thinking in your head

[Quixix]

I was actually trying to say that by having a more efficient labeling system the verbal functions help us to think. Not only does it help us to communicate with others by giving us exact labels' date=' but it also helps us to communicate within our own brains. I don't know how much of an impact this has on our thinking process but I would imagine it has some.

 

 

 

I think that we would have to have a form of logic to have reason. Logic includes the the kind of mathmatical logic with the, if then, or, nor, symbols. I think it is essential to reason that we make these kind of connections between the different objects in our mind. If we are going to dedcutively reason that since the butler is a canadian, and all canadians love asparagus, that the butler loves asparagus then we must need a kind of logic to deduce this. I'm not saying its any kind of strict system, just that reason impicictly implies logic.[/quote']

I agree completely with you on this. My last post, (perhaps went to the wrong place) was referring to "decision making", which I believe to be a different and independent process from reasoning

[LucidDreamer]

I agree completely with you on this. My last post, (perhaps went to the wrong place) was referring to "decision making", which I believe to be a different and independent process from reasoning

 

I see your point. I guess that decision-making and reasoning are different but related processes.

[Sayonara]

But does language (or its absence) affect decision-making processes?

[LucidDreamer]

But does language (or its absence) affect decision-making processes?

 

I would say that to some degree it does. If you use reason to help in making a decision, and reason is improved with a more efficient labeling process, then it would effect decision-making process at least indirectly.

[Teotihuacan]

it works better if you ditch words and go with ideas.

 

it makes reading A LOT faster. don't say the words to yourself. when you are walking down the street and see bob' date=' you don't say to yourself "thats bob"; you just recognize him. do the same with words and you will go much faster. sorry for the off topic paragraph, but it kinda helped my point.[/quote']

Although this string appears to be done some time ago...

 

It is my considered opinion that a "word" is a physical object that we use to point at a thought. It is not the thought itself.

 

Thinking in words, encumbers and slows down the process, with all the neccessary transliteration - mechanical or not. This can actually be helpful, in terms of delimiting our thoughts, that they fit on the page, so to speak. The process, also being repetitive, tends to re-enforce itself. As in learning, disemination of commonalities or ordered response. The "simplified" wording is indeed more replicable than the apparent stream of unique and replete consciousness of thought.

 

Perhaps similar to the evoluton of the keyboard, the selection of a sonorus interface or language to interpret thought may be lost in antiquity.

 

Just as the keyboard was originally devised to slow down the typist because of mechanical limitations of early typerwriters and that encumberance remains a std. keyborad, even though our machines are far faster now, than human fingers could manipulate. Verbal language seems to be more an artifact of our past, but still remains our best travelled interface, despite it's uncertain limitations.

[YT2095]

I think that it`s more a question of thinking in terms of Symbolism and it`s related associations to mental imagery.

as a student of Sign Lang for the deaf, it`s quite apparent that verbal lang and gestures have little in common with regards to direct specifics, it DOES require a different way of "thinking" to get just right.

 

I`de also feel fairly confident in saying that long before language "Ugg, grunt, etc...) certain signs were used that are TODAY still unmistakable

and also SOME of which we have little to no control over either (happy/sad/angry).

 

such things are used by animals too, I can`t discount the idea that Dolphins or even cat`s and dogs don`t expand their "vocabularies" either, and maybe pass it on?

 

Just a though )

[Quixix]

I think that it`s more a question of thinking in terms of Symbolism and it`s related associations to mental imagery.

as a student of Sign Lang for the deaf' date=' it`s quite apparent that verbal lang and gestures have little in common with regards to direct specifics, it DOES require a different way of "thinking" to get just right.

 

I`de also feel fairly confident in saying that long before language "Ugg, grunt, etc...) certain signs were used that are TODAY still unmistakable

and also SOME of which we have little to no control over either (happy/sad/angry).

 

such things are used by animals too, I can`t discount the idea that Dolphins or even cat`s and dogs don`t expand their "vocabularies" either, and maybe pass it on?

 

Just a though )[/quote']

The sign you refer to above (angry, sad, happy), which are all related to emotions and facial (or bodily) expressions, are today thought to be quite involuntary and universal. Most thinkers believe these type of expressions and their recognition are hardwired - genetically inherited. Of course, as you say, this is not exclusively human.

[Kedas]

I don't think it's about hardwired or not it's about keeping the body in balance with the brain.

 

 

correction: 'or' was 'are'

[Quixix]

I don't think it's about hardwired are not it's about keeping the body in balance with the brain.

¿Could you please tell me why you don't believe it?

[Kedas]

Sorry, I guess my spelling correction cleared it up?

[coquina]

Greetings,

 

Just had a thought.. back in the day, when man first exisited, but didnt have a structured language, we used getures, promts to communicate, how did they think in their head? Today we think in our head in spoken language. If you did not speak a language, how would you think in your head?

 

There are 3 basic learning (or thinking) styles, visual, auditory and kinesthetic or tactile. http://www.chaminade.org/inspire/learnstl.htm

 

Most people are visual learners, followed by auditory learners. The third group, the tactile learners often find it difficult to learn in a classroom situation.

 

I would expect that in man's earliest days, they were geared toward "tactile" learning. Ie learning about "hot" and "cold", "hard" and "soft", "wet" and "dry". They would also learn by visualization. For example, the idea of "One", "two" or "many" would have been valuable for quick assessment. Today you might compare it to "single", "couple" or "army". You don't have to count them all to know they outnumber you.

 

The earliest histories were auditory, not visual or written. Once people obtained speech, they were able to pass on what they learned from generation to generation.

 

There are all kinds of ways we learn and remember now. For example, most people tell me I am a great cook. I never use a cookbook, and I make up recipes as I go along. I am able to remember flavors and combine them in my head. Most of the time, a recipe I "made up" will taste very close to the way I imagined it.

 

I can go into a grocery store and pick out one item, then decide what other items and spices go with it - for example, apples, walnuts and cheese are a great combination. So are peaches and almonds. I "compose" recipes as I go along.