:smile: :wink: :razz: :grin: :lol: :blush: :rofl: :joke: :cool: :kiss: :love: :halo: :yum: :sweat:

I personally don't know but this reminds me of this case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child)

I don't think in words or language, and I don't dream in words or language.

Of course I can't prove it to you. I can only appeal to you that I have nothing to gain by lying about it.

I think in concepts. No thouhts come to me in language.

If I want to, I can verbalize my thoughts, even just to myself, unuttered.

When I was 22, a man told me why meditation would relax me: because, he said, it would stop the constant conversation in my brain.

I was surprised, because there was no conversation in my head.

In fact I thouht he spake metaphorically.

It took me a goodly amount of time (I don't know how long, precisly or approximately) to realize others think in language.

And no, i was not raised in an environment of no language.

It took me a goodly amount of time (I don't know how long, precisly or approximately) to realize others think in language. — god must be atheist

Do you think in images, then? Or is there just no internal conversation? Do you have to always use an external medium? I tend to work with people who need visuals to understand. It drives me a little bit insane, as I'm not a very visual person.

Perhaps that boy would think in terms of images? — Thinking

Language is not thought, and thought is not language. One of the tenets of mindfulness meditation and cognitive behaviourial therapy is that: you are not your thoughts. I am not a trained linguist, but I see language as a vessel for our thoughts.

But I think the relationship between language and thought is one that is frequently discussed. Think Orwell's 1984 - the idea that language can constraint thought. I think this Wikipedia article does a better job than I will be able to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_and_thought

Suppose there was a boy who was born and raised in a secluded family in which they used no form of language both spoken and written to communicate. How would that boy think?? In my meditations much of my thoughts come in the form of words and usually speaking them to myself with my own voice. Perhaps that boy would think in terms of images?
An example would be "I like to eat doughnuts" rather than the boy thinking of those words associated to that statement he would think of an image of himself enjoying his doughnut. Answer these questions below. — Thinking

Well, the first question would be, how would they communicate? The human organism is structured in a way that relies on communication to balance its resource requirements. A parent would need to communicate with their child to know when the boy is hungry, thirsty, tired or in pain, and when he has enough or too much. If not words, then any expression of movement and sound would soon form its own ‘language’, and the boy would ‘think’ in terms of these conceptual or predictive patterns.

With regard to your example, the boy’s thoughts might gravitate toward any patterns in his relation to the environment that relate to past experiences of eating doughnuts, such as a packet of cinnamon from the cupboard, a thick circular shape, or the action of licking sugar off his fingers.

As an aside, in your meditation it seems like you’re still processing your thoughts if they’re coming to you verbally, and in your own voice. You’re still clinging to a sense of ‘self’. Remember, you are not your thoughts.

I don't think in words or language — god must be atheist

How do you ever decide what to say or write?



I think in spoken words, but generally not in written words. I can think in written symbols to an extent, like numerals, but isn't this just a way of thinking in images? Come to think of it, isn't thinking in spoken words just a way of thinking in aural images?

I think in spoken words, but generally not in written words. I can think in written symbols to an extent, like numerals, but isn't this just a way of thinking in images? Come to think of it, isn't thinking in spoken words just a way of thinking in aural images? — Metaphysician Undercover

I absolutely agree that It would be cumbersome to think of the individual written words. I go back and forth between thinking in spoken word and images mostly when I think of concepts that are hard for myself to put into words. However without that spoken word thinking I would imagine you would only think in images.

Do you think in images, then? Or is there just no internal conversation? Do you have to always use an external medium? I tend to work with people who need visuals to understand. It drives me a little bit insane, as I'm not a very visual person. — Marchesk

I dream in images, but don't think in images. In my dreams, the characters do communicate: it is UNDERSTOOD that someone said something, and it is UNDERSTOOD that another character replied in merit, and so on.

When my mind is at rest, so to speak, I don't have images. No images, no language, only meaning, and concepts. One concept bears another. I often try to pin myself down on catching myself what I am thinking of at the moment -- impossible. There is no dialogue in my head, in my mind... just one concept morphing into another. A linear monologue, with tons of lateral jumps, of course.

I can visualize three-D objects easily, but no longer as easily as in my teens. In my highschool years I amazed my math teacher with my ability to visualize all kinds of complex three-d structures... but we did not get marked on those, we got marked on two-d descriptive geometry, which I aced, and often challenged the teacher that there is an easier solution to a particular problem or another, than what she taught. I was in a school of exceptionally gifted chilren, and my talents were richly rewarded. Unfortunately it was hard for me to read text, and to memorize rote facts, trivial. I was just this tiny layer away from always failing foreign languages, histroy and geography. I was super in physics, as long as it was intuitive. To the mind of a person under 18 years of age.

Do I always have to use and external medium? I don't quite understand the question. You mean a vehicle for my thoughts, such as language or pictures? If that's what you meant, then never HAVE to, but can. Obviously I can speak and write in language.

Is there no internal conversation? There is no internal conversation. I think in a straight line monologue, in which concepts morph from one into another, very quickly.

I am not the only one I know who is like this. I met others, who also claimed surprise in their past, when they discovered that most people think in language.

I don't think in words or language
— god must be atheist

How do you ever decide what to say or write? — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not a matter of decision... it's a matter of translation. From conceptual thougths into language. So far, so good. Although in spoken language I am not as fluent and eloquent as in writing. I use the same words, all right, but I make TONS, literally tons of grammar mistakes. You see, I can't edit my spoken words; in writing, I edit as I write, which does not mean at all going back and correcting the mistakes, but what it means is that the speed of translation is much faster than my speed of writing, so I have plenty of extra time to figure out how to comply to the rules and flow of the language. Not to say that I constantly refer to a set of rules; rules are automatic, but when I speak, the automation lags behind the speech, and when I write, the automation precedes the typing.

A Man Without Words: https://vimeo.com/72072873

We all think in images, or sensory impressions.

Words are scribbles and sounds. To say that you think in words is to say that you think in scribbles and sounds.

We all think in images, or sensory impressions. — Harry Hindu

This does not give credit to humans' ability to conceptualize things. I believe that when someone says he thinks in words, he thinks in words. Early thoughts may have formed as images or imprints of sensory perceptions. But constant use of them and constant associating them to concepts and words made the associtations automatic, and eventually the associations squeezed out, so to speak, the purely sensory impressions.

If indeed humans could only think in terms of images and sensory impressions, there would be no higher math, there would be no philosophy, there would not be even words in the language such as patriotism, infinity, conjugation, promotion, sales analysis.

That is step one.

Step two is that images can't convey verbs. Images are strictly nouns, or adjectivized nouns. You can't imagine to think (what image is that?), to conceptualize, to proselytize, to abandon, to retrofit. You can imagine these things being performed; yes, very easily, or not so easily. But the language uses verbs, not the descriptions of verbs. "George DIGS a whole", not "George is depicted digging a hole". Visuals do not do verbs, but the language does. "Adorian thinks he is a fool" is not the same as "Adorian is depicted as thining he is a fool." Yet a picture can only be visualized in the second sense.

We all think in images, or sensory impressions.

Words are scribbles and sounds. To say that you think in words is to say that you think in scribbles and sounds. — Harry Hindu

It is actually correct: humans (most of them) think in scribbles and sounds. The part that you glide over is that the scribbles and sounds have meanings attached to them. Some people, such as I, drop the extra load of scribbles and sounds, and we think purely in meaning.

All sensory impressions have meaning to them. Red of an apple means the apple ripe. Hearing you speak English means you know how to speak English. The smell of coffee means coffee is being brewed, etc.

The color isn't the ripeness. The sound isn't your knowledge. The smell isn't the coffee. They are all about these things.

We all think in images, or sensory impressions.

Words are scribbles and sounds. To say that you think in words is to say that you think in scribbles and sounds. — Harry Hindu

Let's say you are correct.

If strings of scribbles or sounds can't represent thughts, then uttering or writing them also would not represent thoughts; therefore they would be useless as communicative devices. Yet they perfectly well are capable to communicate thoughts. Therefore the initial proposition is false.

↪god must be atheist All sensory impressions have meaning to them. Red of an apple means the apple ripe. Hearing you speak English means you know how to speak English. The smell of coffee means coffee is being brewed, etc. — Harry Hindu

Here you demonstrated perfectly what you need ot deny: that words (scribbled or uttered) have meaning.

You, yourself, explained what the red of the apple is, without presenting an apple. You presented to me no sensory idea of "red", only verbal idea of "red". Therefore words have meanings, and we think in words.

All you are saying is that we use images and sounds to refer to other sensory impressions which can include other visuals and sounds, or even other scribbles.

All you are saying is that we use images and sounds to refer to other sensory impressions which can include other visuals and sounds, or even other scribbles. — Harry Hindu

I am saying much more than that. If you did not read those parts, or refuse to comprehend what I wrote, that's not my fault in presenting my opinion.

Here you demonstrated perfectly what you need ot deny: that words (scribbled or uttered) have meaning. — god must be atheist

I never denied scribbles have meaning. I said scribbles are images and images have meaning.

You, yourself, explained what the red of the apple is, without presenting an apple. You presented to me on sensory idea of "red", only verbal idea of "red". Therefore words have meanings, and we think in words. — god must be atheist

Would you have understood anything I said if you never experienced the visual of the redness of an apple?

I am saying much more than that. If you did not read those parts, or refuse to comprehend what I wrote, that's not my fault in presenting my opinion. — god must be atheist

If you want to point to where you said more than that, I'd be happy to address it, but it seems to me that you are the one not reading posts, and just providing knee-jerk comments to things you think I said, but didnt.

However without that spoken word thinking I would imagine you would only think in images. — Thinking

As I said, I think that spoken words in the mind are just images, aural images. So thinking in words, and thinking in images is essentially the same thing. What has happened, is that in modern human evolution we have come to use vision as a very useful tool. In some philosophy of science, "observation" is employed as equivalent to watching, because seeing has become so useful to science. However, we often neglect the fact that our ears have evolved to be extremely sensitive tools, and so we also neglect the role that aural images play in thinking.

The actual content of thinking, the act of thinking, is much more difficult to describe, because it might be pretty much restricted to subconscious habits. It appears like actual thinking is some sort of process which establishes relations between the images. You can see that from this perspective, the type of image is not important, because the images are like symbols, each having meaning dependent on the relations which have been established. The act of thinking is what establishes the relations and commits them to memory. So there is a whole lot of previously established meaning, which the act of thinking is continuously drawing on, mostly in a subconscious way, but the thinking is also continuously establishing new relations between the images (symbols) and committing them to memory.

You would think that there ought to be some sort of truth at the bottom of this structure of relations. The act of thinking cannot simply be a relating of symbols to each other, there must be something apprehended as reality, to ground belief in some sort of truth as correspondence. Something must support the thinking mind's faith in the meaning behind the images or symbols, the previously established relations, which the conscious mind allows to be processed subconsciously. I supposed there is some sort of principle having to do with the success of repetition.

From conceptual thougths into language. — god must be atheist

Can you explain to me what you mean by "conceptual thoughts", translate this into language for me? I'm not trying to be overly critical, just trying to understand your way of thinking. For me, thinking is as I described above, relating images or symbols, but the actual thinking process, which is the act of establishing these relations is almost completely hidden from me, subconscious.

When my mind is at rest, so to speak, I don't have images. No images, no language, only meaning, and concepts. One concept bears another. I often try to pin myself down on catching myself what I am thinking of at the moment -- impossible. There is no dialogue in my head, in my mind... just one concept morphing into another. A linear monologue, with tons of lateral jumps, of course. — god must be atheist

What I'm asking is to take your use of "concept" in this paragraph, and explain to me, or describe, what a "concept" appears like within your mind. You are saying that you can free you mind from words and other images to have "only meaning, and concepts" present within your mind. So I am asking how does this meaning and concepts appear to your mind, can you translate it into words, describe it for me so that I might be able to understand what type of form this subject matter has. If it has no form whatsoever, how could you apprehend it as concepts? So I am hoping that you can describe some sort of form which constitutes the existence of a concept within your mind.

How do you go about drafting your messages here?

but the thinking is also continuously establishing new relations between the images (symbols) and committing them to memory. — Metaphysician Undercover

This does not give credit to humans' ability to conceptualize things. I believe that when someone says he thinks in words, he thinks in words. Early thoughts may have formed as images or imprints of sensory perceptions. But constant use of them and constant associating them to concepts and words made the associtations automatic, and eventually the associations squeezed out, so to speak, the purely sensory impressions. — god must be atheist

Exactly what I think. The words are associated to a certain image, and so are an overextended way of thinking rather than in the images themselves. If you knew only sign language you could associate a baby(noun) with the act of rocking something in your arms. If you had nothing to associate with what is spoken or written then you would come to the base layer of images (purer conceptualized thinking). If you could not think of the subject in any sort of image than it couldn't be conceptualized

I see questions repeated. Questions I already had explained earlier, and questions to which I had answered (or had wanted to) that I can't explain those.

Please feel free to filter my messages in this thread, and re-read them if you have any questions. You will find an answer to them, or not. If you don't find a question to your answer, I can't answer it, that's why.

I incredibly don't like to repeat myself. It is a my ineptitude, not yours. It's a joy to express myself, and an even greater joy to come to new insights. It's a chore to repeat myself, and slavery to explain my thougts on levels that I can't aspire myself to be on.

How about trying something new then if you feel like you've answered all the questions of reality correctly.

I don't think in words or language, and I don't dream in words or language. — god must be atheist

Verbal Language is an artifact. Even animals who can communicate ideas, orally or gesturally, must translate their internal flow of non-verbal feelings into forms that can be expressed symbolically. When your dog or cat paws at you to get your attention, they are expressing a feeling common to mammals. Feelings (emotional urges) are the common proto-language among higher animals. Even dreams must be translated from abstract subjective feelings into concrete objective words or gestures. But we are so used to it, that we are barely aware of the mental work required for communication. Except of course, when we try to express our vague personal feelings in someone else's language, or in precise philosophical terms. :nerd:

Feelings : Feelings are also known as a state of consciousness, such as that resulting from emotions, sentiments or desires. Feelings are only felt and are abstract in nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeling

I'm afraid someone would say something like this. This simplicity of the question really can catch up to you. So, then, feelings would be the most basic way of communication. If so his thoughts wouldn't be words but also guided be feelings.

A very interesting question and I suspect we should, in the spirit of exploration if not because we have a good grasp of the matter, discuss it. After a very superficial survey of linguistics, that's all I have the time for, I'm left with the impression that no one has any idea how humans learned to speak. A well-tested, proven, theory on language acquisition would've come in handy. Anyway, no point ruing over a missing theory, instead let's take this opportunity to explore, what is as far as I can tell, uncharted waters.

The first name to pop into my head is Ivan Pavlov and his dog experiment in which he trained dogs to expect food when a bell was rung and the evidence that his training was successful was the dogs' oral response - salivation/drooling. It's clear or at least it's highly likely that Pavlov's dogs had learned to associate the bell's ring with food but what's intriguing is what is, quite obviously, the gut-reaction or visceral response of the dogs. Dogs salivating under normal circumstances occurs when they're actually feeding but Pavlov's experiment food was offered only after a certain amount of time had elapsed after the bell was rung. Is it beyond the limits of reasonableness to come to the conclusion that the dogs had, for lack of a better word, internalized the ringing of the bell and associated it with not only a picture of the food but also the smell, and taste of it? In short, Pavlov's dogs had linked the bell's sound to the complete experience - all senses are a go - of feeding on dog treats. For the dogs, the bell's sound = eating dog treats.

Coming to the boy without word, he too may be able to, provided there's some level of consistency in his experiences, associate certain sights/sounds/tastes/touches/smells with other events/objects in his life just like Pavlov's dogs. These associations once firmly established could become a means of communication between the boy and an interested second party.

This leads us to what is, for me, a fascinating phenomenon, synesthesia. A little off-topic but I'm sure there'll be some useful conclusions pertinent to the OP we can draw. Synesthesia describes the experience of activation of our sensory system (smell/taste/sight/touch/hearing), either in part or as a whole, with recall (of memories). We could say, in some sense, that Pavlov's dogs were experiencing synesthesia (activation of their digestive responses) when they heard the bell, the sound of the bell triggering a memory of a previous happy encounter with food.

If you notice, ordinary language, though capable of inducing visceral reactions e.g. I recall my mouth watering in anticipation when someone offered me a helping of my favorite dish, usually fails to evoke such responses. For instance the word "theory" or the word "language" only elicit thoughts - no drooling, no sweet odors, no bright colors, no tastes, absolutely nothing in terms of sensory stimulation takes place.

To sum up, the boy without words, because he lacks sophisticated language, will experience "language" in a more immediate, direct, visceral sense. Each association that forms in his mind, like the one in Pavlov's dogs, will, when accessed, evoke a complete experience. So, for example, if he's learned to associate a certain pretty waitress with food, seeing her will make his mouth water, he'll begin to smell his favorite meal, he'll hear the sound it makes when the food is in his mouth, he'll feel the food's texture in his mouth, he'll smell the aroma, and so on - like Pavolv's dogs

When people acquire language skills of the kind we're employing in this discussion, we lose out on what I've described as the complete experience of communication. Yes, we might flush and our hearts might beat faster when we hear the word "sex" but nobody, to my knowledge, ever has had an orgasm just hearing/reading the word "sex".

Interesting, so the boy will associate his senses with the thoughts he is thinking about in that experience. So what if he is thinking of something of something like a "black hole" in which you can only perceive visually. I think in that case all he is left is to think of the image of a black hole. In other words the boy will associate certain thoughts with which he was able to perceive them with his senses or feelings, and at the base level you might only be left with images.