Thinking in pictures

[Milk Sheikh]

instead of words.

I think some people have this problem. This is probably why math isn't my cup of tea; you can't imagine it. It may be abstract for those who think in pictures. But what is it called?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Actually, I think visual thinking is very important in mathematics - perhaps you're just not good enough at it! But it's not enough simply to be able to visualise pretty pictures - you have to know what do with them in terms of how they interact. It's like the difference between being able to visualise a painting versus being able to visualise a set of blueprints, and imagine them in action.

[Apoi_Viitor]

instead of words.

I think some people have this problem. This is probably why math isn't my cup of tea; you can't imagine it. It may be abstract for those who think in pictures. But what is it called?

Synthesia.

[Klaatu]

instead of words.

I think some people have this problem. This is probably why math isn't my cup of tea; you can't imagine it. It may be abstract for those who think in pictures. But what is it called?

Really, numbers, letters and words ARE pictures. In our mind, these pictures mean something specific (consider Chinese printed language, with it's thousands of characters)

Nine out of ten people are "visual." These are the people that study math, science, history, etc. The other one of ten are "auditory."
These folks might play music in a band, or might be foreign language interpreters, etc. Perhaps you are of the second type?

[Kotze]

Really, numbers, letters and words ARE pictures. In our mind, these pictures mean something specific (consider Chinese printed language, with it's thousands of characters)I don't get what you are trying to say here. When I think about dogs I usually don't think about the letter combination D-O-G running around and most Chinese characters aren't pictographs, but give hints to both meaning and pronounciation in some convoluted way.

I agree that thinking in pictures is rather helpful in mathematics.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Why call this 'thinking', and not (more accurately) visualising?

Klaatu:


Really, numbers, letters and words ARE pictures. In our mind, these pictures mean something specific (consider Chinese printed language, with it's thousands of characters)

They aren't pictures, and for several reasons (here is what I have posted at RevLeft before):


(1) Words formed into sentences can be negated, pictures cannot; nor can a collection of pictures.

To be sure, pictures can be crossed out, torn up, ignored, flouted, painted over, destroyed, obliterated, even disregarded, but not negated. The content of a picture (if it has one) can of course be negated but only if the latter has been put in a propositional or other sentential form, etc.), but a picture itself cannot. Once more, a picture or sign can represent 'negatives' (as in a "No Entry", or in a "No U-turn" sign, if these are conventional wordless signs, not those that might also be emblazoned with their own translation into language), but this is done my means of yet another picture or sign, not the negation of an earlier one. Admittedly, Highway Agencies employ special "No Entry" and "No U-turn" signs/pictures, which have something on them that has been crossed out. But, short of that being part of a special code, crossing out is not negation. Negation typically turns truths into falsehoods, and vice versa. Crossing a sentence out does not do this, it merely removes it from the field. Crossing a picture or sign out might turn it into another picture/sign; it would not automatically remove it from play. Hence, a crossed out picture of a cigarette is still a sign that smoking is banned in the vicinity, not that the sign has been banned or decommissioned.

Furthermore, the double negation of a sentence reinstates its original status -- as in "It's not not raining". The double tearing up or crossing out of a picture/sign certainly does not restore the original; it just creates smaller pieces, more confusion, or perhaps a greater mess.

Moreover, in language, clauses/sentences can be internally or externally negated. For example, "It is not the case that everyone is in the CWI" does not mean the same as "Everyone is not in the CWI". The first simply means that there are some (perhaps many) who do not belong to the CWI; the second means that no one does. This flexibility does not exist with pictures/signs (unless, once more, they are in code and can be translated into, and are thus parasitic upon, sentences). Or, put another way, pictures/signs cannot represent 'negative situations': e.g., that it is not Friday. We may infer such things from pictures/signs, but that is what we as language users bring to them. As Jerry Fodor notes:


"[I]f the mind is in the inference-drawing line of work, there must be symbols in which it formulates its premises and conclusions; there are no inferences without a medium (or media) in which to couch them. That matters because you can't say just anything you like in whatever kind of symbols you choose. Pictures can't express negative or contingent propositions -- [such as] it's not raining, or if it's raining that will spoil the picnic. But negative and conditional thoughts play a central role in the kinds of inference that minds routinely carry out. ([For example] it's certainly not Queen Victoria; if it's certainly not Queen Victoria, then perhaps it's Dr Livingstone. So perhaps it's Dr Livingstone.) Such considerations suggest, at a minimum, that the mind doesn't do all its thinking in pictures." [Fodor (2003), p.16, paragraph 6.]

(2) Word order affects meaning: "Red flag" means one thing, but "Flag red" means something else. The change of word order here turns a noun into a verb. You can swap pictures/signs around all day long and this will not happen -- unless, once more, they are part of a pre-arranged code, picture puzzle, or picture code (all of which, of course, already depend on language).

Hence, language use is largely governed by grammatical (i.e., socially-sanctioned) rules that enable the articulation of words in sentences. So (to use Chomsky's example), the phrase "Pretty little girl's school" can be read in many different ways, depending on how it is parsed. But, pictures/signs are not parsed into grammatical categories (except, again, as part of a code -- and codes depend on language, not the other way round, once more), nor are there similar rules for their employment (except in restricted areas of use, like those dictated by Highway Authorities, for instance).

The articulation of words permits, for example, the formation of indicative sentences; this enables the latter to be understood before their truth-values are known (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1924027&postcount=5). In this way, speakers can converse about falsehoods, possibilities, events or objects that are not in their immediate vicinity, and which might have ceased to exist -- or which might one day start to exist, etc. These could even involve remote regions of space and time, non-existent objects, or fictional characters and situations. Pictures/signs cannot do this. A (UK) road sign with a black diagonal band on a white background (conventionally) signals only what is on its face (or, rather, we take it to signal this), which might be something like "Maximum speed limit 60/70 mph" in the immediate surroundings.

On a waste tip, or in a living room, the same sign would be useless. Moreover, without the use of linguistic expressions in or on a sign, falsehoods could not be depicted, as Fodor noted.

It may be objected that pictures surely can be painted of distant or non-existent objects, but the interpretation of such pictures depends on language users knowing what they refer to. On their own, they cannot do this except by the use of language again. Language itself does not need an intermediary.

Once more it could be objected to this that certain paintings manage to represent falsehoods: think of Surrealist and Dadaist works (like those of Magritte, for example). However, the interpretation of a work of art is no more a given than is anything else. Even Magritte's famous painting of a pipe relies on a use of the French words "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" to state what many take to be a falsehood.

However, this could, of course, be seen as a truth since a picture of a pipe is manifestly not a pipe! Even so, this picture still has to use words to achieve its aim.

If a painting is to be taken to represent a falsehood, that falsehood would have to be expressed by an indicative sentence which gave voice to an appropriate interpretation (of that picture) with a negatable content, or it would not be a falsehood (given what that word means). One could not, for example, imagine another picture/sign (as opposed to another sentence) interpreting the meaning of a work of art. But that would be possible if words were signs, and so were paintings.

But, what about a picture of, say, Sherlock Holmes, or a sign that features him? Once more, as with pictures, such signs have to be interpreted. So, a sign with Holmes on it could mean anything from "Conan Doyle lived here" to "Shop here for detective novels." If it is to mean anything in particular, then it will have to be conventionally associated with whatever that is, in which case, the sign will be a code for that sentence, and no other. So, such a sign would only work because of a pre-existing language, and so could not account for language in general. In that case, this would at best imply that a particular picture/sign meant (some) words, not that words were pictures/signs.

It could be argued that words also have to be interpreted. Maybe so, but this cannot be so with all words, or the word "interpreted" would suffer a rather unenviable fate (i.e., it would be locked in a vicious circle). Anyway, even if this were so, such an interpretation (of words) would have to be given in yet more words. So, once more, language is the key, even here.

Again, it could be argued that falsehoods can in fact be depicted in or by pictures/signs. Hence, one could imagine a road sign pointing in the wrong direction, a closed sign hung on the door of a shop that was still open, an "out-of-work" sign on a working lift, and so on. But, with respect to the last two of these, the falsehoods (if such they be) will be expressed by certain words written on each picture/sign. Without they would not be able to state falsehoods -- clearly, in the second case, such words would be elliptical for "This lift is out of order"; similarly with the first. As far as the road sign is concerned, its status would depend on whether there were any words on it or not. Hence, if a sign saying "Exeter 20 miles" was pointing in the wrong direction, or if Exeter were really 25 miles away, this falsehood would plainly be language dependent, too.

It could be objected that if a "Max Speed 60 mph" sign/picture (i.e., in the UK, a circular sign with a black diagonal band on a white background (if placed on single carriageway roads) "70 mph" (if situated on dual carriageway roads)) was either accidentally or intentionally placed outside a village school (where the sign should have indicated "20 mph"), then even though it had no words on it, that sign/picture would be false.

But, such a sign expresses a command or instruction so it cannot be false, since, plainly, no command or instruction is capable of being either true or false, only practicable or impracticable, obeyed or disobeyed, etc. Anyway, a sign like this outside a school, say, would cause consternation since it indicates that the speed limit is 70 mph (if on a dual carriageway, 60 mph otherwise, in the UK). If this were a mistake, the sign would not be false (let alone would it be negated), just wrongly positioned.

And we could say that with some confidence because the sign still indicates that the speed limit is 60/70 mph, which is how anyone who knew the road traffic law (or who is possessed of ordinary common sense!) would be able to tell it was incorrectly located.

Of course, there is nothing in the above comments to indicate that I think that pictures/signs cannot be incorrect (think of a "No Entry" sign (in the UK this is a white oblong on a red background) placed on the entry to a road), but these would only be incorrect (or even false) when translated into words -- or because they can be so translated. In such cases, as already noted, signs/pictures like this are a conventional shorthand for a particular sentence or phrase (and they are such because of the standardised interpretation we have been instructed to apply to them -- perhaps as given in a manual or Highway Code). So, once more, such a sign/picture would only work because of a pre-existing language, and so could not account for language in general. Again, this would imply that a particular sign/picture meant (some) words, not that words were signs/pictures.

The idea that words are signs/pictures is perhaps motivated by the fact that they sometimes contain words, phrases or clauses (which, of course, can be negated), or by the fact that they can feature negated sentences, or sentence fragments -- as in "No student loans!", or "Don't Attack Iraq!"

But not all signs/pictures contain words -- and here the distinction between words and signs/pictures is clear.

Indeed, if words were pictures/signs they would fail to work unless they had other words printed on them --, unless, once more, they expressed a conventionalised shorthand for a particular sentence.

Of course, a picture/sign with nothing on it could be a sign of something quite incidental (for example, that the printer had run out of ink, the designer of ideas, or the artist of paint), but words with nothing written on them still manage to communicate -- but what they communicate is not something over and above what they mean (saving complications introduced by conversational or representational implicatures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicature#Conversational_implicature)).

For example, words like the following:

S1: My other car is a Porsche.

usually mean (i.e., linguistic meaning) what they actually say -- but they could equally mean (i.e., speaker's meaning, or by conversational or coded implicature) that the owner of that car is actually ashamed of the car he/she owns and is lamenting this fact. Alternatively, such a sticker could be a sign that the driver is, say, a spy (if S1 were code for another sentence/message), or that he/she was a poseur (etc.). Even so, the content of whatever is communicated over and above what the words themselves actually say will still be linguistically based, and the latter cannot be occasion-sensitive, or meaning would be forever indeterminate. And if that were so, we would never be able to grasp the content of any sentence that asserted even that hypothesised limitation!

['Occasion-sensitivity' refers to the idea that all words gain their meaning from each occasion of use, not from their social use by a speech community. However, if anyone would like to see a defence of the seemingly dogmatic assertion expressed in the last sentence above, that can be supplied on request.]

Jerry Fodor, (2003), 'More Peanuts. Review of Thinking Without Words by José Luis Bermúdez', London Review of Books 25, 19, 09/10/2003, pp.16-17.]

[Noinu]

They aren't pictures, and for several reasons (here is what I have posted at RevLeft before)

Yes, words and sentences are not pictures, but individual letters are symbols for different sounds, in picture form. Just because they don't represent something found in nature, say a tree, does not take away from them depicting something and thus pictures.
Numbers are symbols in the same way.

When it comes to the discussion, words, sentences, any types of symbols can be seen as a pictures in the minds of those who visualise these things. In the same way someone can see a colour when thinking of a specific letter or number. Nondepicting things can be transformed into pictures in the minds of some.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noinu:


When it comes to the discussion, words, sentences, any types of symbols can be seen as a pictures in the minds of those who visualise these things. In the same way someone can see a colour when thinking of a specific letter or number. Nondepicting things can be transformed into pictures in the minds of some.

But, who sees these 'pictures in the mind'?

And does whoever 'sees' these also have pictures in an inner, inner mind?

If not, then how is the idea that we have such 'inner pictures' of any use at all?

[Noinu]

Noinu:

But, who sees these 'pictures in the mind'?

And does whoever 'sees' these also have pictures in an inner, inner mind?

If not, then how is the idea that we have such 'inner pictures' of any use at all?

Well those who see colours in their mind, are people with synesthesia. The ones that can see actual pictures, refering in their mind to the word or sentence described, I don't know they name (this late in the evening I'm not all that willing to go search for it, sorry).

Inner, inner mind? What are you, Freud? They hear a word, or read a text and they see some image in their mind, say a tree, something that for them is linked to the text seen. Doesn't even necessarily have any logic, except to them.

It's only a use to those who posses the trait, they are born with it and live their lives with it, sometimes it can help them learn new things, maybe pictures are easier for them to remember than say, random words. The pictures may even link multiple meanings and make memory recollection easier.
But why wouldn't it be of use?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noinu:


Well those who see colours in their mind, are people with synaesthesia. The ones that can see actual pictures, referring in their mind to the word or sentence described, I don't know they name (this late in the evening I'm not all that willing to go search for it, sorry).

But these colours can't be in the mind unless there is someone in the mind to see them.

If there is no one in there to see them, in what way are they colours?

Of course, human beings can visualise all manner of things, but they do not see things in the mind unless they have inner eyes with which to do this.


Inner, inner mind? What are you, Freud? They hear a word, or read a text and they see some image in their mind, say a tree, something that for them is linked to the text seen. Doesn't even necessarily have any logic, except to them.

No, I'm neither Freud, nor does what I say imply I am. The point of my questions is to show that if you describe things in the way you do, an infinite regress is implied, since what you say will only work if there is someone to see these images in the mind. But, in order to do that, this 'inner person' will have to see things in its mind, and so on, ad infinitum.

So, my questions were part of a reductio ad absurdum.


But why wouldn't it be of use?

Because, the explanation you gave appealed to an hypothetical abilty to see things in the mind. But, if there is no one there in the mind to see them there, then an appeal to such an inner process would be of no use, since it would not work.

[WeAreReborn]

Noinu:



But these colours can't be in the mind unless there is someone in the mind to see them.

If there is no one in there to see them, in what way are they colours?

Of course, human beings can visualise all manner of things, but they do not see things in the mind unless they have inner eyes with which to do this.



No, I'm neither Freud, nor does what I say imply I am. The point of my questions is to show that if you describe things in the way you do, an infinite regress is implied, since what you say will only work if there is someone to see these images in the mind. But, in order to do that, this 'inner person' will have to see things in its mind, and so on, ad infinitum.

So, my questions were part of a reductio ad absurdum.



Because, the explanation you gave appealed to an hypothetical abilty to see things in the mind. But, if there is no one there in the mind to see them there, then an appeal to such an inner process would be of no use, since it would not work.
Why did you take a rational discussion and turn it into metaphysics? If you visualize a color you are creating a mock image of the color, no external source has to be present to verify it. Same could be said about you yourself if no one is verifying you existence do you exist? Then it turns into complete nonsense, regardless if it is true, because what is the point about thinking about such things when they wield no results but a intellectual way to waste time?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Visualisation is a certain way of thinking. I can imagine a spinning blue cube, but that doesn't mean there's an actual cube or even an image of a cube anywhere.

It's like when people say "I can see this going very badly" - that doesn't mean they have the power of precognition, at least when said by real people.

[scarletghoul]

I tend to think visually and never had a problem with maths. Abstract concepts in philosophy get visualised too (like, ive invented my own special 'Hegel bagel')

[Kotze]

Suppose you get the following task: You have a watch that goes off and you don't know when. When it goes off, you have to write down the thoughts you had in the minute before. You can call in the help of any comic artist, painter, 3D modeler, actor, film director you name to create a painting or movie to communicate without words roughly the meaning of these thoughts.

How likely is it that you and your team succeed in doing that?

Compare that with describing a painting or movie you see to someone. Isn't this much easier? I bet it is, even for people who describe themselves as visual types and have decades of experience in the aforementioned professions.

[scarletghoul]

Suppose you get the following task: You have a watch that goes off and you don't know when. When it goes off, you have to write down the thoughts you had in the minute before. You can call in the help of any comic artist, painter, 3D modeler, actor, film director you name to create a painting or movie to communicate without words roughly the meaning of these thoughts.

How likely is it that you and your team succeed in doing that?

Compare that with describing a painting or movie you see to someone. Isn't this much easier? I bet it is, even for people who describe themselves as visual types and have decades of experience in the aforementioned professions.only because the process you describe in the first paragraph is needless complicated. if you could just draw the thoughts yourself it could very well be much easier and more concise.

If you saw a strange looking monster and someone asked you to either describe it or draw it, what would you do.

[Klaatu]

Why call this 'thinking', and not (more accurately) visualising?
How does one "visualise" a song?

You're getting heavy into the properties of writing and language here, while not understanding my definition.
You're describing "picture" in the parlance of it's usage only to define photographs, drawings, paintings, movies, etc.
But a letter of the alphabet is in fact an image, in and of itself (therefore a picture, or symbol) when printed on paper.

For example, this is an image of the letter A:

A

Letters are then arranged to form words, which have a specifically-defined meaning. That letter is also a sound
(sound out the letter "A") which has the same meaning as the printed or drawn image of the letter "A."

[Noinu]

But these colours can't be in the mind unless there is someone in the mind to see them.

How about the mind's eye? Ever heard of it? *sarcasm*
You don't actually need a person inside your head, to be able to for example remember in vivid detail the meal you had two hours ago. You can in that sense, see it as a picture, in your head, because you remember the image you saw.


If there is no one in there to see them, in what way are they colours?

In the same way they are outside the brain.


Of course, human beings can visualise all manner of things, but they do not see things in the mind unless they have inner eyes with which to do this.

Oh for heaven's sakes. Just because language doesn't use words you think are most fitting to a context, does really not mean it's wrong to say 'see'.




No, I'm neither Freud, nor does what I say imply I am. The point of my questions is to show that if you describe things in the way you do, an infinite regress is implied, since what you say will only work if there is someone to see these images in the mind. But, in order to do that, this 'inner person' will have to see things in its mind, and so on, ad infinitum.

So, my questions were part of a reductio ad absurdum.

Well actually, Freud had a lot of theories on the subject of an inner being.
And the rest just read the sentence for the last quote.



Because, the explanation you gave appealed to an hypothetical abilty to see things in the mind. But, if there is no one there in the mind to see them there, then an appeal to such an inner process would be of no use, since it would not work.

Imagining something you saw or something you might have seen or might see = seeing.
Maybe you can't imagine pictures in your head, without referring to the tiny little person there, but it really doesn't mean no one else can.

[ZeroNowhere]

Words formed into sentences can be negated, pictures cannot; nor can a collection of pictures.

To be sure, pictures can be crossed out, torn up, ignored, flouted, painted over, destroyed, obliterated, even disregarded, but not negated. The content of a picture (if it has one) can of course be negated but only if the latter has been put in a propositional or other sentential form, etc.), but a picture itself cannot.So, essentially, words used in combination with each other (or alone, in the case of, say, "Water!") in ways which have meaning according to social conventions in certain contexts may be negated, but pictures and combinations of pictures cannot be negated unless they are used in ways which have meaning according to social conventions in certain contexts? Wouldn't a more apt comparison be between a word abstracted from social context, say, 'jabbertove', and a picture likewise abstracted? Although I will agree that generally the meanings of pictures are based around the use of language, inasmuch as their particular uses must generally be explained through use of words rather than more pictures. However, a picture with a certain, established social meaning may well form a part of a language-game. However, just as one could just as well say that 'Slab!' means 'Slab!' rather than having to translate it into 'Bring me a slab' (and 'zanahoria' means 'zanahoria'), and indeed the meaning of 'Slab!' may well have to be taught through other words just like a picture (if not, then it's quite possible that the displaying of a picture could similarly be taught without other language; one could imagine a society in which a piece of paper with the word 'Slab' was written on it instead of saying 'Slab', and in that case there's no necessity that the piece of paper say 'Slab' at all; it could just as well contain a picture. What is essential is that its function in the language-game is clear, and as such such a society would be no more or less impossible than one in which one simply had builder A saying 'Slab', along with other similar nouns, to assistant B.)

Pictures only mean something which may be negated in certain social contexts, but then so do words. It's not clear that an image which plays the role of a proposition must then be translated into a sentence playing the same role in order to be true or false, just as there is no obligation to translate 'Slab' to 'Bring me a slab'. Rather, a proposition expresses a particular role in a language-game, which may be done by a hand-gesture as much as a word; indeed, sign-language doesn't have to be translated into words in order to be a true or false proposition, we would only do so for the reason that we don't 'speak' sign-language, or automatically translate it back into words in the same way a foreign language-learner does; a certain sequence of signs may mean the same thing as a sentence using words, but it also means itself. If everybody were to use sign-language, visual symbols, then they could very well have meaning independent of the existence of our oral language (just as 'Je ne suis pas un poisson' has meaning independent of 'I am not a fish'), and really the only problems which could be raised here would have to involve an inability of children to learn sign language without oral language, which is essentially just a scientific hypothesis rather than to do with philosophy and the clarification of concepts.

While one could object that sign-language uses words, one could well simply have various series of signs which have meaning only when used together in certain sequences, or even individual signs meaning entire propositions; if these are to be equated to words, then one is essentially just extending the concept past that of the 'words-with-letters' which the quoted extract seems to be using, so that for example a picture of a hand in a given position has meaning of itself. In that case, the same is true of a picture of, say, a cow which plays a similar role, either alongside oral words or not; if such is itself a word, then the concept would seem to have been extended to the point where things relying on words for meaning becomes tautologous.

[NecroCommie]

There are propably some people here who could answer this one, but why is it that I can't seem to think in words or pictures, but in relations and structures? Any word for that? I don't imagine them as pictures (perhaps a little in some cases), nor do I find it easy to express thoughts in language, but drawing a mind-map for example is a breeze and my thoughts are easily expressed in such manner.

[Noinu]

There are propably some people here who could answer this one, but why is it that I can't seem to think in words or pictures, but in relations and structures? Any word for that? I don't imagine them as pictures (perhaps a little in some cases), nor do I find it easy to express thoughts in language, but drawing a mind-map for example is a breeze and my thoughts are easily expressed in such manner.

For some reason we discussed this in a psychology class a few years back, but couldn't get further than saying it's very common in men.
I'm going to have to google further, but thus far I haven't found anything (except a few of those studies that want to indicate that men tend to think in forms rather than in words).

Interesting question though, hope someone can answer it.

[Kotze]

this is an image of the letter A:

A
The Following User Says Thank You to Klaatu For This Useful Post:
NoinuYou learn something new every day I guess O_o

I believe RL's point was about the lack of a picture grammar in general. (I know it is said that movies have a grammar of sorts, eg. fade-out and fade-in, but that stuff isn't remotely like language grammar.)
why is it that I can't seem to think in words or pictures, but in relations and structures? Any word for that? I don't imagine them as pictures (perhaps a little in some cases), nor do I find it easy to express thoughts in languageI propose Blue Whale Tongue Syndrome. When you can't come up with a specific word you say it's on the tip of your tongue. When you find it hard to come up with a sentence or an essay about how something works even though you are sure you understand it, isn't that the same problem in big? Blue whales have the biggest tongues.

I also propose that this thread gets renamed Stonertalk V.

[Noinu]

I thanked the post for the mere reason that it was a well written explanation to why and how words and sentences are constructed from pictures, symbols.
Something that seemed to have been disagreed on a few posts earlier.

[NecroCommie]

I propose Blue Whale Tongue Syndrome. When you can't come up with a specific word you say it's on the tip of your tongue. When you find it hard to come up with a sentence or an essay about how something works even though you are sure you understand it, isn't that the same problem in big? Blue whales have the biggest tongues.
The problem is not coming up with the most accurate of words, but the best phrase to express the idea most accurately. Then again, I just came up with the idea that this might be partly due to me thinking very abstract stuff most of the time.

[NecroCommie]

Question: If words and sentences are constructed from pictures and symbols, how can you speak if you can't read or write?


I believe RL's point was about the lack of a picture grammar in general. (I know it is said that movies have a grammar of sorts, eg. fade-out and fade-in, but that stuff isn't remotely like language grammar.)
Indeed, it is said that the difference between language and the communication of dogs (for the sake of example), differs only in that language can produce an infinite number of meanings from a finite number of parts (be it syllables or letters or whatever). This cannot be said of other means of communication. The communication of dogs and the "grammar" of movies are similar in this case, in the sense that they can only express a limited number of meanings with their limited number of "parts".

[Noinu]

Speech is constructed of sounds and referencing between sounds and ideas (as in saying 'tree' and pointing at a tree).
One of the reasons, why it can be very difficult to write a language, even if you can pronounce it and understand the meanings.

[NecroCommie]

Speech is constructed of sounds and referencing between sounds and ideas (as in saying 'tree' and pointing at a tree).
One of the reasons, why it can be very difficult to write a language, even if you can pronounce it and understand the meanings.
Exactly, but isn't that quite different from saying that thinking in language is thinking in pictures? I might have understood something wrong somewhere. :I

[Noinu]

Exactly, but isn't that quite different from saying that thinking in language is thinking in pictures? I might have understood something wrong somewhere. :I

I don't really know if you have.
You see, the first point I was trying to make is that there are people with those sorts of cognitive dysfunctions that mix senses together. They can make things easier and much harder (for example in the case of tasting sounds, like you hear a child laugh and immediately taste liquorice in your mouth; - synesthesia).
But you see, even a normal person, when they hear a word, a sentence, they can imagine it, as a sort of picture. Like when someone makes a joke about one your teachers in a domina -costume; you immediately picture it.
So basically, one thinks of language as pictures, very often.
There are people however, who have difficulties concentrating on the meanings of words because they see forms and shapes, rather than the actual meanings. Which can actually make something like math, easier.

But when it comes to the difference between spoken language and written language, there are differences as well, not in the picturing the meanings, but in the way the language is used. So I don't actually know, if I understand your question ^^;;;
Sorry, such a long ramble on something I don't even know to what I'm answering.

[NecroCommie]

I don't really know if you have.
You see, the first point I was trying to make is that there are people with those sorts of cognitive dysfunctions that mix senses together. They can make things easier and much harder (for example in the case of tasting sounds, like you hear a child laugh and immediately taste liquorice in your mouth; - synesthesia).
But you see, even a normal person, when they hear a word, a sentence, they can imagine it, as a sort of picture. Like when someone makes a joke about one your teachers in a domina -costume; you immediately picture it.
So basically, one thinks of language as pictures, very often.
There are people however, who have difficulties concentrating on the meanings of words because they see forms and shapes, rather than the actual meanings. Which can actually make something like math, easier.

But when it comes to the difference between spoken language and written language, there are differences as well, not in the picturing the meanings, but in the way the language is used. So I don't actually know, if I understand your question ^^;;;
Sorry, such a long ramble on something I don't even know to what I'm answering.
Ah! Now it makes sense. Yes I agree on those points.


You see, the first point I was trying to make is that there are people with those sorts of cognitive dysfunctions that mix senses together.
I saw a documentary about extreme cases of this type. It was pretty wicked, people making these absolutely insane feats in maths, physics and sports because they could clearly visualize, taste or feel every calculation and move. The condition had a name I cannot seem to find despite digging a while ago.

[Noinu]

I saw a documentary about extreme cases of this type. It was pretty wicked, people making these absolutely insane feats in maths, physics and sports because they could clearly visualize, taste or feel every calculation and move. The condition had a name I cannot seem to find despite digging a while ago.

Well the tasting and feeling of stimuli to other sense is called synesthesia (there's a good, short article in the Finnish wiki for it; synestesia).

I read a book once, a crime novel, from Nigel McCrery, and the detective there had the condition. I thought it was very well depicted in the story; probably slightly over the top.

[NecroCommie]

I thought it was very well depicted in the story; probably slightly over the top.
Dunno, have not read. I can say though, that was it not a documentary I would have called the cases in it FAKE!
And this one was one of those old type of reliable BBC documentaries too.

[Meridian]

his cannot be said of other means of communication. The communication of dogs and the "grammar" of movies are similar in this case, in the sense that they can only express a limited number of meanings with their limited number of "parts".
Actually, the "communication" of dogs can not express any amount of meaning.


Speech is constructed of sounds and referencing between sounds and ideas (as in saying 'tree' and pointing at a tree).
One of the reasons, why it can be very difficult to write a language, even if you can pronounce it and understand the meanings.
Many words do not reference anything (let alone an 'idea') whatsoever, they are simply words with a communicative use.

[Noinu]

Dunno, have not read. I can say though, that was it not a documentary I would have called the cases in it FAKE!
And this one was one of those old type of reliable BBC documentaries too.

I would have thought the same thing of the book, as it is fictional, but reading through our bookshelf afterwards, kind of made me change my mind. You see, medical journals have a lot of information of the subject and as far as I could fathom, the depiction of it in the fictional novel was extremely close to those depicted in medical research papers and text books.
I don't think it was the truth or anything, and I was extremely doubtful of it until I tried to get info on it.

[Noinu]

Actually, the "communication" of dogs can not express any amount of meaning.

Excuse me? How on Earth could you know that dogs don't bark meanings to each others? Of course there's meaning in what they're communicating, what point would there be in communicating if there was no meaning at all.

Just because we don't understand it, doesn't make it untrue.



Many words do not reference anything (let alone an 'idea') whatsoever, they are simply words with a communicative use.

Fine, they refer to a communicative use. What's your point?

[NecroCommie]

Excuse me? How on Earth could you know that dogs don't bark meanings to each others? Of course there's meaning in what they're communicating, what point would there be in communicating if there was no meaning at all.

Just because we don't understand it, doesn't make it untrue.
Agreed, the different tones in dog barking and the expressions they use have been proven to carry more elaborate meanings such as: "I want out!", and "I want food!". Dog owners have been proven to understand these slight nuances, at least on subconscious level, and as a raiser of four dogs I can certainly confirm this.

[Noinu]

Agreed, the different tones in dog barking and the expressions they use have been proven to carry more elaborate meanings such as: "I want out!", and "I want food!". Dog owners have been proven to understand these slight nuances, at least on subconscious level, and as a raiser of four dogs I can certainly confirm this.

Definitely.
I know exactly what my dog wants. She stands by the door and barks; first bark is always just sort of casual 'hey, I'd like to go out'; second one is a bit irritated 'did you hear me?' and the third one is always really *****y 'get here you and open this damned door, I want out'.


Dogs have incredible nuance, definitely true.
Not to mention the fact that they can easily understand what we (humans) are saying, either from words often used or the tone of voice.

[NecroCommie]

Definitely.
I know exactly what my dog wants. She stands by the door and barks; first bark is always just sort of casual 'hey, I'd like to go out'; second one is a bit irritated 'did you hear me?' and the third one is always really *****y 'get here you and open this damned door, I want out'.


Dogs have incredible nuance, definitely true.
Not to mention the fact that they can easily understand what we (humans) are saying, either from words often used or the tone of voice.
Not only that, but the study I read proved that you can understand the barks even without the visual aid of expressions or positions. I know I recognize the distinct "guard bark", "fun bark", "want bark" and "excitement bark". Just to name a few.

[Noinu]

Not only that, but the study I read proved that you can understand the barks even without the visual aid of expressions or positions. I know I recognize the distinct "guard bark", "fun bark", "want bark" and "excitement bark". Just to name a few.

Yes, agreed. They have very different characteristics, especially in the tone and pitch of the bark. And of course the wails, howls, yawns etc.

[Meridian]

Excuse me? How on Earth could you know that dogs don't bark meanings to each others? Of course there's meaning in what they're communicating, what point would there be in communicating if there was no meaning at all.

Just because we don't understand it, doesn't make it untrue.

Fine, they refer to a communicative use. What's your point?
Communicating is distinct from signalling. Words communicate, noises can signal. Signalling has no linguistic meaning. Animals can not predicate about anything, for instance.

[Noinu]

Communicating is distinct from signalling. Words communicate, noises can signal. Signalling has no linguistic meaning. Animals can not predicate about anything, for instance.

Signalling is communicating; if there is a specific purpose or meaning behind a signal - it communicates something.
Signalling has just as much linguistic meaning as any other form of communicating; linguistics studies both spoken, unspoken communication. Nonspoken communication counts in it also different types of physical signals; say even the middle finger. I'd say showing that was more of a signal than speaking, and it does communicate.
And it's in linguistics.

[ZeroNowhere]

"It is sometimes said that animals do not talk because they lack the mental capacity. And this means: "they do not think, and that is why they do not talk." But---they simply do not talk. Or to put it better: they do not use language---if we except the most primitive forms of language."

I suppose that we can generally agree with this, in which case all that remains to be done is to debate whether one may have a form of language primitive enough to have no meaning whatsoever.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

I dont know if ti have already been said, but what ive heard, a couple of years ago, we do not think very much in the terms of words. If im hungry, i dont think the sentence "Im hungy." rather im more focused on the actual feeling in my stomage and when i think about possible meals i dont think "Tacos.", but i think about the taste, the texture and the effort of coocking it.

[Meridian]

I dont know if ti have already been said, but what ive heard, a couple of years ago, we do not think very much in the terms of words. If im hungry, i dont think the sentence "Im hungy." rather im more focused on the actual feeling in my stomage
How is that thinking, as opposed to feeling hungry?


and when i think about possible meals i dont think "Tacos.", but i think about the taste, the texture and the effort of coocking it.
That depends on whether or not one is thinking about possible meals, tacos, or about taste, texture or the effort of cooking it.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Maybe that wasnt the best exampels. The point of the program was that we do actually not think in the terms of words, when we think about what we are going to do after work, we do not think that sentence, but rather in something more abstract.

[Noinu]

How is that thinking, as opposed to feeling hungry?


Maybe one could ask it this way; when you're feeling hungry, what do you think?
About current world situations, playing football or maybe the feeling of hunger? I personally start immediately thinking of hunger when I feel hungry. So, in what sense is it not thinking?

[Meridian]

Maybe one could ask it this way; when you're feeling hungry, what do you think?
About current world situations, playing football or maybe the feeling of hunger? I personally start immediately thinking of hunger when I feel hungry. So, in what sense is it not thinking?
Personally, I often go hungry, then after a while notice it and start thinking about f.ex. what to cook. But the feeling of hunger in itself does not necessitate any thinking.

[Noinu]

Personally, I often go hungry, then after a while notice it and start thinking about f.ex. what to cook. But the feeling of hunger in itself does not necessitate any thinking.

Actually, you just said it yourself, that it necessitates you thinking about cooking. It's a direct result of your feeling of hunger and thus it has made you think of food.

[NecroCommie]

If we think in language, why do we sometimes find it hard to come up with a word to describe our thoughts? You know, when you have a distinct "picture" (not necesseraly a picture) of some construct, idea or thing but not a word to describe it with?

[Noinu]

If we think in language, why do we sometimes find it hard to come up with a word to describe our thoughts? You know, when you have a distinct "picture" (not necesseraly a picture) of some construct, idea or thing but not a word to describe it with?

Do you mean like when you know the word, but you can't remember it
or
that you really don't know any word to describe the feeling/whatever?

And humans don't always think in a language (language in this case meaning words and sentences). We think in a language only when we've been taught a language, but if we haven't, it's more of feelings and pictures/ideas and less the actual words that would require a language construct.

[NecroCommie]

Well, that was actually a pretty bad post as it was intented as some sort of long "agreed"-post on Tavarisch Mike's post earlier.


I dont know if ti have already been said, but what ive heard, a couple of years ago, we do not think very much in the terms of words. If im hungry, i dont think the sentence "Im hungy." rather im more focused on the actual feeling in my stomage and when i think about possible meals i dont think "Tacos.", but i think about the taste, the texture and the effort of coocking it.


The point was to give an example of a situation in which our thoughts are not constructed in terms of words. Exactly like Mike said.

[Noinu]

Well, that was actually a pretty bad post as it was intented as some sort of long "agreed"-post on Tavarisch Mike's post earlier.


The point was to give an example of a situation in which our thoughts are not constructed in terms of words. Exactly like Mike said.

Okay, sorry :)

[Meridian]

Actually, you just said it yourself, that it necessitates you thinking about cooking. It's a direct result of your feeling of hunger and thus it has made you think of food.
What? I didn't say feeling necessitates thinking, I said it does not.


If we think in language, why do we sometimes find it hard to come up with a word to describe our thoughts? You know, when you have a distinct "picture" (not necesseraly a picture) of some construct, idea or thing but not a word to describe it with?
The same reason it is sometimes hard to figure out exactly what words to use when writing a post in a forum? You have an idea (of what you want to express), yet can not find the appropriate way to formulate it.

[Noinu]

What? I didn't say feeling necessitates thinking, I said it does not.

And I said, with the wording you used, you basically proved yourself wrong by saying: When I feel hungry and notice it, I start thinking of food.
The feeling would then be the root for your thinking.

I know you didn't agree on that, but the way you said it, made you actually disagree with yourself.

[Meridian]

And I said, with the wording you used, you basically proved yourself wrong by saying: When I feel hungry and notice it, I start thinking of food.
The feeling would then be the root for your thinking.

I know you didn't agree on that, but the way you said it, made you actually disagree with yourself.
Try to keep up, I didn't say that when I feel hungry I start thinking of food. Only sometimes does it lead to thinking about food. Other times, even though we are feeling hungry, we might think of anything else or nothing at all.

[Noinu]

Try to keep up, I didn't say that when I feel hungry I start thinking of food. Only sometimes does it lead to thinking about food. Other times, even though we are feeling hungry, we might think of anything else or nothing at all.

And how many times do you actually not think of anything of the sort when you feel that hungry?
I wonder if you might just be the only one.

[Meridian]

And how many times do you actually not think of anything of the sort when you feel that hungry?
I wonder if you might just be the only one.
You seem to be confusing a feeling with a thought.

I am obviously not the only one who is capable of feeling hungry, while perhaps thinking of other things.

[Noinu]

You seem to be confusing a feeling with a thought.

I am obviously not the only one who is capable of feeling hungry, while perhaps thinking of other things.

Never said humans aren't capable of it, I just don't know a single person who wouldn't think of being hungry when feeling it, even if it was only in passing.

I am not confusing feelings with thoughts, but you seem to think it is not likely to think of a feeling once you feel it. Alright with something as abstract as love or paranoia, it's not as likely, that's granted, but hunger? Seriously? You never think you're hungry when you're hungry?

[Tavarisch_Mike]

You seem to be confusing a feeling with a thought.

I am obviously not the only one who is capable of feeling hungry, while perhaps thinking of other things.


Cant you see that they are connected?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Cant you see that they are connected?

Connected, yes. The same, no.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Connected, yes. The same, no.

Neither did i say that.

[Noinu]

^That.
Neither of us said it's the same thing.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Neither did i say that.

Meridian is stating that they're not the same. Though, you stating that they are connected, I took this (out of pure assumption) as you stating they are the same.

[Meridian]

Never said humans aren't capable of it, I just don't know a single person who wouldn't think of being hungry when feeling it, even if it was only in passing.

I am not confusing feelings with thoughts, but you seem to think it is not likely to think of a feeling once you feel it. Alright with something as abstract as love or paranoia, it's not as likely, that's granted, but hunger? Seriously? You never think you're hungry when you're hungry?
I have said multiple times that a person can think of being hungry while being hungry, etc., but that it is not a necessity. I have not said anything at all about likelihood.

[Noinu]

I have said multiple times that a person can think of being hungry while being hungry, etc., but that it is not a necessity. I have not said anything at all about likelihood.

Then why be so hostile about it, hmm?