The Absurdity of 'Thinking in Language'

the author's site ^ | 1972 | Dallas Willard

[fifteendogs]

Are you telepathic? have you ever had a telepathic communication? Do you even understand what telepathy is?

[DougF]

I OFTEN solve problems without using internal words. I kinda veg, and get a "feel" for the solution, then spend the next hour trying to put it into words.

[unspun]

If this theory is to be credible then all humans must"Think" similarly and equally. That the processes of thought in an Amazonian Indian are on par with that of say Steven Pinker.

I didn't really find him positing a theory so "stongly" as this. I found him more engaged in dismantling false theorizations.

But about some things at least, don't most people agree that we all tend to think similarly? ;-`

[Hank Kerchief]

One purpose of language is communication, but it is not the first or primary purpose. Before we can communicate anything we must know something. That is the primary purpose of language. It is the means by which we make concepts something we can use.

For example, suppose some idiot claims he can think without language. Well, if that is true, he ought to be able to explain to us how he does it, without using language. Now, if he cannot explain it to us without using language, how did he explain it to himself. That is, after all, what thinking really is.

Some people will swallow anything, as this thread certainly proves. Others think there is no point in being careful about how their mind works or how they use it. What difference does it make if one does not bother to distinguish between, percepts, feelings, concepts (thoughts), or imaginination. Well, if your mind is a mush, I guess it doesn't matter.

Hank

[unspun]

telepathy

\Te*lep"a*thy\, n. [Gr. ? far off + ?, ?, to suffer.] The sympathetic affection of one mind by the thoughts, feelings, or emotions of another at a distance, without communication through the ordinary channels of sensation. -- Tel`e*path\"ic, a. -- Te*lep\"a*thist, n.

< Good enough definition? I'm going to drive home, but maybe you could do some explicating.

[unspun]

I OFTEN solve problems without using internal words. I kinda veg, and get a "feel" for the solution, then spend the next hour trying to put it into words.

And because you do, I think that many of our best thinkers ("objectivist" and otherwise) are forced into a position of denying your existence.

tsk tsk tsk... and what did you ever do to them?

[A. Pole]

They have no language, they only have understanding.

Many times I figured out/thought something and only then I struggled to put it in words (Polish or English). It means that thought comes before the language.

But I agree that it is common to speak first and think after :)

[Yeti]

There is a difference between a thing and our concept of that thing, and there is a difference between a concept and the word we use to express it.

[A. Pole]

Well, if that is true, he ought to be able to explain to us how he does it, without using language.

It depends how broadly we define language. Are the mimes using the language? In some sense they are.

[fifteendogs]

Then what is understanding?

This is the problem. Most people do not understand what telepathy is. Consider this, I have a fruit in may hand, it is red as an apple, it is round like an orange,it is sweet as a peach, it has the integrity of a pear and it has the sound of a plum when you bite into it. Can you tell me what this fruit is? No you can't. But if you were telepathic, you would experience all the senses that I did when I ate it. That is understanding. In the future, people will be telepathic and they will understand.

[VadeRetro]

It shouldn't be just a personality thing. You read the article and it's got all this "intentional states" (is "internal" meant here?), "flowing t-states," "signs," "operating with signs," "imaging a word" (not to be confused with "using a word"), "conditions, state, relations, or properties of y ..."

All of these terms invite replacement by some big range of real-world examples. In one case--just the one, "intentional states"--the author actually gives some examples of what is meant: Henry VIII, the first auto one owned, the Pythagorean Theorem, or the Mississippi River. There are precious few other instances of the class "concrete noun" in the whole article.

I used to know a computer guy who was more of a configuration management specialist than a programmer. He liked to BS people with long speeches full of "methodology ... baseline ... configuration ..." It would sound like, "Once you establish a methodology to baseline working configurations, you never slip back. From there, it mushrooms as you go up a meta-level to configure new successful methodologies for baselining ... Blah! Blah! Blah!" The funny thing was, most of the customers would assume he was actually talking about their specific problems and knew the answer to same, when he was only hiding that he wasn't and didn't.

I used to get white-hot angry at him when he'd do that to obscure the problems. I was the system designer who absolutely needed clear understanding and agreement on what I was to design and build. Mr. BS was flat-out sabotaging me as well as wasting time and deceiving the customer.

Strunk and White, a good English style guide, says to prefer the concrete over the abstract where possible. They're right.

[RightWhale]

Our natural language, whatever flavor, consists of objects with relations. Kind of like C++ or VB. The task before us is to discover and agree what the objects represented by the sound symbols actually might be. That's not easy. Then we need to establish or discover relations between the objects. Thus, someone says "socialist" and someone else says "liberal" and someone says they are the same while someone else says they are completely different yet related. Then we find a level of agreement on the FR board and go out into the world where we discover no one out there is paying attention because they are getting ready for the weekend and aren't thinking in words at all.

[VadeRetro]

Thanks. I couldn't read much either, but hadn't thought about concrete nouns. I'll look for that the next time one of these sponges-strung-out-on-a-line impersonates prose.

More on abstract-vs-concrete here. This article is so badly written it's hard to say if it's well thought out.

[Consort]

Understanding: Comprehending what we perceive and feel about what things are of themselves, what their relationships are, and why they are so and why they are related.

[RightWhale]

Understanding

That, and finding a relationship or a possible relationship. Linking this to that.

[fifteendogs]

Understanding is acknowledging what our senses are telling us. These are facts. History is the interpretation of the facts which we, and others have experienced,

[Consort]

It looks like history is the distortion of the facts, unfortunately; an attempt to change understanding.

[Hank Kerchief]

There is a difference between a thing and our concept of that thing, and there is a difference between a concept and the word we use to express it.

That is true. Did you have some other point?

Hank

[fifteendogs]

That is history in a language based environment, In a telepathic environment, history is based on facts, pure and indisputable facts.

[Consort]

In a telepathic environment, are there such a things as past or future. Are those concepts needed in telepathy?