Print

Print


I shall have to read Pinker's book on language to get a better feel
for the "universal language" of the brain. In any case this is
Kant dressed up in modern garb.  The structures of the understanding
(Kant's part of the mind involved in conceptualization) have
a priori categories by which things are thought. In other
words there already is some organization, schemas present in the
newborn brain, which may get modified with experience, but
nevertheless already impose a structure to thought. Kant may
have hedged a bit on whether these are innate or whether these
are the basic structures we conventionally impose to remove
indeterminacies in our conceptualizations of objects. In other
words it didn't matter to Kant, because it was likely impossible to
determine, whether they are physiologically innate forms of
organization of thought, or whether at a very fundamental level
they are conventions of thought imposed to remove indeterminacy
in thinking about experience. In either case, one would be
in possession of the right to use these forms as anyone would be
who first proposes a scheme of how to do things that others can
conform to.  Everyone who proposes a constructed language presumes
such a right.
 
Stan Mulaik