7 ms·

We don't think in terms of language. Language is simply a translation layer for the underlying neurological phenomenon. It feels like we think in language becau

We don't think in terms of language. Language is simply a translation layer for the underlying neurological phenomenon. It feels like we think in language because we tend to understand concepts after they've been turned into words. I can turn this off and just compare the word referents to each other. In fact, I have to in order to get any serious thinking done. Translating to and from words just introduces friction. The tradeoff to doing this is that the end product insight is not at all relatable to other humans, it's some deep deep link into my subconscious that's extremely abstract. Sometimes I'll conjure up, in my head, an imaginary conversation partner, and converse with them. Then I will use words, because the point is to use the other person as a clarifying foil. I'll hew to the rules of human logic, and make points that they can follow. In my own head, I don't have to use the same logic everyone else does. To me, human logic presents as a strict subset of rules of my logic, but still "logic-complete" in that I can represent most of my findings in semantic form given enough time to find the right 'compilation'. I believe that language is in the process of deeply integrating into the brain and still isn't really done yet. People have tricks that they use in order to increase the compression rate of words. Narrative for instance. But we still have trouble reaching for words when we need them. I think the language part moves in parallel to the rest of the brain, silently translating thoughts and presenting them to the executive function. (what you think of as you) Thoughts are multi-dimensional, whereas words have many fewer. In the future, we'll become more strongly aware of the limitations semantics places on articulation. People tend to get too hung up on what words mean, and discussions will often digress to the moors of semantic posturing.

ffwd 10y ago
>I believe that language is in the process of deeply integrating into the brain and still isn't really done yet. People have tricks that they use in order to increase the compression rate of words. Narrative for instance. But we still have trouble reaching for words when we need them. I think the language part moves in parallel to the rest of the brain, silently translating thoughts and presenting them to the executive function. (what you think of as you) Thoughts are multi-dimensional, whereas words have many fewer. Yeah I don't know about all this though. Maybe the brain is very messy and we can't really understand something consciously until we can write/speak it in words, and that words connect disparate thoughts into something meaningful. Maybe this is what you were getting at with 'multi dimensional', but I would think language creates structure, not reduce structure. For things directly related to the body and rote repetition, the brain might do things we can't consciously express while still being good at it, but that's not really knowledge, that's more automatic neural response. To have knowledge you should have to encode it into some language I think. On a more broad level, I wonder what symbols like the alphabet and words really 'are', I would tend to think they have no more priority than other stimuli from the environment, but that rather in themselves as an environment for the brain, they have a lot of innate capability for representation and that the brain has learned to manipulate that environment with great skill, but that as far as internal thought goes it's just another environment like navigating a forest or sleeping in a hidden place under the trees to hide from predators. "it's all aesthetic as stimuli" so to speak
- vinceguidry 10y ago
  > To have knowledge you should have to encode it into some language I think. What we seem to do is to build concept 'maps' of relating information. The conscious mind has ready access to these maps and uses them to experience the world. I think because most people just aren't terribly intellectual, individual elements in these maps and the very structure of the maps reflect other people around them, what we call culture. But when we think, we remix and match the map against itself, building up connections between concepts. The more you do this, the less it resembles other peoples'. A person's definition of a word can change over time. The same basic concept can be represented in crazy-different ways in different people. What I think of when I hear 'Microsoft', is bound to be way different than what someone else thinks.
afarrell 10y ago
To really understand this point, I highly recommend playing the board game Concept. It is both really simple and fun, and a deeply thought-provoking intellectual excercise. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k9JWV_HcsqQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k9JWV_HcsqQ
whatever_dude 10y ago
> We don't think in terms of language. Language is simply a translation layer for the underlying neurological phenomenon. It feels like we think in language because we tend to understand concepts after they've been turned into words. It always surprises me how many people assume the opposite. Since I don't speak or use my native language during the day, sometimes people will come and ask me whether I "think" in my native language, or in my adopted language. And they're always baffled when I say "neither", because that's not how I think people think. (Sometimes I, too, may construct internal dialogues in either language, but I never form thoughts themselves as sentences. In fact, more often than not I forget the word that expresses a particular idea, or feeling, or something. That doesn't mean I won't still be able to think about it)
- tim333 10y ago
  I guess one can think in language although it's not the main way we do it but it is the most observable and you can write it down easily unlike the non verbal but more important parts.
- k__ 10y ago
  Yes. "thinking" for me is a stream of thoughts. But speaking helps to linearize those thoughts and makes them more distinct. I often just talk to people about my thoughts because it helps meto structure them with the help of language. Sometimes I even get to the point where I have a thought that doesn't map to a word.
- jhedwards 10y ago
  I think that thinking can happen in different modes depending on what is useful for the domain you're contemplating. When I am programming I often "see" programs as geometric or organic interlocking structures. I find that I don't really understand a program until I can visualize its structure. On the other hand sometimes I use language and dialog to think out a problem. I remember a specific incident where I was laying in bed on a hot day and I thought "I'm laying here constantly sweating" and then I thought "sweating sounds like a Chinese name" and that's when I realized I had been thinking in Chinese where sweating is pronounced "chu han". You could argue that language-style thought is "translated" from deeper concepts, but I think that goes without saying because there must be some layer of thought that is pre-representation.
dcre 10y ago
Your first two sentences seem to imply that thought is a neurological phenomenon, but in the following paragraphs you describe several examples of thinking without ever mentioning neurons or any other (one would think) necessary components of neurological phenomena. That's pretty interesting.
hacker42 10y ago
Language basically seems to have two main evolutionary purposes: The first one is the obvious one that we use it to share a common concept space with one another. The second one I am not so sure about, but it seems that language also greatly enhances our thinking. We can exploit the phonological short-term memory in shape of the inner monologue essentially as a scratchpad to efficiently keep track of recent thoughts, and grammars are a great way of combining concepts, so that we can just plug different concepts into the same grammatical structure and obtain new thoughts that might still be grounded in reality due to intuition about the way concepts are typically combined. Moreover, we seem to be able to better verify the soundness of our thinking using language. Oftentimes a thought becomes much clearer when encoded in language. Perhaps grammatical structures are very efficiently linked to causal experiences such that we can very swiftly debug language-coded meanings. The efficient code might also reduce the cognitive load such that we process longer chains of reasoning at a time.
- ewzimm 10y ago
  I think language is essentially hacking our memory model which developed around emotional associations with the world. We have sensory input which we translate into associations like danger or pleasure and need to store those in a way that relates in useful ways to the complexities of the way the world works so that we can function as animals. Something like a shriek which might signal danger in one situation might signal happiness in another. For most people, words start out as sounds, which we are primed by biology to remember and react to. We then form relations around these sounds and their associated symbols or textures for the blind (which sensory input is primary doesn't really matter) and reinforce our associations with emotions and other words to form complex relationships. When we have formed enough of these conections, we can start to establish complex logical arguments around their arrangement and connections. Logical problems become clear in the same way that we are able to react to dangers or opportunities in the real world through the application of memory associations. So when we string a series of words together, we aren't just bringing up the direct meaning of the sentence. We're bringing into working memory all the various levels of association which those words bring. We're always thinking in these multiple dimensions, whether or not we're directly aware of it. Words are just ways to direct the flow of these associations based on our memories and experiences. When I'm thinking about a sentence, I tend to try to focus more on the periphary thoughts and emotions which they bring to mind rather than focusing on the base meaning.
JackFr 10y ago
I would define a hierarchy of reflex < habit < intuition < 'thinking'. Though they all reflect some neurological activity, the only explicitly verbal level is 'thinking', and the others can be conducted unconsciously.
- aminorex 10y ago
  There may be more usefully discriminable levels of abstraction than those. Where to draw the line between thought and unthought? It seems an uninteresting question to me. Should I draw a line between the United States of America and the people thereof? They are distinct, but the latter is a part of the former, and without their aggregate the former would not exist. Usually I equate thought and consciousness, but perhaps there is a useful distinction there? In mammals sentience precedes consciousness precedes sapience. In machines the necessity of the linkage is not clear. We can imagine sapience without consciousness, at least, but consciousness without sentience seems more questionable.
kcorbitt 10y ago
Just as a counterpoint: I (think I) absolutely do think in a specific language. I don't know if I do so all of the time -- there could be times when I don't and don't realize it -- but most of my conscious thought does definitely take the form of words, and sometimes even a well-formed internal dialog. I speak a second language fluently, and after spending several weeks immersed in that second language I'll sometimes notice that my internal speech switches to it as well, especially when I'm thinking about concepts that I've verbalized/discussed in that language.
- elementalest 10y ago
  Perhaps you are actually thinking in concepts, and in order to help organise and 'sequentialise' those thoughts, you translate them to words in your head at the same time. Therefore, you 'hear' the words, but don't notice the concepts.
- juk2 10y ago
  We need language really to exchange thoughts in one head to another head, in a slightly richer manner than an ape can. To "think" we don't really need language (the oral kind the non- deaf think they are thinking in). Sign language among the born deaf, if allowed to develop without a need to learn spoken languages of the non-deaf, would be clear evidence that thought underlies oral language. And words (that stuff produced for your ear) need not be the only way to think.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  > I (think I) absolutely do think in a specific language. I don't know if I do so all of the time -- there could be times when I don't and don't realize it -- but most of my conscious thought does definitely take the form of words, and sometimes even a well-formed internal dialog. You are mistaken. Your internal monologue is a side effect of your thoughts; it is not your thoughts themselves.
- wry_discontent 10y ago
  I feel the same way. I always think in language and can't conceive of thinking productively another way. Sure, I can imagine a shape, but that's not something that I'd consider really thinking. Additionally, for me to really understand some concept, I often have to concretely put it into language so I end up talking to myself. I got a cat so I feel like less of a crazy person - I talk to him and not myself.
gnaritas 10y ago
You keep saying "we", you mean "you". Not everyone thinks that way.
elementalest 10y ago
I often have trouble expressing my thoughts concisely for complex concepts. I know the concepts and have a model in my mind of the 'thing' I want to explain. When thinking through, i'll abstract out many things, simply referring to them as 'this' or 'that' in my mind as i try form the sequential narrative to explain them. If a spend too much time trying to think what 'this' and 'that' are, i forget where i am up to in the sequential narrative, needing to start again. I find writing it down helps, but i'll sometimes forget what i'm trying to write half way through it. > Thoughts are multi-dimensional, whereas words have many fewer. Another way i like to explain that, is that thoughts are concurrent, while words are sequential. I can think of multiple things at the same time, but i can only speak one word at a time. There's a quote which i'm not sure where its from, but it something to the effect of: > Words are power. When you can put a word to a concept, you have power over it. The correct single word can instantly convey multiple concepts more quickly than many other multiple words can. This enables much better compression and easier conversion of multiple concepts faster and more easily, assuming the recipient of the word is familiar with it. Using multiple words requires the recipient to sequentially construct concepts, leading to the greater possibility of confusion. I previously never cared much about using the correct words all the time, as it required a lot of effort to remember them (at least on my part). However, i'm beginning to think that the advantages of doing so would be worth the effort.
keithnoizu 10y ago
Be careful to avoid the typical mind policy. Others may use lexicography in their thinking process in a different manner than you are familiar with.
- joe_the_user 10y ago
  Or your own self-reflection may not be the best guide to what really is happening with your thoughts. Or there might not even be a specific thing happening beyond one's self reflection.
GrinningFool 10y ago
> In the future, we'll become more strongly aware of the > limitations semantics places on articulation. People tend > to get too hung up on what words mean, and discussions > will often digress to the moors of semantic posturing. I'm curious why you think this will be so in the future? Mo matter how much we learn about cognition, the basic process of how people think hasn't changed as far back as we've paid attention. Awareness of the process of thought isn't something that most people ever give attention to beyond idle internal philosophical debates. Related to this: Anyone else ever focus on their language-based thoughts while thinking them and notice how every mentally verbalized thought seems to have almost a pre-echo of that thought that seems like words but isn't? Alternatively, my brain is playing a trick on me and I'm filling this sense of echo in after the fact of the language-thought. I've never been able to be discern the sequence with absolute certainty, so figured it was worth putting out there to see if I'm alone in it.
- westoncb 10y ago
  > Anyone else ever focus on their language-based thoughts while thinking them and notice how every mentally verbalized thought seems to have almost a pre-echo of that thought that seems like words but isn't? Yes. I noticed this when I was first getting into programming and concluded that the verbal part wasn't strictly necessary and should be avoided when possible. Seems to be an issue similar to verbalizing while reading or not (i.e. 'subvocalization'. I always did verbalize initially, but now I can fairly often get into a mode where it feels like the book is reading itself and I understand the words, but there is no enunciation). I have two main, perhaps conflicting hypotheses on language and thinking now: 1) It's used to solidify trains of thought, similarly to writing down ideas—makes them more stable and easier to return to. Sometimes it's useful to echo your thoughts verbally in order to get this solidification, but it's not necessary. 2) Everything that appears in consciousness is a representation of something deeper going on in the brain. Certain subconscious processes are represented as what we call language in the brain, but the language itself isn't 'active' in any sense. edit: fixed phrasing.
- toolslive 10y ago
  Semantics is a difficult problem. Wittgenstein once stated "Semantic atoms exist, and I will find them". 20 years later he had to admit defeat and said "Tell me, what's the essence of a chair?". Not long after that, he abandoned rationality completely.
o_____________o 10y ago
Beautifully written.
duaneb 10y ago
> We don't think in terms of language. What does a thought consist of if not language? > Language is simply a translation layer for the underlying neurological phenomenon. It's that... plus a long time formalizing useful terms and concepts, among many other things that fall under "language".
- stared 10y ago
  There was somewhere is Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness explained" something in the line of: - Do you think in words or images? - I think in thoughts!
  - duaneb 10y ago
    These are thought experiments, not coherent arguments.
rhizome 10y ago
Language is a lossy codec for thought.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  Lossy, but powerful. Which is why it has been so successful at co-evolving with and (nearly) subjugating our brains to the extent that it has.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    I was speaking to precision, not utility.
kafkaesq 10y ago
We don't think in terms of language. How do you know?
hyperpallium 10y ago
It's like[1] serializing program state to a sequential form (eg xml, json, protocol buffer, etc). The sequential form is useful for communication and persistent storage. While the sequential form can be used for processing, it's clunky, because not its main usage. Consider XSLT. The set of valid messages is even formally called a language. [1] Or, rather, serialization is like it.
kough 10y ago
You seem very smart https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart
blackjettas 10y ago
>in the future, we'll become more strongly aware of the limitations semantics places on articulation. Jesus Christ I would love to believe this to be true, but I gotta say that this prediction is extremely inaccurate. Alfred Korzybski dedicated his entire life to making this exact point. In fact his entire body of work can be summed up by the sentence you just wrote — "semantics limits articulation." But his Herculean efforts to alert humankind to the limitations of language failed to catch on, to put it mildly. Your hope that Korzybskian ideas will experience a resurgence in popularity is a noble one, but I vigorously disagree. These ideas had their chance to become popular, and they didn't. They were — and still are — obviously true, but your hope that the general populace will become aware of their truth is admirably optimistic but extremely naive.

ffwd 10y ago

>I believe that language is in the process of deeply integrating into the brain and still isn't really done yet. People have tricks that they use in order to increase the compression rate of words. Narrative for instance. But we still have trouble reaching for words when we need them. I think the language part moves in parallel to the rest of the brain, silently translating thoughts and presenting them to the executive function. (what you think of as you) Thoughts are multi-dimensional, whereas words have many fewer. Yeah I don't know about all this though. Maybe the brain is very messy and we can't really understand something consciously until we can write/speak it in words, and that words connect disparate thoughts into something meaningful. Maybe this is what you were getting at with 'multi dimensional', but I would think language creates structure, not reduce structure. For things directly related to the body and rote repetition, the brain might do things we can't consciously express while still being good at it, but that's not really knowledge, that's more automatic neural response. To have knowledge you should have to encode it into some language I think. On a more broad level, I wonder what symbols like the alphabet and words really 'are', I would tend to think they have no more priority than other stimuli from the environment, but that rather in themselves as an environment for the brain, they have a lot of innate capability for representation and that the brain has learned to manipulate that environment with great skill, but that as far as internal thought goes it's just another environment like navigating a forest or sleeping in a hidden place under the trees to hide from predators. "it's all aesthetic as stimuli" so to speak

vinceguidry 10y ago
> To have knowledge you should have to encode it into some language I think. What we seem to do is to build concept 'maps' of relating information. The conscious mind has ready access to these maps and uses them to experience the world. I think because most people just aren't terribly intellectual, individual elements in these maps and the very structure of the maps reflect other people around them, what we call culture. But when we think, we remix and match the map against itself, building up connections between concepts. The more you do this, the less it resembles other peoples'. A person's definition of a word can change over time. The same basic concept can be represented in crazy-different ways in different people. What I think of when I hear 'Microsoft', is bound to be way different than what someone else thinks.

afarrell 10y ago

To really understand this point, I highly recommend playing the board game Concept. It is both really simple and fun, and a deeply thought-provoking intellectual excercise. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k9JWV_HcsqQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k9JWV_HcsqQ

whatever_dude 10y ago

> We don't think in terms of language. Language is simply a translation layer for the underlying neurological phenomenon. It feels like we think in language because we tend to understand concepts after they've been turned into words. It always surprises me how many people assume the opposite. Since I don't speak or use my native language during the day, sometimes people will come and ask me whether I "think" in my native language, or in my adopted language. And they're always baffled when I say "neither", because that's not how I think people think. (Sometimes I, too, may construct internal dialogues in either language, but I never form thoughts themselves as sentences. In fact, more often than not I forget the word that expresses a particular idea, or feeling, or something. That doesn't mean I won't still be able to think about it)

tim333 10y ago
I guess one can think in language although it's not the main way we do it but it is the most observable and you can write it down easily unlike the non verbal but more important parts.
k__ 10y ago
Yes. "thinking" for me is a stream of thoughts. But speaking helps to linearize those thoughts and makes them more distinct. I often just talk to people about my thoughts because it helps meto structure them with the help of language. Sometimes I even get to the point where I have a thought that doesn't map to a word.
jhedwards 10y ago
I think that thinking can happen in different modes depending on what is useful for the domain you're contemplating. When I am programming I often "see" programs as geometric or organic interlocking structures. I find that I don't really understand a program until I can visualize its structure. On the other hand sometimes I use language and dialog to think out a problem. I remember a specific incident where I was laying in bed on a hot day and I thought "I'm laying here constantly sweating" and then I thought "sweating sounds like a Chinese name" and that's when I realized I had been thinking in Chinese where sweating is pronounced "chu han". You could argue that language-style thought is "translated" from deeper concepts, but I think that goes without saying because there must be some layer of thought that is pre-representation.

dcre 10y ago

Your first two sentences seem to imply that thought is a neurological phenomenon, but in the following paragraphs you describe several examples of thinking without ever mentioning neurons or any other (one would think) necessary components of neurological phenomena. That's pretty interesting.

hacker42 10y ago

Language basically seems to have two main evolutionary purposes: The first one is the obvious one that we use it to share a common concept space with one another. The second one I am not so sure about, but it seems that language also greatly enhances our thinking. We can exploit the phonological short-term memory in shape of the inner monologue essentially as a scratchpad to efficiently keep track of recent thoughts, and grammars are a great way of combining concepts, so that we can just plug different concepts into the same grammatical structure and obtain new thoughts that might still be grounded in reality due to intuition about the way concepts are typically combined. Moreover, we seem to be able to better verify the soundness of our thinking using language. Oftentimes a thought becomes much clearer when encoded in language. Perhaps grammatical structures are very efficiently linked to causal experiences such that we can very swiftly debug language-coded meanings. The efficient code might also reduce the cognitive load such that we process longer chains of reasoning at a time.

ewzimm 10y ago
I think language is essentially hacking our memory model which developed around emotional associations with the world. We have sensory input which we translate into associations like danger or pleasure and need to store those in a way that relates in useful ways to the complexities of the way the world works so that we can function as animals. Something like a shriek which might signal danger in one situation might signal happiness in another. For most people, words start out as sounds, which we are primed by biology to remember and react to. We then form relations around these sounds and their associated symbols or textures for the blind (which sensory input is primary doesn't really matter) and reinforce our associations with emotions and other words to form complex relationships. When we have formed enough of these conections, we can start to establish complex logical arguments around their arrangement and connections. Logical problems become clear in the same way that we are able to react to dangers or opportunities in the real world through the application of memory associations. So when we string a series of words together, we aren't just bringing up the direct meaning of the sentence. We're bringing into working memory all the various levels of association which those words bring. We're always thinking in these multiple dimensions, whether or not we're directly aware of it. Words are just ways to direct the flow of these associations based on our memories and experiences. When I'm thinking about a sentence, I tend to try to focus more on the periphary thoughts and emotions which they bring to mind rather than focusing on the base meaning.

JackFr 10y ago

I would define a hierarchy of reflex < habit < intuition < 'thinking'. Though they all reflect some neurological activity, the only explicitly verbal level is 'thinking', and the others can be conducted unconsciously.

aminorex 10y ago
There may be more usefully discriminable levels of abstraction than those. Where to draw the line between thought and unthought? It seems an uninteresting question to me. Should I draw a line between the United States of America and the people thereof? They are distinct, but the latter is a part of the former, and without their aggregate the former would not exist. Usually I equate thought and consciousness, but perhaps there is a useful distinction there? In mammals sentience precedes consciousness precedes sapience. In machines the necessity of the linkage is not clear. We can imagine sapience without consciousness, at least, but consciousness without sentience seems more questionable.

kcorbitt 10y ago

Just as a counterpoint: I (think I) absolutely do think in a specific language. I don't know if I do so all of the time -- there could be times when I don't and don't realize it -- but most of my conscious thought does definitely take the form of words, and sometimes even a well-formed internal dialog. I speak a second language fluently, and after spending several weeks immersed in that second language I'll sometimes notice that my internal speech switches to it as well, especially when I'm thinking about concepts that I've verbalized/discussed in that language.

elementalest 10y ago
Perhaps you are actually thinking in concepts, and in order to help organise and 'sequentialise' those thoughts, you translate them to words in your head at the same time. Therefore, you 'hear' the words, but don't notice the concepts.
juk2 10y ago
We need language really to exchange thoughts in one head to another head, in a slightly richer manner than an ape can. To "think" we don't really need language (the oral kind the non- deaf think they are thinking in). Sign language among the born deaf, if allowed to develop without a need to learn spoken languages of the non-deaf, would be clear evidence that thought underlies oral language. And words (that stuff produced for your ear) need not be the only way to think.
thaumasiotes 10y ago
> I (think I) absolutely do think in a specific language. I don't know if I do so all of the time -- there could be times when I don't and don't realize it -- but most of my conscious thought does definitely take the form of words, and sometimes even a well-formed internal dialog. You are mistaken. Your internal monologue is a side effect of your thoughts; it is not your thoughts themselves.
wry_discontent 10y ago
I feel the same way. I always think in language and can't conceive of thinking productively another way. Sure, I can imagine a shape, but that's not something that I'd consider really thinking. Additionally, for me to really understand some concept, I often have to concretely put it into language so I end up talking to myself. I got a cat so I feel like less of a crazy person - I talk to him and not myself.

gnaritas 10y ago

You keep saying "we", you mean "you". Not everyone thinks that way.

elementalest 10y ago

I often have trouble expressing my thoughts concisely for complex concepts. I know the concepts and have a model in my mind of the 'thing' I want to explain. When thinking through, i'll abstract out many things, simply referring to them as 'this' or 'that' in my mind as i try form the sequential narrative to explain them. If a spend too much time trying to think what 'this' and 'that' are, i forget where i am up to in the sequential narrative, needing to start again. I find writing it down helps, but i'll sometimes forget what i'm trying to write half way through it. > Thoughts are multi-dimensional, whereas words have many fewer. Another way i like to explain that, is that thoughts are concurrent, while words are sequential. I can think of multiple things at the same time, but i can only speak one word at a time. There's a quote which i'm not sure where its from, but it something to the effect of: > Words are power. When you can put a word to a concept, you have power over it. The correct single word can instantly convey multiple concepts more quickly than many other multiple words can. This enables much better compression and easier conversion of multiple concepts faster and more easily, assuming the recipient of the word is familiar with it. Using multiple words requires the recipient to sequentially construct concepts, leading to the greater possibility of confusion. I previously never cared much about using the correct words all the time, as it required a lot of effort to remember them (at least on my part). However, i'm beginning to think that the advantages of doing so would be worth the effort.

keithnoizu 10y ago

Be careful to avoid the typical mind policy. Others may use lexicography in their thinking process in a different manner than you are familiar with.

joe_the_user 10y ago
Or your own self-reflection may not be the best guide to what really is happening with your thoughts. Or there might not even be a specific thing happening beyond one's self reflection.

GrinningFool 10y ago

> In the future, we'll become more strongly aware of the > limitations semantics places on articulation. People tend > to get too hung up on what words mean, and discussions > will often digress to the moors of semantic posturing. I'm curious why you think this will be so in the future? Mo matter how much we learn about cognition, the basic process of how people think hasn't changed as far back as we've paid attention. Awareness of the process of thought isn't something that most people ever give attention to beyond idle internal philosophical debates. Related to this: Anyone else ever focus on their language-based thoughts while thinking them and notice how every mentally verbalized thought seems to have almost a pre-echo of that thought that seems like words but isn't? Alternatively, my brain is playing a trick on me and I'm filling this sense of echo in after the fact of the language-thought. I've never been able to be discern the sequence with absolute certainty, so figured it was worth putting out there to see if I'm alone in it.

westoncb 10y ago
> Anyone else ever focus on their language-based thoughts while thinking them and notice how every mentally verbalized thought seems to have almost a pre-echo of that thought that seems like words but isn't? Yes. I noticed this when I was first getting into programming and concluded that the verbal part wasn't strictly necessary and should be avoided when possible. Seems to be an issue similar to verbalizing while reading or not (i.e. 'subvocalization'. I always did verbalize initially, but now I can fairly often get into a mode where it feels like the book is reading itself and I understand the words, but there is no enunciation). I have two main, perhaps conflicting hypotheses on language and thinking now: 1) It's used to solidify trains of thought, similarly to writing down ideas—makes them more stable and easier to return to. Sometimes it's useful to echo your thoughts verbally in order to get this solidification, but it's not necessary. 2) Everything that appears in consciousness is a representation of something deeper going on in the brain. Certain subconscious processes are represented as what we call language in the brain, but the language itself isn't 'active' in any sense. edit: fixed phrasing.
toolslive 10y ago
Semantics is a difficult problem. Wittgenstein once stated "Semantic atoms exist, and I will find them". 20 years later he had to admit defeat and said "Tell me, what's the essence of a chair?". Not long after that, he abandoned rationality completely.

o_____________o 10y ago

Beautifully written.

duaneb 10y ago

> We don't think in terms of language. What does a thought consist of if not language? > Language is simply a translation layer for the underlying neurological phenomenon. It's that... plus a long time formalizing useful terms and concepts, among many other things that fall under "language".

stared 10y ago
There was somewhere is Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness explained" something in the line of: - Do you think in words or images? - I think in thoughts!
- duaneb 10y ago
  These are thought experiments, not coherent arguments.

rhizome 10y ago

Language is a lossy codec for thought.

kafkaesq 10y ago
Lossy, but powerful. Which is why it has been so successful at co-evolving with and (nearly) subjugating our brains to the extent that it has.
- rhizome 10y ago
  I was speaking to precision, not utility.

kafkaesq 10y ago

We don't think in terms of language. How do you know?

hyperpallium 10y ago

It's like[1] serializing program state to a sequential form (eg xml, json, protocol buffer, etc). The sequential form is useful for communication and persistent storage. While the sequential form can be used for processing, it's clunky, because not its main usage. Consider XSLT. The set of valid messages is even formally called a language. [1] Or, rather, serialization is like it.

kough 10y ago

You seem very smart https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart

blackjettas 10y ago

>in the future, we'll become more strongly aware of the limitations semantics places on articulation. Jesus Christ I would love to believe this to be true, but I gotta say that this prediction is extremely inaccurate. Alfred Korzybski dedicated his entire life to making this exact point. In fact his entire body of work can be summed up by the sentence you just wrote — "semantics limits articulation." But his Herculean efforts to alert humankind to the limitations of language failed to catch on, to put it mildly. Your hope that Korzybskian ideas will experience a resurgence in popularity is a noble one, but I vigorously disagree. These ideas had their chance to become popular, and they didn't. They were — and still are — obviously true, but your hope that the general populace will become aware of their truth is admirably optimistic but extremely naive.