Talk:Language of thought hypothesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Linguistics  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Philosophy of language task force.
 
WikiProject Cognitive science (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cognitive science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Untitled[edit]

This article seems to be a very bad abstraction and rewrite of the article on the SEP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.194.160.123 (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

should we have a link to lojban here?

First person is generally not accepted in Encyclopedias. I figure we should either choose a gendered singular pronoun, or use the "one" phrasing. Posiduck 04:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We could use you, as in "you might believe X". One seems too formal and rather pedantic. Perhaps we could use "a person", e.g. "a person might believe X, or they might simply suspect X" (assuming you have no objection to singular "they"). Cadr 18:05, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'd prefer any solution that does not make use of the first or second person. Those both seem less than suited for an encyclopedia. Posiduck 16:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article name question[edit]

Isn't 'Language of Thought Hypothesis' (LOTH) more standard than LOT? There is already a redirect from Language of thought hypothesis (and I added one from LOTH) but should the main page be there?

Ncsaint 23:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The Connectionism/Classicism Debate[edit]

The conclusion that "Mary loves John" is a sentence that can be constructed 'if' the sentence "John loves Mary" can be constructed is based on the fallacy of ignorance. i.e., My brother went off to college,when he returned for the holidays he was madly in love with a girl whom he had met at school.

I can observe my brothers behavior, and through intimate discussions, can deduce he is in love with this girl. But having that knowledge does not allow me to conclude that the girl is in love with him. The girl may very well be repulsed by my brothers infatuation.

The article also fails to raise the LOT inflections, and reflexivity. This goes to Fodor's three tier theory. Take for example comedy, more specifically satire. It is not the actual languge that external subjects would find humorous, but the inflection of that language. An effective satirist in the United States may be a total flop in Germany. Inflection is determined by the subjective environment. Lot, on the three tier level, can assimulate that distinction in cultural norms and how then to ridicule such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.77.176.100 (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)