• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Thinking About Thinking

taras

taras

Least Haunted
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
1,625
Location
Edinburgh
A thought struck me recently. Get ready for difficult-to-express concepts:

When I think (not sure about anyone else), I get an abstract idea into my head, and then translate it into English before moving on to something else. It struck me that everything could be done much quicker if people didn't bother with the "translation" part - I mean, I can tell what I mean when it's abstract, I don't need to turn it into language, it just seems "right" to vocalise it in my head to make sure it's clear, if you know what I mean.

Perhaps when everyone starts processing thoughts only in the abstract then humans will develop telepathy!

Or maybe the whole concept is just a bit mad :)
 
there are thoughts we don't bother translateing all the time, which affects memory. how many times have you quite conciouly and purposfuly put your keys down somewhere where you'll obviosly remember where they are, only to have to hunt high and low throughout the house to find them the next day.
Because you didn't traslate the thought into english it makes it harder for your brain to remember it.
thats probably why we translate thoughts in the first place.
 
:)

I think I understand what you are saying. My boyfriend and I talk about this type of thing a lot. Language is needed for us to express what we can to one another, but in a lot of ways, words are VERY limiting. I have so much inside myself I am unable to express in words. When I try to express a raw thought or feeling by translating it into words, I feel like so much of it gets lost. There just aren't words for so many things.
:)
 
I think I see what you mean, taras (feel free to correct me if I've grabbed the smelly end of the proverbial stick...)

When we think of, say, a cow, then there are a host of overlapping memories of images, sounds, etc in our brains that that thought conjures up. But would these make sense to anyone else? Would the memory of a taste of a good rare steak make any sense to a life-long vegetarian? Or the sight of a herd of Aberdeen Angus's mean anything to anyone who hasn't seen anything like them?

Language is a good shorthand way of saying "that big mobile thing over there".

Incidently, I tend to think in terms of language first., then sounds, images and so on.. but I may well be the strange one here.

Jane.
 
it must have been how we thought at the dawn of conciousness, without language to express these new thought forms, or even an internal disscussion capability, must have been very frightening...
 
i've thought about the same thing. i think that if people speak in a stream of consciousness it would come out much clearer, although not as refined.

i have a tendency to speak very fast and think even faster, so i tend to just ramble and ramble. i can feel myself messing up in convos as i speak. but in my mind i realise how easy and clear things are and can be.

just think...what if we really aren't meant to speak in a word/sentece-based language. words seem to have been made out of convenience(or the human ability to articulate.) what if we are capable of a lot more. like the way elephants speak with low frequency hums or whales and their high-pitched crackles.
 
mejane, not quite what I meant...

I'll try to be a bit clearer:

- I think of the concept "85 + 15";
- I then convert this into words: "85 plus 15", by which time I've already got the answer "100" worked out;
- I then think of the word "100" as the answer.

You see, I've already worked out the sum as an abstract concept while I've been thinking of how to express it in language. If we missed out the language part when we weren't talking to anyone - just thinking - then things could be done a lot quicker.
 
Consciousness v.2.0

That's right. and a calculator doesn't verbalise the concepts 85 or 15, it just adds the numbers together in an abstract way. If we could do that, we could do large sums using a tiny amount of our brain's processing power.
Some people can do this, either because of training, or because they have certain mental peculiarities... like so-called idiot savants.
A truly efficient use of the brain's processing power would probably allow us to juggle all sorts of things, add huge numbers, model abstract concepts-
(perhaps we are modelling the world in an abstract way when we dream)
all these things can be done on smaller computers than the brain, so perhaps the OS of the human brain could bear some tweaking/hacking to make it more efficient.
you start to be different to a person on the clapham omnibus if you go down that road.
 
This discussion is becoming reminiscint of the concept in Frank Herbert's book Dune. If you recall, part of the prehistory of the book involved a period of time (presumably now and the near-future) where humans had given over thinking processes to machines, which the book indicates "allowed other humans with machines to enslave them". As a result, a great revolt (the Butlerian Jihad) came along and destroyed all the thinking machines. The primary tenet of this Jihad then became "'Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind", which then led to the development of the Mentat, a human trained to process information without the aid of mechanical devices.

Presumably, the Mentat was able to process large amounts of abstract data very quickly to draw useful conclusions based on the information. This sounds like your initial idea taras.
 
Maybe we need to turn certain day to day abstract ideas into symbols (i.e. language) in order to categorise and index them within our short-term memories better. E.g. imagine the abstract for an elephant - the data could be huge, encompassing texture, look, smell, history, every film you have ever seen with an elephant in it etc etc, whereas the definition of the symbol of 'Elephant' could be as simple as a child's drawing. Add in context and you have a symbol that can represent an abstract idea on many levels, without the need for in depth and excess detail.

Hmmm. Never really thought about thought like this before. Interesting ...

*siriuss wanders off mentally chasing own tail
 
So how is the word different from the abstract concept? Can you say that there is a different from the sum 85 + 23 and the words "eighty-five plus twenty three" ? Is there a difference between what the word "cow" means to you and your idea of a cow?

There is a debate in philosophy regarding the possibility of a language of thought- although I don't recall the details at the moment but I remember that it was very hard going.
 
French Style Pseudo-Intellectual Alert!!!

Breakfast said:
So how is the word different from the abstract concept? Can you say that there is a different from the sum 85 + 23 and the words "eighty-five plus twenty three" ? Is there a difference between what the word "cow" means to you and your idea of a cow?

There is a debate in philosophy regarding the possibility of a language of thought- although I don't recall the details at the moment but I remember that it was very hard going.
Click to expand...
Bonjour!
It's a bit like the idea behind inventing a new universal language. i.e Esperanto, like re-inventing the wheel.

The idea of communicating by thought alone presupposes that the flashes of bio-chemical electrical energy and material change, within our bonces, which pass for thought about things in our external environment and internal landscapes, contain elements which are pre-existing and universally recognizable by others.

Non!
Otherwise the systems of symbolic logic, which we already use to give form to our thoughts and fleeting memories, work well enough. Although there are severe limits. i.e We find it very difficult to contemplate and understand such difficult and complex concepts as quantum physics without being dashed on the human limitations of analogy and metaphor. Until recently, we had no way of going too far, beyond our experience, to communicate, contemplate and understand, that which is, for us, ineffable.

Computers are beginning to give us the necessary, visual models, analogies and metaphors, based on trans-dimensional maths, which we can use to build more subtle and accurate metaphors and analogie, communicable by language and symbolic logic.

Ceci N'est Pas Une Pipe
We're creatures which side-stepped evolution by developing symbolic languages and the cultures on which they're based. The downside of this is that everything we communicate is mediated through some form of language, or symbol system. We already live in the Matrix.

Voulez-Vous Couchez Avec Mois, Ce Soir?
Even 'science' is only a part of that exchange of symbols and metaphor which is human culture. Merely an approximation of reality. Simply a better and more subtle lie. Which must by its very nature always mask the truth, or reality. Even as it seeks to reveal them.
 
I would say that an abstract concept is the class of something, a box that contains all the information relative to that concept as well as all sub-classes (i.e. smaller boxes) that come under that concept.

A word or symbol is a reference to that class, or to a sub-class, a little arrow that points to a set of relative data.

e.g. 85 + 15

Within the maths abstract there will be informaion such as:
Numbers{[0,1, 2,..., n], [0, -1, -2, ..... , -n]}
1+1+1+1+1 = 5
x + x = 2x
etc

The language symbols however will direct you to the parts of that knowledge that you need to access to be able to understand/calculate what's going on.


85 => Maths =>Number => 8*10 + 1*5
+ => Maths=>Operator => ¬ + ¬ ¬ = ¬¬¬
15 => Maths=>Number => 1*10 + 1*5

Uh,oh am thinking WAY too much like a programmer ... :rolleyes:
 
siriuss said:
Uh,oh am thinking WAY too much like a programmer ... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Nice analogy there, siriuss! :yeay:

I don't know enough about programming. Programming gives a lot of feedback and insight into how language and logic work.
 
I tend to think the model of computers/programming/switches etc are the closest model we have of our own brain. Lots of parallels that can help you understand the way you think. However, very simplistic and only covers logical processes not emotive.
 
Thoughts often don't seem stable and trustworthy enough to act on until they've been verbalized. I can never escape the feeling that I could have missed some wholly obvious but fatal flaw - I need to think it properly, in words, before it's more than a loose bundle of images, imagined sensations and vaguely-defined concepts. On the other hand doing some actions well depends on not thinking about them verbally.
 
You know, ol Kierkergaad used to say
'If you label me, you negate me'
(but he was Danish)
Another scandinavian philosopher, Anders Sandberg, has imagined that some aphasic and antinomic societies will dispose of language in the far future to avoid these limiting effects.
I expect that a society of aphasics would be just as efficient as our own 'truth' obsessed world of meaningless chatter.

er - which this post is an example of, by the way.
 
This has always fascinated me

I have a friend that is hearing impaired, and frequently signs unconsciously, as if "muttering aloud" to herself. I always was curious if the though process is actually complete without a sort of verbalization.

This was interesting; it's specifically about creative thought process:

"Part II: Special Aspects of Creative Thought

2.1. Speech, language, and thought

Speech progresses rapidly, orderly, and sometimes quite creatively with no preparation in thought. Apparently, speech is the verbalized thought process itself (with speech slowing down the thought process or with speech not totally following the thought's associative complexity). The length of words and the complexities of grammar are added and handled in the brain's language centers. This implies that silent, "practical" thought (the type of thought discussed in this article) occurs mostly without verbalization, as an associative sequence of images (visual, tonal or otherwise) except where visual or tonal word images are being pursued. On the other hand, words are originally tonal images and only as writing was invented also became visual images.

Polyglot individuals can think in several languages at will. This indicates that the base of the thought is not in the words but in non-verbal associations behind them. Also, the speech centers (Wernicke's and Broca's Areas) are very small and the frontal lobes very large, indicating that thought occurs non-verbally with translation into verbal mode as needed (into any one of the different languages a person happens to know).

Time spent writing, with the on-going conscious effort of converting conscious thought into the flow of language, leads to continuation in verbalized thought (more so in philosophical work than in "practical" thought). One can almost hear the inner voice.

If somebody presents an argument in debate, the answer might be forthcoming instantly, while the associative thought process provides subsequently an acceptable explanation of its logic or validity and verbalizes it. This indicates subconscious interim thought sequences.

A surprising amount of idea creativity occurs during speech and writing. There may be different reasons for this effect, better targeting of thought being one. The verbalization itself may be another reason leading to associations by way of the used verbal concepts not available in silent (not verbalized, only image-based) thought. This corresponds to the crossing of associative paths mentioned earlier as a mechanism for surprise "ideas". The need to explain something better or more slowly and thoroughly may be another reason.

One can reasonably assume that deaf and blind people, using some visual or tactile sign language for communication, can reason equally well as fully capable people. Communication of thought can use a variety of sensory stimuli and codes, as any of them can be memorized. Whether the stored sensory image used in communication or an underlying, more reality-related image is used for thought may well be inconsequential if both are joined associatively.

The speech center (Broca's Area) is located in the left temporal lobe. There is no indication that thought is substantially impaired when this area is damaged. Also, the right side of the brain continues to function normally even when the connection to the left side, where Broca's Area is located, is interrupted (as in commissurotomy).

2.2. Encounters changing thought

Following the concept presented in this article, the brain, when awake (and possibly also when asleep), continuously goes through endless associative thought sequences, mostly subconsciously, becoming conscious only as certain intensity levels are reached. The associative sequences change abruptly when unrelated sensory inputs reach a high intensity level or trigger thoughts of high intensity relative to their positive or negative consequences (as in conditioned responses). (Example: A worker on an assembly line may be in a dozing state of mind. However, when his machine malfunctions, the resulting problem will bring him to a high attention level or focusing of his thought on the problem).

Similar effects on thought sequences result from encounters in the course of daily life or the appearance of images due to sensory input."

The full article or essay is at
this site
 
siriuss said:
/\
||

I must be tired, I'm seeing double of you fallen :)
Click to expand...

It's not you, it's me. And me again. I must be feverish. There was double of me....that's much too much of a good thing so I removed one of me.
 
Re: This has always fascinated me

Fallen Angel said:
Polyglot individuals can think in several languages at will. This indicates that the base of the thought is not in the words but in non-verbal associations behind them. Also, the speech centers (Wernicke's and Broca's Areas) are very small and the frontal lobes very large, indicating that thought occurs non-verbally with translation into verbal mode as needed (into any one of the different languages a person happens to know).
Click to expand...
That's really interesting. I do think either in French or in English, rather than think in French first and then translate in English. And I can switch from one to the other, like when I can't remember a word in one language, but I can in another.
That said, if I'm tired or confused (or very drunk), I revert back to French automatically. And I can never remember what language my dreams are in (or if they're black and white or colour).

Numbers, on the other hand, are more tricky. If I've learnt a phone number in one language, I have to "see" it in my head to say it in another, while I can just rattle it out in the original language without thinking. Maybe this is because it has to do with memory, rather than "new" thought?
 
I think in multiple languages, especially when it involves swear words.
 
Who (besides me) "hears" words when they read only when they really try? When I read it seems to bypass the speech centers. Reading aloud never feels natural to me. But I can recall what I read far more easily than I can recall what is said aloud.
 
Fallen Angel said:
Who (besides me) "hears" words when they read only when they really try? When I read it seems to bypass the speech centers. Reading aloud never feels natural to me. But I can recall what I read far more easily than I can recall what is said aloud.
Click to expand...
I always hear the words in my head when I'm reading. It even sounds like my voice reading them out. However, I tend to read faster than I speak, so somehow the "speech" in my mind is going at a faster rate than if I were to read out the words (if that makes sense :confused: ). I suppose it's because I don't actually have to articulate the words physically, so they're able to bypass that function and just "appear" ready-made, as it were, in my mind.
 
When I read I seem to assign voices to the characters as I imagine they would speak. Makes seeing a film of a book even worse than if you just had an image of the characters.
 
I think therfore I am...I think...Did I just say that out lo

This is still new territory. The way the brain processes thought is still up to speculation. But I agree that language is a short hand version of every whole thought that we have. Like the way words fail when a person who has had a 'near death experience' as they try to describe it. Some sensations, and perceptions do not as yet have words. And the emotional palette seems infinate in its range but we are stuck with "smilies" for our communcation to others. Some how it falls a bit short. Telepathay would be good, until you accidentally overloaded the mind of your friend with way more sensory, emotional, spiritual input than they were ready to handle! So I guess the short hand communication of language is safer for all users, than say a mind meld would be.
 
Re: :)

MsClaireVoyant said:
Language is needed for us to express what we can to one another, but in a lot of ways, words are VERY limiting. I have so much inside myself I am unable to express in words. When I try to express a raw thought or feeling by translating it into words, I feel like so much of it gets lost. There just aren't words for so many things.
:)
Click to expand...

Hence the existence and popularity of art, music and dance - forms of communication which can often 'speak' directly to people's emotions without the need for a common language.
 
Re: This has always fascinated me

Fallen Angel said:
Polyglot individuals can think in several languages at will. This indicates that the base of the thought is not in the words but in non-verbal associations behind them. Also, the speech centers (Wernicke's and Broca's Areas) are very small and the frontal lobes very large, indicating that thought occurs non-verbally with translation into verbal mode as needed (into any one of the different languages a person happens to know).
Click to expand...
Interesting - but I am not convinced. I am bilingual and yes I can think in both German and English and switch easily between the two. Which one is dominant, however, very much depends on which language I have had most exposure to in the recent past. As a psychologist I also believe that language (not necessarily spoken) is essential to our thought processes and the formation of memories. How else can we explain that most people's memories start at about aged two, the same time as we are starting to develop language ? In addition, social constructionists would argue that is not only used to express thougt but that it also shapes the way we think about things. E.g. take the shift in psychology from calling subjects in experiments, participants in experiments. The change carries with it a total change of conotation, which has mirrored a change in ethics in how exeperiments are carried out. Or consider Nelson Mandella - once seen by the South African State as a terrorist, others saw him as a freedom fighter. Language is powerful, sometimes more powerful than anyone realises. Is it a coincidence that Eskimos have 16 different words for snow (OK so I don't know whehter this is a fact, but you know what I am getting at)?
I also believe that not all language is spoken, for instance it can be based on imagery. Indeed some psychologists believe that memory itself is constructed in different ways. So for instance, things can be encoded structurally (according to how they look), phonetically ( how they sound), semantically (the meaning they carry). Interestingly enough those encoded semantically are remembered more easily ( Craik and Lockhart).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top