@atheis3way, you are wrong about needing language for object recognition. It turns out that the brain is able to discriminate objects without the use of languages. I think the part of the brain that does this is the left temporal lobe, perhaps the anterior part of it. It is very much connected to the parietal lobe and the occipital lobe.
Pinker is wrong I think, how could we think in terms of visual images if we could not describe the parts of the image? What is he trying to say that in a landscape you can tell the difference between the ground and a rock on the ground because it doesn't look exactly the same...Sorry I don't agree, the only way i know a rock is a rock and not the ground below it's because the image was associated with the word
@atheis3way Now when I say "rock" I think of a particular rock which has for me all the characteristics of a rock, it might not be the same as somebody else from another culture but still the translation is possible because Connotation is not the main way to express meaning...it is a by-product which might become stronger to the original meaning of the word and create another meaning if it is ahred by a community...
@atheis3way You're confusing words with concepts. You can understand the concept of a rock without knowing that it's called a rock. I think Pinker means we think in concepts and not words. When you think of a rock, you don't think of the word 'rock.' You think of the image of a rock, it's properties, what it's made up, etc. The word that represents the rock is not part of your understanding of what a rock is.
Yes, dear Steven, "You invent the words to express them" (i.e., experiences), 2:38. Okay, but that does NOT mean that the we are actually culturally-semantically (or otherwise) referring to the identical experiences operationally -perceptually and sensationally. Taking the Eskimo example 2 or a thousand words for describing snow (or conversely in English, etc.) but does that necessarily mean that their is a universal single referent "snow" with lexical variants or to the traditional Eskimo...
each lexical variant not (at all necessarily) representing variations (descriptors) on a single theme of the SAME/identical thing but each (traditionally) sensually and operationally different. ( self-contained categorical delineations, "different states" rather than various ways to describe the SAME thing. Naturally, anything can be said in any language ( or nearly so). However, that does NOT automatically confer we are describing the "ways of seeing-and-experiencing" in the same manner
connected to the historical-cultural context from whence the vibrancy of that thought-word complex derives (and still in some sense smoulders ) with the enthousiasmos (inspiration) of its origins.
Yes, dear Steven, "You invent the words to express them" (i.e., experiences), 2:38. Okay, but that does NOT mean that the we are actually culturally-semantically (or otherwise) referring to the identical experiences operationally -perceptually and sensationally. Taking the Eskimo example 2 or a thousand words for describing snow (or conversely in English, etc.) but does that necessarily mean that their is a universal single referent "snow" with lexical variants or to the traditional Eskimo...
Mr Pinker is just another modern day sophist and his pseudo-explanations are a whole lot of hooey that befuddle other people by constructing false data and presenting them as a scientific fact that is seemingly irrefutable. Who is he really? Not a philosopher or a scientist but only a linguistic maven who uses rhetorical gimmicks to dismiss ideas that he does not like.
What an absolute mystery.
IIemzyII 1 month ago
“We're fascinated by the words--but where we meet is in the silence behind them."
Ram Dass
palebluedot4ev 2 months ago
Smart guy.
zadeh79 2 months ago
@jennherboys I was wondering the same thing...Maybe we're primed to question such a thing since we are watching a Pinker video.
SureBarb 3 months ago
was up with the red flash at 54- 55 sec in the tape. tryn to pause at the exact time 2 read or c hidden message but cant pause at right moment
jennherboys 3 months ago
stephen pinker for president!
surroundedbysilly 4 months ago 4
@surroundedbysilly I think he would hate that job.
ihateloggingin111 3 months ago
@surroundedbysilly
Steven* but yes.I wholly agree.:)
expressexpose 1 month ago
@atheis3way, you are wrong about needing language for object recognition. It turns out that the brain is able to discriminate objects without the use of languages. I think the part of the brain that does this is the left temporal lobe, perhaps the anterior part of it. It is very much connected to the parietal lobe and the occipital lobe.
poverlord 4 months ago
Pinker is wrong I think, how could we think in terms of visual images if we could not describe the parts of the image? What is he trying to say that in a landscape you can tell the difference between the ground and a rock on the ground because it doesn't look exactly the same...Sorry I don't agree, the only way i know a rock is a rock and not the ground below it's because the image was associated with the word
atheis3way 5 months ago
@atheis3way Now when I say "rock" I think of a particular rock which has for me all the characteristics of a rock, it might not be the same as somebody else from another culture but still the translation is possible because Connotation is not the main way to express meaning...it is a by-product which might become stronger to the original meaning of the word and create another meaning if it is ahred by a community...
atheis3way 5 months ago
@atheis3way You're confusing words with concepts. You can understand the concept of a rock without knowing that it's called a rock. I think Pinker means we think in concepts and not words. When you think of a rock, you don't think of the word 'rock.' You think of the image of a rock, it's properties, what it's made up, etc. The word that represents the rock is not part of your understanding of what a rock is.
sexyloser 3 months ago
Yes, dear Steven, "You invent the words to express them" (i.e., experiences), 2:38. Okay, but that does NOT mean that the we are actually culturally-semantically (or otherwise) referring to the identical experiences operationally -perceptually and sensationally. Taking the Eskimo example 2 or a thousand words for describing snow (or conversely in English, etc.) but does that necessarily mean that their is a universal single referent "snow" with lexical variants or to the traditional Eskimo...
Neilgs 5 months ago
each lexical variant not (at all necessarily) representing variations (descriptors) on a single theme of the SAME/identical thing but each (traditionally) sensually and operationally different. ( self-contained categorical delineations, "different states" rather than various ways to describe the SAME thing. Naturally, anything can be said in any language ( or nearly so). However, that does NOT automatically confer we are describing the "ways of seeing-and-experiencing" in the same manner
Neilgs 5 months ago
connected to the historical-cultural context from whence the vibrancy of that thought-word complex derives (and still in some sense smoulders ) with the enthousiasmos (inspiration) of its origins.
Neilgs 5 months ago
Yes, dear Steven, "You invent the words to express them" (i.e., experiences), 2:38. Okay, but that does NOT mean that the we are actually culturally-semantically (or otherwise) referring to the identical experiences operationally -perceptually and sensationally. Taking the Eskimo example 2 or a thousand words for describing snow (or conversely in English, etc.) but does that necessarily mean that their is a universal single referent "snow" with lexical variants or to the traditional Eskimo...
Neilgs 5 months ago
i don't totally agree
chudunk 5 months ago
this is all very Wittgenstein-ish
JBeezie428 6 months ago
I know what he's saying is very profound, but all i want him to say is, "Dude, Surf's Up!"
rockos414 9 months ago 3
I just have to agree here.
That is an awesome hair!
The talking was ok too
weeecrap 11 months ago 19
Man, youtube is fantastic - there's so much brilliant stuff like this available.
Iambecome 1 year ago 40
This has been flagged as spam show
Mr Pinker is just another modern day sophist and his pseudo-explanations are a whole lot of hooey that befuddle other people by constructing false data and presenting them as a scientific fact that is seemingly irrefutable. Who is he really? Not a philosopher or a scientist but only a linguistic maven who uses rhetorical gimmicks to dismiss ideas that he does not like.
pawsoned 1 year ago
You can totally tell that he and Malcolm Gladwell are pals..
008fox 1 year ago
Again, if I may be superficial, great hairstyle! I have several of Pinker's books, though I haven't managed to read much of them yet.
theprophet20 1 year ago