Some People Think in Pictures

[DesertShark]

Not everyone is a verbal thinker. Examples of another way to think:
http://www.ted.com/talks/temple_grandin_the_world_needs_all_kinds_of_minds. html

[Sendo]

I've always thought in pictures.

As a kid I gestured more than spoke and in Korea and wherever I travel I manage very well with gestures.

My first memories of learning the word "refuse" was not to equate it with "say no" but rather to imagine a frown someone shaking their head while doing the referee "no good" gesture. This sounds like one of those studies that confirms common knowledge like "alcohol makes you more attracted to people you would normally find average-looking".

[JazzRemington]

People can't "think in pictures." That's visualization.

[Klaatu]

At my teaching seminar, one thing they emphasize is the fact that
9 out of 10 people are "visual" that is, they understand things in terms
of images (these are usually the gearheads of society) and the rest
are "auditory" that is, are likely to understand things in terms of sound,
and might have a career in a music band, or be a language interpreter.
A certain percentage are "hands on" thus think in terms of, "DO IT"
that is, say, a fire-rescue or policing job.

[Sam Da Communist]

It is just the different of types of intelligence i believe it talks about. Austism is just a severe case of a differing type of intelligence, a specialised intelligence it seems.

even people with a lack of physical body parts develop different minds, also people with different learning disabilities (where parts of their brains lack function). Eg, blind and deaf, adhd, dyslexic, autism.

Also i hate how people are labeled disabilities, and how they are even diagnosed. Eg, even i at times suffer from symptoms of adhd, dyslexia, autism at differing times in my life. (i'm going to start a diffferent thread on anti-psychology)

Some people have spatial, verbal, hearing bodily intelligence difference. people have different memory types of short term, spatial, long term, procedural, organisation.... (shit loads more)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Why do some of you want to call this 'thinking' and not 'visualising', or 'imagining'?

The problem with pictures is that they can be interpeted (legitimately) in any way one likes, but this is not the case with thought.

[DesertShark]

Why do some of you want to call this 'thinking' and not 'visualising', or 'imagining'?

The problem with pictures is that they can be interpeted (legitimately) in any way one likes, but this is not the case with thought.
Did you watch the talk?

Thoughts can also be interpreted in any way one likes, same with words. I don't see the point of bringing this up.

[spiltteeth]

Einstein claimed he thought nonverbal concepts, and only later translated then into language.

I've always wondered if one can properly think without language.

People with autism use images. I'm an artist and do indeed visualize concepts, but is this really the same thing as the thinking that occurs with language?

Any book or info on this subject would be appreciated.

[Klaatu]

I don't know if you are looking for this, but I've found this book to
be helpful, at least from an art point of view. It is not about language,
but perhaps there is some connection in the human brain of
art /language? Thanks for bringing this up. Very interesting concept.

Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain
http://www.drawright.com/

[DesertShark]

Einstein claimed he thought nonverbal concepts, and only later translated then into language.

I've always wondered if one can properly think without language.

People with autism use images. I'm an artist and do indeed visualize concepts, but is this really the same thing as the thinking that occurs with language?

Any book or info on this subject would be appreciated.
Yea the woman who gave the talk in the link I posted has some books on the subject: Thinking in Pictures by Temple Grandin.

[spiltteeth]

An internal model allows a system to look ahead to the future consequences of current actions, without actually committing itself to those actions. In particular, the system can avoid acts that would set it irretrievably down some road to future disaster ("stepping off a cliff"). Less dramatically, but equally important, the model enables the agent to make current "stage-setting" moves that set up later moves that are obviously advantageous. The very essence of a competitive advantage, whether it be in chess or economics, is the discovery and execution of stage-setting moves.
--John Holland, "Complex Adaptive Systems," Daedalus, Winter, 1992, p25.

But the question is how intricate and long-range can the "stage-setting" look-ahead be without the intervention of language to help control the manipulation of the model?

Darwin was convinced that language was the prerequisite for "long trains of thought,"

Some say non-linguistic thought cannot have either compositional structure or determinate contents, it is only capable only of an etiolated and imagistic
type of thinking, the vehicles of which are “spatial images superimposed on spatial perceptions"

Then again, Dallas Willard, who uses alot of Wittgenstein, argues the "Absurdity of 'Thinking in Language'

he says :

Thinking does occur without any accompanying language whatsoever, and thus shows itself not to be a power or act of managing linguistic signs, once it is clear what such a sign is. Thinking, as distinct from behavioral processes involving it, can do nothing to signs or symbols, and hence can do nothing with them.

[Klaatu]

People can't "think in pictures." That's visualization.
I don't know. How do we explain dreams? Those are pictures/movies playing in the mind.

[Meridian]

I don't know. How do we explain dreams? Those are pictures/movies playing in the mind.
We don't 'explain them', we call them "dreams".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DS:


Did you watch the talk?

Thoughts can also be interpreted in any way one likes, same with words. I don't see the point of bringing this up.

Since traditional philosophy is based on a systematic misuse of language, and this idea is just a faint echo of Descartes and Locke's theories (which were themselves based on Platonic/Christian dogma), I think it highly pertinent to ask these questions.

Incidentally, I note you can't anwser them.

[DesertShark]

DS:



Since traditional philosophy is based on a systematic misuse of language, and this idea is just a faint echo of Descartes and Locke's theories (which were themselves based on Platonic/Christian dogma), I think it highly pertinent to ask these questions.

Incidentally, I note you can't anwser them.
I also noted that you did not answer my question as to whether or not you watched the link (ie topic of this thread). I think its important that you do before you start in on this specific discussion. Once I know you've watched it, thought about it, and still have the same questions, then I'll do my best to respond.

I believe if you watch it, it will answer the first question you posted:

Why do some of you want to call this 'thinking' and not 'visualising', or 'imagining'?
And my response that you quoted in your second post, was addressing the statement in your first post:

The problem with pictures is that they can be interpeted (legitimately) in any way one likes, but this is not the case with thought.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sorry, DS, your link does not work -- when I clicked on it, it froze my computer for ten minutes!