No special expertise is needed for this question, of course. Just look deeply into yourself, and tell me what you think the connection is between language and thought (how have you noticed the cycle operate within yourself)? What role do you think it played in human evolution?
Do you think the feelings/emotions/felt sensations came first and demanded to be verbally expressed? Or did the incidental occurrence of "words" somehow stimulate new, more refined thinking?
What role do you think the continued refinement of language -- if this is even possible -- might play in the continued evolution of our species?
This is precisely my PhD thesis topic - what is the nature of consciousness, and is language a prerequisite of self awareness, merely its consequence, or is there no connection at all. When I decide on an answer in four years I'll let you know lol
Good Evening crmhaske
Thank you for visiting our forum today! What luck, it looks like we have a technical consultant!
But come, come now, my good man! You mustn't be so modest. I take it you have just started graduate school. But you are working on your PhD in philosophy, which means you must have majored in philosophy in undergraduate school -- which means you have far more formal training in the discipline than the vast majority of us at HubPages.
Please share some of your preliminary thoughts. Start anywhere and in any way you like.
Don't leave us hangin'!
Close. I start graduate school in September, but in Cognitive Psychology not Philosophy. My undergraduate degree was actually Aerospace Engineering lol. Your guess is as good as mine as to how I got accepted into a psychology doctoral program with an engineering background
What I presently believe is that consciousness is the result of complex neurological processes - the gestalt result that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. I don't believe language is the consequence of self-awareness, but that it arises together with it. When people think language they often think verbal language, but language is more than just that - body language, sign language etc. It is merely a form of communicating your thoughts and feelings to someone else. Without awareness of those thoughts and feelings you wouldn't feel any need to communicate. As such, it isn't that language is needed for self-awareness, but that it naturally arises from having an awareness of your own thoughts. They sort of arise together as they build in complexity.
I've written hubs on similar topics - mental imagery and intelligence, and the limitations of thought.
Good Evening crmhaske
Your in cognitive psychology? That's close enough! Congratulations you are our technical consultant!
You believe that consciousness arises from complex neurological processes; and together with consciousness, language grew up together with this. Do I have that right? Also, you would have us understand that language is a totality of verbal and body attitude.
Our thought flow through our language. Do it work in the reverse way, as well. Does our language flow through our thoughts? I'll have a question to ask about that at another time.
Right now, let me simply ask you this: if we teach a chimpanzeee sign language, are we changing the way he thinks?
Essentially, that is what I believe yes. As far as language goes, I essentially see it as any structured form of communicating one's internal life externally. For humans that is auditorally (language, and sounds (laughter, screams etc.)) and visually (facial expressions, mannerisms etc.).
Hmm.. that's an interesting way to put it. If you include mental imagery and other visual and non-verbal auditory means of communication as language then I guess you could say our thoughts flow through our language yes. I'm not sure what you mean by "does our language flow through our thoughts" - could you elaborate please?
That is a fantastic question, but an unfortunately difficult question to answer because the only thing that knows how it thinks is the thing that is thinking. Scientifically I suppose you could use different types of brain scans before the chimpanzee learns sign language and after to determine if there are any particular areas of the brain that exhibit more or less communication after learning sign language. The difficulty is the chimp's brain structure which doesn't have the complex language areas that our brains have developed. Furthermore, whether a chimp's learned sign language is merely mimicry (see the Chinese room argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room) or is understood language is very difficult to determine. Also, any chimp that has been taught sign language even from a very young age comes no where near the language learning abilities of a human toddler. As it is still in debate how humans learn language it is very difficult for us to determine how another species does it.
Also one last thought. It is very common for people to fail to understand what it is they are actually feeling or thinking themselves. Often this is what makes communication so difficult, how to you communicate a message that is already jumbled before leaving the gate?
Good Morning crmhaske
You're right when you say that people often don't fully understand what they're thinking and feeling themselves. As a result, "... you communicate a message that is already jumbled before leaving the gate[.]" I'm not sure I know what I meant by our "language flowing through our thoughts."
But let me express it this way, with the question I've been saving. Have you ever noticed very old couples, in their nineties, walking hand in hand in the park? You know they've had to have been together for at least a half century or more.
You ever notice how their faces look alike? I believe the years together molded their featues into a kind of.... molded, consensus form. They came to look alike over the years of being together. Let me explain.
We all have mannerism, unique facial expressions, and "ticks" that belong to us as individuals.
Each of us has a personalized, unique... pattern of thought. Nobody thinks quite the way you do, crmhaske, or me.
Those facial expressions always correspond to thoughts, a particular portion of our stream of thinking. When we frown, arch an eyebrow, sigh -- in the particular way that each of us performs these gestures -- we are always thinking something.
When two people are together for a very long time, and the relationship is a good one, they form a common, deep sympathy and empathy with one another. As a result, each person begins to use the other person's mannerism, slang, and facial expressions.
With the importation of these things, also comes the corresponding thoughts from the other person. Both the expressions and the particular corresponding thoughts (or aspect of the other person's thought-stream) become integrated into the other person.
Being together with another person for a longtime changes the way each of you think -- assimilation. As the way you think changes and you incorporate the other person's facial expressions, not only do you incorporate part of the other person's thinking pattern (again, in a good relationship!), but the shape of your faces changes -- into a new consensus, unlike the family that each of you came from.
If you show me couple who have been married for thirty years, and they don't really look a like, I would say that is not a good relationship. There are not in sympathy and empathy with one another. Such people certainly wouldn't talk alike -- they may have never incorporated any of the other person's unique, individualized speech pattern.
How would you evaluate that theory, crmhaske?
It isn't necessarily true that facial expressions and mannerisms represent thought. Sometimes they are autonomic or unconscious.
As far as couples resembling each others mannerisms, as a social species we are keen at mimicry. We even have specialized neurons in our brains called mirror neurons that are reserved for doing just this. As infants we mimic the facial expressions of our caregivers and associate their behaviours with these expressions to learn how to use them ourselves to express the same "emotion". This is an entirely unconscious, biologically driven behavioural response.
Two people don't have to be in a romantic relationship for this to occur. Two mortal enemies given enough time together could begin to exhibit similar tendencies. Couples that don't seem as similar in their mannerisms and facial expressions just haven't spent as much time together as other couples who are more in-sync.
I seem to disagree with you a lot, but I enjoy your reality. The facial expressions are consciously learned and stored subconsciously. How does an unconscious person make facial expressions unless dreaming? Even then, they are still subconscious while dreaming.
When our mirror neurons as you say store information, it is information that we consciously observe, this is not unconscious as you would have people believe.
Hi TD (This is me laughing at the irony)And also contesting that reality is based on belief. IF a person believes that this person is his lover and not (hahahahahahahaha) his enemy, then the language that he will use will be that of a lover's, until he realizes that his belief is (hahahahahahahahahaha) false.
In a way, another person is a construct of the person observing him and not really the person. So an enemy is only an enemy because the belief of the observer is that he is. But switch that around and you have maybe quite the opposite.
Hello Cecilia, it is always fun to enter others realities.
This is me sharing the moment of extreme irony with you.
You make facial expression you don't realize you are making all of the time. Video tape yourself reading a book, watching a movie, engaged in deep conversation, and you'll see facial expressions you have no recollection whatsoever of having made.
There is a great deal that you pick up unconsciously, there are thousands of psychological studies out there that have time and again demonstrated that.
true true. what you communicate is unconscious...but crm, what about what you chose to understand? what is your take on that?
You don't choose to understand, you understand only that which you are capable of.
Choice is an illusion.
can you explain (although I agree with you...the art of choosing Iyengar)
my interest in what makes you think you are choosing something over the other?
Wow, how do you pick anything up unconsciously? Does a knocked out person comprehend a conversation you are having or see your actions? How does a person communicate when knocked out, by snoring?
i seriously do not know...but you can talk to people who sleep walk.
edgar cayce talks more when he's asleep.he actually knows more when he's asleep.
I think this is because he is still subconscious. I think the defining of unconscious is entirely incorrect by all definitions I have seen. This is likely because no one can define the origin of consciousness.
Ya, that's why I've chosen to do my PhD on it - this forum helps get my thoughts in a straight line. Having people like you that adamantly disagree with me is immensely helpful.
The problem of course is I get bored with people quickly and then leave the forum for a month hoping to come back with new people like you to debate with
Thank You. I agree, it has been very interesting and stimulating on my end as well. Hopefully for both of us, we don't start agreeing anytime soon. I mean that in a good way.
I agree that we may not have awareness to view our expressions, but this doesn't mean we are unconscious of them. They are still subconscious memories leading to the expressions. I think unconscious has been defined wrong. Unconscious is dead. If a person is truly unconscious when asleep or knocked out, why is their mind still subconsciously active? I think the word should be, there are many things we pick up without awareness of picking them up subconsciously, not that we pick them up unconsciously. Even with the traditional definition of unconscious, how does a knocked out person pick things up when in a resting state?
Unconscious doesn't mean dead it means unaware. Subconscious is the transition point between what is unconscious becoming conscious. It is a very misunderstood word. It doesn't mean nothing is happening, it just means you are unaware of it's happening. Your dreams are unconscious, the only become subconscious towards the end of your sleep cycle when you start to wake up, they only remain conscious if you put in the extra effort to pull them in from the subconscious to remember them. Otherwise they are forgotten and you wake up thinking you have no dreamt but you have. Everybody who doesn't have a REM sleep disorder dreams, and more than one dream a night, you just don't remember them all. The only one you are consciously aware of is the dream you were having just before waking up. All others are completely unconscious.
actually you can dream without REM.
REM is just when you get to start processing the things that made you feel scared or threatened. But before that, you do dream. the nature of these dreams are more instructional.
Some people however do not dream at all, and they are studied.
I'm sure you know (or you may not, I don't know)
I don't watch non-fiction on television, I get my non-fiction from academic journals.
In any case, I realize that it is possible to dream outside of REM sleep, but it is most important during REM. And more to the point it was just to illustrate the word unconscious.
there is a lot of journals out there. if it reaches PBS NOVA. that means it is generally accepted.
I know you do get it from journals, being a student talking your masters...err...doctorate in cognitive psychology. That is good practice.
The issue isn't so much the medium it's the media interpretation of it. I prefer the raw data and the researchers words about it, not a journalist or a pop psychologists interpretation.
so, i suppose that means you disagree that you dream outside of rem. but you already agreed.
So you're saying that my citing the PBS NOVA is beneath you. But I already agreed that journals are a much better source.
So the point is I am wrong and you are right. Because you know what you're talking about and I don't. But we agree in many points.
So the point is you are superior. I agree. what is your point?
In cognitive psychology, what is motivation?
What is the motivation of your language? What choice were you "compelled" to make.
You see, even if there is an illusion of choice. there is the choice to not act on impulse. that is a choice. to not act. that is how we have deliberate thought. ofcourse you know this, no?
concious and sub-concious are terms for a way of describing two states of the mind. Unconcious does mean what you say BUT also it means doing something dictated by our sub-concious mind that we are not conciously aware of.
Many things come from our conditioning as a child, we like and dislike many things just because that is how it has always been for us - unconcious responses from the subconcious. It is not unusual to suddenly find that we like some food that we thought we didn't - if we are pressed to try it - for example.
"Unconscious doesn't mean dead it means unaware."
"not conscious; lacking awareness and the capacity for sensory perception as if asleep or dead;"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en& … d=0CBIQkAE
Whether asleep or dead, is unconscious still the same state as subconscious or conscious? When a person is conscious or subconscious, they remember, when unconscious, no memory.
concious and sub-concious are terms for a way of describing two states of the mind. Unconcious does mean what you say BUT also it means doing something dictated by our sub-concious mind that we are not conciously aware of. - already entered above your post
You do not necessarily remember that which is subconscious, it's the state between unconsciousness and subconsciousness. That moment in your dream when you realize you are dreaming and then wake up, that's subconscious. Dreams are unconscious, you are completely unaware of the reality of your sleeping state.
Hmmm...crm. subconscious is already identified as automatic programs set by habitual response.
are you referring to the states alpha and theta states?
Alpha bridges to Beta, which is the conscious. so within our conscious moments, the alpha takes over sometimes, particularly in our more creative states. so the subconscious is not just that moment.
I do not want to make you look like you don't know what you're saying, I'm sure you do being an acadamic pursuing a doctorate in cognitive psychology but just to clarify that the subconscious takes over during our conscious waking moments-- for those who are still confused.
I have another angle, when your conscious mind doesn't remember, your subconscious body may remember, either way, isn't it consciously remembering rather than a knocked out person that doesn't remember by body or mind? I see that the word can be used different ways, but isn't this the problem with the words defining?
That is essentially the problem with philosophical debates, once you reach a certain point it becomes more a question semantics and less a question of philosophy. It's at that point I get bored because you can endlessly debate semantics.
semantics. good arguments withstand semantics.
Every argument eventually falls a part with semantics.
That is not true, but there is a tendency - this is why every argument can be more productive if it is held within a critical theory environment
But it is philosophy that leads to understanding that the word isn't correctly defined. At what point do you think that consciousness begins?
I feel like a broken record so I won't answer that.
The ego likes to hold on to what it knows. The stronger you hold on to what you knew, the more you do not learn. And I don't mean You TD. I mean people in general.
I believe consciousness begins when you are aware of what your behaviour is in reaction to.
crmhaske - It was a notion of mine, but I guess I stand corrected. I defer to your superior expertise. I yield. But tell me: I asked before, if when we teach a chimpanzee to do sign language, were we also changing the way the chimpanzee thinks.
Indeed, isn't it even possible to say that when we do this, we are, in fact, teaching the chimpanzee how to think? Animals don't "think," do they? The roll on instinct.
Can't it be said that "thinking" only came into the world?
Instinct is memory. Instinct is triggered or created by synapse, the same as thought. We are animals also. How would any animal without memory or thought survive and evolve?
I cut myself off. The full question is: Can't it be said that "thinking" only came into the world with the emergence of human beings?
It can be said, doesn't mean it is right. Why do you think that? All actions must first come from a thought, whether instinctive thought or logical thought, it is still a thought.
But Truthdebater, you are missing the point. A thought is a description for something assumed by human beings, and do not exist without human beings. If there were no human beings, thoughts would not exist. The word wouldn't exist either.
Language is an evolutionary step for humanity. Language is only a communication tool for describing things, people or places and/or actions.
animals have thoughts, cagsil
Does it mean that thoughts didn't exist before we named them? Did life also not exist before we named life? I agree language is an evolutionary step like all others, just conscious steps rather than mechanical ones.
the language enabled the thought to have a voice. the act of naming made the concept accessible for sharing.
Meaningless question. We identified what a thought is and defined it. If it exists without human beings is irrelevant to known life.
This is word play and you seem to be good at it, reminds of me of a banned member. Did "some" form of life exist before human beings came into existence? I'm pretty sure there was some sort of life-forms, otherwise human beings would have existed.
Mechanical too, because when consciousness came to be, it was a shift in the mind, brought forth from the pressures of a growing civilization.
This is a little outdated Cagsil. I urge you to do your research. There is actual proof that consciousness exist in the cellular level. Choice exists in the level of eukaryotes. Hence thoughts did. And so did the expression of choice. Then the thought is "eat" and "danger". the expression is the movement. That would be its language.
This has been proven as recently as April 2010.
And in everyday living it is absolutely meaningless to know. Got it!
This entire thread, started by someone who debates what truth is?
When in fact, truth is not the objective, but to make subjective statements about what people have learned and come to understand.
There is no truth in this thread, that is actually required for living life. Thus, making it meaningless banter and a waste of time.
Regardless of whether or not something is conscious at a cellular level is irrelevant to the poor man sleeping on the streets.
In everyday living how we think is extremely valuable to know - to everyone including the guy on the street.
Not knowing anything much just leads to insular behaviour that refuses to fit into the real world of the present, having your own model of reality just leaves you outside society.
Trying to be superior when others clearly know considerably more than yourself is simply rude and childish - implying that people who disagree with your strange ideas may be banned members is a veiled threat.
Writing in these forums we show our character in the words we write, because the words come from our subconcious first with the associations we have for them clear to see. Trying to be superior shows lack of self confidence and making threats shows only fear.
"Meaningless question. We identified what a thought is and defined it. If it exists without human beings is irrelevant to known life."
You think evolution is relevant, but evolution of human thought irrelevant? That is pretty funny and entertaining. The poor man living on the streets thoughts or lack of thoughts is what likely guided him to the streets.
Your argument states that thought is only existent in humans because humans developed the word thought. This is faulty logic and irrational. Everything exists before we name it, just because we name it doesn't bring it into existence. I can't believe an evolutionist thinks thought is limited to humans. Isn't this separatism between life for ego of the human?
The evolution of human thought is not a required to know, to live life. Got it! Or can you not see beyond yourself?
Actually, you're not.
Again, nice word play. It was something he lacked, but not knowing about the evolution of human thought. That certainly didn't put him in his situation. He probably didn't know, because he was never educated, like yourself. So, that concludes again, you're talk is just that, talk.
Actually, yes it does. Humanity is able to discover or identify things, then they come into existence. Thus, making them truth in reality.
Not quite, but it seems like your ego needs an overhaul.
Yes, it's not required to live, but it betters chances at life when you understand how the thoughts that guide life work. Got it? Seeing beyond yourself is understanding that all life shares some common ground, humans aren't the only ones that can think. I don't understand this word play, is this just a term you use when someone disagrees with you, but you have no tactful argument? Anyones talk is just talk, thats because all is subjective rather than mechanical.
I answered your chimpanzee question already - it's on page two I believe.
I'll quote it here:
newsflash neuroplasticity...its the rave!
So....this means it's not a biological unconscious machine as some would have others believe as true?
Good Evening ceciliabeltran
Thank you for visiting our forum and welcome to you. Do I take it, with your reference to 'neroplasticity' you are disagreeing with the TruthDebater and agreeing with our technical consultant, crmhaske, about the automatic nature of a certain kind of non-verbal communication -- that it is unconscious?
Also, could you please tell me what neuroplasticity is?
It would be somewhere in between. Limbic communication is an understanding based on body language, affect, show of interest/distrust through the nature of the eye contact. The idea is
if my eyes are narrow that way, I am suspicious. If the eyes of who I am talking to are wide open,blinking more than necessary I don't know it but I am drawn. So I engage. The choice to engage is conscious. The motivation is subconscious and the cues I send out are unconscious. It is a biological mechanism that acts in response to the conscious allowing of impulse to be expressed.
What is neuroplasticity.
It is when the brain rewires to adapt to the environment it is in.
For example: You marry and live with a woman who organizes for you everyday. she dies. you experience massive rewiring. you are disoriented. Your reality changed and so you have to quickly adapt to the new reality. Your brain grows new connections for systems on neatness.
In this way at the level of genes. The genes of the child are imprinted based on the reality of the mother. A stressed out mother would have a child that is better able to adapt to a stressful environment. Namely that it is nervous and wary.
A mother in a quiet and peaceful environment would not be as nervous when she comes out. The brain is wired to suit the environment.
The environment is the model of reality is based on. And this model is wired, such that sometimes even when the environment is no longer such. the wiring is delayed in adjusting to it and you would experience a person who is NOT IN TOUCH WITH REALITY. His working model is no longer applicable to the new reality.
However, if the environment pressures this person to adapt by throwing him out of his comfort zone. New wiring takes place and the brain is able to cope.
Thank you ceceliabeltran. It seems that the brain is marvelously, almost endlessly adaptable. From what you say here, it seems that the brain goes through a kind of evolutionary action in a very short term basis, day-to-day, that it went through over tens of thousands of years.
and when i think about it, it is really like tectonic plates. The earth changes its face at the speed of the growth of human fingernails. We don't notice it but the change is cumulative. We are not the same humans we were 100 years ago.
for one thing, verbal communication is less that 20% of how we communicate. Our communication style is largely limbic. hence we communicate using tone and body language to convey meaning.
Most of my personality is already obscured by this medium and I get reactions here that I never get in person. The affect is obscured by the medium.
as for the question you posted. If we are to believe the theory of "the intense world syndrome" as an evolutionary response of the human to the new environment, the aspergers person is now beginning to remove reliance on limbic communication but on the literal level. Language as we have evolved it now has the capacity to communicate in detail the internal events of the psyche. It can transfer knowledge through the conscious mind and not through the subconscious--through the limbic communication. It is however not yet as efficient in communicating emotion as our limbic methods because it is not as instantaneous.
All communication first is born in the thoughts and intentions of the heart and mind. Even spontaneous verbage is triggered by the current environment in connection with active current thought patterns. This is the basis of communication. Although fads change and verbage of language change the origin of personal communication will still remain the same.
Good Evening Goldenpath
Thank you for visiting our forum. Your main point is that all communication is originated in what one is thinking and feeling. These thoughts and feelings demand to be expressed. Do I have that right?
Is the cycle always just one-way? What happens when one is not clear about his thoughts and intentions (Which woman shall I marry? Where shall I send my children to school? etc).
What comes firtst: sorting yourself out internally, to decide what you think and feel, which then demands to be expressed verbally; or does the process of reasoning it out verbally [by the way, language can be both external (verbal) and internal (one thinks in the language he is most comfortable in -- either way there is no escaping language] lead to the creation of feeling within yourself?
Or do you learn how you feel by talking about it? If this is so, can you be said to have actually felt that way prior to talking about it?
On the contrary, what is verbalized by an individual is directly tied to one's own thought process, experience, current environment and even upbringing. All these and more come into play and more. Yes, some people need to reason things out verbally but that process is employed because of the above stated factors. This applies to even those of mental dysfunction and may not even be aware of what they are saying. Each person is unique and they say things dependant upon their own experience, thought process and condition.
Good Morning goldenpath
Do you ever find yourself "reaching" for a word, and then settling for one you're not quite happy with "for lack of a better word?" What do you think is going on there?
Also, as you know, across languages, we often hear that "there isn't a word for that in x (language), or that "this concept doesn't translate" into English, or whatever. We only have one word for 'love' in English, while other societies have more than one word for it. Do you think they have a more refined idea about the nuances of love, therefore, than we do?
Also, if you read philosophy, you find that these thinkers -- if not exactly making up words, they jerryrig words to get to an idea that seems to be beyond the limits of the language they are working in. What do you think about this and what role do you believe these factors play in language creation? What role does this language creation play, therefore, in the refinement of thought?
Sometimes we speak outloud, as we are thinking about it. So thinking outoud, projects voice:) Just a thought?
Good Day heart4theword
Thank you for visiting our forum. Across languages, sometimes, what we find that there's "no word for that' or this idea is "not translatable into our language." Do you find that there is some separation of thought -- a disparity in refinement of both language and therefore thought on a specific issue, between languages.
For example, we have only one word for 'love' in Englisn, as far as I know. In other languages (I don't know which ones specifically) there are more than one word for 'love.' Do you think that such a culture has a more refined understanding of love than we do in America?
Do you think we might reasonably expect to find a lower rate of divorce in such a society, than the fifty percent we have here in the States?
I would guess that in the beginning language evolved as a survival tool. It at some point evolved into something more complex.
I have read that sign language is different to communicating by speaking out loud. It was said that someone who is signing uses more interaction - e.g.looking at the other person more.
The written word probably followed spoken sounds - the need to convey ones thoughts in writing has different complexities to speaking out loud. Just my thoughts on this. Sorry got to go out now.
Good Day 2uesday
How do you think language helped early humans to survive? Why do you think the previous way of making themselves understood became inadequate?
Your remark about sign language is interesting. Do you think that a kind of sign language grew up alongside early humans development of verbal language -- and what about the person, back then, born without the power of speech for one reason or another; or what about someone who 'lost' their power of speech due to an accident of some kind?
Speaking of the "need to convey ones thoughts in writing," do you think that the Internet has, in any way, changed the way we write, read, and think?
All organised thought is in language, we don't vaguely think roads and burgers and buses - we think in the words, I am going to get a bus to McDonalds. If there are no words for something we can't think it, good artists in their art can express what there are no words for - yet.
Good Morning alternate poet
Thank you for joining us today. I am intrigued by your statement that "If there are no words for something we can't think it, good artists in their art can express what there are no words for - yet."
Can we say that there is an "it" we are trying to think of? Maybe there is an "it" we are mentally reaching for? You said that good artists are aware of this "it."
Let me ask you this, then. Do you think the physical representation of this "it" by, say, a good artist, pushes the development of language to define it? In that case, it looks like we would have interesting inside-out-inside-out effect?
Does this initially poorly expressed "it" inspire the art?
Not poorly expressed - I mean not understood yet.
The third dimension is a good example, when people thought the earth was flat it was not JUST a scientific issue, people thought more in two dimensions as illustrated by paintings of that time. To get 3 dimensions there was sculpture, concretely making it, (maybe to be seen 2 dimensionally from any side). My avatar is Michaelangelo painting how 3 dimension works as a self portrait, now that we understand the painting we can discuss it, before the painting it was not understood and so could not be discussed, the painting concretely shows us how 3 dimensions are constructed - and perspective.
Thank you alternate poet
One more question and then we'll put this to bed. I just want to understand your position. I like the third dimension example because this takes us into paradigm shifts in society. How is it that most people in a society, who believe x about a thing, one day, wake up another day and now mostly believe y?
When most people thought the world was flat, they thought in two dimensions. Do you mean to say that when the artistic technique of sculpture was invented, this opened people's minds to the idea of three dimensions?
Are you saying that with the advent of art in three dimensions, with the invention of sculpture, people's minds opened up to the idea that the Earth might exist in three dimensions?
Your avatar, alternate poet, is a painting by Michaelangleo, in what was then the new three-dimensional style?
Then you wrote "... before the painting it was not understood and so could not be discussed, the painting concretely shows us how 3 dimensions are constructed - and perspective."
My one last question is more like a compound question -- two questions actually and then we're done.
A) Between the time that most people believed the Earth was flat and the time most came to believe it was round -- through the influence of sculpture -- do you think there was some kind of intermediate period, when most people might have become detached from the idea that the world was flat and were drifting off (to they did not know where) but had not yet arrived at thinking about the world as round; and if you think there was this kind of limbo state, then would this have created a correspondingly intermediary state of language in talking about the world and the heavens, etc; and when they finally landed on the place where most of them believed the world is round -- which crossed the finish line first: the refinement of the verbal language or the internal mental ideas and concepts?
B) Back to the "it" again. When you wrote: "Not poorly expressed - I mean not understood yet," do you mean that the "it" had manifested itself into the world, but was so new and startling that it had not been properly digested at first? It took time to do this?
One day artists are making art in two dimensions, they go to sleep and wake up the next day doing art in three dimensions. Do you think there was an intermediate period in which artists (most of them) had detached themselves from two dimensional art but floated but not quite arrived at three dimensional art.
If you believe they experienced this floating period, do you think this was the time that they were groping for what would become their new concepts, artistically, intellectually, and verbally?
No - I wrote that sculpture was the only way people could see 3D (in the way we see it now) because it was 'concrete' - actually there. The ability to see and understand 3D metaphysically, in our modern terms, came with the Renaissance and Michaelangelo (among many others)
When words were able to describe this, through their creation in discussion and by linking old descriptive words with the new phenomenon and creating the new word 'perspective' maybe? then the information can be transmitted to everyone able to understand. the rest of course just 'believe' if everyone else does. I would imagine that people would hold to their belief until challenged and another view 'proven' - which in terms of the metaphysical or intangible can only be by consensus, most of us agree - so it is. A bit like any word, we all agree that a table is a table, so it is - if you try to describe what is a general table that includes all the tables, including table mountain, it shows how 'loose' most words really are, is how they can be adapted to new stuff quite easily I suppose.
Good Day alternate poet
I will study your response. Thank you very much for your time.
We CAN think what there are no words for but it's very frustrating. That's probably where analogies and comparisons come from. That's why we discover and realize new things too. Language and thinking interact constantly, feeding off each other, both growing and changing because of it.
The frustrating part isn't the thinking non-verbally, it's attempting to communicate that non-verbal thought restricted to a verbal language.
In depth psychology, poetry is more effective in communicating internal events because it speaks the language of the unconscious:
and it was that age that poetry arrived in search me.
I have no way names.
my eyes were blind.
and suddenly from the streets I was summoned...
and I wrote the first faint lines.
pure wisdom of someone who knows nothing
the heavens unfastened.
riddled with arrows.
the winding night
my heart broke lose in the wind.
To explain this in plain words will take a library. But the poet communicates his experience. And no one but the other poet who shares this experience will understand him.
the language of the unconscious is outside the rules of the human tongue.
Good Day TLMinut
Welcome and thank you for visiting our forum today. That's an interesting idea you've stated, about the possible origin of analogies and comparisons, which I had not thought of before. Thank you.
Let me ask you this. You know how, in English we only have one word for 'love?' Other societies have more than one word for this. How do you think this has affected ours and their understanding of love?
English is the bastard child of Germanic, Greek, and Latin languages. At the time that it evolved it was during times of war which would mean different ways of describing aggressive situations would be more prevalent than multiple ways of describing pleasant ones.
As a side note there are several "words" for love in English:
adulation, affection, allegiance, amity, amorousness, amour, appreciation, ardency, ardor, attachment, case*, cherishing, crush, delight, devotedness, devotion, emotion, enchantment, enjoyment, fervor, fidelity, flame, fondness, friendship, hankering, idolatry, inclination, infatuation, involvement, like, lust, mad for, partiality, passion, piety, rapture, regard, relish, respect, sentiment, soft spot, taste, tenderness, weakness, worship, yearning, zeal
(from thesaurus.com because I'm too lazy to think of my own lol)
All with slightly different meanings, but all expressing a derivation of a similar feeling.
the efficacy of the language is heavily reliant on the limbic aids. otherwise it is empty.
False, language devoid of body language can be immensely impactul. Not to say that body language can't be also, but language alone can be equally so. If not our literature would mean nothing to us without an animated reader.
You've also just insulted the entire blind and significantly seeing impaired population.
but the literature is already embedded with associations that are outside of verbal language.
The world "False!" contained with it an exclamation point and from my end I am imagining a tone.
So if you said. that is incorrect, it has no emotional value. but "false!" implies affect. I did say that language has evolved to cope with the written word. hence there are better writers and not so effective writers. and I also mentioned the power of poetry to communicate language outside the rules of language.
it is the limbic associations that give the written word its power.
If by limbic you mean the reactions of your limbic system, the emotional centres of the brain, then obviously it does. That has nothing to do with body language, I wasn't talking about emotions.
limbic communication is motivated by the 8 basic emotions. i am sure you have studied this. it's out for quite some time now.
Don't every one of those 'emotions' derive from the two basic drivers - can I eat it, can I mate with it ?
actually they are precisely 8.
and mate is not one of them.
What are they then ?
what are they....hmm lemme see if i can remember.
interest - curious!
pleasure - me likee!
dissmell - ew!
disgust - yuck!
anger - I am angry!
distress - somebody help me!
fear - I'm afraid!
so two pleasure signals and five aversions. i could be wrong in one or two. i'm sure you guys can google
to cut the long story short, the foundations of language are in the effective labeling of these emotions. the task of the parent is to recognize the emotions and supply the appropriate label so that the child does not act out the emotion (limbic)
but use language. This prevents tantrums and actually empowers the child.
What I mean by 'love' is the romantic love between two cohabitating sexual partners, whether married or not. I mean the In-Love state. We use the word love, l-ov-e, to mean this; to mean we love our grandma; we love our country, etc.
Not only do we use the very word in those senses, but also in a variety of platonic senses -- sentimental but unromantic love (i.e, the "love" for a best friend, or one's army buddies and so forth).
I would argue that we even say we use the word 'love' as a stand-in for what should properly called desire, similar to this romantic In-Love state between sexual cohabitants, but not the same. There is a difference between the In-Desire state and the In-Love state.
A woman may have been with a man for five years, as sexual cohabitants. She has obviously found him quite interesting and attractive, thinks he's funny and intelligent and caring, and all that. She may not, in fact, be In-Love with him, but may say, "I love you" -- in the In-Love sense.
That is not what she means. Yet she may not even knows if she means In-Love, while not being entirely sure she doesn't mean it. In this way 'love' and 'desire' become conflated. The list of words you give are components of love, at best, but not synonyms, or most importantly, degrees of what I mean by 'love,' being In-Love.
That in my opinion is simply linguistic laziness. We have other words that can describe those things you just said, we're just too lazy to use synonyms if we have a word that can mean something similar. English tends towards simplification - just look at how much Internet lingo is entering regular conversation. My little seven year old brother said o-m-g in reaction to something the other day, and he doesn't even chat online.
Language and writing plays the biggest role in evolution of putting our minds on a higher level than all other life. With the writing and language comes more complexities and memories in the mind. With the memories comes higher intelligence and reasoning capabilities.
Good Morning TruthDebater
Thank you for visiting our forum today. Please correct me if I'm mistaken but you wish to draw a connection between language and writing and accumulated human memory? Should I understand you to suggest that with the continued refinement of writing and language, the quality of memory is improved, which increases intelligence and reasoning capabilities?
That dovetails with a wonderful quote I saw from Robert Bly in his book, Iron John. It goes like this:
"The knowledge of how to build a nest in a tree, how to fly to the wintering place, how to perform the mating dance -- all of this information is stored in the resevoirs of the bird's instinctual brain. But the human beings, sensing how much flexibility they might need in meeting new situations, decided to store this sort of knowledge outside the instinctual system, they stored it in stories. Stories, then -- fairy stories, legends, myths, hearth stories -- amount to a resevoir where we keep new ways of responding that we can adopt when the conventional and current ways wear out."
You see? You and Bly are saying the same thing in a slightly different way. From Bly's point of view, you could say that memory itself, is a uniquely human invention.
According to Bly, this memory -- the storehouse of myths, legends, fairy stories, hearth stories, etc -- is to be consulted as a resource where we can actually find "... new ways of responding that we can adopt when the conventional and current ways wear out."
That's not so different from your assertion that "[w]ith the memories comes higher intelligence and reasoning capabilities."
In the bird example, I think birds and other animals are still increasing intelligence besides the instinct they are born with, but they can't write and communicate like we can to expand their minds. I don't think memory starts on the human level, all cells have memory. I think our advantage is in the amount of memory we can hold and use. If an animal had all of it's brain cells while a human was missing most of their memory brain cells, which would have a better working memory?
Good Evening TruthDebater
I think I did hear something about the intelligence of animals having increased over the centuries. That's sounds familiar. I should have made myself explicit about memory. I was talking about long-term memory, not short-term memory.
Perhaps animals do have memory of a sort. I won't argue the point. But if anything, its short-term and instinctual. I think it is the very fact that we can record our thoughts, as you and I are doing, that has at very least built up the capacity for long-term memory; we can store knowledge on a long-term basis.
When we put our children to bed at night and read them a story, we can do that because of writing. So, I think there is a connection between writing and the development of long-term memory -- on a societal basis.
Good Evening. Instinct is a long term memory, the instinctive memories are carried over centuries in many cases. These instinctive memories suggest cell memory which all life has. In the case of us acquiring more knowledge in our lifetimes compared to other animals, I agree and reading/writing go a long way towards this.
Tell me, isn't instinct, by definition, a matrix of embedded long-term automatic responses? What I'm trying to say is: Isn't instinct, by definition, a perceptive faulty that's automatic in nature?
Isn't long-term memory, almost by definition, more reflective in nature? The instinctive matrix may carry over, in animals, over centuries, but aren't the behavior of animals still very limited to these constant, unchanging pre-programmed responses?
Long-term memory, in human beings, is a storehouse of information that can be referred to again and again -- and most importantly, analyzed and interpeted in constantly changing ways. This kind of memory does not dictate static responses the way animal instinct does.
I should have made myself clear about what I meant by 'memory.' The fault is mine, but cell memory (or muscle memory -- you didn't say that, I know -- but memory embedded in the cells or muscles has an automatic character to it) is not what I meant by intellectual memory.
You can develop muscle 'memory' in learning how to play basketball. Your body just "knows" what to do in certain situations after a while. Perhaps you cells develop some 'memory' here, but these things can't help you figure out how to create spaceship "warp drive."
Morning, Yes I would agree that instinct is both embedded long term memory and automatic for all life to acquire. I would agree that many animals follow instinctual behaviour, but still must make new conscious choices and decisions in an ever evolving world. Their subjective thoughts and actions of the environment build their objective long term instinctual memories. I think our advantage over other life, there are many of them, is our ability to recognize, study, and discuss all of these things. Many are not set in stone, just ideas for why we are more advanced.
So we have working memory and instinctual memory are the main discussions correct? I think we have a larger working memory because we built it with the subjective. When we have things as books, and languages we need to learn from, the only option was to increase memory. If a man/woman was around from the first humans, it is likely their brain would be a fraction of our size with a fraction of the memory that we can hold and use.
Good Morning TruthDebater
I think I finally understand what you've been saying. I'm so dense sometimes! Life evolves continuously. We are evolving and all other biological life, including all other animals are evolving.
Let me ask you this: If human beings, all of us, moved to another planet or two in a galaxy far, far away, leaving all the other creatures in peace on this world, which species, do you think, would be next to evolve sentience -- who would evolve something like our kind of intelligence?
And let me ask this: Do you think that our presence on Earth, our lives -- do you think we prevent other animals from evolving too far along, you know, to "compete" with us?
Those are great but impossible questions to answer. I don't think it's safe to predict any animals that would evolve our capabilities without us intervening in teaching them, this would be like asking when a human will come to understand a dolphins inner mind. Besides another animal having our minds capability, they would also have to have the physical capability that allows them to read, write, survive different environments.
On the second, yes and no. I think by humans interacting and animals observing, their minds are growing just as ours, but not at the same pace. Think of a stray dog. Will the stray dog learn, memorize, and perform as many tricks as the trained dog? In cases where we drive some animals extinct, yes I think we interrupt their evolution.
Good Day TruthDebater
I will study your response here. I want to offer my sincere gratitude for your participation and sharing your insights with us.
I still can't get pictures to work and cannot see what I am doing wrong - can anyone tell me ?
The dark and light areas are like the Ying-Yang chinese symbol for balance and flux, the light dot to the upper left (looking at it) of his head - is the perspective point of infinity of this picture.
It may be that 4D could be seen to be as being 'in' the dot - or in the place where some see god. But this is just my thoughts that cannot be explained because we don't have the words for it yet
Good Evening alternate poet
But you are trying to express "it." That's what matters!
Thanks for this well-conducted discussion.
However human language originated, it has had more influence on our development than any other trait or facility. Anthropologists can confirm that nomadic peoples, whose lifestyles neither required nor allowed written repositories of information, evolved an oral tradition involving feats of memory far beyond what most stationary peoples could even conceive. But only the written word makes possible the construction of ever more complex thought structures, whether in philosophy, science, literature or mathematics. What Karl Popper styled 'Objective Knowledge', is what makes us truly human. It is what most distinguishes us from all other animals.
My cat probably thinks there are ten cats. That's the limit of his experience. Without language, thought just bumbles around the bottom of Maslow's pyramid.
Good Morning Paraglider
Thank you for visiting our forum today and welcome! Thank you for complimenting the process. The approach I like to take in conducting a forum is to act in the role of interviewer. I want to fully understand the thoughts and position of whoever shows up.
I am not here to assert my own point of view -- I already know what it is. I think this approach cuts down on the useless, redundant length that one sometimes finds in the forums. I'm not here to debate and though I like to discuss things thoroughly, one has to cut it off sometime.
As to your specific observations on topic, they are a welcome infusion of new information. Yes, I do remember hearing something about the memory prowess of nomadic peoples myself. Their designated storytellers, I hear, demonstrate an absolutely extraordinary capacity for reciting kinship relations lists, myths, tribal history, names of chiefs, battles fought going back thousands of years, etc.
These "storytellers" are human, walking libraries. You know what this reminds me of a little bit? Have you ever read any of the Dune novels by Frank Herbert, or even any of the prequels by his son Brian Herbert and his collaborator?
The galactic empire is spread out over a million worlds (only humans). It is after the time of the revolt against the "thinking machines" (Herbert did The Matrix thing before Hollywood did The Matrix). There are a group of people, specially trained, called 'mentats.'
Now, computers or anything that might be vaguely identified as a "thinking machine" is outlawed. Yet, interestingly the people apparently felt the need to retain the capacity that computers allowed. The mentats are walking, human supercomputers basically -- they can retain the content of several libraries of congress, do calculations involving numbers with hundreds of digits, etc.
In terms of today's political and economic context, we might call their banning of computers "deindustrialization" (albeit for a very, very, very good reason). We might even call this "underdevelopment," but this assessment would be deceptive.
Also, Paraglider, your remarks remind me of a book I read one time called The Perilous Frontier. I forget the subtitle and author, but it was a book about the relationship of China to the Mongols and other nomadic tribes of Central Asia, and so forth. The author was an anthropologist.
One of the points he made in the introduction, was very similar to yours. He said that we have a tendency to think that people who live in a seemingly more diverse environment (lots of different kinds of tree, bodies of water, flowers, mountain ranges, etc), have more complex mental development than people who live in a seemingly unvarying, dull, environment like a desert.
This writer took a different approach. He said that people who live in the desert would have to had developed quite sophisticated mental development, in order to pick out fine distinctions, differences in the seemingly unvarying landscape, in order to navigate their way around the desert -- again there is a tie back to Dune!
Anyway, thank you for visiting our forum today.
Take it light, Paraglider.
Hmmmm....language cannot expand the reality of the brain. To a person who has not met more than ten people nor has met people who have met more than people. There are only ten people. The reality is construct of belief and language is outside of that phenomena.
A very interesting topic. I am glad I dropped by. Well, I do feel that the language an individual assimiliates, has some kind of control over his intelligence and sharpens certain areas. I neither have access to any examples nor do I have any proof.
Even the origin of language and its evolution tends to baffle me although certain books on linguistics suggest various reasons for the styles involved in languages evolving, I find some of them not acceptable and merely guesswork.
I am looking at this discussion with great interest. It is sure to attract many people and hopefully many interesting theories too.
Good Day quicksand
Thank you for visiting our forum today and welcome! So, you believe that the language someone learns may have a refining aspect to the intelligence. Or we might say that each language, with their own strengths and weaknesses -- if these characteristics can be called 'strengths' and 'weaknesses' -- molds the specific character of intelligence, perhaps?
In English we only have one word for 'love.' In other languages they have more than one word for this.
Question: Do you think that this indicates that other nations have a more refined, complex understanding of the true nature of love than we do in America; and might this, in any way, help to account for the very high rate of divorce we have in this country -- because couples entered into matrimony with a very muddled understanding of the concept of 'I love you.'?
I look forward to your thoughts.
Emotions came first, the need to express something was at least the very stage before sentience came about. The need to have a common way to communicate those needs and emotions probably came about first as body language and then evolved into sounds then words. That's how I reason it, anyway.
It is actually true. There are 8 basic emotions a child is born with, and with these emotions he expresses a reaction. then, as you said later on labelling happens. But the thoughts existed first before the language.
does the thought exist before the brain?
an emotion is a response to stimuli.
response can be simplified down to the level of reflex.
organisms without a brain have reflex. is the basic thought "move away"?
The existence of limbic communication in adults and humans mean that thought exists outside of verbal labelling.
But you can consciously choice without knowing why. You consciously allow which details of reality you will take note of. If you recognize something relevant, you pay attention. Otherwise the signals pass you by.
consciousness is always alert for things that is relevant to it and dismisses everything that is not. So in that way we create our reality by reinforcing or notion of relevant.
(i rattled on, off topic I think)
No doubt thought and emotion were first , imagine the frustrations of emotion without voice. Still, I find an emoted silence the heaviest conversation of all. Those moments of stillness when everything is covered without words to mess them up. Interesting , being kind of a quiet guy , I find words all too often waisted on absolutely nothing.
I think you are right that many words are wasted. I think it is partly because people use words not only to speak of the relevant, but to fill in gaps to make converstion. Words are also commonly used by people without knowing the words meaning.
Don't bother responding. You have your eye on yourself and not the bigger picture. But, do enjoy.
Hmm...interesting. why would you arrive at that conclusion when I really am speaking to you truthfully that it was proven April 2010.
The person sleeping on the street has created a reality that this is his only option. So the study of human consciousness and the model of reality that each cell has in the human brain is entirely relevant to the person sleeping on the street.
He believes that he is this person. And so he is. If we understand the way the human brain construct reality and then expresses this reality in language, we can help the person before he decides to sleep on the street.
the battle is fought in many battlegrounds.
while every one is free to state an opinion, everyone is free to disagree. that is why it is a forum.
The very basis of epigenetics is response. It is like the environment and the lifeform are communicating.
So beyond human there is communication. You do, I do. You change, I adapt.
Language is an adaptation of a fundamental need to respond to stimuli that is as basic as life itself. So do trees think?
let me not raise marine from the dead.
The choice issue is interesting. Where does our unconcious conditioning end and our own choice begin. Even HOW we choose comes from the unconcious - if we are logically minded we make choices based on some form of logic, if we are more creative we often make more random choices and 'invent' or contribute ourselves part of the argument to ourself.
In my belief choice doesn't come into play anywhere. Our own self awareness gives us the illusion of having it, but really we are dictated entirely by the interplay of our nature and nurture that we have no control over.
Of course that is right - but there must be an element of free (rather than random) choice going on as we can also 'reason' to convince ourselves of something. Critical theory recognises this by starting with the self in relation to the thing being looked at. We are still confined by what we are but we can become aware of that to some degree, however small that might.
Awareness is definitely a variable in the equation, but I believe it behaves no differently than feedback in a control system.
My last job before I decided I didn't want to be an engineer anymore was with full flight simulators. I think my experience working with them greatly affected my personal theory of cognition as more often than not they definitely became more than their programming.
In the thought of having no control over our nature and nuture, how do we effect/have control over our biology when we allow ourselves to become stressed? How is it illusion that stress/negative thinking can effect and change a persons life?
That's a fantastic question, keep them coming! lol
This is how I see it:
Stress is a natural reaction to aversive events. It is the flight or fight response of the autonomic branch of your peripheral nervous system that physiologically prepares our bodies to better survive an impending confrontation. In today's conditions of life these perceived threats are not always life threatening, and as such our bodies have adapted the ability to turn it off if the threat is deemed insignificant. The strength of this ability in people depends on the interaction between their nature and nurture. As conscious observers to this process we believe we are controlling it; we aren't. In the range of possible outcomes there is only one that can be, and it doesn't become because you chose it.
Thank You, I will, I have a lot of them, but all of them won't be fantastic, so you have to take the bad ones along with the good.
More on possible outcomes, why do you say there is only one that is already planned? This seems to lead to a creator that has already designed everything and made our choices for us. What is the difference?
The more we know of stress, the more we can control it. If we believed we were doomed as our destiny to be stressed our entire lives, we may not care to learn how to fix our stress. Many people fix their problems by educating themselves on what they don't know rather than believe their destiny or purpose is already set.
If you knew anything about control theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_theory) this would make a lot more sense to you. What I'm saying is that we are all governed by the same equation, the only difference is the variables. Given the variables for any situation the particular outcome of the equation will always be the same unless the variables are changed or there is a degree of error fed back into the system to be recalculated. Our awareness of this process makes us believe we control it. Has nothing to do with predetermination because there is no way to predict what experiences you will encounter, but if I know enough about who you are I can predict exactly how you will react to it.
You'd be surprised how incredibly accurate computer algorithms can be at predicting human behavior.
We are talking on two different wavelengths. I'm not talking about nihilism, and that everything that is to be will be. I'm talking about the mechanism of control. Who you are is determined by how you are biologically wired to react to your environment. The environment is what you can't predict.
It seems you take a deterministic approach rather than agreeing with randomness and the uncertainty principle, is this correct? All of the variables can never be accounted for in the uncertainty principle. You can't make exact prediction according to physics because of the uncertainty principle in the randomness of particles. According to this, the wiring can have randomness.
I think this finally gave me insight into your reality, but there is still the uncertainty principle of randomness that I could be wrong.
Yes, I suppose you could say I am a determinist. I have aversion in saying that though because I absolutely despise labels as they rarely do the person's beliefs full justice. The thing is I don't believe in universal determinism, I just believe determinism so far as organic life.
The uncertainty principle is something completely different than how you've described it though. It simply states that there are certain properties like position and momentum that cannot be known simultaneously to an arbitrary precision. Like the joke about Heisenberg getting pulled over for speeding and the cop asked if he knew how fast he was going, and Heisenberg responded, "no, but I can tell you where I was." Human behaviour and quantum mechanics are two completely different things. You can't equate laws that govern the micro level to laws that govern the macro level.
Thanks, but why is determinism set with organic life and not set in the universe that creates organic life?
If position and momentum can't be fully known by all the variables, how can you know someones exact thoughts or reactions? Isn't the thoughts on the micro level while the objective is the macro? If we can't even equate laws that apply the same to all objects, how deterministic can things be? If they were truly deterministic, wouldn't the laws work on both the small and the large?
At that point I just say I don't think it is. It's beyond the scope of my thesis so I don't care to think about it at this present time lol
This is simply a very failed understanding of physics on your part.
Which part is failed? I think you have it backwards, quantum randomness disagrees with determinism. You saying everything is already planned disagrees with modern physics. What is the scope of the thesis? I will try to keep it relevant.
why do you say this? which part was not clear?
our thoughts are revealed by the language we choose, whether we veil it or not.
But we also have the ability to mis-read - no ??
true...but more often than not, people can understand the language beneath the language.
What about the language beneath the language beneath that language? That is the hard one.
Language about language is the hard one - that is meta-language.
This discussion seems to be about what makes up communication - of which language itself is just one aspect. The many different ways of communicating from words to facial expressions to reading between the lines, or how you say what you say are just a combination of many factors - ?
I think all are just a combination of the different subjective realities we all have that often leaves us in a state of confusion, but fun confusion.
by using language we are able to form a matrix of reality we agree on and they are basically based on the human senses. the universal similarity of the construct of "being human" helps us communicate.
I can say someday I will giant you and to you that means nothing. Unless you're pinoy familiar with that joke. so nonsense is relative to agreed linguistic meaning. it is not just the language but the limbic associations of that language.
if I say, so in short, game. if you are not aware of that expression what I just said is nonsense. we are both speaking the same language but not operating on the same language game or cultural associations.
for language to work, there should be an agreement of language beneath the language.
subliminal messages are another topic that we can pursue.
Let's start from synapse. Does everyone agree that synapse is the exchange of chemical or electrical signals between brain neurons that generate thought/consciousness?
Crm, please respond down here, it takes me 5 minutes to search through the drop down boxes. So you believe consciousness begins when we become aware of our behaviour in the environment? When do you believe subconsciousness and unconsciousness begin?
Too many words, I'm dizzy. I leave, and come back and have seven differing conversations to catch up on lol - this is much easier in an actual conference haha
I'm going to collect my thoughts and get back to you tomorrow!
That is a great idea. I think I agree with you. I won't make it a habit.
you are truly a secretly funny guy John.
I see now why you are focusing on language as a focus of your study. I am curious if you are a visual or auditory learner.
I'm a kinetic learner. I learn best by actually doing what it is I'm trying to learn. I get really frustrated if someone makes me watch them do it first. I like to just be left alone to figure it out on my own with the occasional coaching or correcting along the way if necessary. I also do quite well with written instructions because I can do as I'm reading and as I'm sure is blatantly obvious I have a mind bent on logic. If Vulcans existed I'd be pretty sure I'm one undercover as a human.
Explaining and showing works best for me if I am visualizing myself mimicking the process as you do it or say it; explaining works best so long as it is in a systematic order and not all over the place (I freaking hate web diagrams or thought maps and much prefer flow charts or control systems drawings). I am terrible auditorally because to be quite frank I'm just not listening.
So, the reason I got frustrated with this discussion is because I couldn't follow it's progression easily because I came back several hours later. I was out of the loop, and in the time I was taking to catch up more was being added. If I can't do things systematically, I feel physically uncomfortable lol. I am capable of working through it if it is something I must do, but I wont' like it haha
I am exceptionally sensitive to movement. If I had stuck with it as a child I would have been a fantastic professional dancer. Today it is just my hobby, but still very much enjoyable.
hence "the words are making me dizzy"and the aversion to "semantics".
the lack is the mirror of the highest potential, I always say.
also try chronological. i use that. the threaded is a headache.
I do have it chronological; however, there is more than one conversation going on at once, and sometimes it isn't obvious who is talking to whom.
its everybody talking to everybody. this is all just a venue to ruminate.
I don't like discussions with several lines of thought floating around at once. That's why I much prefer doing this sort of thing in person than over the Internet. In forums conversations get tangled, words get twisted, and meanings are often entirely missed. It's helped me to sort out what I really believe, but to be frank I'm not interested in finding any answers, consensuses, or resolutions here. I'm here to organize myself, and close the holes in my position. With a solid position I'll be ready to put it to the test when I start my PhD in September, and I'll sound more put together in my first meeting with my research supervisor. I could be entirely wrong, and I could end up four years from now with a completely different position. At the end of the day I want to be a professor so I have a whole life time to do this anyways. In forums though is not where I plan to figure things out, this is just helping me organize what I already have.
scientists are like that.
they are the pettiest blindsided know it alls. but once you pin them down, they worship you,no? then you become a so and so said. but so and so said.
so forums is a safe place to practice handling jerks who think they know everything.
Honestly I hate when people quote me. I hate when suddenly my word means more because I will one day have an acronym attached to my name. What the hell does that mean? Absolutely nothing. Anybody who can read and write aptly can get a PhD. I would be lying if I said I didn't get some pleasure when people concede, but I don't care for it all that much if it didn't take any work. "You must know because you studied it" is BS. I know lots of people that graduated with me from engineering and know absolutely nothing. I wouldn't trust my egg on their Popsicle bridge. Contrarily my Dad only has a highschool diploma and I'd trust him more than a licenced electrician to fix anything in my home.
However, one thing that is definitely right is forums are a safe place to practice handling jerks who think they know everything. I've learnt I seem to be some sort of masochist because when I say I just can't take it anymore, I come back a week later and try again. lol
I know I sometimes come across as a little arrogant, but it's a forum so I understand that my intent is completely missed. I believe. I don't know. My intent is for people to properly understand my position, not tell them my position is right. Nobody seems to really get what I'm saying so it's good I'm practising now because my thesis review board needs to get it exactly.
Semantically correct - and the in-between the lines
I had an encounter with a man who was a teacher of an obscure martial arts class called Kalimasada. Hehad a reputation of getting all the young girls.
He said to me:
"you aura is very mellow and pleasant to observe"
"you know people accuse of using hypnotism to get them to bed"
"I don't use hypnotism, sometimes I just awaken a fire in the belly and they mistake it for an attraction for me"
I remember going on alpha slowly and then I was almost in theta. his cues were very subtle but as soon as he said "fire in the belly" I felt a stirring on my belly that felt like lust. what he didn't know was I was used to meditation and being aware in these states that I quickly realized what he was doing and left mid conversation. I saw his face as I exited the door, he was looking at me like a predator watching his prey escape. Beneath the states there is an observer. this observer is also aware in dreaming states. the observer is sometimes called the higher self because it transcendent of states.
Underneath the states is that self that we have yet to find within the brain.
subliminal messages are very powerful precisely because the states are all "aware" concurrently running with the beta. It is not either or. It is a matter of volume.
"I know I sometimes come across as a little arrogant, but it's a forum so I understand that my intent is completely missed"
not to me
sometimes however the forum requires you to answer something but does not give you the time nor the medium to show your sources, nor to properly establish a premise. so you get funny funny reactions.
most the time by people who have no idea what they're saying but oh well.
i always think it's an offering, you take it or not its there. its up to you to grow from it, or not.
but a phD shuts them up fast. the point is not to shut them up though, but to let them belabor it until you get to the real juice of what's up with that soup.
that to me is the interesting part of the research. how people react to new ideas, what ideas they are holding on to and why.
I've never said anything was planned, you still fail to fully comprehened my position by reducing it to positions you already understand. Yes, I do believe that things are determined by the sum of what comes before it in reaction to what is happening now, but it isn't preplanned. Preplanned presumes you can know the distant future, you can't. I don't believe everything that is to happen was determined since the very beginning. I don't personally believe that time is linear at all so I don't believe in a beginning or a linear time line. We only percieve it as linear because we live a linear existence, but in the grand scheme of things I don't believe time is linear at all. Humans as we exist today are predictable biological machines because we are limited in the range of experiences we are capable of having.
And you completely fail to comprehend quantum theory, it isn't about randomness at all, it's about uncertainty. Even Einstein himself believed that randomness is merely a reflection of our ignorance of some fundamental property of reality. It has nothing to do with random behaviour of the particles themselves, it has to do with our present inability to predict their path. They aren't random, the uncertainty is a property on the perceiver, not the perceived.
Um, randomness is uncertainty. If something is certain, it has less randomness. Certainty can be altered by observation which effects certainty. Predictable biological machines huh? Why can't we predict when someone will go into cardiac arrest without warning or does something stupid that gets them killed?
I'm done with this debate, it's ceased moving forward. You do not understand my position, nor do you truly comprehend the difference between observer uncertainty and observed uncertainty.
Man is too ignorant to fully comprehend reality. That doesn't make it random. If it were random, life would be too unstable to exist.
Life is random, this is why some babies die at birth and why some have deformities. Can you predict this? This is uncertainty. It is sometimes too unstable to exist and live.
Just because we can't predict it, that doesn't mean it can't be predicted.
Careful your human arrogance is showing.
I'm not the one saying we can predict things when we can't. Now you are predicting that things may be predicted in the future when they can't be predicted now. Thanks
"The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature" by Steven Pinker... too much to be said about this topic by a brilliant author. check it out if you have the chance.
It died in here. This thread had potential.
by Audrey Surma 23 months ago
Does writing help you to become a better communicator verbally?It seems that writing on a regular basis would help you to gather your thoughts more easily, find the words you are looking for more readily, and become more knowledgeable in general; all of these would transfer directly to your thought...
by jomine 12 years ago
exist-something with physical presence, that is an object (which has shape) and location.in that sense time does not exist.do not agree?please define "exist"also please tell me what is time.for time to contract and expand it should be "something", right?
by Jeff Berndt 12 years ago
Here's a question for all you bilingual or multi-lingual people out there:Has learning a second or third language changed the way you think about the world in general?I can speak a smattering of a couple languages other than my native one (not even close to fluency), and I've found it easier to...
by Juliette Kando F I Chor 11 years ago
Which comes first, thought or language?
by deergha 10 years ago
Thought or memory is the origin?According to you what is the origin thought process or memory power?
by eonsaway 11 years ago
Are minds/brains capable of transferring thought non-verbally?
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|