Thinking About Thinking
- Thread starter taras
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2002
- Messages
- 429
In other words, if English was polysyncretic, we'd also have lots of words for snow:Caroline said:
Snowturnedtoslush
Puresnow
Meltingsnow
Crispsnow etc, etc
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2002
- Messages
- 429
I'm glad I'm not the only one who does this.taras said:
If I started to read "War of the Worlds" I have no doubt that the words in my head would sound like Sir Richard Burton.
It doesn't always happen, its mostly my own voice. But when it does, its totally unexpected. I suspect that if we could verbalize these voices, we'd be excellent impressionists.
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2002
- Messages
- 36,492
- Location
- East of Suez
Re: French Style Pseudo-Intellectual Alert!!!
And Mr Wittgenstein's Private Language Argument has, as you hint, shown that this is not a tenable positon (see his 'beetle in the box' analogy from Philosophical Investigations)
AndroMan said:
And Mr Wittgenstein's Private Language Argument has, as you hint, shown that this is not a tenable positon (see his 'beetle in the box' analogy from Philosophical Investigations)
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2002
- Messages
- 36,492
- Location
- East of Suez
Concepts are tricky
Ok, i'm no programmer but this seems like a good way of looking at things. Similarly, i think you're onto something by employing the idea of 'symbols' or 'concepts' (the stuff about the elephant earlier) to explain how we think about the world
If we relate your definition ('a box that contains all the information relative to that concept as well as all sub-classes that come under that concept') back to the real world some tricky problems arise. Lets take a really simple concept, say, 'redness', this being the concept that allows us to walk around the world encountering things and judging them to be 'red' or 'not red' or 'a bit red' (a sub class). So, in order to do this we need to posess and understand the concept of redness. This is all good until one asks how one aquires the concept of 'redness' in the first place. The obvious explanation is that whilst wandering around encountering differing red things we observe that they have this specific quality in common (redness) and so we stumble upon the concept by empirical means. Unfortunately, this leads us into a viscious circularity as if we do not already understand the concept it would be quite impossible for us to judge that any given thing 'is red' and so belongs to the set this concept covers (red things) - How can we mentally group together red things to create a concept without first having a firm grasp of the concept of redness, what it is, and how it works?
The problems get even worse when one considers more complex concepts like 'beauty' or 'elephants'. The escape can be found if one admits that such concepts are inbuilt or innate, but as soon as one introduces the notion of concepts (i almost said concept of concepts ), one is struck by the fact that we must employ billions upon billions in everything we do. Letting all these be innate is tantammount to saying that we are born with an huge grasp of a universe (albeit undeveloped and unsophisticated for a few young years) that we have not yet encountered (we were chilling in the womb!)...
its all problems
siriuss said:
Ok, i'm no programmer but this seems like a good way of looking at things. Similarly, i think you're onto something by employing the idea of 'symbols' or 'concepts' (the stuff about the elephant earlier) to explain how we think about the world
If we relate your definition ('a box that contains all the information relative to that concept as well as all sub-classes that come under that concept') back to the real world some tricky problems arise. Lets take a really simple concept, say, 'redness', this being the concept that allows us to walk around the world encountering things and judging them to be 'red' or 'not red' or 'a bit red' (a sub class). So, in order to do this we need to posess and understand the concept of redness. This is all good until one asks how one aquires the concept of 'redness' in the first place. The obvious explanation is that whilst wandering around encountering differing red things we observe that they have this specific quality in common (redness) and so we stumble upon the concept by empirical means. Unfortunately, this leads us into a viscious circularity as if we do not already understand the concept it would be quite impossible for us to judge that any given thing 'is red' and so belongs to the set this concept covers (red things) - How can we mentally group together red things to create a concept without first having a firm grasp of the concept of redness, what it is, and how it works?
The problems get even worse when one considers more complex concepts like 'beauty' or 'elephants'. The escape can be found if one admits that such concepts are inbuilt or innate, but as soon as one introduces the notion of concepts (i almost said concept of concepts
), one is struck by the fact that we must employ billions upon billions in everything we do. Letting all these be innate is tantammount to saying that we are born with an huge grasp of a universe (albeit undeveloped and unsophisticated for a few young years) that we have not yet encountered (we were chilling in the womb!)...its all problems
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2002
- Messages
- 586
"Thinking about Thinking" is a good title for this thread as it's only when we do this that we can be said to be thinking "in a language". Thoughts are non-verbal and are not processed in the language centres of the brain. As well as being proven by brain scans, this can be easily tested by thinking about abstract principles or emotions or physical feelings, such as pain or loss or joy. Most of these emotions have no verbal equivalent, but it doesn't stop you recalling instances when you experienced them. You memories of an alien land would be just as vivid as those of your kitchen. If thought / memory was solely related to language then a person who had no conctact with others throughout his lifetime would be deemed unthinking and therefore non-conscious, which is of course absurd. Their reasoning abilities would not be affected at all, although they might be a bit behind on social etiquette. Similarly with people who are deaf and dumb - they are no poorer at thoughtful evaluation than anyone else.
The reason babies rarely have memories earlier than 12 - 24 months is that the areas of the brain that are responsible for laying down memories have not yet been fully formed. It has nothing to do with language or communication. Fact is, babies start doing a lot of things around this time, like crapping and walking, but nobody would suggest these are linked to language development.
Just as an aside, I've always "heard" faint sounds associated with thoughts and also visual input. I never really considered it up until a few years ago, when I realised it was not entirely normal and is probably a very weak sort of synesthaesia. If I see something really big, its a sort of windy whoosing sound, a large expense or view it's a sigh, something small it's a high-pitched "eeeek", something flat is an "ugh", and so on. Obviously it's impossible to explain in words, and because I've always had this I don't really find it very interesting, but I thought it was worth mentioning...
The reason babies rarely have memories earlier than 12 - 24 months is that the areas of the brain that are responsible for laying down memories have not yet been fully formed. It has nothing to do with language or communication. Fact is, babies start doing a lot of things around this time, like crapping and walking, but nobody would suggest these are linked to language development.
Just as an aside, I've always "heard" faint sounds associated with thoughts and also visual input. I never really considered it up until a few years ago, when I realised it was not entirely normal and is probably a very weak sort of synesthaesia. If I see something really big, its a sort of windy whoosing sound, a large expense or view it's a sigh, something small it's a high-pitched "eeeek", something flat is an "ugh", and so on. Obviously it's impossible to explain in words, and because I've always had this I don't really find it very interesting, but I thought it was worth mentioning...
Desperado said:"Thinking about Thinking" is a good title for this thread as it's only when we do this that we can be said to be thinking "in a language".
Just as an aside, I've always "heard" faint sounds associated with thoughts and also visual input. I never really considered it up until a few years ago, when I realised it was not entirely normal and is probably a very weak sort of synesthaesia. If I see something really big, its a sort of windy whoosing sound, a large expense or view it's a sigh, something small it's a high-pitched "eeeek", something flat is an "ugh", and so on. Obviously it's impossible to explain in words, and because I've always had this I don't really find it very interesting, but I thought it was worth mentioning...
I have recently read of others like yourself who have the added input of "cross sensory" information. Some "see" colors of certain letters in the alphabet others like your self have an extra audio dimention with refrence to spacial perception; Facinating!
'Course I also heard that the -Good- acid of the 1960's could temporarily do the same thing!
A
Anonymous
Guest
Of course letters have a colour! So do numbers...'three' is orange, for instance. Who needs drugs, eh? :laughing:
I just wish I could adequately describe what's going on in my head most of the time...it's colourful, I'll tell you that.
I just wish I could adequately describe what's going on in my head most of the time...it's colourful, I'll tell you that.
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2002
- Messages
- 586
For me, this is most noticable if I'm looking out over a huge expanse of land or sea, when I can plainly hear what sounds like the noise of an enormous engine from over the horizon. I've always called it the "horizon noise" (how inventive!) but it's not a real sound, just the effect that wide open spaces have on my senses (I think
)
A
Anonymous
Guest
I must be a more visual person, then. Even my favourite songs are the ones that make me 'see' things I like.
Tell me this; when you look at a painting, a photograph or even a pattern on the wallpaper, do see beyond it? I mean, if there's a leaf on your wall, can you see the branch, the tree, the forest and the world it belongs to with it? I try to paint them, sometimes, but it's beyond my talents, I'm afraid.
Yup. I think if I lost my sight I'd top myself.
Tell me this; when you look at a painting, a photograph or even a pattern on the wallpaper, do see beyond it? I mean, if there's a leaf on your wall, can you see the branch, the tree, the forest and the world it belongs to with it? I try to paint them, sometimes, but it's beyond my talents, I'm afraid.
Yup. I think if I lost my sight I'd top myself.
Desperado said:For me, this is most noticable if I'm looking out over a huge expanse of land or sea, when I can plainly hear what sounds like the noise of an enormous engine from over the horizon. I've always called it the "horizon noise" (how inventive!) but it's not a real sound, just the effect that wide open spaces have on my senses (I think
Large expanses tend to hit me in the chest. What I mean is, as I take the sight in I feel as if my upper body just recieved a soft blow from a pillow like in a pillow fight. Kind of TAG you're it. Definately more of a physical sense that an auditory one.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2005
- Messages
- 5,521
OCD
Sufferers of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder have been described (by none other than the noted Fortean scholar Rachel Carthy) as "analyzing the processes of thought with every thought," and it's a pretty fair description.
Sufferers of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder have been described (by none other than the noted Fortean scholar Rachel Carthy) as "analyzing the processes of thought with every thought," and it's a pretty fair description.
escargot
Disciple of Marduk
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2001
- Messages
- 43,485
- Location
- HM The Tower of London
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2004
- Messages
- 1,303
That Mr Baggini is quite a thinker.
8)
8)
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2005
- Messages
- 5,521
When I encounter a really interesting new fact, whether from the print media or from the Internet, I will quite often read the text aloud to myself.
Then I'll lean back in my chair and talk about this new fact aloud, very quietly and conversationally, just as though I was discussing things with an actual human listener.
Thus when I'm eventually called upon to mention this material the words and phrases are already present.
Then I'll lean back in my chair and talk about this new fact aloud, very quietly and conversationally, just as though I was discussing things with an actual human listener.
Thus when I'm eventually called upon to mention this material the words and phrases are already present.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Check out such areas as metaknowledge and metamemory. Fascinating....
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2004
- Messages
- 1,303
not to mention meta cognition...
A
Anonymous
Guest
I told you not to mention that (thank you spike milligan wherever you are)
Yes, it’s as if the words are the things that are important and the thoughts secondary.
The spoken word puts flesh on the bones of thought and makes them reality; a sort of creation of solid things from the ephemeral.
If my wife has a problem she will talk to herself about it out loud, were-as I tend to live within my own head and would feel a bit silly doing this. But I think her method is probably superior.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2006
- Messages
- 45
lots of interesting stuff here people..
Now where does music fit in...
I have ben a fan of Pink Floyd for years....and have listened to The Wall countless times. There is a track on this album called Comfortably Numb which I absolutely love. I can play this entire track in my head as if I have headphones on - even down to the fade out. The whole track is about 6 1/2 minutes long and has 2 lengthy guitar solos in it.
I often amuse myself at in the dead of night listening to Comfortably Numb from my memory.
This is a little more abstract that thinking about words and numbers as the music I am listening to in my head cannot be expressed by me as usual communication.
It doesn't work with any other tracks for me....just Comfortably Numb - so I still need an MP3 player for the rest of the album.
Although I would guess that a conductor could probably hear an entire orchestral piece in his head following the same pattern.
Maybe music represents a purer use of our brains than simple words.
JWS
Now where does music fit in...
I have ben a fan of Pink Floyd for years....and have listened to The Wall countless times. There is a track on this album called Comfortably Numb which I absolutely love. I can play this entire track in my head as if I have headphones on - even down to the fade out. The whole track is about 6 1/2 minutes long and has 2 lengthy guitar solos in it.
I often amuse myself at in the dead of night listening to Comfortably Numb from my memory.
This is a little more abstract that thinking about words and numbers as the music I am listening to in my head cannot be expressed by me as usual communication.
It doesn't work with any other tracks for me....just Comfortably Numb - so I still need an MP3 player for the rest of the album.
Although I would guess that a conductor could probably hear an entire orchestral piece in his head following the same pattern.
Maybe music represents a purer use of our brains than simple words.
JWS
Yes, I’ve been a Floyd fan for more years that I care to mention, but with me it’s got to be Dark Side of the Moon. My wife hates it and says that it’s like listening to mad people. I say, “try making an album that sounds like mad people”.
I know what you mean about music in your head as I used to get a large orchestra playing and I found that I could direct the music like I was writing it as it played. Very strange, it doesn’t happen any more, but that may be my own fault for not encouraging the effect.