Different ways o' thinking....

[Wbarwell]

I rarely watch much TV, but I managed to catch a PBS show on
animals dealing with the way animals think, if they do.
Most of us think in words. But they had an autistic woman who
explained how she thought in pictures. Which may explain how
animals think without language.
She speculated some animals may think in terms of smell,
or other ways, which may well be true for some, it is well known
even for human, memory of smells is one of the most
deeply accurate and long lived memories.

But are words all there are to it?
Maybe we have poeple who think in words.
And some who thing in words in terms of small words.
And some may think in terms of deep and great thoughts,
with laguage laid over that?
Some seem to have great abilities with numbers, many do
not, some people can think in mathematical terms.

Maybe then, some people think in stupidies, in myth-think,
or us vs them tribal terms, or in terms where words are simply
things to be twisted and tortured to support simply but wrong
assertions.

This would explain a lot. The question is, how to test this idea
such as animal experts try to test animals to see if they rthink and how.

For example, small children do not understand models,
a model of a room with a coke hidden in a model closet
does not clue them in that in a real room, the coke is in the real
closet. Some chimps get the model, some don't.
After about three, only retarded children don't get it.

Could it likewsie be that certain concepts are only really understandable
by some people, and not others, say far right conservatives?
And that is why they are far right conservatives?

And SubGenii are different from say, extreme Christians and Moslems
who seem only to be able to relate to the world through thoughts framed
in mythical terms related to religion in a riigid manner?
Maybe scientists and those who understand science think of the world in far
different terms than religous types and it is not merely matter of mere
beliefs. But something different that words merely overlay but do not
effect at the foundation of differing thought patterns.

Maybe some of us are superior mutants.

Now, how to test this idea. Seems the net may be an ideal medium for
such a series of tests.

[iDRMRSR]

Yes! You're right.

Unless you're not. In which case, forget I said anything. Or made any
new odors.

[*]
-----

[Joe Cosby]

Post by iDRMRSR
Yes! You're right.
Unless you're not. In which case, forget I said anything. Or made any
new odors.
[*]
-----

There are no new odors.

Only old ones, mixed with what was already in your underwear.

It makes you think.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com

David Lynch:

"I sort of go by a duck when I work on a film because if you study a duck, you'll see
certain things. You'll see a bill, and the bill is a certain texture and a certain length.
Then you'll see a head, and the features on the head are a certain texture and it's
a certain shape and it goes into the neck. The texture of the bill for instance is very
smooth and it has quite precise detail in it and it reminds you somewhat of the legs.
The legs are a little bit bigger and a little more rubbery but it's enough so that your
eye goes back and forth. Now, the body being so big, it can be softer and the texture
is not so detailed, it's just kind of a cloud. And the key to the whole duck is the eye and
where the eye is placed. And it has to be placed in the head and it's the most detailed,
and it's like a little jewel. And if it was fixed, sitting on the bill, it would be two things that
were too busy, battling, they would not do so well. And if it was sitting in the middle of the body,
it would get lost. But it's so perfectly placed to show off a jewel right in the middle of the head like that,
next to this S-curve with the bill sitting out in front, but with enough distance so that the eye is very very
very well secluded and set out. So when you're working on a film, a lot of times you can get the bill and
the legs and the body and everything, but this eye of the duck is a certain scene, this jewel, that if it's
there, it's absolutely beautiful. It's just fantastic." "Film exists because we can go and have experiences
that would be pretty dangerous or strange for us in real life. We can go into a room and walk
into a dream. If we didn't want to upset anyone, we would make films about sewing, but
even that could be dangerous. But I think finally, in a film, it is how the balance is and
the feelings are. But I think there has to be those contrasts and strong things withing a
film for the total experience."

[ICEKNIFE]

Post by Wbarwell
I rarely watch much TV, but I managed to catch a PBS show on
animals dealing with the way animals think, if they do.
Most of us think in words. But they had an autistic woman who
explained how she thought in pictures. Which may explain how
animals think without language.
She speculated some animals may think in terms of smell,
or other ways, which may well be true for some, it is well known
even for human, memory of smells is one of the most
deeply accurate and long lived memories.
But are words all there are to it?
Maybe we have poeple who think in words.
And some who thing in words in terms of small words.
And some may think in terms of deep and great thoughts,
with laguage laid over that?
Some seem to have great abilities with numbers, many do
not, some people can think in mathematical terms.
Maybe then, some people think in stupidies, in myth-think,
or us vs them tribal terms, or in terms where words are simply
things to be twisted and tortured to support simply but wrong
assertions.
This would explain a lot. The question is, how to test this idea
such as animal experts try to test animals to see if they rthink and how.
For example, small children do not understand models,
a model of a room with a coke hidden in a model closet
does not clue them in that in a real room, the coke is in the real
closet. Some chimps get the model, some don't.
After about three, only retarded children don't get it.
Could it likewsie be that certain concepts are only really

understandable

Post by Wbarwell
by some people, and not others, say far right conservatives?
And that is why they are far right conservatives?
And SubGenii are different from say, extreme Christians and Moslems
who seem only to be able to relate to the world through thoughts framed
in mythical terms related to religion in a riigid manner?
Maybe scientists and those who understand science think of the world in far
different terms than religous types and it is not merely matter of mere
beliefs. But something different that words merely overlay but do not
effect at the foundation of differing thought patterns.
Maybe some of us are superior mutants.
Now, how to test this idea. Seems the net may be an ideal medium for
such a series of tests.

Did you really mean to give me SO MANY SICK FUCKING IDEAS all from
that one seemingly harmless post?

[Wbarwell]

Post by Wbarwell

Post by Wbarwell
I rarely watch much TV, but I managed to catch a PBS show on
animals dealing with the way animals think, if they do.
Most of us think in words. But they had an autistic woman who
explained how she thought in pictures. Which may explain how
animals think without language.
She speculated some animals may think in terms of smell,
or other ways, which may well be true for some, it is well known
even for human, memory of smells is one of the most
deeply accurate and long lived memories.
But are words all there are to it?
Maybe we have poeple who think in words.
And some who thing in words in terms of small words.
And some may think in terms of deep and great thoughts,
with laguage laid over that?
Some seem to have great abilities with numbers, many do
not, some people can think in mathematical terms.
Maybe then, some people think in stupidies, in myth-think,
or us vs them tribal terms, or in terms where words are simply
things to be twisted and tortured to support simply but wrong
assertions.
This would explain a lot. The question is, how to test this idea
such as animal experts try to test animals to see if they rthink and

how.

Post by Wbarwell
For example, small children do not understand models,
a model of a room with a coke hidden in a model closet
does not clue them in that in a real room, the coke is in the real
closet. Some chimps get the model, some don't.
After about three, only retarded children don't get it.
Could it likewsie be that certain concepts are only really

understandable

Post by Wbarwell
by some people, and not others, say far right conservatives?
And that is why they are far right conservatives?
And SubGenii are different from say, extreme Christians and Moslems
who seem only to be able to relate to the world through thoughts

framed

Post by Wbarwell
in mythical terms related to religion in a riigid manner?
Maybe scientists and those who understand science think of the world

in far

Post by Wbarwell
different terms than religous types and it is not merely matter of

mere

Post by Wbarwell
beliefs. But something different that words merely overlay but do

not

Post by Wbarwell
effect at the foundation of differing thought patterns.
Maybe some of us are superior mutants.
Now, how to test this idea. Seems the net may be an ideal medium

for

Post by Wbarwell
such a series of tests.

Did you really mean to give me SO MANY SICK FUCKING IDEAS all from
that one seemingly harmless post?

Absolutely. I have been considering such things for years.
This TV show just revived a sort of hypothesizing I have been doing on and
off for some time.

More?

Consider monkies (again).
In some monkey speccies, observers have noted a phenomenon.
Most monkies are well, normal monkies. But some are cowardly.
The cringe at everything, run at the drop of a hat. Young coward
monkies rarely sraty far from mom. They give the cry at the
first sign of danger.
And there are brave monkies. They ignore warnings, they are the
first to try new things, and they are far more curious than normal
monkies.

The coward monkies are the conservatives, they survive a lot of stuff
less careful monkies don't. They are less likely to be predated,
or do stuoid things that get them in trouble, they avoid fights and
squabbles.

The brave monkies are teh ones who play with snakes and get bit.
Or confront predators and get eaten. But they are teh ones who
are also likely to find a new food sources. The coward monkies won't try
new food stuffs. The brave monkies do.
Sometimes bad thing happen sometimes they learn new and good
things.

From the brave monkies, who survive, discover new resources,
the rest of the herd learns. Sometimes slowly, older males
seem to be the less likely to learn. The coward monkies least
of all.

Could it be that modes of thought are somewhat related?
There are the fulminating priests, the coward monkies, the
the right winged politicians who fear change, and those who support them.
And the free thinkers, those who are curious and eager to abandon
old ways and accept progress, new ways, and the herd, who
are usually confused by it all?

Maybe its deeper than just metaphor, there may be a biological
basis to politics, religion, ideology, rigidness and those who
are progressive.

In early man, it may have paid to be conservative, the old ways are often
the best, but sometimes there is change and new ways are needed.
The brave monkey/inventor of new ways may then be the necessary
path finder, the herd follows when a far better way is found but when times
are bad, may follow the brave monkies even when its not sure where they are
going.

Language, memory and ability to handle abstract ideas may have
changed the brave monkey/cowardly monkey dynamics into something more
complex.

The earthy, here and now thinker vs the mystic visonary.
Different kinds of thinking, verbalized, pulling the uncomprehending masses
this way, then that.

[Joe Cosby]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:15:45 -0500, Wbarwell

Post by Wbarwell

Post by Wbarwell

Post by Wbarwell
I rarely watch much TV, but I managed to catch a PBS show on
animals dealing with the way animals think, if they do.
Most of us think in words. But they had an autistic woman who
explained how she thought in pictures. Which may explain how
animals think without language.
She speculated some animals may think in terms of smell,
or other ways, which may well be true for some, it is well known
even for human, memory of smells is one of the most
deeply accurate and long lived memories.
But are words all there are to it?
Maybe we have poeple who think in words.
And some who thing in words in terms of small words.
And some may think in terms of deep and great thoughts,
with laguage laid over that?
Some seem to have great abilities with numbers, many do
not, some people can think in mathematical terms.
Maybe then, some people think in stupidies, in myth-think,
or us vs them tribal terms, or in terms where words are simply
things to be twisted and tortured to support simply but wrong
assertions.
This would explain a lot. The question is, how to test this idea
such as animal experts try to test animals to see if they rthink and

how.

Post by Wbarwell
For example, small children do not understand models,
a model of a room with a coke hidden in a model closet
does not clue them in that in a real room, the coke is in the real
closet. Some chimps get the model, some don't.
After about three, only retarded children don't get it.
Could it likewsie be that certain concepts are only really

understandable

Post by Wbarwell
by some people, and not others, say far right conservatives?
And that is why they are far right conservatives?
And SubGenii are different from say, extreme Christians and Moslems
who seem only to be able to relate to the world through thoughts

framed

Post by Wbarwell
in mythical terms related to religion in a riigid manner?
Maybe scientists and those who understand science think of the world

in far

Post by Wbarwell
different terms than religous types and it is not merely matter of

mere

Post by Wbarwell
beliefs. But something different that words merely overlay but do

not

Post by Wbarwell
effect at the foundation of differing thought patterns.
Maybe some of us are superior mutants.
Now, how to test this idea. Seems the net may be an ideal medium

for

Post by Wbarwell
such a series of tests.

Did you really mean to give me SO MANY SICK FUCKING IDEAS all from
that one seemingly harmless post?

Absolutely. I have been considering such things for years.
This TV show just revived a sort of hypothesizing I have been doing on and
off for some time.
More?
Consider monkies (again).
In some monkey speccies, observers have noted a phenomenon.
Most monkies are well, normal monkies. But some are cowardly.
The cringe at everything, run at the drop of a hat. Young coward
monkies rarely sraty far from mom. They give the cry at the
first sign of danger.
And there are brave monkies. They ignore warnings, they are the
first to try new things, and they are far more curious than normal
monkies.
The coward monkies are the conservatives, they survive a lot of stuff
less careful monkies don't. They are less likely to be predated,
or do stuoid things that get them in trouble, they avoid fights and
squabbles.
The brave monkies are teh ones who play with snakes and get bit.
Or confront predators and get eaten. But they are teh ones who
are also likely to find a new food sources. The coward monkies won't try
new food stuffs. The brave monkies do.
Sometimes bad thing happen sometimes they learn new and good
things.
From the brave monkies, who survive, discover new resources,
the rest of the herd learns. Sometimes slowly, older males
seem to be the less likely to learn. The coward monkies least
of all.
Could it be that modes of thought are somewhat related?
There are the fulminating priests, the coward monkies, the
the right winged politicians who fear change, and those who support them.
And the free thinkers, those who are curious and eager to abandon
old ways and accept progress, new ways, and the herd, who
are usually confused by it all?
Maybe its deeper than just metaphor, there may be a biological
basis to politics, religion, ideology, rigidness and those who
are progressive.

yeah it's not a metaphor at all.

We -think- we think in words but we don't. And politics is, really,
and you just have to watch the shit flinging fests on usenet to verify
this, basically a conflict of personalities. You have to know by now
that logic rarely if ever enters into it. Politic shit talking
monkeys dress up their opinions in intimidating logical-sounding
dressage for the same reason that jungle monkeys try to shriek louder
than other monkeys and ruffle their fur to look bigger. Not to make a
point but to intimidate.

I have watched a lot of arguments on usenet but I have almost never
seen somebody acknowledge a logical point which contradicted their
own; no matter how clearly, rationally and ineluctably it was
presented.

What you said before about thinking in words and what you are saying
here about politics and monkeys sound like questions but they're
answers.

Politics IS monkeys, because we DON'T think in words.

It isn't a metaphor; it's the simple literal truth.

Now go look at the George W Bush/Monkey pictures again and undestand,
grasshopper.

I'll put it another way because I'm warming up to the topic and drunk
again.

The human brain evolved in layers. The earliest layers evolutionarily
are active and an integral part of the actual process of thinking,
from the lizard brain near the stem through the evolution of mammals
into the late word-thinking forebrain.

All these primitive layers are influencing what we try to think of as
our "conscious thought process" and if you are inquisitive you are
already familiar with many examples of this; for instance, if you
have ever read an article relating human sexual preference to
evolutionary influences. We aren't conscious of the influence, at the
time we really think we are making a sexual choice completely on our
own, but then we see that the choice follows an evolutionary
imperative.

The discursive mind fools you into thinking that discursive choices
drive the thought process.

They don't.

Post by Wbarwell
In early man, it may have paid to be conservative, the old ways are often
the best, but sometimes there is change and new ways are needed.
The brave monkey/inventor of new ways may then be the necessary
path finder, the herd follows when a far better way is found but when times
are bad, may follow the brave monkies even when its not sure where they are
going.
Language, memory and ability to handle abstract ideas may have
changed the brave monkey/cowardly monkey dynamics into something more
complex.
The earthy, here and now thinker vs the mystic visonary.
Different kinds of thinking, verbalized, pulling the uncomprehending masses
this way, then that.

[Joe Cosby]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:38:30 -0500, Wbarwell

Post by Wbarwell
I rarely watch much TV, but I managed to catch a PBS show on
animals dealing with the way animals think, if they do.
Most of us think in words. But they had an autistic woman who
explained how she thought in pictures. Which may explain how
animals think without language.
She speculated some animals may think in terms of smell,
or other ways, which may well be true for some, it is well known
even for human, memory of smells is one of the most
deeply accurate and long lived memories.
But are words all there are to it?
Maybe we have poeple who think in words.
And some who thing in words in terms of small words.
And some may think in terms of deep and great thoughts,
with laguage laid over that?
Some seem to have great abilities with numbers, many do
not, some people can think in mathematical terms.
Maybe then, some people think in stupidies, in myth-think,
or us vs them tribal terms, or in terms where words are simply
things to be twisted and tortured to support simply but wrong
assertions.
This would explain a lot. The question is, how to test this idea
such as animal experts try to test animals to see if they rthink and how.
For example, small children do not understand models,
a model of a room with a coke hidden in a model closet
does not clue them in that in a real room, the coke is in the real
closet. Some chimps get the model, some don't.
After about three, only retarded children don't get it.
Could it likewsie be that certain concepts are only really understandable
by some people, and not others, say far right conservatives?
And that is why they are far right conservatives?
And SubGenii are different from say, extreme Christians and Moslems
who seem only to be able to relate to the world through thoughts framed
in mythical terms related to religion in a riigid manner?
Maybe scientists and those who understand science think of the world in far
different terms than religous types and it is not merely matter of mere
beliefs. But something different that words merely overlay but do not
effect at the foundation of differing thought patterns.
Maybe some of us are superior mutants.
Now, how to test this idea. Seems the net may be an ideal medium for
such a series of tests.

It's still a little disorienting to me to remember that there are
people who -can't- think without words or even imagine doing so.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com

David Lynch:

"I sort of go by a duck when I work on a film because if you study a duck, you'll see
certain things. You'll see a bill, and the bill is a certain texture and a certain length.
Then you'll see a head, and the features on the head are a certain texture and it's
a certain shape and it goes into the neck. The texture of the bill for instance is very
smooth and it has quite precise detail in it and it reminds you somewhat of the legs.
The legs are a little bit bigger and a little more rubbery but it's enough so that your
eye goes back and forth. Now, the body being so big, it can be softer and the texture
is not so detailed, it's just kind of a cloud. And the key to the whole duck is the eye and
where the eye is placed. And it has to be placed in the head and it's the most detailed,
and it's like a little jewel. And if it was fixed, sitting on the bill, it would be two things that
were too busy, battling, they would not do so well. And if it was sitting in the middle of the body,
it would get lost. But it's so perfectly placed to show off a jewel right in the middle of the head like that,
next to this S-curve with the bill sitting out in front, but with enough distance so that the eye is very very
very well secluded and set out. So when you're working on a film, a lot of times you can get the bill and
the legs and the body and everything, but this eye of the duck is a certain scene, this jewel, that if it's
there, it's absolutely beautiful. It's just fantastic." "Film exists because we can go and have experiences
that would be pretty dangerous or strange for us in real life. We can go into a room and walk
into a dream. If we didn't want to upset anyone, we would make films about sewing, but
even that could be dangerous. But I think finally, in a film, it is how the balance is and
the feelings are. But I think there has to be those contrasts and strong things withing a
film for the total experience."

[Wbarwell]

Post by Joe Cosby
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:38:30 -0500, Wbarwell

Post by Wbarwell
I rarely watch much TV, but I managed to catch a PBS show on
animals dealing with the way animals think, if they do.
Most of us think in words. But they had an autistic woman who
explained how she thought in pictures. Which may explain how
animals think without language.
She speculated some animals may think in terms of smell,
or other ways, which may well be true for some, it is well known
even for human, memory of smells is one of the most
deeply accurate and long lived memories.
But are words all there are to it?
Maybe we have poeple who think in words.
And some who thing in words in terms of small words.
And some may think in terms of deep and great thoughts,
with laguage laid over that?
Some seem to have great abilities with numbers, many do
not, some people can think in mathematical terms.
Maybe then, some people think in stupidies, in myth-think,
or us vs them tribal terms, or in terms where words are simply
things to be twisted and tortured to support simply but wrong
assertions.
This would explain a lot. The question is, how to test this idea
such as animal experts try to test animals to see if they rthink and how.
For example, small children do not understand models,
a model of a room with a coke hidden in a model closet
does not clue them in that in a real room, the coke is in the real
closet. Some chimps get the model, some don't.
After about three, only retarded children don't get it.
Could it likewsie be that certain concepts are only really understandable
by some people, and not others, say far right conservatives?
And that is why they are far right conservatives?
And SubGenii are different from say, extreme Christians and Moslems
who seem only to be able to relate to the world through thoughts framed
in mythical terms related to religion in a riigid manner?
Maybe scientists and those who understand science think of the world in
far different terms than religous types and it is not merely matter of
mere
beliefs. But something different that words merely overlay but do not
effect at the foundation of differing thought patterns.
Maybe some of us are superior mutants.
Now, how to test this idea. Seems the net may be an ideal medium for
such a series of tests.

It's still a little disorienting to me to remember that there are
people who -can't- think without words or even imagine doing so.

There are some aspects of physics and other scientific subjects where
its almost impossible to grasp certain ideas fully without being able
to do some rather complex mathematics. The best phycisists seem
to be able to think in math, language alone does not suffice.
It also seems those who at an early stage of life play musical instruments
do better lat math than those who do not, though there are exceptions.

Its also notable that women do better than men at tests testing verbal
skills. Women seem to have an inate language skill that expresses itself
at an early age. There is much debate as to how inate it is, and how much
of it is acquired.


Cheerful Charlie

[Matt Giwer]

Post by Wbarwell
I rarely watch much TV, but I managed to catch a PBS show on
animals dealing with the way animals think, if they do.
Most of us think in words. But they had an autistic woman who
explained how she thought in pictures. Which may explain how
animals think without language.

What do you mean by thinking? The deaf and non-PC dumb to not think in
words so you don't have to go to far out.

Do not confuse what you are thinking about with logic or formal
reasoning processes.

Most behavior is simply species specific behavior even if there are
words and complete sentences on top of it.

People with the ability to be a scientist type consider it a
discipline. Very few few people take it as a way of life. How strange
people who actually apply the best known methods of reasoning to
everyday life.

Animals reason as most humans reason simply without the verneer of a
language. The difference for us folks with language is the verbal
expression permits feedback within the tribe which today means within
the species because of the internet. Decades away from being completely
open but less than four decades away.

It is not going to be an age of harmony and brotherhood but at least
people will understand the other guy and be able to come to a compromise
if that is what they want.

Now we are social animals and therefore interaction is important even
without speech. But with speech the feedback is constant so we arrive at
some comprise rather easily.

Formal reason is an overlay upon that.

[Avender Neufonze]

In alt.atheism on Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:38:30 -0500, Wbarwell

Post by Wbarwell
I rarely watch much TV, but I managed to catch a PBS show on
animals dealing with the way animals think, if they do.
Most of us think in words. But they had an autistic woman who
explained how she thought in pictures. Which may explain how
animals think without language.
She speculated some animals may think in terms of smell,
or other ways, which may well be true for some, it is well known
even for human, memory of smells is one of the most
deeply accurate and long lived memories.
But are words all there are to it?
Maybe we have poeple who think in words.
And some who thing in words in terms of small words.
And some may think in terms of deep and great thoughts,
with laguage laid over that?
Some seem to have great abilities with numbers, many do
not, some people can think in mathematical terms.
Maybe then, some people think in stupidies, in myth-think,
or us vs them tribal terms, or in terms where words are simply
things to be twisted and tortured to support simply but wrong
assertions.
This would explain a lot. The question is, how to test this idea
such as animal experts try to test animals to see if they rthink and how.
For example, small children do not understand models,
a model of a room with a coke hidden in a model closet
does not clue them in that in a real room, the coke is in the real
closet. Some chimps get the model, some don't.
After about three, only retarded children don't get it.
Could it likewsie be that certain concepts are only really understandable
by some people, and not others, say far right conservatives?
And that is why they are far right conservatives?
And SubGenii are different from say, extreme Christians and Moslems
who seem only to be able to relate to the world through thoughts framed
in mythical terms related to religion in a riigid manner?
Maybe scientists and those who understand science think of the world in far
different terms than religous types and it is not merely matter of mere
beliefs. But something different that words merely overlay but do not
effect at the foundation of differing thought patterns.
Maybe some of us are superior mutants.
Now, how to test this idea. Seems the net may be an ideal medium for
such a series of tests.

Study up on deaf and blind persons. Most deaf children don't learn to
think in words (at least not "words" as you or I would recognize them)
until much later in their childhood than their hearing counterparts,
unless they happen to be lucky enough to grow up in an environment
with other deaf people around them. So they sometimes don't even
really pick up the "habit" of thinking in words even after they've
grown much older. As for blind persons, they may hear, but they have
often rich, visual experiences. Even those who aren't just "legally
blind" but who are _completely_ blind, often have rich visual
experiences completely unrelated to any actual visual impression
conveyed by the world.

What blew my mind was to realize how a person deaf/blind must think.
The majority of these start out deaf and then lose their sight later,
but there are some born without either sense. Helen Keller pegged it
right when she said, "Blindness separates us from things, deafness
separates us from people."
--
L8r,
Avender
- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - --
Common is the man who can be fashioned into a
reflection of the era in which he lives.
Rare is the man who can take the era in which
he lives, and fashion it into a reflection
of himself.
- -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - --

[Rick Russell]

Post by Wbarwell
But are words all there are to it?

Obviously not. Aside from the previously cited examples of deaf people
and mathematics, there are lots of situations where I don't think in
words. What "words" do you think about when identifying your location
on a map? When driving? When painting? When assembling a complex
device, trying to reconcile the 3D object with a 2D exploded diagram?

I'm not a musician, but I can only guess that musical composition
requires a whole new level of abstraction.

I recently saw a news story about assembly robots that use
single-camera visual cues to assemble 3D objects with extremely
precise tolerances. They worked by using a library of 2D views of the
3D objects (they always assemble the same parts, so the library isn't
really large) to identify characteristic features of the 3D
object. Once they identified enough features with the single camera,
they could precisely orient their internal model of the object, grab
it, and orient it for assembly.

And of course, that's precisely what I do when assembling a complex 3D
structure. I pick up each part, try to match its characteristic image
features to the assembly diagrams, then orient and assemble.

Rick R.

[Dunter Powries]

Post by Rick Russell

Post by Wbarwell
But are words all there are to it?

Obviously not. Aside from the previously cited examples of deaf people
and mathematics, there are lots of situations where I don't think in
words.

Very good thoughts...
But no one as yet (that I can see) has touched upon the basis for we
humans having 'verbal' and non-verbal thought: our split brain. We have
two hemispheres...

It's not simply a matter of two 'sides', there are different 'layers', as
well. 'Thinking' is a composite experience that occurs in different aspects
throughout the brain, including the cortex and neocortex. All thought is
symbolic. Language is a system of culture-based symbols.

In addition, there are continuos streams of queries and instructions from
various alien civilizations as well as my government controllers which are
transmitted directly into my nervous system and which I am unable to be
directly aware of or feel guilt over because of the terrible things they
make me do.

Dunter

--
"The world-powers that rule over all mankind, for good or ill, are
unconscious psychic factors, and it is they that bring consciousness into
being and hence create the sine qua non for the existence of any world at
all."
-Jung

[Rockhound57]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:38:30 -0500, Wbarwell

Post by Wbarwell
I rarely watch much TV, but I managed to catch a PBS show on
animals dealing with the way animals think, if they do.
Most of us think in words. But they had an autistic woman who
explained how she thought in pictures. Which may explain how
animals think without language.
She speculated some animals may think in terms of smell,
or other ways, which may well be true for some, it is well known
even for human, memory of smells is one of the most
deeply accurate and long lived memories.
But are words all there are to it?
Maybe we have poeple who think in words.
And some who thing in words in terms of small words.
And some may think in terms of deep and great thoughts,
with laguage laid over that?
Some seem to have great abilities with numbers, many do
not, some people can think in mathematical terms.
Maybe then, some people think in stupidies, in myth-think,
or us vs them tribal terms, or in terms where words are simply
things to be twisted and tortured to support simply but wrong
assertions.
This would explain a lot. The question is, how to test this idea
such as animal experts try to test animals to see if they rthink and how.
For example, small children do not understand models,
a model of a room with a coke hidden in a model closet
does not clue them in that in a real room, the coke is in the real
closet. Some chimps get the model, some don't.
After about three, only retarded children don't get it.
Could it likewsie be that certain concepts are only really understandable
by some people, and not others, say far right conservatives?
And that is why they are far right conservatives?
And SubGenii are different from say, extreme Christians and Moslems
who seem only to be able to relate to the world through thoughts framed
in mythical terms related to religion in a riigid manner?
Maybe scientists and those who understand science think of the world in far
different terms than religous types and it is not merely matter of mere
beliefs. But something different that words merely overlay but do not
effect at the foundation of differing thought patterns.
Maybe some of us are superior mutants.
Now, how to test this idea. Seems the net may be an ideal medium for
such a series of tests.

You sick fuck!!