←back to thread

273 points geox | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
gcanyon ◴[] No.40712874[source]
You have to think that there were breakthroughs in communication technology — not just language in general but possibly also one individual who happened to be good at explaining things, either before or after language, who both taught more people, but also taught them how to teach — that led to step changes in technology.
replies(8): >>40713012 #>>40713840 #>>40713885 #>>40714141 #>>40714994 #>>40716449 #>>40717648 #>>40718490 #
dboreham ◴[] No.40713012[source]
Theory: there are no humans without language. Consider: what language do you think in?
replies(7): >>40713064 #>>40713200 #>>40713207 #>>40713659 #>>40713766 #>>40713849 #>>40714603 #
mkl ◴[] No.40713064[source]
Quite a lot of humans don't think in language, or do only some of the time, see e.g. https://www.iflscience.com/people-with-no-internal-monologue..., https://www.livescience.com/does-everyone-have-inner-monolog..., https://www.bustle.com/wellness/does-everyone-have-an-intern....
replies(4): >>40713166 #>>40713436 #>>40713482 #>>40714498 #
palad1n ◴[] No.40713166[source]
Indeed, there are two types of people in that regard, whose mind is blown (usually) that there is another type. One thinks in words, one has no words but a smooth stream of thought going.
replies(2): >>40713191 #>>40713292 #
thaumasiotes ◴[] No.40713292{3}[source]
> Indeed, there are two types of people in that regard

> One thinks in words

No. There are people who believe they think in words, because they haven't bothered to examine the question, but there are no people who think in words.

Think about the number of people you've ever seen do a double take at the idea that "I don't know how to put this into words".

replies(2): >>40713355 #>>40715303 #
Loughla ◴[] No.40713355{4}[source]
I absolutely think in words. There are no pictures or whatever other mental model. There is literally a narrative of words and blackness inside head.
replies(3): >>40713478 #>>40713531 #>>40714242 #
1. bbwbsb ◴[] No.40713531{5}[source]
The crux is the word 'I'. When I say 'I' think, do I mean the conscious part of me which has direct experience of that thinking? If so, then I am denying all the of the thinking that 'I' don't do, but my brain/body does.

From that perspective, the experience of thinking in words or pictures is distinct from actually thinking in words or pictures. Saying one thinks in one of these ways seems to be saying what they identify thinking with.

For example, I don't usually think of fantasy as thinking. If I day dream, I wouldn't say I am thinking, but that is fairly visual. To what degree am I saying something about myself vs my identity if I say I do or don't think in words given that context?

Relatedly, I've noticed that when it comes to remembering something, it is not 'I' that remember. Rather 'I' set up mental cues and direct focus, which then hopefully causes the memory to be placed within my awareness. This happens below the level of direct experience. But I might say I failed to remember, taking responsibility for something that 'I' - the part separated from the automatic functions of the body - did not do.

So I'm suggesting statements about words vs pictures are about ego, metaphor and meaning-building, and not about actual mechanisms or communicating actual differences in the experience of thinking.

It can be difficult to talk about these things because such conversations implicitly occur between our identities, not between who we actually are - something beyond our grasp - and the noise this introduces is something I don't know how to surmount, or if it can be surmounted.