I used to have a girlfriend who said very little. People always commented on how quiet she was. I found that interesting as what she did say was important. Someone that talks to much is never really listened to much. But, although she never said much I always knew what she wanted or felt. There is a deeper level of communication than language. Most people just can't hear past themselves to find out!
thanks! linguistic determinism is quite an intriguing topic. it seems to me as if language and the ideas it represents are pretty much interchangeable, even interconnected on a much deeper level than many people suppose; i mean, what is one without the other? as he mentioned, its very important to note that language conceals thought, yet reveals thought too. language appears to be alive, without some beginning (or end). language seems redundant the more i think about it.
The key name vs form problematic view of lingo, problematical in the sense that the linguist in general is unable to clearly specify what symbol could represent what form. The original prehistoric language seems to have been rather onomatopoeic so that the sacred syllable of the Vedas tautological as it may be points to a human origination of understanding.
Seems like you had a nice girlfriend. I think most people do understand this deeper level but only subconsciously and you can see them unknowingly acting upon this knowledge, but I guess you figured it out on a conscious level.
Huxley is definitively wrong in the first 10-20 minutes when he's talking about language enabling humans to hold concepts in our mind, unlike animals. His statement is contingent upon the belief that all humans have an "inner voice" (that voice in your head that you hear when you think to yourself). This inner voice uses language to narrate your thoughts and decisions, so Huxley deduces this is the feature of human cognition that allows for higher thinking. But this is definitively incorrect. There are many humans without an inner voice. Just google "no inner voice" or "no inner monologue" and you'll see articles and videos with people lacking an inner voice sharing what their subjective experience of thought is. To them, if they had a banana in front of them and a stick behind them, despite the absence of language in their thoughts, they would still be able to hold the concepts of "banana" and "stick" in their mind simultaneously and use the stick to get the banana. It's not language that makes the human capable of this while the chimpanzee is not. It's a deeper capacity to represent objects as symbols in the mind. People with an inner voice use words as those symbols. But people without an inner voice use images, or the concept just kind of "exists" in their mind without any words or images at all. Language is undoubtedly an extremely important feature of human evolution, but it is not the sole feature that enables our higher thinking or consciousness.
Thanks for this great video. I am beginning to understand some of artificial intelligence as a result. Is it not ironic that most of human progress in the last 70 years has come about through a new language. This new language and its various dialects was developed from the 1960s. You and I and 90% of the world's population use it continiously. It transcends English and all other languages. The basic language is called "C". Unlike any other language, it has no ineffebles, no taboos. You may know it as Java, Oracle, PHP etc. It underlies Google, Facebook, the motor control in your car and space travel. It's in your fridge and runs all the processes in your cell phone. Machines are now able to articulate and therefore think through human complexity. Almost all of "C" and its dialects are based on George Bools great work on logic. There are just three state, yes, no or I don't have enough information to decide if the answer is either yes or no or not enough information YET. Does that mean man's evolution makes us seek some universal truths, troubling thought. Maybe it's time to start a new Twitter feed (based of course on C++").
Is this part in a series of interconnected lectures, or was he just referring to planned "later lectures"? I mean to ask: what comes after this one, if any?
This guy is delusional. .one second he says "words limit thought " then he says " words distinguish men from bruts" so bruts don't think? And if they do think instead of talk wouldn't their (bruts)thoughts be stronger than the talker?
I don't think you are understanding his point. He is explaining that words can function to expand thought, so long as we do not get caught up in this world of symbols and start believing it is the real world. Also, he isn't necessarily saying those things himself as his own beliefs, but presenting ideas.
AHole Word symbol Pará todos who skipped the vida knowing course de Duality, And Dialéctica Perceiving y attempting to claro compartir con otra humanos vidas Sensibilities
I used to have a girlfriend who said very little. People always commented on how quiet she was. I found that interesting as what she did say was important. Someone that talks to much is never really listened to much. But, although she never said much I always knew what she wanted or felt. There is a deeper level of communication than language. Most people just can't hear past themselves to find out!
language is "thought".
language is always changing but NEVER EVOLVING!
thanks! linguistic determinism is quite an intriguing topic. it seems to me as if language and the ideas it represents are pretty much interchangeable, even interconnected on a much deeper level than many people suppose; i mean, what is one without the other? as he mentioned, its very important to note that language conceals thought, yet reveals thought too. language appears to be alive, without some beginning (or end). language seems redundant the more i think about it.
im pretty sure these extremely intelligent beings function is to test the the human beings spirit . my opinion and gut feeling.
what do you mean?
+elemental868 A poorly formulated, and false statement.
The measure of the swing to the right,
Is the measure of the swing to the left;
Rhythm compensates
The key name vs form problematic view of lingo, problematical in the sense that the linguist in general is unable to clearly specify what symbol could represent what form. The original prehistoric language seems to have been rather onomatopoeic so that the sacred syllable of the Vedas tautological as it may be points to a human origination of understanding.
On. Aldus. Huxley. Read. Sid. Hartha. By. Allan. What's. The. Mystical. Experience. Is. Never. Limited. Lasha
+Lilli Anna What. Is. The. Point. Of. Writing. Your. Sentence. In. Such. A. Silly. Fashion.
1961 :)
the world is a stage and this is only a test .
the stage is testing itself haha
One, two, three, testing, testing.
Mike test, mike test. 🎤
Seems like you had a nice girlfriend. I think most people do understand this deeper level but only subconsciously and you can see them unknowingly acting upon this knowledge, but I guess you figured it out on a conscious level.
Intellectualism sure has declined, or at least isn't publicized anymore.
It's more the latter, but a bit of the first. Democracy has its downsides.
@tonyfalca language appears to serve a purpose, although well never be sure, for sure... lol. that probably sounds silly.
SO MUCH DEPENDS UPON A RED WHEEL BARREL, GLAZED WITH RAIN WATER BESIDE THE WHITE CHICKENS
wheelbarrow
White Amy Garcia Charles Smith Helen
Thank you making this 1961 talk available. :)
Huxley is definitively wrong in the first 10-20 minutes when he's talking about language enabling humans to hold concepts in our mind, unlike animals. His statement is contingent upon the belief that all humans have an "inner voice" (that voice in your head that you hear when you think to yourself). This inner voice uses language to narrate your thoughts and decisions, so Huxley deduces this is the feature of human cognition that allows for higher thinking. But this is definitively incorrect. There are many humans without an inner voice. Just google "no inner voice" or "no inner monologue" and you'll see articles and videos with people lacking an inner voice sharing what their subjective experience of thought is. To them, if they had a banana in front of them and a stick behind them, despite the absence of language in their thoughts, they would still be able to hold the concepts of "banana" and "stick" in their mind simultaneously and use the stick to get the banana. It's not language that makes the human capable of this while the chimpanzee is not. It's a deeper capacity to represent objects as symbols in the mind. People with an inner voice use words as those symbols. But people without an inner voice use images, or the concept just kind of "exists" in their mind without any words or images at all. Language is undoubtedly an extremely important feature of human evolution, but it is not the sole feature that enables our higher thinking or consciousness.
Are there more audio recordings or transcripts of this series of lectures?
ua-cam.com/video/turwHatMFnQ/v-deo.html
Thank you!
Thanks for this great video. I am beginning to understand some of artificial intelligence as a result.
Is it not ironic that most of human progress in the last 70 years has come about through a new language. This new language and its various dialects was developed from the 1960s. You and I and 90% of the world's population use it continiously. It transcends English and all other languages.
The basic language is called "C". Unlike any other language, it has no ineffebles, no taboos. You may know it as Java, Oracle, PHP etc. It underlies Google, Facebook, the motor control in your car and space travel. It's in your fridge and runs all the processes in your cell phone.
Machines are now able to articulate and therefore think through human complexity. Almost all of "C" and its dialects are based on George Bools great work on logic. There are just three state, yes, no or I don't have enough information to decide if the answer is either yes or no or not enough information YET.
Does that mean man's evolution makes us seek some universal truths, troubling thought. Maybe it's time to start a new Twitter feed (based of course on C++").
Is this part in a series of interconnected lectures, or was he just referring to planned "later lectures"? I mean to ask: what comes after this one, if any?
ua-cam.com/video/turwHatMFnQ/v-deo.html
Ngl Huxley was kinda hot
Virginia Woolf described him as “infinitely long” and referred to him as “that gigantic grasshopper.”
THE TAO THAT IS SPOKEN OF IS NOT THE TAO
My point exactly.
A ROSE IS A ROSE S A ROSE
Thank you for posting this!
great vid.
AN ORGANIZED SYSTEM OF ABSREACTIONS
@BEAUTIFULSORROWw what are your thoughts on language??
LANGUAGE MEZMERIZES
@tonyfalca :)
Wow
Do you know what year this was?
1961
Highly intellectual and still not bright enough to comprehend the nuances of a microphone. 🙄
This guy is delusional. .one second he says "words limit thought " then he says " words distinguish men from bruts" so bruts don't think? And if they do think instead of talk wouldn't their (bruts)thoughts be stronger than the talker?
I don't think you are understanding his point. He is explaining that words can function to expand thought, so long as we do not get caught up in this world of symbols and start believing it is the real world. Also, he isn't necessarily saying those things himself as his own beliefs, but presenting ideas.
its me
AHole Word symbol Pará todos who skipped the vida knowing course de Duality, And Dialéctica Perceiving y attempting to claro compartir con otra humanos vidas Sensibilities