[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao Their thought processes might be superluminal. These could be due to the food and the beer they consumed on a regular basis.

Shouldn't beer be negative to thought? Though I did read somewhere that wine is recomended by many doctors (in moderate comsumption) because it helps the body in several health aspects (like not getting liver cancer). But actually I have thought a lot about it (I practice a lot the 'history of ideas' in order to see how ideas are formed and how we can form new ideas) and come to a conclusion: language. The german language is much more exact and precise than any other, at least any other of western culture. And as they had the cultural basis, all these big views of the world arised, including dictatorship, music, physics...

[TinyTree]

I think language has a large influence on the nature of thought. However, how about those that think visually? There are many people who think visually and it is difficult to translate those ideas into any language, yet they may have useful thoughts.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by TinyTree I think language has a large influence on the nature of thought. However, how about those that think visually? There are many people who think visually and it is difficult to translate those ideas into any language, yet they may have useful thoughts.

Nobody can think 'visually'. The thinking methods are already understood by scientists, and they are much more reducible than we usually think. We can only think with representations of ideas, not ideas themselves. That is, the words which represent concepts, are used in thought processes. The representation of ideas is not an image, it is a word. Of course, we can think by images if we do it consciousnlly, but doing that is representing with images the words which represent the idea (which it self is a representation of the world. The Germans in fact have the same word for idea and for representation).

[TinyTree]

Nobody can think 'visually'.

Actually, I believe some people do.

We were playing a game this weekend- the game is simple in concept- each card has four animals on it of four different colors. There is a color missing on each card, and also an animal type missing on each card. The goal is to find the correctly colored animal which is missing from the card (IE, both the color and the animal are not represented).

Some of the people trying it found they could IMMEDIATELY point to the missing color, but in order to NAME the color it took them at least a half second to a second to be able to do that task.

That is- they could think visually with extreme clarity, but when forced to perform the same task with an alternative mental representation- such as language- they were slower and poorer performers.

I just read "Animals in translation" and the thesis of the author is that many animals DO think in images, and also that many humans do as well- although it is not the norm so others who do not think in this manner have difficulty understanding where they are coming from. It isn't "better" but different.

For myself, sometimes I think in words, and sometimes in images. When I think of mathematical concepts, I do not think in words, I think in patterns of images, which can be difficult to translate into words.

[Guille]

Tinytree,

What happened to those people who identified the colour earlier than the word is an easy physical situation to explain: the eyes see through and at the speed of light, whiles the mind works at the speed of electrons in organic material (much slower). Still, actually, I believe we do think in images too. But the reasonwhy Germans have those scientists and philosophers is due to the language, not to their superior number of people who think in images (if at all they have a superior number of people who think in images?).

[TinyTree]

I agree that language makes a big difference with the development of certain types of thought. And further, certain types of thought are more transmissable, and hence make it further through the cultural heritage, if they are easier to express.

Thus, it is a de facto outcome that those who utilize language as their primary mode of thought will transmit their ideas further through the later cultures- the best visual ideas are not as easy to transmit, permute or otherwise send onwards.

A great idea visually is difficult to convey unless you are an artist. However, if you think in language, there is a readily available way to communicate the idea- simply type in the words as you thought them and they are available to everyone.

Thus, if you think visually there is not necessarily a way to transmit the idea- think of a really cool image- now try to convey this with art or language. Either way is difficult.

But now tell yourself an idea- you can transcribe it word for word and send it to another.

[mkirkpatrick]

I agree Tinytree, you can indeed. Ideas are forms for words!
kind regards michael,

[Aireal]

Guille

I must disagree with your statement, "Nobody can think visually" because I do all the time. I can picture things in 3-D in my mind with great detail. I can rotate the image in my mind, zoom in and out, and allow time to pass and watch the changes. The amount of information I can process this way is considerable, entire blueprints can be held in my mind. This has had great practical use in my life. However it has had a negative affect also.

Look here for a post that shows how I think, and the problems I have putting those pictures into words. http://www.physics-philosophy-metaph...ion-vt480.html

Nigel, a friend of mine who teaches native tribes in Australia has also noticed that they tend to visualize math, geometry, trigonometry, algebraic structures, etc. They still arrive at the correct answer, but not by the normal method. So "thinking methods" are only understood by scientists when used on "civilized" people and not us "uncivilized" ones. I believe this is due to the manner in which we are raised and taught to think and has caused me great problems with "formal" education.

Visualization is a skill that can be learned, it is just a skill that is considered very important to native cultures. As small children we are told simple stories, little more than word pictures. As we grow, we are told that our dreams are important, that not only should we remember them, but that they contain important information that sometimes we even base our actions on. Later we are encouraged to seek visions for guidance and inspiration. Shooting a bow, throwing a spear or knife involves visualization. You must picture the number of flips the knife makes on its way to the target. If the target is moving, you must also picture its movement in time and "lead the target" so that target and knife arrive at the same point and location in time and space. You know in your heart the moment you release the weapon what the outcome will be. If the picture of the outcome was clean and sharp in you mind at the moment of release, you will hit the target. If your mental picture is not clean and sharp at that moment of release, you will miss, and you know it before it happens.

There is even scientific evidence to suggest it is a learned skill. Have you seen those pictures made up of dots, but when you stare at them a picture slowly appears in it. That technique actually came from research conducted into the effect of the visual cortex on learning. I got to meet one of the men behind that work. He was promoting a memorization and learning technique based on that work. He claims anyone can develop a photographic memory. Stare at a list of names on a paper, without moving your eyes, just stare at the center of the paper for several minutes. Then look up at a blank wall, preferably white. You will see an after image of the list on the wall, which will quickly fade. As soon as it does, close your eyes and you should still be able to bring the vision of that list back up and read it for a short period of time afterwards. The more you practice this, the greater the time you will be able to bring the picture of this list back up.


As a child I was not allowed to be taught my native language, this has changed in my life thankfully. English, even though I grew up with it, seems foreign to me. I do not remember stories I have read in words, I see them in my mind like I was there.

In my study of physics I could not count the times someone has said, "Don't even try to picture this, it's impossible." I want to scream, but I can!

Little Feather

[Benedict Broere]

In science it is generally understood that the best theory is the theory that best describes the (part of) reality it concerns. Several theories might be proposed, but what stands out in the end is the theory that appears to be the most adequate one, not the most simple one. Occam's razor gives an indication of what theories might look like, but it isn't an absolute rule. Besides, mathematicians prefer the word 'elegance', philosophers like the word 'coherence', etcetera. But in the end it all has to do with what reality appears to be and not with what we might like reality is.

[Aireal]

Benedict

I agree, Occam's razor is a good guideline, but should not be a hard rule one must follow.
A good example of this is my model of the atom posted on this site. In it I used Mach's equation to define the orbit of the electron. This is not the simplest way to do so. Bohr's method was the simplest, but failed when used for more complex atoms. Yet the "picture" in my mind showed me this was a more valid approach, even though Mach's method was more complex.

I like the point you made about mathematicians preferring the term elegance, and philosophers coherence, when both are really saying the same thing. Words and word choice has always been a problem for me. I know what I see in my mind, but it is hard to put into words at times. use the wrong words, and people get upset.