Non-Linguistic Thoughts: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » Non-Linguistic Thoughts » Non-Linguistic Thoughts

Non-Linguistic Thoughts
do they exist? are they possible?

Page: 1 2

Non-Linguistic Thoughts

crispier
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 20, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 6

Posted 04/15/08 - 09:12 PM:	#26
This gets me thinking because I know when I think, (not on-the-spot thinking but think-over kinda thinking) It's like talking myself inside my head. What I don't understand is how a deaf, blind person, baby or animal thinks. (Not as in "how is it possible," as in how it works)

archaxe
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 02, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 04/16/08 - 02:51 AM:	#27
ontophile wrote: When someone says "tree" you supposedly get an image of a tree in your head, otherwise communication and understanding did not take place. Supposedly? Supposedly not. People very rarely go about spluttering random words to me, and even if they did that wouldn't suffice in order for me to understand them. Image or no image - what goes on inside my head when you say the word "tree" is rather uninteresting and quite neglectable when it comes to understanding words. On this view, not only would I need an image of a tree, but I would also need an instruction for how the image was to be applied - what use I was to make of it - and this instruction is by no means included in the image itself (and if it were, I would need an external instruction for how to understand that instruction, and so on). But communication obviously works, so image or not; communication works just fine even with no images at all. What's important in determining whether or not someone understands an expression is not whatever images they get inside their heads, but what applications they make of them - how they act. The point is not to say that to say that the image-theory is false - that would be a claim - but rather that even if it were true it wouldn't serve the purpose intended, so it doesn't really help us much. ontophile wrote: But as you read these words, you do not receive a series of images in your head; therefore, this imagistic notion of ideas is incorrect, because there is no one-to-one correspondence between words and pictures in one's mind. In other words, only if my mind's eye was constantly flooded with pictures would the imagistic theory of thought be true. Given the picture you outline above; why can't this be the case? I'd have to see a more expansive argument than the one you presented above. I might just say that yes, I do infact receive a series of images in my head. It's a somewhat metaphysical claim about the nature of my conciousness, so there's no telling really. ontophile wrote: Similarly though, I do not hear voices in my head when I think, nor do I see a scroll of words moving before my mind's eye. I have a temptation to ask: what thoughts you are thinking of here, specifically? And of course, it's not your eye - it's your mind's eye - so you can't see them. And your mind's ear too, when it comes to voices. And it shouldn't be words, but mind's words, and mind's voices, so you should be "mind's seeing" them and "mind's hearing" them, etc. The problem is that we picture the nature of mental phenomena in more or less the same way as physical phenomena - only, just not physical. But then what? ontophile wrote: If, everytime I had a thought, it had to aleady be in words, then we would never be at a loss for words Are we ever at a loss for words, really? I find "at a loss for words" better described as that we haven't conceptualized it properly - not that there's a gap between what I think and what I can say, but that my thought isn't really clear - because the concepts I'd use to describe it aren't clear-cut. modularsky wrote: Is 'thought' simply defined as 'mental process'? Then certainly there exist non-linguistic thoughts--the part of my brain that engages neurons to control my the rhythm of my breathing is a "non-linguistic thought" according to this definition. Wouldn't that be a brain process rather than a mental process?

ManthraX
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 16, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 04/16/08 - 09:33 AM:	#28
I was directed o this thread by a friend to perhaps share some insight on the question. I recently (only a few years ago) discovered that my conscious thoughts were not on par with the average. It should be understood first-off that I 'suffer' from low latent inhibition and ADD. I have a hard time translating my thoughts into words, which was becoming a major source of frustration as I felt I had a great deal to share. I am very well spoken, some have said charismatic, yet many concepts floating around in my skull simply couldn't be put in words. The frustration I felt lead to depression. I went to a therapist and together we discovered that my difficulty with communication arose from my thoughts being non-linguistic. My thoughts are a mesh of images (a constant stream) and more abstract ideas. So, to answer your question. Yes, non-linguistic thought is possible.

Adam213
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Location: Florida
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 160

Last Blog:

Posted 04/16/08 - 07:25 PM:	#29
manic111 wrote: Think of "red". What comes to mind? Most would agree with me when I say that the concept of redness cannot be described in words-sure, it could be a "vivid colour that many associate with anger", but this would not, without prior knowledge of redness, allow somebody to experience redness-see Frank Jackson's thought experiment about Mary the scientist. When we think of redness, we seem to hold an image, rather than a linguistic description, in our minds. Manic hit it right on the head, as well as a couple of the other posters here. A "thought" doesn't need to be represented by a word or a collection of words. A general feeling stemming from a particular period in one's life can be an ambiguous emotion that stimulates numerous parts of the brain and evokes many memories at once. Obviously other animals can "think" just fine without language; of course, such a statement is dependent on a very broad definition of "thought." With something like a color or smell or touch, the sensation is primary and the word is secondary--the word is just something we can attach to it in order to communicate with others. So, if one recalls a color or smell, then one is thinking, but not using language. So, the answer is in fact, yes. There are "non-linguistic" thoughts.
_____________________ "I have never wished to cater to the crowd; for what I know they do not approve, and what they approve I do not know." -Epicurus

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 161

Posted 04/16/08 - 08:31 PM:	#30
I think what you are thinking about when thinking is significant, I don't think there is simply one way. For example if I am imagining or remembering I see images, if I came trying to communicate or calculate something then I think linguistically. I would say thought its self is neither, I translate my thoughts to either to conceptualise them in the real world. It is no good to have a thought that cannot be realised in reality, that is to say I can not imagine or communicate it. I am frustrated when I can't find the words, because I know without them the thought is irrelevant, unless I can create what I am thinking. If I am playing a sport I don't imagine myself running before I run, nor do I think of the word, I may do sometimes but I find normally when I am I am not concentrating on the game or actually calculating something, I imagine I am still thinking I am just not thinking to myself, when I decide to go left or right. Here aswell I only 'hear' or should I say imagine a voice when thinking to myself, when thinking which may be on a sub-conscious level I hear nothing.
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon

verta-vitae
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2008
Location: A place so far away no one knows it exists
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 17

Posted 04/23/08 - 08:03 PM:	#31
ManthraX wrote: I was directed o this thread by a friend to perhaps share some insight on the question. I recently (only a few years ago) discovered that my conscious thoughts were not on par with the average. It should be understood first-off that I 'suffer' from low latent inhibition and ADD. I have a hard time translating my thoughts into words, which was becoming a major source of frustration as I felt I had a great deal to share. I am very well spoken, some have said charismatic, yet many concepts floating around in my skull simply couldn't be put in words. The frustration I felt lead to depression. I went to a therapist and together we discovered that my difficulty with communication arose from my thoughts being non-linguistic. My thoughts are a mesh of images (a constant stream) and more abstract ideas. So, to answer your question. Yes, non-linguistic thought is possible. I agree with this becuase I to have ADD and cant always say what I am thinking nor will say the correct thing. Its frustrating on test when I know the answer or was sure that the answer was correct and then I get the test back... Over the years I have managed to manage it, and come out above average on most subjects. In short I know what I want sentences to say, its just hard to actually say it.
_____________________ Life sucks eat a cookie

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.