Thought it worth a

as the discussion may provide further

for

dv said: People don’t usually think in language

Bubblecar: Actually, they do. And without learning a language their brains fail to develop properly.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

roughbarked said:

How do you know?

Because were it not the case, they’d have no trouble putting their thoughts into words.

Language, in the scheme of human development, is recent.

The development of language would have been a crucial factor in the accelerated evolution of the human brain.

As for “putting thoughts into words”, that’s more a matter of tying together disparate strands into a coherent communication with correct syntax etc. You’ll find many of the actual concepts are already represented by language “in your head” as it’s the most economical way of thinking about many things. There are of course also many non-linguistic thoughts and impressions etc, but unless those processes are combined with habitual thinking-in-language in infancy, the brain fails to develop properly and the person will always have some degree of intellectual disability.

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

People don’t usually think in language

Actually, they do. And without learning a language their brains fail to develop properly.

try to imagine for a moment, every aspect of thought being propelled and tightly structured by your English, car.

few spots of rain on the roof, just shut vehicle windows etc.

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

try to imagine for a moment, every aspect of thought being propelled and tightly structured by your English, car.

few spots of rain on the roof, just shut vehicle windows etc.

I didn’t “every aspect of thought”, but a lot of it :)

Also, the non-language thinking continually interacts with language-thinking.

you’re fond of nuanced English grunts, invested.

Look at the word “thought” itself. How do you represent that in your brain when thinking about it? I may imagine various different kinds of processes that go on in my consciousness but I do so confident that I’m representing them by the word “thought” as a unified concept, and without recourse to such language it would be very hard to think about thinking.

thread’s going to be biased, car, you want to argue in (English) words, and have everyone else do the same.

the more that’s writ the truer your propositions will appear.

you’re going to force the use of the interface (spoken and written words) to argue the interface is the dominant language of the wetware, the computational apparatus.

don’t people regularly limit verbal conversion?

transition said:

thread’s going to be biased, car, you want to argue in (English) words, and have everyone else do the same.

the more that’s writ the truer your propositions will appear.

you’re going to force the use of the interface (spoken and written words) to argue the interface is the dominant language of the wetware, the computational apparatus.

don’t people regularly limit verbal conversion?

You can use whatever language you like :)

But it will still be a language, unless you’re deliberately talking nonsense.

>Look at the word “thought” itself. How do you represent that in your brain when thinking about it?

with a feel-see unique to the wetware, that extra sense conscious creatures have.

sensing mental activity, like curiosity feels like hunting for processing ways. Most of us experience, or sense applying varied mind tools. Try and test. Hunting for a category to apply, for example. Minds have a bunch of native categories.

I’m certainly not saying that all thought takes the form of language. But the non-language thought processes are still dependent on (and continually interact with) language-thought.

I wish I could remember what day I posted in the chat thread the story about teaching people sign language vs not teaching them sign language.

recognizing your own type, your own species, that’s done in some native work before converted to human (the wordly idea). In fact the conversion to human (the learned word-concept) may come with distortions.

same of sex differences.

transition said:

>Look at the word “thought” itself. How do you represent that in your brain when thinking about it?

with a feel-see unique to the wetware, that extra sense conscious creatures have.

sensing mental activity, like curiosity feels like hunting for processing ways. Most of us experience, or sense applying varied mind tools. Try and test. Hunting for a category to apply, for example. Minds have a bunch of native categories.

We have all that, but uniquely we have the ability to represent most of those experiences via language, which continually feeds back into our experience, providing us with models of our world linguistically organised into economical concepts.

transition said:

recognizing your own type, your own species, that’s done in some native work before converted to human (the wordly idea). In fact the conversion to human (the learned word-concept) may come with distortions.

same of sex differences.

Try telling that to sexually active bacteria.

sarahs mum said:

I wish I could remember what day I posted in the chat thread the story about teaching people sign language vs not teaching them sign language.

Should be in your Youtube history, if it was Youtube.

Click on Youtube, and then History on the left.

Doesn’t seem to be in mine.

the colour red, or pick any colour, they give a sensation, the sensation of red precedes anything learned. The sensation of red, of redness, for example, doesn’t easily lend to mediation and change by spoken language and thought that way.

so you know your brain must be communicating about colours, differences, for example.

do continue, English those colours.

transition said:

the colour red, or pick any colour, they give a sensation, the sensation of red precedes anything learned. The sensation of red, of redness, for example, doesn’t easily lend to mediation and change by spoken language and thought that way.

so you know your brain must be communicating about colours, differences, for example.

do continue, English those colours.

Sure you can think without language, as I’ve said. But unless you learn a language in childhood your thinking will be seriously handicapped, not just in communication, but in any intellectual processes that require a brain that developed with language.

the sensation of amusement at the workings of ones own mind (the basis of humour), this certainly demonstrates an internal language, because those laughs aren’t English words with prescribed meanings.

Bubblecar said:

sarahs mum said:

I wish I could remember what day I posted in the chat thread the story about teaching people sign language vs not teaching them sign language.

Should be in your Youtube history, if it was Youtube.

Click on Youtube, and then History on the left.

Doesn’t seem to be in mine.

No. It was something in written form.

sarahs mum said:

Bubblecar said:

sarahs mum said:

I wish I could remember what day I posted in the chat thread the story about teaching people sign language vs not teaching them sign language.

Should be in your Youtube history, if it was Youtube.

Click on Youtube, and then History on the left.

Doesn’t seem to be in mine.

No. It was something in written form.

I’m sure I watched a video you linked on the same theme.

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

the colour red, or pick any colour, they give a sensation, the sensation of red precedes anything learned. The sensation of red, of redness, for example, doesn’t easily lend to mediation and change by spoken language and thought that way.

so you know your brain must be communicating about colours, differences, for example.

do continue, English those colours.

Sure you can think without language, as I’ve said. But unless you learn a language in childhood your thinking will be seriously handicapped, not just in communication, but in any intellectual processes that require a brain that developed with language.

yes but you’re proposing some sort of (unnatural) deprivation, and using that to make a (perhaps dubious) point.

many sorts of deprivation restrict development, like oxygen deprivation.

transition said:

Bubblecar said:

transition said:

the colour red, or pick any colour, they give a sensation, the sensation of red precedes anything learned. The sensation of red, of redness, for example, doesn’t easily lend to mediation and change by spoken language and thought that way.

so you know your brain must be communicating about colours, differences, for example.

do continue, English those colours.

Sure you can think without language, as I’ve said. But unless you learn a language in childhood your thinking will be seriously handicapped, not just in communication, but in any intellectual processes that require a brain that developed with language.

yes but you’re proposing some sort of (unnatural) deprivation, and using that to make a (perhaps dubious) point.

many sorts of deprivation restrict development, like oxygen deprivation.

I’m just pointing out that language is central to normal developed human brains and their thought processes.

Deaf children who don’t learn to sign are stuck with permanent intellectual disability.

Bubblecar said:

sarahs mum said:

Bubblecar said:

Should be in your Youtube history, if it was Youtube.

Click on Youtube, and then History on the left.

Doesn’t seem to be in mine.

No. It was something in written form.

I’m sure I watched a video you linked on the same theme.

You were right.

How Do Deaf People Think?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXiS2gQ-w3M

sarahs mum said:

Bubblecar said:

sarahs mum said:

No. It was something in written form.

I’m sure I watched a video you linked on the same theme.

You were right.

How Do Deaf People Think?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXiS2gQ-w3M

:)

I tend not to think in emoji, emoticons and icons.

Let’s go back to the days when the only icons you had to learn were those on a cassette recorder.

And even those can fool me, mrs m pointed out yesterday that the fast forward icon on the car stereo allows me to jump up to the next radio channel.

Icons were only invented to make things easier for non-English speakers.

mollwollfumble said:

I tend not to think in emoji, emoticons and icons.

Let’s go back to the days when the only icons you had to learn were those on a cassette recorder.

And even those can fool me, mrs m pointed out yesterday that the fast forward icon on the car stereo allows me to jump up to the next radio channel.

Icons were only invented to make things easier for non-English speakers.

There was a woman in England who designed what are now universal road signs and also on tractor and car dashboards .Ah yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Calvert

At the risk of

myself
myself
myself
myself
myself

this discussion is

when it should be

The Rev Dodgson said:

At the risk of

myself
myself
myself
myself
myself

this discussion is

when it should be

opps

I was going to say that language is also used in dreams which are usually in technicolor

Keep in mind that the brain is using a complex electromagnetic chemical process to simulate those words in the brain.

Without that electromagnetic chemical process, there would be no words to simulate.

Tau.Neutrino said:

I was going to say that language is also used in dreams which are usually in technicolor

Keep in mind that the brain is using a complex electromagnetic chemical process to simulate those words in the brain.

Without that electromagnetic chemical process, there would be no words to simulate.

Nightfall o river of night flow through me
Washing thoughts of the day on your waters away
For the morrow that dawns never knew me

Nightfall nightfall folding her dark locks around you
Her eyes they have found you would show you
This new dream they’re holding

O sleep o come to me you who are night’s daughter
And I’ll give you my eyes for the colours that rise
As time’s echoes reflect on you water

How Does The Brain Store And Retrieve Memories?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/09/19/how-does-the-brain-store-and-retrieve-memories/#39ee51e14f99

https://www.quora.com/How-are-memories-stored-and-retrieved-in-the-human-brain

Tau.Neutrino said:

How Does The Brain Store And Retrieve Memories?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/09/19/how-does-the-brain-store-and-retrieve-memories/#39ee51e14f99

https://www.quora.com/How-are-memories-stored-and-retrieved-in-the-human-brain

more information

https://qbi.uq.edu.au/brain-basics/memory/where-are-memories-stored

https://www.bu.edu/research/articles/human-brain-store-retrieve-memories/

https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/how-are-memory-stored-retrieved-forget-encode-retrieve-hippocampus-long-term-memory-short-term-memory.html

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I was going to say that language is also used in dreams which are usually in technicolor

Keep in mind that the brain is using a complex electromagnetic chemical process to simulate those words in the brain.

Without that electromagnetic chemical process, there would be no words to simulate.

Nightfall o river of night flow through me
Washing thoughts of the day on your waters away
For the morrow that dawns never knew me

Nightfall nightfall folding her dark locks around you
Her eyes they have found you would show you
This new dream they’re holding

O sleep o come to me you who are night’s daughter
And I’ll give you my eyes for the colours that rise
As time’s echoes reflect on you water

“Words describe images in my dream” by Crazy Neutrino 18/1/2019

Words describe images in my dream

Close your eyes sleep and dream
your senses are reflected in dreams
when you float without gravity pulling you down

Where did gravity go, it was there before

Words are pulled from memory
do you pull them from thin air or from neurons
words are pulled from your dark memory of the past

Gravity is a sensation stored in memory felt in dreams

The present seen with your eyes in colour
the past stored in neurons and reflected in dreams
geometric human forms drift by in dreams free of gravity

These words I use to describe my dream

I float away and up into the night sky towards the stars
I float away to the stars free of the electromagnetic chemcial process
I am now free of it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

At the risk of

myself
myself
myself
myself
myself

this discussion is

when it should be

This discussion is:
Slanted, biased, black and white?
When it should be:
Balanced, handled case be case, 50 shades of grey?

Bubblecar said:

Thought it worth a

as the discussion may provide further

for

dv said: People don’t usually think in language

Bubblecar: Actually, they do. And without learning a language their brains fail to develop properly.

define: “think” = use language to process information

there

SCIENCE said:

Bubblecar said:

Thought it worth a

as the discussion may provide further

for

dv said: People don’t usually think in language

Bubblecar: Actually, they do. And without learning a language their brains fail to develop properly.

define: “think” = use language to process information

there

I wonder what thinking was like before language was developed, just images with vague associations linked to them

Cymek said:

SCIENCE said:

Bubblecar said:

Thought it worth a

as the discussion may provide further

for

dv said: People don’t usually think in language

Bubblecar: Actually, they do. And without learning a language their brains fail to develop properly.

define: “think” = use language to process information

there

I wonder what thinking was like before language was developed, just images with vague associations linked to them

Images? What dies ‘hunger’ look like?

Witty Rejoinder said:

Cymek said:

SCIENCE said:

define: “think” = use language to process information

there

I wonder what thinking was like before language was developed, just images with vague associations linked to them

Images? What dies ‘hunger’ look like?

dies = does

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar: Actually, they do.

Nah.

Witty Rejoinder said:

I wonder what thinking was like before language was developed

Same as we do now: we think in concepts. These have to be translated into language when you go to explain an idea to someone.

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I wonder what thinking was like before language was developed

Same as we do now: we think in concepts. These have to be translated into language when you go to explain an idea to someone.

Scientist said:

Look, it’s as simple as one, two, three. When I was a kid growing up in Far Rockaway, I had a friend named Bernie Walker… we must have been eleven or twelve at the time — and I said, “But thinking is nothing but talking to yourself inside.”

“Oh, yeah?” Bernie said. “Do you know the crazy shape of the crankshaft in a car? … Tell me: How did you describe it when you were talking to yourself?”

So I learned from Bernie that thoughts can be visual as well as verbal.

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar: Actually, they do.

Nah.

Yah.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar: Actually, they do.

Nah.

Yah.

LOL

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I wonder what thinking was like before language was developed

Same as we do now: we think in concepts. These have to be translated into language when you go to explain an idea to someone.

How do we represents concepts in our thoughts?

For example, how do you represent the concept “concept” in your thoughts?

How would you even possess such a notion, unless you’d mastered a language in which “abstract idea” can be conveniently separated from other categories of phenomena?

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I wonder what thinking was like before language was developed

Same as we do now: we think in concepts. These have to be translated into language when you go to explain an idea to someone.

How do we represents concepts in our thoughts?

For example, how do you represent the concept “concept” in your thoughts?

How would you even possess such a notion, unless you’d mastered a language in which “abstract idea” can be conveniently separated from other categories of phenomena?

I’m not even going to bother researching it but there was stuff online a long online time ago that was actually research into what a baby could hear or otherwise sense of the world outside the womb.

>I wonder what thinking was like before language was developed

The pre-linguistic brain would have been quite unlike the modern human brain.

We don’t know when language first started developing, but it was presumably fairly early on in the Homo lineage.

Increasing complexity of language would have been one of the drivers of accelerated brain evolution.

for most people, solving something like this

https://www.in.gov/dnr/kids/images/ed-hard_maze.gif

does not involve any thinking at all

SCIENCE said:

for most people, solving something like this

https://www.in.gov/dnr/kids/images/ed-hard_maze.gif

does not involve any thinking at all

SCIENCE said:

for most people, solving something like this

https://www.in.gov/dnr/kids/images/ed-hard_maze.gif

does not involve any thinking at all

Yeah. I’ve seen mazes wwhere they just made patsh through the hedges.

SCIENCE said:

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Nah.

Yah.

LOL

The depth of background knowledge and intellectual rigour displayed in discussions between bubblecar and dv is always most impressive.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

Bubblecar said:

Yah.

LOL

The depth of background knowledge and intellectual rigour displayed in discussions between bubblecar and dv is always most impressive.

not lost on me, for sure.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

LOL

The depth of background knowledge and intellectual rigour displayed in discussions between bubblecar and dv is always most impressive.

not lost on me, for sure.

Fear not, we’ll be releasing the For Dummies version.

dv said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The depth of background knowledge and intellectual rigour displayed in discussions between bubblecar and dv is always most impressive.

not lost on me, for sure.

Fear not, we’ll be releasing the For Dummies version.

Looking forward to this blossoming relationship.

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

for most people, solving something like this

https://www.in.gov/dnr/kids/images/ed-hard_maze.gif

does not involve any thinking at all

Yeah. I’ve seen mazes wwhere they just made patsh through the hedges.

The way to get out of a maze: pick a wall, left or right, doesn’t matter.

Put your hand on that wall, and start walking, keeping your hand on your chosen wall.

It may take awhile, but you’ll get out. Almost always quicker than just blundering about.

Language is not just about communication. It’s a powerful cognitive toolbox with which we build detailed mental models of the world, in which different classes of phenomena are separated into increasingly complex categories, and their relationships described in increasingly complex ways.

This is what happens in a young child’s brain when they start learning to apprehend and describe the world around them via language.

I don’t know why there is all this debate about what thinking really means, when we can just go to TATE and find out:

“Although thinking is an activity of an existential value for humans, there is no consensus as to how it is defined or understood”

https://neuroanthropology.net/2010/07/21/life-without-language/

Author Susan Schaller has written about the case of a profoundly deaf Mexican immigrant who grew up in a house with hearing parents who could not teach him sign language in her book, Man without Words.

The man she would call, ‘Ildefonso,’ had figured out how to survive, in part by simply copying those around him, but he had no idea what language was. Schaller found that he observed people’s lips and mouth moving, unaware that they were making sound, unaware that there was sound, trying to figure out what was happening from the movements of the mouths. She felt that he was frustrated because he thought everyone else could figure things out from looking at each others’ moving mouths.

“He’d just try to form signs and copy what I was doing. But his facial expression was always, is this what I’m supposed to do?

“That question was on his face all of the time. It was terribly frustrating. It went on hour after hour, for days and days and days. Then I had an idea. If I died tonight, I may have had only one truly brilliant thought in my life. What was it that attracted me to this man? His intelligence and his studiousness, the fact he was still trying to figure things out-those two things.

“I decided to stop talking to him. Instead, I taught an invisible student. I set up a chair, and I started being the teacher to an invisible student in an empty chair. Then I became the student. I would get into the other chair and the student would answer the teacher. I did this over and over and over. And I ignored him. I stopped looking at him.”

Even with the ‘brilliant idea,’ the road ahead was hard, and Schaller talks about wondering when one of them was going to give up. Finally, they had a breakthrough moment which I want to quote at length because it really is a remarkable story (I got goosebumps from reading it):

“What happened is that I saw a movement. I stopped. I was talking to an empty chair, but out of my peripheral vision I saw something move. I look at Ildefonso and he had just become rigid! He actually sat up in his chair and became rigid. His hands were flat on the table and his eyes were wide. His facial expression was different from any I’d seen. It was just wide with amazement!

“And then he started-it was the most emotional moment with another human being, I think, in my life so that even now, after all these years, I’m choking up -he started pointing to everything in the room, and this is amazing to me! I’ve thought about this for years. It’s not having language that separates us from other animals, it’s because we love it! All of a sudden, this twenty-seven-year-old man-who, of course, had seen a wall and a door and a window before-started pointing to everything. He pointed to the table. He wanted me to sign table. He wanted the symbol. He wanted the name for table. And he wanted the symbol, the sign, for window.

“The amazing thing is that the look on his face was as if he had never seen a window before. The window became a different thing with a symbol attached to it. But it’s not just a symbol. It’s a shared symbol. He can say “window” to someone else tomorrow who he hasn’t even met yet! And they will know what a window is. There’s something magical that happens between humans and symbols and the sharing of symbols.

“That was his first “Aha!” He just went crazy for a few seconds, pointing to everything in the room and signing whatever I signed. Then he collapsed and started crying, and I don’t mean just a few tears. He cradled his head in his arms on the table and the table was shaking loudly from his sobbing. Of course, I don’t know what was in his head, but I’m just guessing he saw what he had missed for twenty-seven years.”

The Rev Dodgson said:

there is no consensus

seems overcalled

I mean do you think fighter pilots are mentally verbalising “okay well I better turn around now and then I’ll try to lose him in the clouds”, or chess players trying to work out the consequences of the next ten moves while the clock ticks down are mentally verbalising “alrighty then so if he moves his pawn to f6 then I’ll have to block but if he moves his bishop to a6 then I’ll have several options available, viz. …”

People just think. There’s no time for language up there. You can think things thousands of times faster than you could retrieve the words for them.

dv said:

I mean do you think fighter pilots are mentally verbalising “okay well I better turn around now and then I’ll try to lose him in the clouds”, or chess players trying to work out the consequences of the next ten moves while the clock ticks down are mentally verbalising “alrighty then so if he moves his pawn to f6 then I’ll have to block but if he moves his bishop to a6 then I’ll have several options available, viz. …”

People just think. There’s no time for language up there. You can think things thousands of times faster than you could retrieve the words for them.

That’s bullshit, he’ll never move his bishop to a6, no way.

dv said:

I mean do you think fighter pilots are mentally verbalising “okay well I better turn around now and then I’ll try to lose him in the clouds”, or chess players trying to work out the consequences of the next ten moves while the clock ticks down are mentally verbalising “alrighty then so if he moves his pawn to f6 then I’ll have to block but if he moves his bishop to a6 then I’ll have several options available, viz. …”

People just think. There’s no time for language up there. You can think things thousands of times faster than you could retrieve the words for them.

Yes and sometimes you think so fast its hard to try and remember what the original thought was that set you off in the first place

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know why there is all this debate about what thinking really means, when we can just go to TATE and find out:

“Although thinking is an activity of an existential value for humans, there is no consensus as to how it is defined or understood”

Can human thinking be done without memories?

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

there is no consensus

seems overcalled

On the contrary.

We are all agreed that there is no consensus.

Cymek said:

dv said:

I mean do you think fighter pilots are mentally verbalising “okay well I better turn around now and then I’ll try to lose him in the clouds”, or chess players trying to work out the consequences of the next ten moves while the clock ticks down are mentally verbalising “alrighty then so if he moves his pawn to f6 then I’ll have to block but if he moves his bishop to a6 then I’ll have several options available, viz. …”

People just think. There’s no time for language up there. You can think things thousands of times faster than you could retrieve the words for them.

Yes and sometimes you think so fast its hard to try and remember what the original thought was that set you off in the first place

I believe that some of the bodies automatic functions in responding to heat or shock etc are faster than thought.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know why there is all this debate about what thinking really means, when we can just go to TATE and find out:

“Although thinking is an activity of an existential value for humans, there is no consensus as to how it is defined or understood”

Can human thinking be done without memories?

Now you have given a real question.

dv said:

I mean do you think fighter pilots are mentally verbalising “okay well I better turn around now and then I’ll try to lose him in the clouds”, or chess players trying to work out the consequences of the next ten moves while the clock ticks down are mentally verbalising “alrighty then so if he moves his pawn to f6 then I’ll have to block but if he moves his bishop to a6 then I’ll have several options available, viz. …”

People just think. There’s no time for language up there. You can think things thousands of times faster than you could retrieve the words for them.

Did you read the thread? Nah.

‘Cos if you had, you would have seen me agreeing that much thinking doesn’t take the form of language. But much does, and non-linguistic and linguistic thinking continually interact. Language is crucial to establishing the mental models of the world in which both non-linguistic and linguistic thought processes then take place. There is constant feedback between various modes of consciousness.

You can rest assured that without language, fighter planes and games of chess would never have been conceived.

Bubblecar said:

>I wonder what thinking was like before language was developed

The pre-linguistic brain would have been quite unlike the modern human brain.

We don’t know when language first started developing, but it was presumably fairly early on in the Homo lineage.

Increasing complexity of language would have been one of the drivers of accelerated brain evolution.

I’m sure other primates have identifiable grunts for particular concepts like ‘danger’ etc Again the concept is hard to separate from vocalisation.

roughbarked said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I don’t know why there is all this debate about what thinking really means, when we can just go to TATE and find out:

“Although thinking is an activity of an existential value for humans, there is no consensus as to how it is defined or understood”

Can human thinking be done without memories?

Now you have given a real question.

We’d need to define memories. If you literally recalled nothing, not even things that just happened, then it is hard to conceive of organised thinking that could occur in that environment. On the other hand people with very severe amnesia appear to be able to think and process things that occurred very recently.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

there is no consensus

seems overcalled

On the contrary.

We are all agreed that there is no consensus.

A philosopher walks into a bar

ber shop and announces: I only disagree with people who agree with me.

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

seems overcalled

On the contrary.

We are all agreed that there is no consensus.

A philosopher walks into a bar

ber shop and announces: I only disagree with people who agree with me.

also show me your finest bers

anyway, it’s true, i don’t usually think, and i’m not people, but i certainly don’t usually think in language

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

seems overcalled

On the contrary.

We are all agreed that there is no consensus.

A philosopher walks into a bar

ber shop and announces: I only disagree with people who agree with me.

Yeah, me neither.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

On the contrary.

We are all agreed that there is no consensus.

A philosopher walks into a bar

ber shop and announces: I only disagree with people who agree with me.

Yeah, me neither.

I think we’d have to agree to disagree on that.

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

On the contrary.

We are all agreed that there is no consensus.

A philosopher walks into a bar

ber shop and announces: I only disagree with people who agree with me.

also show me your finest bers

something about a hock ham and a close shave

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

SCIENCE said:

A philosopher walks into a bar

ber shop and announces: I only disagree with people who agree with me.

also show me your finest bers

something about a hock ham and a close shave

Shaving ever so close at nonsense seem fruitless.

SCIENCE said:

anyway, it’s true, i don’t usually think, and i’m not people, but i certainly don’t usually think in language

The complex neural networks you established by apprehending the world via language in your childhood don’t then normally require the “words” to zip along the wires.

But you did require the language to establish them in the first place.

And the fact that you can, when required, “put your thoughts into words” is because those words are associated with those networks.

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

also show me your finest bers

something about a hock ham and a close shave

Shaving ever so close at nonsense seem fruitless.

mmm shaved ham

dv said:

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

something about a hock ham and a close shave

Shaving ever so close at nonsense seem fruitless.

mmm shaved ham

Goes well with a nice hock.

Bubblecar said:

The complex neural networks you established by apprehending the world via language in your childhood don’t then normally require the “words” to zip along the wires.

But you did require the language to establish them in the first place.

That’s fair dos, and it’s certainly a milder notion to say “the development of language greatly changed the nature of thinking” than to say “we think in language”.

Bubblecar said:

SCIENCE said:

anyway, it’s true, i don’t usually think, and i’m not people, but i certainly don’t usually think in language

The complex neural networks you established by apprehending the world via language in your childhood don’t then normally require the “words” to zip along the wires.

But you did require the language to establish them in the first place.

And the fact that you can, when required, “put your thoughts into words” is because those words are associated with those networks.

You can read your thoughts, in your own language despite whater languages they appear at first, in your head.

dv said:

roughbarked said:

SCIENCE said:

something about a hock ham and a close shave

Shaving ever so close at nonsense seem fruitless.

mmm shaved ham

Steamed hams…mmm

I think in words. English words.

And right now I’m thinking “baby shark doo doo doo doo doo doo, baby shark doo doo doo doo doo doo…”

Divine Angel said:

I think in words. English words.

And right now I’m thinking “baby shark doo doo doo doo doo doo, baby shark doo doo doo doo doo doo…”

Like ice meltis in the sun…

roughbarked said:

Divine Angel said:

I think in words. English words.

And right now I’m thinking “baby shark doo doo doo doo doo doo, baby shark doo doo doo doo doo doo…”

Like ice meltis in the sun…

melts.

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

The complex neural networks you established by apprehending the world via language in your childhood don’t then normally require the “words” to zip along the wires.

But you did require the language to establish them in the first place.

That’s fair dos, and it’s certainly a milder notion to say “the development of language greatly changed the nature of thinking” than to say “we think in language”.

I still think “we think in language” (as well as other modes) is a fair thing to say, because language as a phenomenon necessarily includes the neural architecture that it creates, and in which it is physically manifested.

Thinking in language doesn’t necessarily entail thinking in discretely experienced words.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

The complex neural networks you established by apprehending the world via language in your childhood don’t then normally require the “words” to zip along the wires.

But you did require the language to establish them in the first place.

That’s fair dos, and it’s certainly a milder notion to say “the development of language greatly changed the nature of thinking” than to say “we think in language”.

I still think “we think in language” (as well as other modes) is a fair thing to say, because language as a phenomenon necessarily includes the neural architecture that it creates, and in which it is physically manifested.

Thinking in language doesn’t necessarily entail thinking in discretely experienced words.

I think we think in everything we’ve got, all the senses including the sixth at times.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

The complex neural networks you established by apprehending the world via language in your childhood don’t then normally require the “words” to zip along the wires.

But you did require the language to establish them in the first place.

That’s fair dos, and it’s certainly a milder notion to say “the development of language greatly changed the nature of thinking” than to say “we think in language”.

I still think “we think in language” (as well as other modes) is a fair thing to say, because language as a phenomenon necessarily includes the neural architecture that it creates, and in which it is physically manifested.

Thinking in language doesn’t necessarily entail thinking in discretely experienced words.

I’m hearing impaired to a degree that science has done what Macquarie specialists on both side of the street told me in the 1960’s. “This will not be fixed in your lifetime”. This in itself so far seems true. There are as yet no fixes for the loss of neural pathways to the brain.. or are there?

Peak Warming Man said:

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

That’s fair dos, and it’s certainly a milder notion to say “the development of language greatly changed the nature of thinking” than to say “we think in language”.

I still think “we think in language” (as well as other modes) is a fair thing to say, because language as a phenomenon necessarily includes the neural architecture that it creates, and in which it is physically manifested.

Thinking in language doesn’t necessarily entail thinking in discretely experienced words.

I think we think in everything we’ve got, all the senses including the sixth at times.

I see dead people

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Bubblecar said:

I still think “we think in language” (as well as other modes) is a fair thing to say, because language as a phenomenon necessarily includes the neural architecture that it creates, and in which it is physically manifested.

Thinking in language doesn’t necessarily entail thinking in discretely experienced words.

I think we think in everything we’ve got, all the senses including the sixth at times.

I see dead people

They are everywere. Sadly ot as evident as live people.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I think we think in everything we’ve got, all the senses including the sixth at times.

I see dead people

They are everywere. Sadly ot as evident as live people.

so now we all disagree to agree

define: “think” = use language to process information

define: “language” = any structured system used to process information

define: “information” = that which structured systems (id est “language”) is used to process, in a phenomenon we call “think”

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

I see dead people

They are everywere. Sadly ot as evident as live people.

so now we all disagree to agree

define: “think” = use language to process information

define: “language” = any structured system used to process information

define: “information” = that which structured systems (id est “language”) is used to process, in a phenomenon we call “think”

I would define language as more to convey information not process information. Not saying it’s not in the mix but the primary use would be to talk.

AwesomeO said:

SCIENCE said:

roughbarked said:

They are everywere. Sadly ot as evident as live people.

so now we all disagree to agree

define: “think” = use language to process information

define: “language” = any structured system used to process information

define: “information” = that which structured systems (id est “language”) is used to process, in a phenomenon we call “think”

I would define language as more to convey information not process information. Not saying it’s not in the mix but the primary use would be to talk.

Said the straight man to the late man
“Where have you been?”
I’ve been here and I’ve been there
And I’ve been in between

I talk to the wind
My words are all carried away
I talk to the wind
The wind does not hear, the wind cannot hear

I’m on the outside looking inside
What do I see?
Much confusion, disillusion
All around me

I talk to the wind
My words are all carried away
I talk to the wind
The wind does not hear, the wind cannot hear

You don’t possess me, don’t impress me
Just upset my mind
Can’t instruct me or conduct me
Just use up my time

I talk to the wind
My words are all carried away
I talk to the wind
The wind does not hear, the wind cannot hear
I talk to the wind
My words are all carried away
I talk to the wind
The wind does not hear, the wind cannot hear

Said the straight man to the late man
“Where have you been?”
I’ve been here and I’ve been there
And I’ve been in between

Divine Angel said:

I think in words. English words.

And right now I’m thinking “baby shark doo doo doo doo doo doo, baby shark doo doo doo doo doo doo…”

shakes fist at DA

i agree, since even when i do think i do not usually think to communicate, i guess i don’t usually think in language

Not even sure what this thread is about.

I think in words, for instance when doing Jigsaw puzzles I make up words to describe the piece shapes. It helps.

An exception is when I’m dreaming, when I dream in puns. For example, one memorable dream about a Sun turned out to be about Jesus – as in “the Son”. In another dream I dreamt about a sphere – which turned out to be the pun sphere = fear. But the dream imagery may be visual, such as a gumball machine image which turned out to represent my brain. My latest memorable dream image was a giant alien plant – which turned out to be a metaphor for environmentalism.

I think aurally for music, such as eine-kleine nachtmusik – music gets put on a loop tape, up to a maximum of four minutes long.

For some things I think visually, such as blue poles.

My other languages are computer and mathematics. For those I tend to think in verbs – processes not nouns – static objects.

I do not think in adverbs at all, and seldom in adjectives.

mollwollfumble said:

I think in words, for instance when doing Jigsaw puzzles I make up words to describe the piece shapes. It helps.

That is weird af.

Perhaps there is individual variation on this

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

I think in words, for instance when doing Jigsaw puzzles I make up words to describe the piece shapes. It helps.

That is weird af.

Perhaps there is individual variation on this

Not so weird, it’s a memory aid, just like making up stories about playing cards in order to memorise a deck.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

I think in words, for instance when doing Jigsaw puzzles I make up words to describe the piece shapes. It helps.

That is weird af.

Perhaps there is individual variation on this

Not so weird, it’s a memory aid, just like making up stories about playing cards in order to memorise a deck.

Okay I should not have been so negative and judgmental. It’s different from how I operate.