter T. Daniels wrote: > On Dec 28, 3:40 pm, Harlan Messinger > <hmessinger.removet...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> I wonder if you aren't being intentionally ironic and a troll. It's >> funny that someone would invent the word "Eng" and then complain about >> people doing what they want with the language. The anomaly is compounded >> by your use of "butcher" as a verb, > > What'swrong with butcher (v.)? It's been around since 1562 (M-W). Why are you asking *me* what's wrong with it? I'm turning Marvin's reasoning back on *him*.
From: Peter Moylan on 28 Dec 2009 17:55 On 28/12/09 23:29, Peter T. Daniels wrote: > Just as the internet snobs never used to explain what was wrong with > AOL. (I think it was nice of them to be constantly sending free blank > diskettes to people.) Me too. -- Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
From: Robert Bannister on 28 Dec 2009 18:05 PaulJK wrote: > Robert Bannister wrote: >> PaulJK wrote: >>> Robert Bannister wrote: >>>> chazwin wrote: >>>> >>>>> All thinking is language dependant. >>>> I have serious doubts about that unless you think that thinking you're >>>> hungry isn't thinking. >>> I guess it turns tricky, if you make frequent spelling mistakes in your >>> thinking. :-) >> It's well known that if you make one tiny mistake then the spell >> rebounds upon the caster. What this will do for thinking is anyone's guess. > > I feel sorry for any witch with a speech defect. They are usually known by their more common name: frogs. -- Rob Bannister
From: Robert Bannister on 28 Dec 2009 18:06 Peter T. Daniels wrote: > On Dec 27, 6:06 pm, Robert Bannister <robb...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: >> Marvin the Martian wrote: >>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 08:41:23 +0800, Robert Bannister wrote: >>>> chazwin wrote: >>>>> All thinking is language dependant. >>>> I have serious doubts about that unless you think that thinking you're >>>> hungry isn't thinking. >>> It is a Chomsky thing. >>> The rebuttal to Chomsky's assertion that thinking is language dependent >>> is simple: Observe how a chimpanzee has an ability to reason that is not >>> too far behind the average human; problem solving and primitive tool use. >>> Since chimps have no language, how is it that they think? Ergo, not >all< >>> thinking is language dependent. >>> Q.E.D. >> Except that chimpanzees and some other apes have been successfully >> taught sign language, so I'm not sure that "have no language" is quite >> true. I doubt that most of us think verbally except when we are >> composing sentences in our heads. > > Are you sure about that "successfully"? Has a native ASLer ever had a > conversation with a chimpanzee or gorilla who allegedly "signs"? I've seen it on TV, so it must be true. -- Rob Bannister
From: Robert Bannister on 28 Dec 2009 18:12
chazwin wrote: > On Dec 27, 12:41 am, Robert Bannister <robb...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: >> chazwin wrote: >> >>> All thinking is language dependant. >> I have serious doubts about that unless you think that thinking you're >> hungry isn't thinking. > > Being hungry is not the same as realising the feeling and giving a > name to it. That requires thinking and thinking is structured by > language. You appear to be saying that the only brain activity that can be called "thinking" is that which involves language. This appears to be a circular argument to me. Thinking may sometimes be verbal, but most of the time it is not, because it goes much, much quicker without words. -- Rob Bannister |