Edward Gibson

But if they just wiped out language, which is pretty tough to do because it's very expansive on the left, but if they have, then there are these, there's patients like this, so-called global aphasics, who can do Any task, just fine, but not language. You can't talk to them. I mean, they don't understand you. They can't speak. They can't write. They can't read. But they can play chess.

They can drive their cars. They can do all kinds of other stuff. They can do math. So math is not in the language area, for instance. You do arithmetic and stuff. That's not language area. it's got symbols. So people sort of confuse some kind of symbolic processing with language and symbolic processing is not the same. So there are symbols and they have meaning, but it's not language.

They can drive their cars. They can do all kinds of other stuff. They can do math. So math is not in the language area, for instance. You do arithmetic and stuff. That's not language area. it's got symbols. So people sort of confuse some kind of symbolic processing with language and symbolic processing is not the same. So there are symbols and they have meaning, but it's not language.

They can drive their cars. They can do all kinds of other stuff. They can do math. So math is not in the language area, for instance. You do arithmetic and stuff. That's not language area. it's got symbols. So people sort of confuse some kind of symbolic processing with language and symbolic processing is not the same. So there are symbols and they have meaning, but it's not language.

It's not a conventionalized language system. And so math isn't there. And so they can do math. They do just as well as their control, age match controls and all these tasks. This is Rosemary Varley over in University College London, who has a bunch of patients who she's shown this, that they're just... So that sort of combination suggests that language isn't necessary for thinking.

It's not a conventionalized language system. And so math isn't there. And so they can do math. They do just as well as their control, age match controls and all these tasks. This is Rosemary Varley over in University College London, who has a bunch of patients who she's shown this, that they're just... So that sort of combination suggests that language isn't necessary for thinking.

It's not a conventionalized language system. And so math isn't there. And so they can do math. They do just as well as their control, age match controls and all these tasks. This is Rosemary Varley over in University College London, who has a bunch of patients who she's shown this, that they're just... So that sort of combination suggests that language isn't necessary for thinking.

It doesn't mean you can't think in language. You could think in language, because language allows a lot of expression, but it's just, you don't need it for thinking. It suggests that language is a separate system for thinking.

It doesn't mean you can't think in language. You could think in language, because language allows a lot of expression, but it's just, you don't need it for thinking. It suggests that language is a separate system for thinking.

It doesn't mean you can't think in language. You could think in language, because language allows a lot of expression, but it's just, you don't need it for thinking. It suggests that language is a separate system for thinking.

It's cool, isn't it?

It's cool, isn't it?

It's cool, isn't it?

It sure does. And they've been working on that.

It sure does. And they've been working on that.

It sure does. And they've been working on that.

It's kind of a big theory, but the reason it's arguably the best is that it does the best at predicting what's English, for instance. It's incredibly good, better than any other theory. But it's not sort of – there's not enough detail. Or it's opaque.

It's kind of a big theory, but the reason it's arguably the best is that it does the best at predicting what's English, for instance. It's incredibly good, better than any other theory. But it's not sort of – there's not enough detail. Or it's opaque.

It's kind of a big theory, but the reason it's arguably the best is that it does the best at predicting what's English, for instance. It's incredibly good, better than any other theory. But it's not sort of – there's not enough detail. Or it's opaque.

It's a black box. It's another black box. But I think it is a theory.