Multitasking
Stand on one leg, rub your tummy with your left hand, and the top of your head with your right hand. You can do that, right?
So obviously this proves that your brain can multitask.
Now: try to think the sentences "I like oranges" and "I like bananas" at the same time. Simultaneously. (Not one after another. Instead, literally: try to think both thoughts at the exact same time).
You can't do that.
Why not?
So obviously this proves that your brain can multitask.
Now: try to think the sentences "I like oranges" and "I like bananas" at the same time. Simultaneously. (Not one after another. Instead, literally: try to think both thoughts at the exact same time).
You can't do that.
Why not?
Comments (107)
I think I can, they scramble together while thinking them. What kind of "not being able to" are you referring to? The meaning? The sound of the thoughts at the same time?
Other than that, basically, the processing of information is not the same as motor skills, so the explanation is simply that its different parts of the brain controlling these things.
Also, your response doesn't answer the question. Two problems:
1. Which parts?
2. Your brain can multitask for information processing, too. Like, for example, you can see the color red and listen to music on Youtube. That's multitasking. But then why is the processing of information in the content of "words" so restricted? Like, your brain can note the color red and green on opposite ends of the screen simultaneously. And yet when you read this paragraph you're restricted to reading only one line at a time. Why?
Fine. So, then, on a mechanical level, how does Descartes think?
Put that way, those who are agile at this skill are not always performing at the same level at all times. When one has a job with a lot of responsibilities, it becomes really important to understand and shape when work happens on each thing.
Being able to change quickly is helpful but not always the best approach to solving actual problems.
That is a step-by-step process, the given instructions are transformed to moving our physical bodies as a output. Our thoughts on the other hand are not.
Quoting YuZhonglu
For the reason that our thoughts are only focusing to one-at-a-time intuitions. You certainly cannot think of two statements. Literally it's so simple; you're over-complicating it.
Quoting YuZhonglu
It does not matter how he thinks, but when he thinks. The capability to comprehend implies the ability to exist in a semantic, metaphysical reality.
Answer: 'Cuz it just does. The Earth is the center of the Universe. Literally, it's so simple. You're over-complicating it.
I.e. your response doesn't answer any of the questions. The only thing you've demonstrated so far is that philosophy has made you an ass.
Perhaps this will satisfy you.
The bananas-oranges statement would be more similar to this multitasking action, it is as it follows;
With your left hand, draw a square — whilst on your right hand, draw a circle. Both actions must occur at the same exact moment. You can't do that by intuition, can you? It is because our thoughts are intertwining between each other, not to command one of our body parts to demonstrate a particular action distinct from the rest, let alone it being in a step-by-step process.
Quoting YuZhonglu
I am sorry.
Machines are programmed to do, humans are programmed to learn the process and hence be able to do, although not as powerful as machines would be able to.
Like humans, machines also encounter the programming process; in which it involves a step-by-step system, it requires an arranged algorithmic system like Binary, so subsequently the machine will be able to construct millions of sentences simultaneously. Moreover, machines also do not have the ability to comprehend things without the programming process, they do not possess the rationality to be able to think, they are merely programmed to construct these sentences.
Me writing my sentences are arranged to be one-by-one, because they are by intuitions and not algorithmic, I only know how to write sentences as communication, but not to write millions of them simultaneously. I was programmed to be able to write various sentences, in which they are transformed to concepts in your mind, in fact right now. Machines write sentences they are commanded to, but certainly not to rationalize concepts (unless of course, the ability of the AI is maximized to highest potential).
Returning to the bananas-oranges thought challenge you instated, our thoughts mostly rely on the capacity of our intuitions and transcendental idealism; wherein our rational capability and empirical viewpoints are merged to be able rationalize worldly events and logic. If we practice to think even just two thoughts at the same time, we are programming our selves into that step-by-step process in order to be able to simultaneously do the both of them, and then our intuitions (in that particular situation) just disappear. Simply elucidated, our intuitions drive our very way of life.
I hope I answered your question.
But the larger problem is that despite all of the words bandied forth (intuitions, transcendental, etc.) your response still doesn't answer the question. What it does instead is to rationalize why you choose not to question it.
Like, on a physical level what is the reason we can't think more than one sentence at a time? Obviously, there has to be a scientific reason for it. What is it? And once we discover it, doesn't that mean we can modify this trait so that people in the future CAN think multiple sentences simultaneously?
What I'm trying to get here is this: what are the mechanics of human thought? Our physical bodies are bounded by physical laws (Newton, gravity, falling apples, etc.). We know we cannot, for example, fly like a bird because our legs cannot generate the thrust required to counter the force of gravity acting on our bodies. On a similar vein, what are the mechanical boundaries of human thought and what are the reasons for them?
"I like fruit."
Done.
But if we could think millions of sentences simultaneously, we wouldn't need to summarize concepts, now, would we? Instead, we could just make a list and expect everyone else to quickly scan through it, kinda like what computers do.
I'm pretty sure summarizing concepts is more efficient.
Additionally, sentences are pretty complex things that contain multitasking event of their own:
"I like oranges" contains all of the following concepts and ideas and probably more:
-I exist
-It is possible to like things
-Oranges exist
-I am capable of liking things.
-I like some of the properties of oranges
-etc.
On the other point: yes I agree. Sentences are very complex. Fine. But no matter how complex it is, you can still only express your ideas one sentence at a time.
Again, why?
But, you know, if all of us could parallel process a long list instantaneously, we don't need concepts like "fruits" anymore. Instead, I could just create a list of objects I like [bananas, oranges, etc.] and with a single glance, you can instantly tell what I'm trying to communicate.
I can't?
Then what do you mean with "thinking the sentences"?
I can easily visualize the two statements. I think about two people saying the sentences, which is especially easy in the "I like" part and then it's not particularly difficult to think what saying oranges and bananas simultaneously will sound like. Basically there's a multitude of different algorithms how to handle this information, for example using the group of fruits that contains oranges and bananas.
You see, your argument starts from the premise that in order to think of a statement, you are in your head saying it. I disagree with this premise: especially when using my mother tongue, I don't first "think" a sentence in the way of saying it, before I say it. And a lot of 'thoughts' can be visual. Especially many mathematical objects are easier to be understood visually in geometry.
Because evolution stopped us from being inefficient with our calories.
Your brain eats up about 20% of your calories as is. Surviving in the wild meant we had to make the brain process in the most efficient way possible. It's hardwired to seek shortcuts. Multitasking uses much more energy than processing one thing at a time.
Also, because thinking multiple things at the same time makes you more prone to error. You're not devoting your entire attention to one thing, and so you might miss something and make a mistake.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4014320/Why-multitasking-BAD-brain-Neuroscientist-warns-wrecks-productivity-causes-mistakes.html
Try this: write two different sentences simultaneously with your right hand and your left hand. Can you do it?
Not good in writing with my left hand as I've not done it, but I guess with training I could do two different short sentences. How much time the training would take I don't know.
I'm not sure what your question is about anyway.
Thinking and physical movement or speech or quite separate things.
I already explained why we can't physically.
And, yes, the world would be different if we could.
It occurs to me while I'm writing this, though, that I often do have multiple thoughts going. Like a main thought and a sub-thought. Like, I'm typing this and thinking about what to say to you, but simultaneously, (and I do mean simultaneously) I'm thinking about how my cat laying on my leg is making my foot fall asleep.
Calories.
Also, probably, the structure of the brain.
1. Explain why the structure of the human brain prevents us from thinking multiple sentences simultaneously.
2. Explain how to modify it so that we can create people who can think multiple sentences simultaneously.
3. Accurately predict, by removing or adding components to a brain, the outcome (like if I add this thing to your brain, can I change your brain so that you can parallel process multiple sentences simultaneously?)
An explanation has value only if it can modify and accurately predict outcomes. Otherwise, it's worthless. Little more than a rationalization to explain to yourself why you shouldn't question it.
Ummm, no, an explanation really only needs to do #1 on your little list there.
But you're free to ask #2 and #3 as additional questions if you like.
The goal of science is not to provide plausible sounding rationalizations. Any philosopher can do that. The goal of science is to provide tools, so we can modify the world around us to our advantage.
Welcome to the philosophy forum, dude.
It might be the case that our brains CAN think of 4 sentences at once, but only one sentence at a time can pass through the narrow aperture of consciousness. It seems to me intuitive that the 100 billion neurons between our ears are capable of doing many things at once. In fact, they do -- we just don't/can't monitor them consciously. But when it comes to bringing them into consciousness, there is only that one elevator, so we never see groups of ideas exiting the elevator at one time.
Everyone's brain composed the responses we are reading while managing breathing, heart rate, blinking, posture (you didn't fall out of your chair), listening to the radio/television/stereo -- something, smelling supper cooking (or whatever meal) and so on. While your fingers were being managed by your brain, the text your fingers were producing was being fed into a motor queue, and IF your fingers hit the wrong key, you would probably have noticed that. Had your dog walked into the room and whined, you would have heard it and continued typing (unless the dog has trained you to jump up instantly when it wants to go out side).
Right. Which is why I consider most of the things that people type here little more than self-serving rationalizations. Do you have more to contribute? Your point about "fruit" was relevant, but since then we've just been arguing in circles.
Why do we only have ONE elevator to bring our thoughts into "consciousness?" Also, where is that elevator in the brain? Can we, for example, create more through genetic engineering or surgery?
:roll:
I gave you a pretty good explanation about evolution and the brain, plus an article with the view of a neuroscientist backing up my theory. I'm fairly certain I've done my due diligence.
You, on the other hand, just keep asking the same question with odd parameters, and dismissing any attempt to answer it. You clearly have an agenda, which is just so anti-scientific I could laugh.
How does that discredit Earl K. Miller, Ph.D., a professor of neuroscience at MIT?
Quoting YuZhonglu
From the article:
"But in returning to the first task, the brain has to use more energy to focus and get back into the flow.
According to Professor Miller, the small interruption wastes time and increases the chances of making mistakes.
Research carried out at Stanford University has shown that those people who multitask frequently may actually be worse at filtering out distractions.
Proponents of multitasking may question why our brains are so drawn to a habit which has such a negative effect on productivity."
and:
"One idea which may explain the penchant to take on more than we can mentally chew is a result of how our brains evolved.
At some point in the past being able to pick up on any new sight or sound may have helped to spot danger, offering an evolutionary advantage and saving our prehistoric skins.
But this same adaptation could be having the opposite effect today.
‘In today’s modern society where our lives are rarely on the line, the ceaseless onslaught of information has the potential to cripple us,’ wrote Professor Miller.
‘Our brains aren’t equipped to handle the sensory overload.’"
So, it literally does explain why the brain can't multi-task. It may not be specifically talking about two sentences or explain in depth the exact reaction neuron A and neuron B have when trying to process two sentences. But it does address the root of your concern: why can't we mentally multi-task.
If you want a more neuro-sciency response that does tackle neurons A and B specifically, I suggest you actually contact a neuroscientist instead of being dismissive of layperson philosophers here who are just doing their best to give you an honest and researched answer.
Does anyone else have anything useful to add?
You're rude.
Then don't. No need to be a jerk about it.
EDIT: For example, if we could "bring to consciousness" 4 sentences simultaneously, how specifically would that change the way we do philosophy?
Also, people like to think of philosophy as "observing the universal." I.e. I exist as a neutral observer and from my aloof standpoint, I observe the universe with my brain. That's a pretty common attitude here and elsewhere.
Is that accurate? I mean, in order to make philosophical statements a person must first have a brain and brains have very real mechanical limitations. To what extent are our philosophies "observations of reality" and to what extent is it just a byproduct of specific neurobiology [that may be modified in the future]?
To use Donovan's phrase, there is only one "elevator in the brain hotel". IF, in the fullness of evolutionary time, we had needed a bank of elevators in our brain hotel, we would have developed them. Add more elevators? We'll have to change the whole brain around. We don't have a map of an ant's brain, let alone a human brain. Good luck on that remodeling project.
We don't even know where the conscious mind is located, let alone how to re-engineer it.
The "one track railroad" (to which the conscious mind can be compared) has been in successful use ever since the telegraph enabled train dispatchers to schedule trains and prevent collisions on the single track. Our brains are more than capable of managing the flow of information into and out of the conscious mind.
After all, you're doing it right now.
But that may not be the case in the future. If we look forward ten thousand years, it's entirely possible neuroscientists then will have the means to remodel consciousness on an anatomical level.
When that happens, to what extent will any of the "eternal" philosophies of today survive?
EDIT: People like to think their questions are "eternal." We will "always" search for meaning. We will "always" have concepts of God, or zero. Is that accurate? Thoughts are physical processes. If the underlying physics and anatomy behind the brain changes, the very nature of thought will change, too. I can easily imagine a future where many of the "eternal" concepts people argue about today will simply be incomprehensible to our descendants.
EDIT: Also, more specifically, what are the mechanical limitations of human thought? I've mentioned one. What are the others?
That might be the case. I can't imagine (literally) how consciousness might be changed.
Quoting YuZhonglu
Assuming that there is anyone around in 10,000 years...
So, given 10,000 years of more or less civilized existence, one would hope that by 12000 AD we will have laid the perennial philosophical questions to rest. Perhaps by then we will have finally accepted that questions that can not be answered (what happens to the soul after the body dies?) need not be asked.
Perhaps we can learn how to widen the gate between our consciousness and greater, not-conscious mind, and consciously think about more than one thing at a time. Again, I literally can't imagine that. Maybe we will learn to access more of the mind that isn't conscious, making it conscious. Did you read "Dune"? The Bene Gesserit (the sisterhood in the novel) had learned how to gain access to the mind/body at a very deep level. They used disciplined exercises and drugs, and all that is, of course fiction. It is suggestive, though, of untapped potential. Advanced meditation adepts can gain a significant control over their bodily processes through deep meditation.
10,000 years is the sort of time scale that Dune covered. Unless we find the planet Arrakis--complete with the sand worms--there isn't much chance of trying to accomplish what the reverend mothers of the Bene Gesserit accomplished. Alas.
I don't think it works to just plow over someone saying that in fact they can think both sentences at the same time.
Even if you can't do that, and I'm not sure if I can or not, maybe some people can. So we'd need something better than simply asserting/reasserting that no one is capable of something (mental that we can't directly observe if we're not the person in question).
Just because it is more difficult or impossible to multitask two certain things doesn't mean that it is completely impossible to multitask. People have conversations while doing other tasks like reading, being on their phones, playing videogames, etc. Even within those tasks, there is multitasking to do.
Sure, we type one sentence at a time. But we could also be thinking a multitude of other statements while we type the current statement we're typing -- onto the next thought.
Yes, there are certain things we cannot multitask on, but by overloading the subject into doing two things that they simply cannot do or intentionally making it difficult doesn't mean that humans cannot multitask.
I don't know the answer in terms of neuroscience. Ask a neuroscientist. Or at least a science forum. This is a philosophy forum. But we can't do so because evolution doesn't work like that. We didn't jump straight from fish to humans. Advancement takes time.
No, I can do that too.
Get rekt scrubs. Not impossible.
(I can't do it.)
Funnily enough, I didn't think it was possible until I tried.
I really doubt that's it. Although I don't object to the sentiment. :smile:
Me too. What's it like for you? I have to bend my mind a bit with a visualisation to bring on the auditory effect of both at once. If I try to picture 'saying' it myself I can't 'say' both at once, but if I imagine two different speakers speaking at once (they need to be familiar voices) I can hear 'I like oranges' and 'I like bananas' at the same time.
Baden can do it.
I thought my "fruit" answer was doing it!
But, yeah, if I try the way you describe, it does work.
You guys should apply the principle of dohaggerty.
I wasn't experiencing an auditory effect. I was "seeing" both sentences simultaneously in my mind with maybe a quasi-auditory echo of sorts, but certainly not the voices of two different speakers. Might give that a try though and see if I can pull it off.
I imagine we both had the same kind of 'quasi-auditory echo', I don't want to say that I literally experienced sound, or even something like a memory of sound, though it was probably closer to the latter than the former.
Visually, I can do as far as a triple, presuming 'seeing' the sentences counts as thinking them. My auditories, if I'm trying to deliberately create them, seem to cancel each other out.
Quoting fdrake
Maybe, although with a single sentence, visualizing it and hearing it are totally different for me: one is a picture and one is a voice (not mine).
I rest my case.
Can you do more if you visualise filling out a naughts and crosses board with the sentences?
I like----|I like----| I like
oranges| apples | bananas
-------------------------------
I like----| I like----| I like
pears---| grapes-| kiwi
And so on.
I don't get any auditory impression when I visualise the board, but for the 'two speakers' one I did. I can't get any auditory impression past 2 either.
:lol: You win that one.
I can't maintain any coherence past three no matter how I try to mentally organize it. As for auditory impression, I can visualize with or without that but that impression is just a jumbled mess when the strawberry and banana come together at the end of the sentences.
I think I just interpreted the opening post more dohaggertertially than you two. I think the original poster meant thinking the sentences in an auditory manner, not a visual manner, for example.
I pick up your case. Walk over to you with it in my hand. And swing it as hard as I can, aiming for the back of your head. I then let out a warrior cry as the impact of the blow fractures your skull, and you collapse to the floor in a pool of blood.
Nonsense. You can't even simultaneously hold a case and walk with it.
Nonsense. I just did all of that whilst eating a three course meal, performing a cartwheel, and banging your mum.
[Hide]Two out of ten, in case you were wondering.[/hide]
Sheesh. I'm glad you have a sense of humour about these things instead of taking it personally. I bet you'd be real fun to be around at a stand-up comedy gig. If it makes you feel any better, I'll raise the two to a three, because now I feel sorry for you.
By the way, I apologize to anyone who had to read that arrogant-sounding reveal. It was said in a moment of high irritation with someone I now just blissfully ignore. Anyway, it's obvious my mental gym is better equipped than @S's but @fdrake has us both well covered, methinks.
Accepterly apologed. You should be more modest, like me.
Quoting Baden
Yeah. You should be more coolheaded, like me.
Quoting Baden
Methinks "methinks" sounds like you're trying too hard to sound like an intelekuwal.
I really admire your sense of humor. I really do. Not everyone can talk about bashing people in the head with a case, and laugh about it. You really have a skill there.
I like to imagine a world where people who end up having unpleasant arguments on the internet have to release a diss track against their foe. People who end up having lots of unpleasant arguments will end up with terribly rushed diss tracks, whereas more innocent people can spit pure words of wickedness that they merc the riddim wid.
Thanks. I really believe you. I really do. I think it might have something to with the fact that I'm British. Or the fact that I'm a serial killer.
And I'm American. We already won our independence from you. Now leave us alone.
I diss by Limrik:
There was a young poster called S
An unphilosophical pest
To Pond he was crude
All actin' the dude
'Til Baden did diss him to rest
Ali G, eat your heart out. :grin:
You realise we're in public, right?
like that tat amor fati
ideas are all skin deep
a reactionary knee
jerk if you disagree
Brap, shout out to mandem.
Quoting S
And full of witnesses, the way I like it.
I have no idea why but this made me laugh a lot.
Doubly so, as being stereo-mentalic, we can direct both our disses simultaneously at you.
It's mere-s. Get it right.
Well, I'm good in bed. Or so my mother says.
Until recently, I thought that I was good at punctuation, but it turns out that I wasn't using enough punctuation marks. You, on the other hand, seem to have nailed it. Where did you learn how to do that? Was that something you picked up during your time at the Royal Bank of Scotland?
Quoting jamalrob
The last thing [I]you[/I] want to do, you mean. Anyway, stop it now. You're just encouraging me to respond with more inappropriate humour. I can't help myself. It's the crack cocaine to my Whitney Houston.
Record it and post it on Youtube. Try to write two different paragraphs simultaneously, one with your right hand and one with your left hand.
Like this woman.
I learned that my depiction of multitasking, (the intital example of patting your head and rubbing your tummy... Or drawing a square and circle with opposite hands) is not actual multitasking at all. Multitasking would be closer defined to being able to do two things simultaneously. While you could consider listening to music and seeing colour as doing two things at once it is just our brain processing these things one at a time, back and forth very quickly. The brain goes back and forth so fast we percieve them as happening at the same time like hearing talking seeing feeling etc... It's done almost simultaneously but not quite. Machines, much like our brains do the same. They can calculate and sort through vast amounts of information very quickly but it's never at the exact same time. My guess is that the reason our brains don't allow us to do things like think of two different ideas at once, look in two directions with our eyes and process both images properly or even say two different sentences at the same time is because we are limited by our hardware and processing power. For example: trying to do something impossible like see ultraviolet light or say two different sentences at once is a hardware limitation. We don't have the eyes that can see that light wave length or two throats tongues and mouthes to formulate and say two separate sentences at the same time ... While something like thinking two ideas in your head much like the OPs original banana comparison is a software limitation. Thoughts are complex for the brain. They seem normal to us because we think different thoughts every day but every idea we have or sentence we form in our head is like our brain filling a huge storage area with information we are thinking about on the spot. The amount of energy needed to process that must be a limiting factor for our brain. Routine background functions like sight and hearing may not be a small thing but our bodies seem to be accustomed to them in such a way we can percieve them almost instantaneously. Thoughts on the other hand seem to be single focused actions where the brain has to put a lot of emphasis on our individual thought. That's just my 2 cents.
As for why our brains are like this... I feel like that would either have to go to a religious or scientific debate.
I guess that's a pretty negative way to look at it. On the other hand our bodies are quite amazing and I presume it's better to be what we are today rather than some supercomputer of a brain just floating around without a body to "limit" us.
Our experiences and thoughts can be full of details, but words refer to something specific, and using language forces us to focus on what the words refer to.
Even though we can think in parallel, language forces us to think linearly, one sentence at a time, one idea at a time.
We can imagine a complex scenery evolving in a complex way, but as soon as we try to describe it with our limited language we're forced to describe it one analogy at a time, and if we want to describe all the details it would take a bunch of sentences.
But why is sentence formation linear? Also, what would the effects on philosophy and society be if sentence formation was NOT linear?
It would, for example, kill the idea that you have a "single" soul or "single" free will. Ideas of morality would be drastically different. For example, what if one part of you believes in religion and the other part doesn't? How would theology deal with that?
The law talks about people as if they were single individuals. You committed a crime. Now you must be punished. Oh ho ho ho ho. But if people could express multiple sentences simultaneously, any defendant can argue that it was one part of him that committed the crime and the other part didn't.
There is gonna be some speculation here, but anyway here is my take:
Language is a tool we use to communicate what we experience, if there was no one to communicate with we wouldn't need language. We can communicate in other ways than using words, we can also communicate through drawings/paintings, through our behavior and facial expression, through looking with the eyes in some specific way. Sometimes people can understand each other on something without uttering a word.
Our experiences are rich and full of details, there is a whole lot of stuff going on, but often we focus on a specific part. If you notice something that you deem threatening, and the others have not noticed it, you want to warn them, so you attempt to communicate that specific thing to them, and one way is to utter a sound through your vocal cords, then if the community has agreed beforehand that this specific sound is used to refer to a specific threat then they are now aware there is a threat nearby even if they haven't noticed it. Or if you notice some fruits high up in a tree or whatever, you communicate it with specific sounds, so others may notice it too. The more complex the sounds you utter, the more details you can communicate.
But there is a limited complexity we can utter using our vocal cords and tongue and mouth, there is a limited number of distinct sounds we can make with them at a specific time (a few hundreds maybe?), while our experiences are much more complex than that, we may have countless different experiences, so in order to increase the details/complexity of what we are communicating orally we utter a series of sounds, one at a time, and the way these sounds are put together refers to some specific part of experience in a more detailed way than what could be communicated with just one sound. Then written words refer to these uttered sounds, so the way we form sentences in writing is a direct consequence of the way they are formed orally.
If we could utter a trillion different sounds then we wouldn't need to make sentences, each word would refer to a complex and detailed thing, we could build complexity in parallel rather than linearly, we could say with just one word where the threat is how it looks like how it moves where it is likely going, rather than having to communicate it in a bunch of sentences one after the other.
It's interesting to speculate what that would change for philosophy and society. We wouldn't have to remember a trillion different words, just like we don't have to remember a trillion different sentences, rather we would construct complex words out of more simple words, just like we construct complex sentences out of words. We could communicate much more efficiently what we experience. With our current language there is a lot of sentences that can be interpreted in many different ways, a lot of misinterpretations between people, a lot of talking past each other, but with enough complexity it might be possible to remove all the misunderstandings. It surely would have far-reaching consequences.
The inefficiency with our current language is that it takes so many sentences to refer to something precisely, and by the time we've finished reading a detailed description we have probably forgot some part of it, and then it becomes extremely difficult to connect precise ideas together. Our thinking is fast while our memory is slow. Our language is the bottleneck, we have a fast processor but we're constantly reading from a slow hard drive (our linear language) instead of a fast access memory (a parallel language).
Quoting YuZhonglu
I agree that there are a LOT of nuances that are not communicated with our limited language. The words "soul" and "free will" are used to refer to so many different things, and people most often just talk past each other when using them.
Quoting YuZhonglu
We can already express that in a convoluted way, using many sentences, but indeed our very use of a linear language might influence our philosophical beliefs. Maybe there would be many less fundamentalists, and maybe justice would be different and much more nuanced if we used a different language, which has again far-reaching implications. Our language is a filter we put on the world, on our existence, and we forget it's even there, and we spend our lives attempting to change what we see through the filter without ever looking at changing the filter itself.
There is Korzybski who attempted with his general semantics to change the way we use language which is the source of many problems, but maybe what we need is a more radical reconstruction of language itself, to remove its current limitations that are a historical consequence of the small number of sounds we can utter with our mouth/tongue/vocal cords, so we could use our brain much more efficiently to communicate and to think. This could change everything.