Talk:Language of thought hypothesis
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
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
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
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 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)