BLOG POST Q2 - SEP 14 [CB]

My answer to the following questions will be answered in two different parts.

Elizabeth Spelke’s idea which she’s come to believe from her encounters with the creation and association with language in the mind, is terrifically intriguing but sadly is supported very weakly with experiments involving only babies and rats. Any opponent could counter her statement with supreme ease if they felt necessary, but personally, my curiosity and intuition says she’s right. It’s such a difficult question to analyze because of the fact that virtually everyone in society speaks or understands language to some extent and most research, interviews, and answers to experimental questions will come from a language, so even if you were to assess a completely neutral person that was competent enough to function, they’d have no way of communicating how they feel. However, in my life I’ve come to realize that connections created in the brain using my neurons (aka memories), have usually been associated with words in some way, whether it be meaning or dialogue, and the utter power of words and language in communication, gathering thoughts, even expressing emotions is so daunting and natural-feeling that without them maybe our thoughts would be only capable of our senses and natural reactions meant for survival. But mostly, Spelke’s assessment has made me value my ability to use and understand language – at least for the sake of inquiry.

Furthermore, Ann Senghas extends Elizabeth Spelke’s argument by adding another very interesting experiment with conclusive data. However, the sample space given was even smaller in this scenario which again will scatter the reasonability of its implications, but when added together with knowledge of the previous experiments, the overall idea is only supported better. On a related note, the results of testing the older group in Senghas’ reflection suggests that their thoughts were less complex than that of the younger groups, which I completely agree with. It could be argued that they simply didn’t have the vocabulary or language to describe the cartoon in the experiment, but the next test involving the brothers and the train is very good indicator that the basic logic of the adults was tainted and lacked pre-recognition, which strongly implies that their thoughts were less complex than that of the childrerns. Overall, I believe that language is unbelievably imperative in how we function in a society as a base to the infinitely-important concept of communication, but as someone who has never (knowingly) been without it, I find it hard to gauge how it affects the way we think. And I’d love to believe that language is the key to reasoning and is an advancement in the way we think, but to be fully honest, it’s nothing special to me for previously stated reasons, therefore its application for deeper pondering (from me personally) ends abruptly and greater necessities regain attention.