posted
This came up in the Brain/Spirit thread, and I wondered what you all think, or have to say on the matter. It seems to me that if we don't know the name for something, it feels uncomfortable until it has been named. Take, for instance, that "...it doesn't do anything..." nonsense.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a theory about memory that the reason you don't remember things well from your infancy is because you lacked the language (words) to categorize things the way you do now.
Posts: 995 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
One of the more interesting parts of 1984 was how they attempted to change the way people thought by changing the words they used.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That can be, and I think it goes both ways. And incorporates symbolic thinking, not just language. You know, like that curly littl ankh thing that the artist formerly know as Prince uses? Or %^&%^#%^%^#* Smilies.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who all has sat on a porch and appreciated the sunset without thoughts--just sensation? I have. I think words (As great as they are) can fumble us up. Take a dancer, if he/she thinks words for everymovement, he/she is not very graceful.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
your response reminds me of linguistic determinism- which meands that the worldview of a culture is unavoidably shaped and reflected by the language its members speak. Like the Hopi Indian language makes no desitinction between nouns and verbs. The people who speak it describe things as being constantly in process compared to in English wehre nouns characterize fixed things. I've always thought that was pretty interesting. Are the intricacies of our language enough to change the way we think? Can you even have the same values when you have so little concept of fixed things that you don't even have special words for them?
Just some random thoughts on the subject. Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka, knowing you have a background in linguistics, I imagine this is a fascinating subject for you. I have always been interested in linguistics myself.
My college major dealt with such theories as these somewhat, Speech-Language Pathology. We know of intelligent humans who have been raised without language. It seems if someone isn't exposed to grammar at a young age, their brain loses the ability to comprehend it. As a result, while they might be able to learn words for things, they have trouble grasping abstract concepts. Similar to simeans who learn language. Their grasp on grammar is either non-existant or extremely weak. They can commmunicate, but only on a basic level.
Thoughts without language? Not very specific thoughts. More like impressions. I imagine many animals are this way. We don't seem to be able to think about the differences between things unless they are defined. We might be aware that there is a difference, but we can't analyze it very well.
posted
I read recently (I forget where) about a study that suggests that mucking with language a la 1984 doesn't have as much effect as is generally assumed. The study was somewhat limited in scope (I think it only looked at different cultures' words for colors), but it still seems like an interesting (and perhaps hopeful) result.
As for me, I think we can certainly have thoughts without words. But sometimes words are really useful for codifying* ideas -- making things more concrete and precise. I can think intuitively about a mathematical proof without explicitly manipulating symbols or writing down propositions. For example.
-----
*My favorite choreographerism. It usually means the process of making a movement or sequence of movements precise, though not necessarily by explaining it with words.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just a few words on the possibility for thought without words. It's something I like to do sometimes for fun. Two of the easiest are memory and imagination. Specifically recalling emotion, you aren't feeling that emotion, and naming them can be difficult matter on it's own, but you can recall them, and I label them in my mind with certain sensations, but not with words. The other, and the one I use more frequently has to do with math and mathematical concepts. On the most basic level if you look at a group of objects and see them just as those objects. There may be 5 of them there, but I don't think that word. A step up is multiplication you know there are 3 groups and there are two in each group, and you know there are 6, but you do this without labelling it. I've applied it to some of my calculus classes, and I find it helpful in physics before I start trying to find words to describe a process to try visualize it first. So certainly there can be thought without words, but if I ever want to communicate it with you I have to use words, and that is difficult because sometimes there just isn't a way to phrase something and still have it make sense in English. It's only after taking Latin, that I've come to realize some of the grammatical handicaps of English and why I had trouble sometimes saying what I could see so easily.
Posts: 349 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can have thought without words. Personally, I do it all the time. I think of stuff in my head, but not usually in the form of words; that might be why I sometimes have trouble saying what I mean, and putting my thoughts into words.
If that makes any sense. Posts: 4174 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that it is necessary for there to be thought without words, but some people have different ratios of thinking in words to thinking in sensations.
Additionally, it seems like it varies depending on what mindset you are in (at least this is what I've observed with regards to myself).
Personally, I think in words on average half as much as I do in feelings. I associate thoughts with feelings and words with thoughts. For that reason I often find it difficult to express myself, but I have made it my lifelong goal to be able to make myself understood through words...
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess the original quote from fallow was that concepts require words to be stored in the brain. So emotions... don't really count. Sorry.
The deterministic language thing is called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and is considered not very valid, given that folks can learn other languages as adults. That is, the Arabic Language does not make people more prone to be terrorists (if you look at the negative implications of that theory as well as the positive). Arabic is actually an incredibly logical, structured language, and closely related to Hebrew.
Benjamin Whorf, after whom that hypothesis was named, had kind of a bible code thing going on, except it was a lot more systematic. Not that it made any more sense. But he felt that each Hebrew letter had a meaning unit, and that the meaning units combined into words yielded the true meaning of the words.
I actually take the opposite stance on script analysis, that the Bible (and other scripture) suffers rather a lot from being broken up into verses and chapters. I guess it's called contextualism- the theory that there is meaning to be found by taking the story as a whole that is not found in some epigram plucked from the middle.
Most of us are familiar with how Shakespeare's most famous verses actually come from Polonius who was not the hero of Hamlet , he was a buffoon. Of course, contextualism like everything can be taken past the point of meaning.
P.S. I think it's good that choreographers do use terms to describe motion, or the transmission of dances would be somewhat limited. It frees the dance world to experiment with other forms without fear of losing the choreographies.
posted
Unless I thinking specifically about social interactions, I think almost exlusively without words. I think in concepts generally.
I've often felt a major sense of disconnect with people who think in words. This seems to be a vast section of our culture. I used to assume that when authors said He thought, "Blah, blah, blah, blah." that they were just using a literary device to decribe a concept that didn't fit into words. I was shocked when I first realized (I think it was around 7 or so) that people actually thought that way.
To be honest, you all's way of thinking seems somewhat simplistic to me. I mean, I don't understand how you could have parallel conscious processes going if thinking is pretty much like having a conversation with yourself. Of course, I really don't understand it, so I'm probably being unfair in looking at it that way.
Anyway, if you want to judge the quality and specificity of thought available if you don't primarily use words, I offer myself as an example.
---
One problem I run into is that talking or writing about concepts is sort of like using a foreign or at least secondary language to me. I have to translate what I think into words before I can relate it. I find that, because of this, my writing (or non-face-to-face speaking) tends to take on a sort of accent based on how I read or heard those concepts before. This can cause problems, especially as I seem to use ways of communicating that are more formal or intellectualized than people are comfortable with. I think I actually do a pretty good job when I'm talking face to face or even if I'm one on one with someone who I understand pretty well.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Somewhat related to your post. I'm reminded of the true fluent multilinquists that I've known. The change in speaking a language is often accompanied by a change of voice and of personality.
posted
I take a weaker view view of the usual linguistic claims. The mind doesn't always need to be thinking in terms of language, but it does need structure of some sort. The way you perceive music, for instance, is intricately tied to your past experiences with it and any theoretical frameworks you've studied. If you don't have any of those things, you run into a wall comparable to Speech-Language Pathology already mentioned.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
(speaking not as a linguist, since no one else here is) Squicky, is there some other symbology you use for concepts? I know of some. I see the year as a big donut with July at the south, nearer, and I guess the proximity yields an expansion that corresponds both to greater temperatures and the length of days. I guess even when it is winter or I conceptualize a date in the winter, I see that part of the donut as smaller. So it's more like an overinflated tire that bulges with the summer months.
Also, my conceptualization of numbers is like a staircase. kind of. Not literally. Each 10's is a step. The non-prime numbers are more prominent, as if they were in italics. Natural squares are bold and italicized.
You can see I'm probably visual in the extreme. I read a book once that said even the way we draw attention to our points "you see", "let me illustrate", "Look here", "show", all these point to me being a visual person which is roughly 70% of the population. There are some auditory "Listen up, people" and some kinesthetic "I feel for you, I really do." Of course everyone is a blend of the three.
I know there are I.Q. systems that go into 8 aptitudes, and another with three coordinates that produce a virtually infinite evaluation range. Sometimes greater complexity verges on the chaotic.
(back to serious linguistic stuff) English is actually fairly rare in not having gender markings. I wouldn't accuse the Germans of having less gender differentiation than us. Though I suppose people tend to think British people are more gay. Chinese also does not have gender marking, and they are a very male dominant society.
The use of word form changes to convey meaning is called morphology. Chinese actually has very little morphological activity, whereas Arabic is the most morphologically rich language I've studied. Both societies are male dominated. So that's one reason why I don't buy the Sapir-Whorf/deterministic theory.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:One problem I run into is that talking or writing about concepts is sort of like using a foreign or at least secondary language to me. I have to translate what I think into words before I can relate it
this is also true with me. i've always looked at it that words are just symbols. They're just arbitrary collections of sounds that we asign meaning to in order to make communication easier. They are also vital(unless we discover how to communicate with thoughts in the near future). but that doesn't change the fact that i have a difficult time expressing what i mean in words.
Usually when i talk i have a clear picture of something in my mind, and talking is sort of a way for me to describe that picture. But i find that while i know what i mean and what i see, i have a hard time putting words to it. Because i haven't been thinking a concrete thought, i've been sort of thinking about a concept.
Sometimes people will ask me what i've been thinking, and i have no answer. And it's not that my mind has been completely devoid of thoughts. Just that i can't really relate it in words, cause i wasn't thinking in words. the best i can do is give one word describing the concept i was thinking about. And when i get stuck going into detail of what i was thinking about i usually have to resort to saying the word "thing" alot accompanied by lots of gesturing of my hands and interesting faces.
But while i enjoy this way of thinking, i don't think that it's either better or worse than any other way. It's just the way i think. I do realize that thoughts are relatively useless(in one sense) unless you can communicate them to others. And i've found that breaking down those thoughts and writing them down and trying to follow a train of thought as best i can helps me to flesh out and relate thoughts that I otherwise would have a problem with. Even then, some of my notes will contain random pictures and doodles because i understand what i'm thinking much better by looking at that picture than by trying to write it all down.
i wish i could just relate those thoughts in their pure form, they always feel more right to me that way. Sadly that's not possible, so i have to become better at doing what i consider is the next best thing. Though, i'd much rather write than talk in that type of situation. Cause it gives me more time to try to conceptualize what i'm thinking in words, and go over what i've written and sort of tweak it to more accurately represent what i've been thinking.
If i tried to say everything i've written in this post all on the spot, i don't think i would've made it this far.
posted
Pooka, it's interesting to hear about your visualization of the year. I was actually thinking about starting a thread on this not long ago, but I didn't have much of a thesis there. So I didn't.
Interestingly enough, I visualize the year as a circle (not a torus, but not really a circle -- maybe an annulus?) with the summer months at the top (maybe I really belong in the southern hemisphere, but no, that would still be backwards). This orientation always stays fixed, but sometimes I see myself at the current date, looking forward as the year bends around to the left ahead of me. No one ever taught me to see the year this way, as far as I know, but I've done it as long as I can remember.
As far a numbers go, I don't have a strong visual association with them, but I'd imagine being able to visualize composite numbers (and squares and cubes) could be really useful.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I visualize the year as a tilted ring that I go around, always facing toward the inside of the ring. The spring equinox is at the low point of the tilted ring, and the fall equinox is at the high point. My goal in going around the ring is to get to Christmas. My birthday is opposite Christmas on June 24th. The winter season is white. Other colors also appear on the ring, but sometimes the color is replaced by its name. October's orange is the easiest to visualize. April is more often the word "green." July is blue; November is brown.
Numbers are a continuum with increasing integer values marked off to my right. History is also a continuum, but the past is sometimes on my right and sometimes on my left. The present is always in the middle, where I am standing.
I track my current position on a mental map.
I have a couple of mental toys that I play with when I'm stuck on a plane or waiting for something. One is a cube of multi-colored modeler's clay that I insert dowels into and observe the pattern of colored stripes extruded opposite the dowel. The other is a ferrite dipole that I manipulate inside electrical, magnetic, and gravitational fields.
Most of my mental modeling is done with visual symbols. All problem-solving is done in English.
Edit: I go around the calendar ring counter-clockwise. The ring is nearly horizontal.
posted
Pooka, No, I don't really visualize either. I don't think that I use symbols at all, really. If I use a referent, it's sort of like my internal state in relation to the concept.
If I think about winter, there's hundreds of different aspects to the concept that make up the thought from a conceptual understanding of the idea of winter (3-month long season during the cold time) to personal memories of various winters to things that happen in winter like my birthday and Christmas to plans and expectations for future winters. That's all shooting around pretty much simultaneously. To relate how thought work for me, I'd have to have some sort of method similar to playing a hundred conversations at once and having them all more or less understandable and making up a coherent whole. If anyone ever invents a form of communication like that, I'd be all over that like white on rice.
Strider, I can relate, especially about the doodle thing. People used to get pissed at me in college because, by their standards, I never took notes in class. I did take notes, but it was like, for the professor talking for 15 minutes, they'd have what he said as best as they could write it down and I'd have a few words, a sentence or two, some drawings, and a bunch of lines and such. It made perfect sense to me, but it never really seemed to help anyone else out.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
on the matter. It seems to me that if we don't know the name for something, it feels uncomfortable until it has been named. Take, for instance, that "...it doesn't do anything..." nonsense.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
