There’s a similar difference to the Russian blues in the way English speakers see red and pink, though. We just don’t have it for blue or green. And for me, red and pink certainly ‘feel’ more different to each other than sky blue and ultramarine.
The difference is more than personal judgement, it affects cognitive processing. But insofar as the language developed, it highlights a cultural indifference, I agree.
The article doesn’t say that we cannot grasp it (and nor does most empiricism) - in fact, it clearly says it can be grasped:
It’s just that language and perception are linked. The headline’s sloppy, though - of course Russians don’t see more colours, they do have more names for them though.
The way someone would say it took x technology this long to develop so it will take the following y technology just as much time to be invented.
You can explain to that person the rate of progress, like moore’s law and the law accelerating returns, but the tendency of human mind is to guess along a linear time line about a future that grows in exponential ways.
The impossible is not just made possible, it’s made sooner.
@OH:
I do declare that the entire point of the article is that people do not separate if they have not learned the difference. The fact is that they do. Although overstating my case I felt I needed to. It was an emotional response, prompted by the examples of the article and the responses here. Perhaps It was not so called for, but I’m glad I said so anyway!!!
That was a very interesting read. Does anyone have any suggestions for possible further reading into how language underpins our cognitive processing? (Ideally drawing philosophical conclusions from it and being newer than the essay that appears at the end of Orwell’s 1984).
An animal such as a dog, cat, horse bird all have language, they also can develop new sounds or reactions for new things they encounter repeatedly. This is language it develops just as ours does. when we encounter something or think something we reference our past experience and language to describe it then we give it a common label to be able to communicate and teach. Animals do this also. That they don’t use words as we do does not mean they don’t have a set of sounds and body actions that is language. when we speak face to face our body is used to communicate as much as words are used. Our experience with words/concepts does control our minds, it controls how much and how we learn. the less interaction we have with new the less tools we have. languge can inhibit our personslity and growth. Animals rarely ever step out of the box combine that with a diet that inhibits brain function they have not developed a complexity of language. they simply have no need to , there is no variety ,very little curiosity and their territory rarely changes.
It may seem insane that something like language can control us but when you look at animals then us it does not seem so insane it seems right.
