Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: GoodShitExplorer on June 11, 2013, 01:56 am
-
Junk
-
I found that to start off with I was only ever able to think without language when I was under hefty doses of psychadelics. I am slowly but surely learning to control my mind and am finding it easier in day to day living to be able to occasional shut off language from my mind. I find that when I can do this I can understand things a lot faster and an instant calmness comes over my being.
-
Psychologists are learning to test for intelligence without the bias towards language. A big discussion in the psych world at the moment is why African communities score highly below the average on intelligence test batteries. It is because they are bias towards Western culture which place emphasise on language. So they are now devising tests without the use of language (a difficult thing to do when you think about it; you cannot interview a subject or ask them questions with words only maths and abstracts).
We think in infancy before we can talk, that's a given. I think we come to learn language through computation. Noam Chomsky put it like so:
(1) to know a language is to have mastered a system of rules and principles; (2) the child acquires this knowledge on the basis of a very rich biological endowment that determines, quite precisely, the kinds of systems that can develop in language growth; (3) use of language is rule-governed behavior. At the heart of language, and much of human action and thought, is a system of mental representations and computations. The goal of linguistics, then, is to discover these systems, and more deeply, to discover the fixed, invariant biological endowment that enables each child to develop a very rich and highly articulated system of knowledge on the basis of quite fragmentary and limited evidence."
So if we learn through computation then we have an innate computational way of thinking. Therefore we can think highly accurately without language. Language is obviously essential to live in the social world that we do but it is not a necessity.
-
LSD, shrooms, mescaline, DMT, etc.
Meditation, yoga.
-
Meditation, yoga.
Thinking is an active process. Meditation and yoga are not.
-
Thinking is an active process. Meditation and yoga are not.
Thinking will happen regardless. Meditation and yoga can loosen the straitjacket of language.
-
Thinking is an active process. Meditation and yoga are not.
Thinking will happen regardless. Meditation and yoga can loosen the straitjacket of language.
I think the OP specifies conscious thinking i.e. you must be conscious of what it is you are thinking about. By not being conscious of what you are thinking about then you don't know what it is you are thinking about it. That's why I say a consciously active process which is not attained by meditation.
-
Thinking is an active process. Meditation and yoga are not.
Thinking will happen regardless. Meditation and yoga can loosen the straitjacket of language.
I think the OP specifies conscious thinking i.e. you must be conscious of what it is you are thinking about. By not being conscious of what you are thinking about then you don't know what it is you are thinking about it. That's why I say a consciously active process which is not attained by meditation.
Meditation can help you think without language, absolutely.
-
I thought about this and it seems almost impossible to think without language. What would a being be thinking if there was no way to express it. Possibly everything just relied on acute senses to feelings of other living things. This is the best answer I can think of right now, interesting thread.
-
I was thinking about this recently actually! I've wondered what language a polyglot thinks in, and I think it's just whatever they're most used to at the time. I think the words you think are only secondary to the ideas and concept behind the words, we're just so used to expressing our thoughts in words that we do it all the time
-
I thought about this and it seems almost impossible to think without language. What would a being be thinking if there was no way to express it. Possibly everything just relied on acute senses to feelings of other living things. This is the best answer I can think of right now, interesting thread.
What about monkeys and dolphins?
-
I had a friend from Germany who said he would think in German even when speaking English. I've tried to think without language, but I find when I think, I am just talking to myself inside my own head. And shit, I think in English.
~PsychedelicSphere
-
Is it Possible? I think so. I look around and see all sorts of living entities and they do perform all sorts of activities and they must think in order to do it. But when I look at myself I just cannot think without any language. Strange!!!
How do the babies think?
How human being used to think before the development of language?
Curiously,
GSE
On occasion I notice that I am thinking without language, although these moments tend to be brief and the thoughts tend to be not complex and often they are things I have pretty much rote memorized. It is also possible that the language is not as 'loud' in my mind as it usually is, so I don't even notice it.I find that if I repeat a phrase in my mind that I can already know what I am going to think prior to thinking it. Or if I think about a phrase that I already know, there is no reason for me to say the entire thing in my mind. Also I obviously think some without language, it is not like I use language to tell myself I am hungry prior to getting some food, and I do not use language to control my hands as they type on the keyboard. Clearly at some level I have decided to type on the keyboard, but I am not verbally telling myself to do so.
Of course it is also possible to think in pictures, although I rarely do this I am able to think much more complex things than I can by thinking without either language or images. Repeat a phrase in your mind over and over to block your ability to think in language, and visualize something happening. You can think without language in such a way, unless you consider the visual images to be a form of language. I imagine that people who are born deaf very commonly think without language, either that or they visualize sign language or writing. They definitely don't think in verbal language though, because they have no idea what it sounds like.
Psychologists are learning to test for intelligence without the bias towards language. A big discussion in the psych world at the moment is why African communities score highly below the average on intelligence test batteries. It is because they are bias towards Western culture which place emphasise on language. So they are now devising tests without the use of language (a difficult thing to do when you think about it; you cannot interview a subject or ask them questions with words only maths and abstracts).
There are already ways to test for visual intelligence. Any persons IQ is the composite of their verbal and visual sub IQ scores. The IQ score we usually discuss is technically called GIQ, general intelligence quotient. When somebody has their IQ tested there are usually at least four sub scores that are taken into account, working visual memory and long term visual memory, working verbal memory and long term verbal memory. The average person has verbal and visual intelligence near 100 for each, and the average composite score is 100.
-
I thought about this and it seems almost impossible to think without language. What would a being be thinking if there was no way to express it. Possibly everything just relied on acute senses to feelings of other living things. This is the best answer I can think of right now, interesting thread.
What about monkeys and dolphins?
A recent research shows that Dolphins do have language. It might be possible that other animals do have them. It's just that we are unable to understand it.
What about pre-linguistic infants then, don't they think? I think you already agree with me that a person can think without language. It's sealteam that I have to disagree on. The grounds in which I do this is this: 1. humans outdate language in history,
2. Also we are not born with language,
Therefore humans can think without language.
Our MIND seems quite susceptible to language. It produces sound and gives a meaning to it and keep using it as a short cut to that thought. Language as it seems to me is a short cut to complex thought patterns in our MIND.
I like to think of the human mind as computational when it comes to understanding language. We have a great ability to grasp syntax and we logically deduce truths of synaptics through this process. This rule governed system allows us to understand sentences that we have never heard of, because we already know the underlying rules.
-
Do deaf people think in Braille?
-
In this very narrow context, joywind has been absolutely correct. Thinking happens with or without your input. You absolutely can help yourself break the barrier of language through meditation and yoga, as well as with psychedelics.
From what I can tell, GoodShitExplorer, you are infecting your ideas of "MIND/BRAIN" with ego. The ego illusion is a clever, tricksy beast, and it unceasingly seeks to insert itself to the base layer of all your thought contexts. Ego's tool of choice is language, and in fact I'm growing to believe that ego disappears pretty much exactly when your thoughts break past the barrier of language. Silence your mind (meditation) by loading down your brain with menial tasks (e.g. yoga), and you will begin to notice that "GoodShitExplorer" has precisely zero direct control over its thought. Thoughts simply arise, manifest, and fade back into the space of consciousness.
-
Thinking without language?
1. What is language?
2. What is thinking?
My take? You should do more drugs. You're not quite there yet.
-
I thought about this and it seems almost impossible to think without language. What would a being be thinking if there was no way to express it. Possibly everything just relied on acute senses to feelings of other living things. This is the best answer I can think of right now, interesting thread.
What about monkeys and dolphins?
What about them?
-
What about monkeys and dolphins?
Let's not forget mice, too.
-
It's a known fact that deaf people think in sign language :D Very fascinating imo. I'd also like to know what would happen to a blind person who smoked DMT.
EDIT: I should add though, that thinking in sign language is actually thinking in language, yes :D
-
It's a known fact that deaf people think in sign language :D Very fascinating imo. I'd also like to know what would happen to a blind person who smoked DMT.
EDIT: I should add though, that thinking in sign language is actually thinking in language, yes :D
I was reading about this the other day and found that the majority of people who are born deaf think in sign language, but some of them think in muscle memory! I guess some people who are born deaf are still taught how to vocalize (which I guess should be obvious to me but I have had nearly 0 exposure to deaf people), and some of them think in the associated muscle movements their tongue makes when they say something. Also, some of them think in written text.
-
I wonder if people who are born deaf ever vocalize in their minds. I mean, just because they cannot hear doesn't mean they cannot think sounds, it is just that the sounds they think will not be related to the sounds of any language. Or maybe since they never hear any sound their brains are incapable of imagining a sound, and they cannot talk to themselves even in a language they make up.
-
I actually just had a thought without putting it into language. I have been eating potato chips and stopped a while ago, but just now I got a bit of a craving for one and so I got up and ate some more. I didn't at any point say to myself 'hm I want some more potato chips' , I just felt an urge and then satisfied it. Does that count as thinking without language? I mean, I could have said 'hm, I am hungry, potato chips sound good, I am going to go eat some' , but instead I just had a craving for salt and then immediately got up and ate some more chips.
-
I thought about this and it seems almost impossible to think without language. What would a being be thinking if there was no way to express it. Possibly everything just relied on acute senses to feelings of other living things. This is the best answer I can think of right now, interesting thread.
What about monkeys and dolphins?
What about them?
Animals and pre-linguistic infants don't have language. Does that mean they don't think? Nope
-
Thinking without language?
1. What is language?
2. What is thinking?
My take? You should do more drugs. You're not quite there yet.
Have YOU thought about these things? Care to enlighten us, all mighty one
-
I think you need to have good imagination to be able to "think without language" ;)
That's all, it's just my opinion :)
-
I actually just thought without language again. I remembered my potato chip story and had a full recollection of it without once verbalizing anything related to it. That is pretty standard for the instances where I think I am thinking without language, I don't need to reverbalize my potato chip story because I already did once and now I can just remember it and have some innate knowledge about it that doesn't need repeated in words in my mind. chips chips chips ......... I mean I don't need to say that again to remember that I said it. I already have the understanding of that phrase in my mind. I mean, I know I could repeat it again in my mind if I wanted to, so I don't even need to repeat it again in my mind to actualize it as a thought, I just need to have the understanding that if I wanted to think it again I could. Bleh really hard to explain.
-
I actually just thought without language again. I remembered my potato chip story and had a full recollection of it without once verbalizing anything related to it. That is pretty standard for the instances where I think I am thinking without language, I don't need to reverbalize my potato chip story because I already did once and now I can just remember it and have some innate knowledge about it that doesn't need repeated in words in my mind. chips chips chips ......... I mean I don't need to say that again to remember that I said it. I already have the understanding of that phrase in my mind. I mean, I know I could repeat it again in my mind if I wanted to, so I don't even need to repeat it again in my mind to actualize it as a thought, I just need to have the understanding that if I wanted to think it again I could. Bleh really hard to explain.
You could think of and fully understand the object "potato chip" in and of itself without necessarily needing words and language. But to understand a "story of potato chips" then I think by definition "story" necessitates and understanding of words.
If you get me and I get you? :)
-
I actually just thought without language again. I remembered my potato chip story and had a full recollection of it without once verbalizing anything related to it. That is pretty standard for the instances where I think I am thinking without language, I don't need to reverbalize my potato chip story because I already did once and now I can just remember it and have some innate knowledge about it that doesn't need repeated in words in my mind. chips chips chips ......... I mean I don't need to say that again to remember that I said it. I already have the understanding of that phrase in my mind. I mean, I know I could repeat it again in my mind if I wanted to, so I don't even need to repeat it again in my mind to actualize it as a thought, I just need to have the understanding that if I wanted to think it again I could. Bleh really hard to explain.
You could think of and fully understand the object "potato chip" in and of itself without necessarily needing words and language. But to understand a "story of potato chips" then I think by definition "story" necessitates and understanding of words.
If you get me and I get you? :)
Not really. I can tell a story through pictures alone. Or sounds, for that matter. The way I think of language is as a layer that is abstracted from more direct methods of experience. To think linguistically is itself an experience, but the experience is not itself encoded as language. This may be why I sense that ego manifests/disappears at the boundaries of language-encoded awareness...but that's a different discussion.
-
I actually just thought without language again. I remembered my potato chip story and had a full recollection of it without once verbalizing anything related to it. That is pretty standard for the instances where I think I am thinking without language, I don't need to reverbalize my potato chip story because I already did once and now I can just remember it and have some innate knowledge about it that doesn't need repeated in words in my mind. chips chips chips ......... I mean I don't need to say that again to remember that I said it. I already have the understanding of that phrase in my mind. I mean, I know I could repeat it again in my mind if I wanted to, so I don't even need to repeat it again in my mind to actualize it as a thought, I just need to have the understanding that if I wanted to think it again I could. Bleh really hard to explain.
You could think of and fully understand the object "potato chip" in and of itself without necessarily needing words and language. But to understand a "story of potato chips" then I think by definition "story" necessitates and understanding of words.
If you get me and I get you? :)
But the thing is I still remember my potato chip story today. I could repeat the entire thing verbally in my mind, but I don't need to repeat it because I already know it. The memory of verbally encoding the story of potato chips is enough for me to think about the story about potato chips, I don't need to replay the words in my mind. Of course to really analyze the story and have the most control over the thoughts, I need to verbalize them, but at a basic level I can remember what I said without having to say it again.
-
But the thing is I still remember my potato chip story today. I could repeat the entire thing verbally in my mind, but I don't need to repeat it because I already know it.
But then you're not thinking. The title of the thread would entail [consciously] thinking of the story, which you would do with words.
You can remember the frequence of events in your memory as they happened without words and only through kinesthetic feeling and visual memory, as long as those events didn't contain language or words at the time.
But if your memory at the time contained words, then that event is part of language and language is part of that event. You can divide them in your memory but in reality they happened inseparably. You can remember the other aspects of the event and focus on visuals and kinesthetic but then you aren't remembering the memory in it's full.
I think I get you with the basic level of thinking. But this would not be the absolute representation of your memory. I want to find out if one can have conscious thoughts without language of memories that contained language (such as talking to a friend or joking about something) and playing that back without language. I think it wouldn't be the full memory without the full picture. We are getting onto something a bit deeper here though. Because then again, memories are never full representations of what really happened (we often block out dangerous memories and we always filter out specific details).
If you read my previous messages I do believe that we can think without words, or at least that is how we once lived. After analysing your claim to recall memories of events without the use of language; sure, I think we can do this. If the pat event didn't contain language to begin with then this is completely valid. But if the memory did contain language then I think if we try to separate these we run risk of misrepresenting the memory in its entirety. But then again this isn't a huge deal, it's just nitty gritty (which does concern me when discussing philosophy, as it should you).
:)
-
Well I can remember events visually, although not particularly well. I can solve simple math problems in my head purely visually. I can imagine 6 apples, then imagine them cut in half with half discarded and the other halves combined together into 3 full apples. That is thinking about division without using language. I have a much easier time thinking in language than I do visually though. Different people are different though, some people can think better visually than they can verbally. It is kind of hard to differentiate to some extent though, for example somebody thinking in sign language is thinking visually but they are still thinking with language. I guess you really need to precisely define what you mean by thinking and what you mean by language.
-
Actually I think visually when I am thinking about anonymity networks. It really helps to visualize all of the nodes interacting with each other. Usually I will imagine a visual representation of what is happening in addition to a verbal line of thought, but I can easily think of Tor in a purely visual sense.
-
For example when I visualize Tor I change between easier to visualize 2d models and sometimes 3d models. Basically a bunch of squares with lines connecting them, but sometimes semi-transparent 3d cubes one in front of the other, from an angle, with telescoping tunnels connecting them and passing through them, to visualize the layer encrypted circuit going through the nodes. Then I imagine a stream of rectangular packets going through the tunnels and that represents the clients data. I can think of a water marking attack just by imaging the packets being modified to have a unique spacing pattern between them, and I then see that this spacing pattern continues with the entire flow of the traffic after it is inserted.
When I think of Freenet I imagine a bunch of cubes in a grid shape, with one on top of the other, and a bunch of tunnels connecting to them. Then I picture data flowing through the nodes as before, but now it goes through a lot of nodes instead of through three, and the tunnels are not layered.
-
For example when I visualize Tor I change between easier to visualize 2d models and sometimes 3d models. Basically a bunch of squares with lines connecting them, but sometimes semi-transparent 3d cubes one in front of the other, from an angle, with telescoping tunnels connecting them and passing through them, to visualize the layer encrypted circuit going through the nodes. Then I imagine a stream of rectangular packets going through the tunnels and that represents the clients data. I can think of a water marking attack just by imaging the packets being modified to have a unique spacing pattern between them, and I then see that this spacing pattern continues with the entire flow of the traffic after it is inserted.
When I think of Freenet I imagine a bunch of cubes in a grid shape, with one on top of the other, and a bunch of tunnels connecting to them. Then I picture data flowing through the nodes as before, but now it goes through a lot of nodes instead of through three, and the tunnels are not layered.
Can you redescribe these events... without using words, however... You folks are silly. The Road never fails to deliver excellent drugs!
-
Well I can remember events visually, although not particularly well. I can solve simple math problems in my head purely visually. I can imagine 6 apples, then imagine them cut in half with half discarded and the other halves combined together into 3 full apples. That is thinking about division without using language. I have a much easier time thinking in language than I do visually though. Different people are different though, some people can think better visually than they can verbally. It is kind of hard to differentiate to some extent though, for example somebody thinking in sign language is thinking visually but they are still thinking with language. I guess you really need to precisely define what you mean by thinking and what you mean by language.
Hmmm sign language shouldn't be constituted as equal to vocal language because it uses visual symbols to communicate, imo this is not the same.
When you think of TOR networks,etc. I think you are just using another sense to help you understand it. I do this a lot too, with too with a lot of things to help me grasp the idea, in which sometimes language alone is not sufficient.
-
Hmmm sign language shouldn't be constituted as equal to vocal language because it uses visual symbols to communicate, imo this is not the same.
I actually made a mistake earlier when I said deaf people thinking in sign language would not be thinking in verbal language. Written text, oral communications, Asian symbols and sign language will all be classified as 'verbal'. I think the primary characteristic is that a set of grammatical rules and abstracted labels are used together to describe complex systems. On the other hand thinking in visual models that don't follow a specific set of rules or use a specific set of labels, and which don't abstract as much, would be considered non-verbal thinking, not because it is visual but because it isn't constructed from a set of abstracted component parts and organized by a set of rules. If I write 'The dog jumps over the fence" it is verbal, the same if I write it in Chinese symbols. It is still verbal if I say it orally, or if I sign it with my hands or imagine it being signed. But if I visualize a dog jumping over a fence then I think that is no longer verbal thinking but rather is visuospatial thinking. I am not an expert regarding such things but the types of thinking we are discussing are defined in psychology. So to answer your original question, yes is is entirely possible to think without language, most humans think in both pictures and in language. Some humans are almost only able to think in either pictures or words (usually they are on the Autism spectrum). I originally took your question to mean 'understanding without actualizing a thought' or something like that anyway. 'Knowing without expressing' perhaps.
Classical Autistic Thinking Style (think in pictures, limited ability to think in words, need to translate words to pictures): http://autisticsite.com/autistic-children-thinking-in-pictures-instead-of-words
Communication skills for autistic children differ from the norm, including their thinking process. The majority of children with autism find words to be “too busy”, so they usually find it much easier to remember information with pictures. Through remembering specific pictures, autistic children can learn to understand other people and express themselves to a certain extent.
Autistic children generally learn verbal language by converting any text into much more easily understandable pictures. While most people have a tendency to do tasks in order, individuals with autism have a radically different visual style of thinking. Therefore, the actual shapes of the pictures and the color of the pictures plays a crucial role in the way they’ll think and feel. Pictures help autistic children discover a vocabulary that’s much easier to express.
According to several studies, people with autism usually think visually because the section of the brain which deals with visual tasks is far more active. In addition, the language and spatial centers in the cortical regions of the brain are not as synchronized as those without the disorder.
Visual thinking allows children with autism to compensate for spoken and written words. Because their brains function differently, they can better comprehend things by building visuals and memorizing them. An autistic child takes concepts, which are sensory instead of being word based, and compartmentalizes them into small details to construct a complete picture.
In time, autistic children can learn abstract words and ideas through visual concepts, like pictures and objects. For instance, if a certain stuffed animal makes a child excited, it would become their chosen visual symbol for the word exciting. Really bright colors in pictures can intensively stimulate the brain activity in the thinking processes of most autistic children.
Autistic children usually find it much easier to express themselves within a highly structured environment. Because people with autism think visually, it’s important that they are taught using visuals, such as pictures, objects, line drawings, or symbols. Through spatial memory to pictures or objects, people with autism are able to associate the appropriate words and develop communication skills that allow them to function in society.
For children with autism, a string of words or verbal instructions are learned through visual demonstration. For instance, the word “up” is easier to express in a picture of balloons in soft colors being lifted upward. Concrete visual methods, like flashcards and blocks in soft colors, are easier to retain among autistic children and help in teaching numbers and other concepts. Long verbal phrases need to be avoided or written down because autistic children have difficulty remembering a lot of steps or word sequences.
Research that compared the brain regions of people with autism to those without found that most people with autism excel in art and drawing. As such, autistic children do well with a color coded system that allows them to think through a remembrance of pictures. For example, an autistic child learns about what to do at an intersection by thinking of its concept. These thoughts are tiny color coded pictures of various types of intersections. When the situation arises, the mind gathers this information and presents it visually so the autistic child remembers what to do at an intersection.
Autistic children generally think in detailed pictures instead of words because it’s much easier for them to categorize and remember the information. By associating a noun to the color and shape of pictures or objects, the autistic child creates a spatial way of thinking that makes it easier for them to comprehend and communicate.
Bonita Darula is widely renown for her insights into the prevention of autism. Her celebrated materials have helped thousands of people from around the World find a new sense of hope. If you’d like to discover the secret truth about autism in its early stages, take a few moments to visit this site – and find out more today!
I cannot find a web article (only .pdf files) discussing types of Autism where thinking is predominantly in words with visuospatial information needing to be translated, but it is manifested in many with Aspergers syndrome. Additionally, it is a hallmark of NLD, which many mental health professionals consider to be a form of Aspergers. Such people would, for example, have an ability to understand the word 'happy' and link it to the emotional state, but an inability to link a picture of a smiling face to the emotional state. This is in contrast to classically autistic people, who would have an ability to link a picture of a smiling face to the emotion of happiness, but have an inability to link the word 'happy' to the emotion. Therefor a classically autistic person may think 'music makes me happy' by imagining a stereo and then a smiling face, whereas someone with an inability to think in pictures would think 'music makes me happy' (either in written text, sign language, oral words, Asian symbols, etc).
Inability to think visuospatially is especially detrimental to navigational tasks. Most people navigate spatially by remembering the layout of the land, landmarks and their orientation in space. People who have an inability to think spatially must use vastly inferior navigational techniques. For example, somebody with the ability to think visuospatially may go to a friends house a ways down the street from their own, and when it is time for them to go home they can visually recall how to return to their home. For somebody who is only capable of thinking in words this is a much more challenging task. The person who can only think in words needs to resort to inefficient techniques, such as counting the number of houses between their own home and the home of their friend. The more complex the navigational task is the more disadvantaged the person who can only think in words is. The visuospatial thinker can visually recall how to get to places ("Well, this looks familiar and I can use these visual landmarks to determine where I currently am in space, and from that I can determine the relationship between myself and my destination") but the verbal thinker must encode the entire route verbally ("first I walk down the street towards the big tree, then I keep going until I find main street, then I turn left on main street and walk ten houses down").
When the ability to verbally encode is controlled for, people with severe hippocampial damage are incapable of finding a fixed location even in a small area, even if they have already been shown where it is, and even when there are multiple landmarks to help them orient themselves. They always move around randomly trying to find the location. This is called landmark orientation. Some people also have deficits in geometric orientation. When placed in a rectangular room and shown a corner, they are then spun around and disoriented. When asked to find the corner originally pointed to, they always randomly guess. Somebody with an ability to think visuospatially would visualize the corner that was pointed to and be able to make note that the wall to the left/right was either long or short (thus having a 1/2 probability of being correct, rather than 1/4). This sort of geometric orientation is automatic and natural for most people, using a verbal strategy to solve this problem requires forethought and an effort to consciously encode the information verbally.
And as far as 'understanding without actualizing a thought' or 'Knowing without expressing', I can think of a good example. If I hear an explosion, I have an understanding that something exploded prior to thinking in my mind 'something exploded!' or visualizing something exploding. So I have the original thought prior to expressing it either verbally or visually, but then my brain automatically pipes the thought into either a verbalization (I think predominately in words) or a visualization (I sometimes think visually, but it is much rarer for me). I cannot really manipulate the understanding without verbalization or visualization, but I can still come to the understanding that there was an explosion prior to actualizing the understanding in a manipulable form in my mind. Indeed I must have the understanding prior to piping it into either verbalization or visualization.
-
A thing is a unit of thought (hence it's called thinking), how do we get a thing out of the continuous world - we name it. Thinking without language is not possible by definition. Is there other ways of conscious being and understanding the world - of course.
-
A thing is a unit of thought (hence it's called thinking), how do we get a thing out of the continuous world - we name it. Thinking without language is not possible by definition. Is there other ways of conscious being and understanding the world - of course.
So you don't think you can solve a navigational problem (how to get from point A to point B) without using words or language?
-
GSE
You mean on a conscious level?
I'm guessing your completing a thesis on the subject matter. Thinking without language happens for the most part on a subconscious level. For example when interacting in familiar territory rarely do you judge how your own body language and tone of voice is being interpreted yet you automatically fit the scenario at hand. Most girls on holidays are more likely to have a one night stand even though they probably won't think to themselves " I'm gonna have one".
Primal Instincts such as exposure to the elements, fear hunger love sadness require no words to define the feelings being felt at the time. Basically what I'm saying is feelings are much stronger than language itself although language allows us to define our situations and emotions.
English is not my mother language and most people would know swearing in English isn't quite vulgar enough.
In terms of meditation, loss of ego, being a Buddhist and all that sort of jazz it really is requires the absence of thinking with a focused mind
-
A thing is a unit of thought (hence it's called thinking), how do we get a thing out of the continuous world - we name it. Thinking without language is not possible by definition. Is there other ways of conscious being and understanding the world - of course.
So you don't think you can solve a navigational problem (how to get from point A to point B) without using words or language?
If you already have developed a language then the chances are that in your navigational exercise you would use lot of language based terms to refer to various entities to do the job. Our brain does it quite fast that you might think that you are not using language base terms at all.
As I mentioned in the OP, language based thinking is possible. Many people do that on a daily basis. May be certain types of activities/thinking are predominantly without any language; such as thoughts/actions needed to meet the biological needs, etc. Babies do think without any language and so did the human before developing any language.
Thinking that are around ideas or interactions with others (of course in our head only) require language. On the other hand it might be possible to have fantasies about someone where language may not be needed much; of course it depends on what you are fantasizing about :)
I do not think that thinking requires language. You can visually think complex things through without necessarily requiring any language at all. The simplest example is spatial navigation. However, even complex things like anonymity networks can be thought of in a purely visual sense.
-
Edit: Please excuse my trespassing, while I re-read this thread and meditate over the topic(s) at hand. This is a great thread, by the way.
-
While thoughts without language certainly occurs, it follows the same inherent system from which language originates. Our mind uses images for placeholders instead of names; space may follow different rules in our brain, but ultimately it perpetuates from the same physical frame work (neural network) from which language originates. The distinction is trivial at best.
I don't think it is all that trivial. Different thought based tasks are optimized for different sorts of thinking. Thinking in pictures is the best way to navigate through space, it can be done with words as well but it is horribly inefficient. Drawing something you have seen before is much easier to do if you think of it as a picture rather than try to encode it as a series of words that describe it. Somebody who only thinks in words ends up using words as placeholders instead of images. If you see a painting you may encode it as 'A painting of a turtle, it is done with oil paint, the turtle is surrounded by a bunch of grass, it has a green shell with little flecks of color on it, I can see the sky in the background etc' but wouldn't it be more efficient to just visually recall the painting? In this case you are using words as a placeholder for the image. I once heard somebody say that every picture is worth 1,000 words but not every 1,000 words has a corresponding picture. I think this is very true. In some cases being able to think of something as a picture can be vastly more efficient than thinking of it as words, but some things just cannot really be thought of as pictures, but all pictures can be thought of as words.
but ultimately it perpetuates from the same physical frame work (neural network) from which language originates
This is not entirely true either. Language based thinking and visuospatial thinking originate from different neural networks within the brain. When somebody is thinking in sign language or written text though the line kind of blurs, if they have lesions that completely remove their working visual memory then it seems that they can no longer think in language despite having functional language processing neurons. I read once about a person who had brain lesions and he could remember how to write text and he could see text, but he was incapable of reading the text he saw, even if he had already written it. This was caused by an accident that severed the language processing part of his brain from the visuospatial processing part of his brain, both worked independently but they could not communicate with each other.
-
A thing is a unit of thought (hence it's called thinking), how do we get a thing out of the continuous world - we name it. Thinking without language is not possible by definition. Is there other ways of conscious being and understanding the world - of course.
This is bad logic both initially and functionally.
1. It is not generally agreed upon that our ability to understand "things" is predicated upon language. Language is at least a KIND of understanding, which is purposed for communication from brain to brain.
2. Even if we agreed that "thing" understanding requires language, it does not follow that all thought requires language because we have not proved that all thought phenomena are necessarily concerned with "things".
It is clear that non-linguistic thinking is at least possible. I'd go so far as to propose that ALL thought is much more elemental than language allows, and that we place language upon our thoughts well after we have already thought them. Again we return to the ego problem, as well as hints that we do not have the amount free will we generally assume.
-
My apologies... I got distracted and confused over my own language, trying to explain my position regarding non-language thinking.
You fucking got me!
-
A thing is a unit of thought (hence it's called thinking), how do we get a thing out of the continuous world - we name it. Thinking without language is not possible by definition. Is there other ways of conscious being and understanding the world - of course.
So you don't think you can solve a navigational problem (how to get from point A to point B) without using words or language?
If you already have developed a language then the chances are that in your navigational exercise you would use lot of language based terms to refer to various entities to do the job. Our brain does it quite fast that you might think that you are not using language base terms at all.
As I mentioned in the OP, language based thinking is possible. Many people do that on a daily basis. May be certain types of activities/thinking are predominantly without any language; such as thoughts/actions needed to meet the biological needs, etc. Babies do think without any language and so did the human before developing any language.
Thinking that are around ideas or interactions with others (of course in our head only) require language. On the other hand it might be possible to have fantasies about someone where language may not be needed much; of course it depends on what you are fantasizing about :)
I do not think that thinking requires language. You can visually think complex things through without necessarily requiring any language at all. The simplest example is spatial navigation. However, even complex things like anonymity networks can be thought of in a purely visual sense.
I don't think you realize that in your thinking you use lot of language based terms and symbols. Our brain does it quite fast and can fool you about it.
I think it is pretty well established that working visual memory is not the same thing as working verbal memory. The brain thinks with working memory, of which it has verbal and visual. The brain recalls data with long term memory, of which it also has verbal and visual. It is extremely widely accepted in psychology and neuroscience that humans can think in pictures and/or in language, and nobody in the field thinks that thought is limited entirely to language.
www.simplypsychology.org/working%20memory.html
by Saul McLeod email icon published 2008, updated 2012
Atkinson’s and Shiffrin’s (1968) multi-store model was extremely successful in terms of the amount of research it generated.
However, as a result of this research, it became apparent that there were a number of problems with their ideas concerning the characteristics of short-term memory.
Building on this research, Baddeley and Hitch (1974) developed an alternative model of short-term memory which they called working memory (see fig 1).
Baddeley and Hitch (1974) argue that the picture of short-term memory (STM) provided by the Multi-Store Model is far too simple. According to the Multi-Store Model, STM holds limited amounts of information for short periods of time with relatively little processing. It is a unitary system. This means it is a single system (or store) without any subsystems. Working Memory is not a unitary store.
working memory
Fig 1. The Working Memory Model (Baddeley and Hitch, 1974)
Working memory is STM. Instead of all information going into one single store, there are different systems for different types of information. Working memory consists of a central executive which controls and co-ordinates the operation of two subsystems: the phonological loop and the visuo-spatial sketchpad.
Central Executive: Drives the whole system (e.g. the boss of working memory) and allocates data to the subsystems (VSS & PL). It also deals with cognitive tasks such as mental arithmetic and problem solving.
Visuo-Spatial Sketch Pad (inner eye): Stores and processes information in a visual or spatial form. The VSS is used for navigation.
The phonological loop is the part of working memory that deals with spoken and written material. It can be used to remember a phone number. It consists of two parts
o Phonological Store (inner ear) – Linked to speech perception Holds information in speech-based form (i.e. spoken words) for 1-2 seconds.
o Articulatory control process (inner voice) – Linked to speech production. Used to rehearse and store verbal information from the phonological store.
working memory diagram
Fig 2. The Working Memory Model Components (Baddeley and Hitch, 1974)
The labels given to the components (see fig 2) of the working memory reflect their function and the type of information they process and manipulate. The phonological loop is assumed to be responsible for the manipulation of speech based information, whereas the visuo-spatial sketchpad is assumed to by responsible for manipulating visual images. The model proposes that every component of working memory has a limited capacity, and also that the components are relatively independent of each other.
The Central Executive
The central executive is the most important component of the model, although little is known about how it functions. It is responsible for monitoring and coordinating the operation of the slave systems (i.e. visuo-spatial sketch pad and phonological loop) and relates them to long term memory (LTM). The central executive decides which information is attended to and which parts of the working memory to send that information to be dealt with.
The central executive decides what working memory pays attention to. For example, two activities sometimes come into conflict such as driving a car and talking. Rather than hitting a cyclist who is wobbling all over the road, it is preferable to stop talking and concentrate on driving. The central executive directs attention and gives priority to particular activities.
The central executive is the most versatile and important component of the working memory system. However, despite its importance in the working-memory model, we know considerably less about this component than the two subsystems it controls.
Baddeley suggests that the central executive acts more like a system which controls attentional processes rather than as a memory store. This is unlike the phonological loop and the visuo-spatial sketchpad, which are specialized storage systems. The central executive enables the working memory system to selectively attend to some stimuli and ignore others.
Baddeley (1986) uses the metaphor of a company boss to describe the way in which the central executive operates. The company boss makes decisions about which issues deserve attention and which should be ignored. They also select strategies for dealing with problems, but like any person in the company, the boss can only do a limited number of things at the same time. The boss of a company will collect information from a number of different sources.
If we continue applying this metaphor, then we can see the central executive in working memory integrating (i.e. combining) information from two assistants (the phonological loop and the visuo-spatial sketchpad) and also drawing on information held in a large database (long-term memory).
The Phonological Loop
The phonological loop is the part of working memory that deals with spoken and written material. It consists of two parts (see Figure 3).
The phonological store (linked to speech perception) acts as an inner ear and holds information in speech-based form (i.e. spoken words) for 1-2 seconds. Spoken words enter the store directly. Written words must first be converted into an articulatory (spoken) code before they can enter the phonological store.
The articulatory control process (linked to speech production) acts like an inner voice rehearsing information from the phonological store. It circulates information round and round like a tape loop. This is how we remember a telephone number we have just heard. As long as we keep repeating it, we can retain the information in working memory.
The articulatory control process also converts written material into an articulatory code and transfers it to the phonological store.
The Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad
The visuo-spatial sketchpad (inner eye) deals with visual and spatial information. Visual information refers to what things look like. It is likely that the visuo-spatial sketchpad plays an important role in helping us keep track of where we are in relation to other objects as we move through our environment (Baddeley, 1997).
As we move around, our position in relation to objects is constantly changing and it is important that we can update this information. For example, being aware of where we are in relation to desks, chairs and tables when we are walking around a classroom means that we don't bump into things too often!
The sketchpad also displays and manipulates visual and spatial information held in long-term memory. For example, the spatial layout of your house is held in LTM. Try answering this question: How many windows are there in the front of your house? You probably find yourself picturing the front of your house and counting the windows. An image has been retrieved from LTM and pictured on the sketchpad.
Evidence suggests that working memory uses two different systems for dealing with visual and verbal information. A visual processing task and a verbal processing task can be performed at the same time. It is more difficult to perform two visual tasks at the same time because they interfere with each other and performance is reduced. The same applies to performing two verbal tasks at the same time. This supports the view that the phonological loop and the sketchpad are separate systems within working memory.
Empirical Evidence for the Working Memory Model
What evidence is there that working memory exists, that it is made up of a number of parts, that it performs a number of different tasks?
The working memory model makes the following two predictions:
1. If two tasks make use of the same component (of working memory), they cannot be performed successfully together.
2. If two tasks make use of different components, it should be possible to perform them as well as together as separately.
Key Study: Baddeley and Hitch (1976)
Aim: To investigate if participants can use different parts of working memory at the same time.
Method: Conducted an experiment in which participants were asked to perform two tasks at the same time (dual task technique) - a digit span task which required them to repeat a list of numbers, and a verbal reasoning task which required them to answer true or false to various questions (e.g. B is followed by A?).
Results: As the number of digits increased in the digit span tasks, participants took longer to answer the reasoning questions, but not much longer - only fractions of a second. And, they didn't make any more errors in the verbal reasoning tasks as the number of digits increased.
Conclusion: The verbal reasoning task made use of the central executive and the digit span task made use of the phonological loop.
Update on the Working Memory Model - The Episodic Buffer
The original model was updated by Baddeley (2000) after the model failed to explain the results of various experiments. An additional component was added called the episodic buffer. The episodic buffer acts as a 'backup' store which communicates with both long term memory and the components of working memory.
episodic buffer
Fig 3.Updated Model to include the Episodic Buffer
Evaluation of Working Memory
Strengths
Researchers today generally agree that short-term memory is made up of a number of components or subsystems. The working memory model has replaced the idea of a unitary (one part) STM as suggested by the multistore model.
The working memory model explains a lot more than the multistore model. It makes sense of a range of tasks - verbal reasoning, comprehension, reading, problem solving and visual and spatial processing. And the model is supported by considerable experimental evidence.
The working memory applies to real life tasks:
- reading (phonological loop)
- problem solving (central executive)
- navigation (visual and spatial processing)
The KF Case Study supports the Working Memory Model. KF suffered brain damage from a motorcycle accident that damaged his short-term memory. KF's impairment was mainly for verbal information - his memory for visual information was largely unaffected. This shows that there are separate STM components for visual information (VSS) and verbal information (phonological loop).
Working memory is supported by dual task studies (Baddeley and Hitch, 1976).
The working memory model does not over emphasize the importance of rehearsal for STM retention, in contrast to the multi-store model.
Weaknesses
Lieberman criticizes the working memory model as the visuo-spatial sketchpad (VSS) implies that all spatial information was first visual (they are linked). However, Lieberman points out that blind people have excellent spatial awareness although they have never had any visual information. Lieberman argues that the VSS should be separated into two different components: one for visual information and one for spatial.
There is little direct evidence for how the central executive works and what it does. The capacity of the central executive has never been measured.
Working memory only involves STM so it is not a comprehensive model of memory (as it does not include SM or LTM).
The working memory model does not explain changes in processing ability that occur as the result of practice or time.
-
As this clearly demonstrates, there are two distinct forms of thinking, verbal and visual. This can be clearly demonstrated in an n-back test that uses visual images. Imagine a computer screen that flashes images of various things, perhaps cartoon images of carrots, apples, cats, mice, televisions, radios and stars. An n-back test flashes such images to the subject for a limited period of time, and requires the subject to hit a button if the image currently being displayed is the same image that was displayed n previous images prior. A person can solve this task either with their visuospatial sketchpad or with their phonological loop. Somebody who solves this with their visuospatial sketchpad will imagine the sequence of flashed images in their mind n + 1 at a time, and compare the current object in their memory to the furthest object back, then after answering they will shift the images and repeat with the new input. A person who solves this problem with their phonological loop will remember the verbal labels representing the objects.
So in the 2-back sequence carrot, apple, carrot, television, star, television they will think like this
Round 1: Carrot (remember first), Apple (remember second)
Round 2: (Carrot?) Carrot (match, remember carrot first), (Apple?) television (no match, forget apple, remember television second)
Round 3: (Carrot?) Star (no match, forget carrot, remember star first), (Television?) television (match, remember television second)
A person who solves this problem visually could do it like this (imagine all text == the image it labels)
Round 1: carrot, apple, carrot (match identified, shift 1 to the left)
Round 2: apple, carrot, television (no match identified, shift 1 to the left)
Round 3: carrot, television, star (no match identified, shift 1 to the left)
round 4: television, star, television (match identified, shift 1 to the left)
The same thing can be done with reverse digit span, in which a person is orally presented with a series of numbers and then asked to recite them backwards. A visual strategy to solve this problem is visualizing the numbers forward as they are recited, and then reading them in reverse:
1, 20, 30, 40 (read backwards from 40 to 1)
a verbal technique to solve this problem is looping the numbers verbally as they are presented forward:
1
1, 20
1, 20, 30
1, 20, 30, 40
and then going backwards:
1, 20, 30, say 40
1, 20, say 30
1, say 20
say 1
yet another example is reciting the alphabet. When asked to say what comes after a certain letter, some people will verbally loop the alphabet forward to the letter + 1
a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p is after o
other people will visually recall the alphabet and simply look to the right of p, and say what they see which is o.
In the first case the problem is solved with long term verbal recall + phonological looping, in the second case the problem is solved with long term visual recall + the visuospatial sketchpad.
So clearly there are vast differences between verbal and visual thinking, and it is possible to think in either.
-
Symbol based thinking can take us only that far. Language is essential to unify and tie the human species together.
While the 2nd sentence is quite correct, the first sentence does not oppose it. A language IS a system of symbols.
I don't think you realize that in your thinking you use lot of language based terms and symbols. Our brain does it quite fast and can fool you about it.
Again, language is encoding of experience into symbols. We may or may not consciously experience thoughts linguistically, but that does not make thoughts inherently linguistic.
At a higher level
No language == No human progress
I tend to roughly agree with this in a general sense, but it would probably be better to state this as "No language == severely limited human progress".
the thoughts/actions related to our basic survival do not probably require any language. Expressing our thoughts requires language - the expression could be in our head/mind or with external entity, etc.
Indeed, expression requires symbols and language is a kind of expression. Language isn't really about understanding so much as it's about communication.
But I like the "Unit of Thought" idea as that it seems closely related to the abstract language layer I talked about few time in this thread.
Yeah, I agree with the abstraction idea. I think I said something about that concept earlier in this thread.
-
1.We should get some deaf or blind peoples thoughts on here now that would be cool?
2.How do we think when we dream as in REM sleep?
Nice posts anyway it's got me thinking
-
I noticed somebody mentioned Kripke's name here before, if you guys are interested in the topic Berkeley university has some wonderful philosophy lectures about the philosophy of language http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk5pIzCNOzU this is essential stuff really, John Searle is one of the brightest guys there is. Also Philosophy of mind is great series, every year I'll listen to these same courses again and always learn something new.
-
John's Searle's Chinese Room experiment goes something like this: You lock John in a room with a Chinese language rulebook and sketchpad. The room has a window where pages of English sentences are put. John finds the corresponding words in Chinese from his rulebook, notes them and places them in a second window for Chinese people to read.
Take this whole room and put it in the head of a robot, to represent it's thought process for language. The robot's environment provides input and the room's output sends a signal to the robot. Someone threatens the robot to hand over it's wallet and the robot does so and then runs from the situation.
This robot can be said to have some bit of understanding, at least enough to respond to the robbery. Now lets take away John's task at intaking pieces of language so that the robot cannot speak in a coherent language. Does John's lack of a language filter entail that the robot can't intake any information about the environment whatsoever? Is it necessary that the robot have the ability to vocalise English/Chinese/whatever in order to intake information and output a response that requires him to think?
I think it is possible to think, conceive of concepts and emotions, feelings, desires, mathematics, computation, art, love, philosophy, and all human intelligence without language.
Language is an efficient means of validifying your ideas of the world by getting confirmation from books and other people, but your ideas of the world does not begin with language. Of course, you could think as a baby before you could verbalise your thoughts.
-
Certainly we can think visually without using "language" as we perceive it - but you have to consciously avoid using language. Math is a language. Words, letters, numbers, art, are all language, as they are attempts to communicate something. We can get by without speaking English in our minds, but language is something beyond just the type of language you are using.
To a large degree the human mind is as complex as it is though, because of our ability to communicate and accumulate knowledge.
Alone, humans do not have many skills or knowledge. Think about what kind of person you would be if you were left to your own devices at say three or four years of age, and had no contact with humans or language.
You would develop the basic skills to survive, and you might even conceive of art, but you would not have anything but that basic knowledge of survival.
Language is built into our brains. Language is ANY form of communication - even Helen Keller was able to use her language centers, being blind, and deaf. We communicate not just with words, but hand gestures, symbols, even with our faces and bodies. Without using some form of language, our thinking is very basic. Can you look at any item without identifying it and categorizing it in some fashion? The moment you recognize something, your mind draws a correlation between the object and what you know about it through language.
The concept of time would not exist without language either, as you cannot refer to the past or future without it.
So, I think you can think without language, but if you choose to do so, you are limited to base instincts.
There have been studies done regarding "malicious ghost limbs" where people with brain injuries, years later are attacked by their hands, or have inexplicable leg or eye movement. Scientists think it's cause by a separation of the left and right side of the brain, and that each side begins to develop independent personalities due to their inability to communicate. Sometimes the side of the brain that does not have "direct control" gets frustrated about it's inability to communicate its existence and it manifests in strange ways.
-
I find that when I am not thinking in words, I am usually experiencing my senses, processing data.