4 ms·

We have all sorts of associations -- our brain is fundamentally an association engine. One kind of association is simplification/abstraction. This perhaps pro

We have all sorts of associations -- our brain is fundamentally an association engine. One kind of association is simplification/abstraction. This perhaps proves to be one of the most useful kinds of associations, because it helps us make decisions quickly without sifting through massive amounts of data. I'd say it's fundamental, not any kind of mystery.

igravious 10y ago
If language-use and conceptualisation are not any kind of mystery I'm sure you won't mind explaining how language acquisition works? Also, why does natural language grammar appear to be mildly context-sensitive and not context-free nor fully context-sensitive? Also, given the topic: why does the brain stereotype, and what's up with cognitive prototyping? Also, how does the brain associate the objects of conception with words? Also, how much of language's basic machinery is hard-wired? Also, how are lexicons formed? Also, is thought simply language or something else? Also, are the different languages backed by different conceptual schema? Btw, Frege, following Hume has pointed out that abstraction is an equivalence relation: http://logic.uconn.edu/2015/01/21/reference-and-invariance-in-abstraction-principles/ http://logic.uconn.edu/2015/01/21/reference-and-invariance-i... I wouldn't lump simplification and abstraction together, and characterising them both as associations feels wrong. What I'm trying to say is that your time would be better spent in not correcting every instance of mild hyperbole on HN :) And mine too. :)
- solipsism 10y ago
  Wow talk about waste of time, you jumped to a conclusion about what meant in a casual comment (you were way off, by the way, I didn't and wouldn't ever make the silly claim that language acquisition is a simple concept), and proceeded to assault us with a diarrhea of lingo meant to, what... prove how much you know about a topic? It comes off like a first year linguistics student trying to show off to his friends. What I'm trying to say is that your time would be better spent in not correcting every instance of mild hyperbole What was I correcting, exactly? I was giving a casual opinion. To call a casual, armchair hypothesis that differs from someone else's "correcting"... well let's just say you failed spectacularly at understanding human language patterns.

igravious 10y ago

If language-use and conceptualisation are not any kind of mystery I'm sure you won't mind explaining how language acquisition works? Also, why does natural language grammar appear to be mildly context-sensitive and not context-free nor fully context-sensitive? Also, given the topic: why does the brain stereotype, and what's up with cognitive prototyping? Also, how does the brain associate the objects of conception with words? Also, how much of language's basic machinery is hard-wired? Also, how are lexicons formed? Also, is thought simply language or something else? Also, are the different languages backed by different conceptual schema? Btw, Frege, following Hume has pointed out that abstraction is an equivalence relation: http://logic.uconn.edu/2015/01/21/reference-and-invariance-in-abstraction-principles/ http://logic.uconn.edu/2015/01/21/reference-and-invariance-i... I wouldn't lump simplification and abstraction together, and characterising them both as associations feels wrong. What I'm trying to say is that your time would be better spent in not correcting every instance of mild hyperbole on HN :) And mine too. :)

solipsism 10y ago
Wow talk about waste of time, you jumped to a conclusion about what meant in a casual comment (you were way off, by the way, I didn't and wouldn't ever make the silly claim that language acquisition is a simple concept), and proceeded to assault us with a diarrhea of lingo meant to, what... prove how much you know about a topic? It comes off like a first year linguistics student trying to show off to his friends. What I'm trying to say is that your time would be better spent in not correcting every instance of mild hyperbole What was I correcting, exactly? I was giving a casual opinion. To call a casual, armchair hypothesis that differs from someone else's "correcting"... well let's just say you failed spectacularly at understanding human language patterns.