The study showed, quite conclusively imo, that "a people without terms for numbers doesn't develop the ability to determine exact numbers."
Ok, so they don't have words for numbers and they don't have math. Why does that mean that without words, they didn't develop the concepts? Couldn't it just be that they never had a reason or desire to talk or think about numbers?
Consciousness, as the etymology of the word indicates and as use was for hundreds of years (prior to Descarte) means 'shared knowledge'.
So then you're defining 'concept' as a unit of knowledge that more than one person knows, that can be communicated? Do you separate this from the concept of a 'thought?' If so, isn't that kind of circular?
I agree that it's easier to think about something that has a name. I don't think it's impossible to think about it without one, though. Can't you just use your own placeholder names? Like if I was thinking about something that I didn't know any name for, in my head I could just call it 'that-thing-you-were-thinking-about-last-Tuesday.'
Re: babel
Ok, so they don't have words for numbers and they don't have math. Why does that mean that without words, they didn't develop the concepts? Couldn't it just be that they never had a reason or desire to talk or think about numbers?
Consciousness, as the etymology of the word indicates and as use was for hundreds of years (prior to Descarte) means 'shared knowledge'.
So then you're defining 'concept' as a unit of knowledge that more than one person knows, that can be communicated? Do you separate this from the concept of a 'thought?' If so, isn't that kind of circular?
I agree that it's easier to think about something that has a name. I don't think it's impossible to think about it without one, though. Can't you just use your own placeholder names? Like if I was thinking about something that I didn't know any name for, in my head I could just call it 'that-thing-you-were-thinking-about-last-Tuesday.'