Our brain

[Scienceboy123]

Ok.

First things first. I am not a biologyst or scientist or whatever, so dont laugh at my question if it is really dumb.

 

So. My question is. What if our languge is not suitable for our brain to work at full power. What if we could invent other form of "thinking and speaking" so we use the most of our brain?

 

Also, I am not form English speaking countries, so i dont know how to express myself.

[Strange]

So. My question is. What if our languge is not suitable for our brain to work at full power. What if we could invent other form of "thinking and speaking" so we use the most of our brain?

 

 

Why would you think we don't use most of our brain?

 

Also, our brains can work perfectly well without language.

[DrmDoc]

So. My question is. What if our languge is not suitable for our brain to work at full power. What if we could invent other form of "thinking and speaking" so we use the most of our brain?

 

Actually, our brain already produces another form of thinking and that other form is called dreaming. A majority of us do not know that dreams are thoughts because dreams don't conform to how we consciously understand the nature of thought. When we dream, our sleeping brain can be even more active than when we are awake. The idea that we may only use a small percentage of our brain is a myth. We are already using our brain's maximum.

Edited February 26, 2017 by DrmDoc

[StringJunky]

 

 

Why would you think we don't use most of our brain?

 

Also, our brains can work perfectly well without language.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Not having a language means you don't have a framework for learning and organisation. Also, would your inner voice be available if you don't have a language? Most of my thoughts on this come from what I know about deafness, wrt language deprivation, and its effects on cognitive development. Certain things don't happen within a person if the brain doesn't get certain stimili at key points in development and the person becomes, in effect, stunted in the way they can interact with their environment or people. It's rather like, if a very young child receives no affection, or exposed to too many primary carers, their ability to form long-lasting social and personal bonds later in life can be seriously compromised and they may express life-long, socially pathological behaviour.

[Bender]

We already have a language that is more efficient (at least for some problems): mathematics.

[Velocity_Boy]

Ok.

First things first. I am not a biologyst or scientist or whatever, so dont laugh at my question if it is really dumb.

 

So. My question is. What if our languge is not suitable for our brain to work at full power. What if we could invent other form of "thinking and speaking" so we use the most of our brain?

 

Also, I am not form English speaking countries, so i dont know how to express myself.

 

No language is enough in and of itself to necessitate a large part of the brains total cognitive abilities.

 

And it is a myth that we only use about 10% of our brain. We use far more than that. If we only used that small amount the cerebral cortex wouldn't have evolved to have call those files in it,church are there to maximize surface area for storage and cognition space. That is.....Memory and thinking.

 

The best exercise for your mind...The brains software....Is to learn something new! Anything! A language, a musical instrument, a game, a science or art class, how to ride a motorcycle. Especially any physical activity that necessitates balance. The brain is like a muscle.....Use it or lose it. It atrophies. Well, in layman's terms it does. What really happens is neural pathways become less efficient. A process we call pruning.

 

Just strive to learn new skills and acquire new information. Practicing multi tasking is also a great way to simulate neural activity. Like...Read a book while listening to music while keeping an eye on the ballgame. I just learned a new skill for studying where by doodling during it, you significantly improved memory and recall of what you learned. There is a great YouTube video on that. You can try it yourself.

[Strange]

I'm not sure I agree with that. Not having a language means you don't have a framework for learning and organisation. Also, would your inner voice be available if you don't have a language? Most of my thoughts on this come from what I know about deafness, wrt language deprivation, and its effects on cognitive development. Certain things don't happen within a person if the brain doesn't get certain stimili at key points in development and the person becomes, in effect, stunted in the way they can interact with their environment or people. It's rather like, if a very young child receives no affection, or exposed to too many primary carers, their ability to form long-lasting social and personal bonds later in life can be seriously compromised and they may express life-long, socially pathological behaviour.

 

OK. I don't really know anything about the relationship between failure to learn language and cognitive development. So I am happy to accept I am wrong there.

 

I imagine studying this is complicated by the fact that the same thing that causes language deficit may have a more direct effect on learning (e.g. being deaf may cut a person out of social interaction which may have an effect as well as late language development).

[StringJunky]

 

OK. I don't really know anything about the relationship between failure to learn language and cognitive development. So I am happy to accept I am wrong there.

 

I imagine studying this is complicated by the fact that the same thing that causes language deficit may have a more direct effect on learning (e.g. being deaf may cut a person out of social interaction which may have an effect as well as late language development).

Yes. I've forgotten alot of this subject as it was decades ago when I was looking into it but if you don't have an inner language your learning and social interactions disable you profoundly and durably, that's why some very deaf-from-birth people come across as a bit mentally-handicapped: their disability made them that way, not that there was anything initially wrong with their brain.

[Sriman Dutta]

The Stone Age primitive men didn't have any language. Yet they invented fire and wheels. This shows our brain doesn't require language to innovate.

Einstein knew English. Yet he thought so many ideas. His language helped him to think so much. This shows that the language I'm presently using is fine for my brain.

[Delta1212]

The Stone Age primitive men didn't have any language. Yet they invented fire and wheels. This shows our brain doesn't require language to innovate.

Einstein knew English. Yet he thought so many ideas. His language helped him to think so much. This shows that the language I'm presently using is fine for my brain.

Why do you think people didn't have any language when they invented the wheel?

[DrP]

Of course they had language... even if it was grunts, erggs and urggs. It then evolved into the many languages we have worldwide.

[Delta1212]

Of course they had language... even if it was grunts, erggs and urggs. It then evolved into the many languages we have worldwide.

Well, the range of vocal sounds humans can make would not have been any different at the point in time that the wheel was invented than it is now, and considering the number of physical adaptations that we have to allow precise and varied vocal control, plus the propensity to build a working language out of the merest scraps even as children, I'd say that it's probable that language has evolved well passed the stage of stereotypical caveman grunts by the time Anatomically Modern Humans appeared on the scene, which was well before the appearance of the wheel.

[StringJunky]

Why do you think people didn't have any language when they invented the wheel?

It's my thought that if they didn't have language they wouldn't have come up with the wheel because you need a coherent symbolic process to string all the thoughts together internally and be able to share them. As I mentioned before, this can deduced from the pathology of deafness:

 

 

Interestingly, deafness is significantly more serious than blindness in terms of the effect it can have on the brain. This isn’t because deaf people’s brains are different than hearing people, in terms of mental capacity or the like; rather, it is because of how integral language is to how our brain functions. To be clear, “language” here not only refers to spoken languages, but also to sign language. It is simply important that the brain have some form of language it can fully comprehend and can turn into an inner voice to drive thought.

Recent research has shown that language is integral in such brain functions as memory, abstract thinking, and, fascinatingly, self-awareness. Language has been shown to literally be the “device driver”, so to speak, that drives much of the brain’s core “hardware”. Thus, deaf people who aren’t identified as such very young or that live in places where they aren’t able to be taught sign language, will be significantly handicapped mentally until they learn a structured language, even though there is nothing actually wrong with their brains. The problem is even more severe than it may appear at first because of how important language is to the early stages of development of the brain. Those completely deaf people who are taught no sign language until later life will often have learning problems that stick with them throughout their lives, even after they have eventually learned a particular sign language.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/07/how-deaf-people-think/

Edited March 28, 2017 by StringJunky

[Strange]

The Stone Age primitive men didn't have any language.

 

 

They probably did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language#Homo_sapiens

[Bender]

Einstein knew English. Yet he thought so many ideas. His language helped him to think so much. This shows that the language I'm presently using is fine for my brain.

I would expect Einstein to have thought up his theories in German, rather than English .

[quickquestion]

Ok.

First things first. I am not a biologyst or scientist or whatever, so dont laugh at my question if it is really dumb.

 

So. My question is. What if our languge is not suitable for our brain to work at full power. What if we could invent other form of "thinking and speaking" so we use the most of our brain?

 

Also, I am not form English speaking countries, so i dont know how to express myself.

My opinion of english, is that alot of it's syntax and descriptors could use improvement in regards to the scientific realm. English was invented in an age where science was in it's infancy.

Edited April 12, 2017 by quickquestion

[Strange]

My opinion of english, is that alot of it's syntax and descriptors could use improvement in regards to the scientific realm. English was invented in an age where science was in it's infancy.

 

 

English was not "invented". Like all languages it evolved, and is still evolving to meet the needs of its users.

[quickquestion]

 

 

English was not "invented". Like all languages it evolved, and is still evolving to meet the needs of its users.

You win half the argument, I concede the point that it was invented, it was not invented in one single day or year, but was slowly grown and born.

 

However, though it is "sort of" evolving, it is sheltered from natural selection process in a way...people and societies tend to stick with outdated and ineffectual words and it is difficult to remove them from society. Essentially, it rarely undergoes any kind of culling process of bad genes, cancers mostly just stick with the language more or less.

Edited April 14, 2017 by quickquestion

[Sriman Dutta]

Nope. New words are constantly evolving. No one today uses thee, thou, thy, etc. Back in the early 20th century, no one used the word selfie. But see today, it's so popular. Isn't it?

[Delta1212]

You win half the argument, I concede the point that it was invented, it was not invented in one single day or year, but was slowly grown and born.

 

However, though it is "sort of" evolving, it is sheltered from natural selection process in a way...people and societies tend to stick with outdated and ineffectual words and it is difficult to remove them from society. Essentially, it rarely undergoes any kind of culling process of bad genes, cancers mostly just stick with the language more or less.

Words and even grammatical forms are constantly being introduced and culled from daily usage. Language actually evolves pretty rapidly, especially when populations of speakers are isolated.

 

Small changes are generally noticeable within lifetimes, usually between older and younger people. Patterns of change are easily visible within a matter of generations. It usually takes many centuries for divergence to the point of total incomprehensibility to really develop, but that's still faster than most megafauna speciate.

[quickquestion]

Nope. New words are constantly evolving. No one today uses thee, thou, thy, etc. Back in the early 20th century, no one used the word selfie. But see today, it's so popular. Isn't it?

I still use such words such as thou and thy.

 

And also, outdated STEM words and terminologies which have double meanings and unintuitive meanings, are being forced onto students as the "ipso factor" standards to be enforced for the rest of time. I can't think of any offhand, but there are several.

Edited April 15, 2017 by quickquestion

[Manticore]

 

 

English was not "invented". Like all languages it evolved, and is still evolving to meet the needs of its users.

A philologist once told me that there are only two original words in the English language.

Those words are 'football' and 'fuck'.

[Strange]

people and societies tend to stick with outdated and ineffectual words and it is difficult to remove them from society.

 

 

Examples?

 

 

 

Essentially, it rarely undergoes any kind of culling process of bad genes, cancers mostly just stick with the language more or less.

 

Have you read any Chaucer? Or Shakespeare? Or even fiction written in the 60s? You will find lots of words that are no longer in use.

I still use such words such as thou and thy.

 

 

Interesting. They are still in use in parts of the North of England. Where does your dialect come from? (These are examples of useful words that have disappeared from most English dialects.)

Edited April 16, 2017 by Strange

[quickquestion]

 

 

Examples?

 

 

Have you read any Chaucer? Or Shakespeare? Or even fiction written in the 60s? You will find lots of words that are no longer in use.

 

 

Interesting. They are still in use in parts of the North of England. Where does your dialect come from? (These are examples of useful words that have disappeared from most English dialects.)

But shakespeare books are still printed and read, thus the words are still in use.

 

In my other post I said there are lots of STEM terminologies that have double meanings or unintuitive, misleading names. But I said I can't remember them off hand.

[iNow]

By that metric, hieroglyphics are still in use because books are still printed and read about them. That's clearly ridiculous. You've set the bar so low that's it's trivially easy to cross and without utility.

Edited April 16, 2017 by iNow