Principia Discordia > Think for Yourself, Schmuck!
Thought Sans Language
Légu:
Lurker here, finally brave enough to post something of my own. This forum is great!
To preface, I'm mostly talking about this from my point of view. For me, thought manifests itself as a 'voice' inside my head, or at the very least it manifests as language, made up of sentences. Of course, there can be other types of thinking, such as visually or perhaps with emotion. This makes me wonder - what are the implications of differences in thought production? Can one type be better, more efficient?
With some practice, I'm able to completely bypass language when thinking and am able to observe pure logic. I'll call this type of thinking 'unsymbolic thought', as opposed to internal dialogue, from an interesting BBC article on the subject[1]. I'll be mostly ignoring the other types of thought, only because I use them far less often.
I've discovered that without the need for forming sentences and articulating them, thoughts form much quicker. Whereas before the act of thinking was like a stream, without language it becomes more like waves of ideas with pauses between each thought. I do not yet know if this pause can eradicated with more practice. If it can, this could mean thinking can be incredibly quick. For now, unsymbolic thinking is more akin to meditation. Without the extra attention being paid to producing sentences, my focus goes elsewhere - usually my breath.
Another possible implication I considered was whether unsymbolic thought is possibly less biased than dialogue. I use bias fairly loosely, meaning the filters we apply to our thoughts and our judgement of them. It occurs to me that the medium of thought might dictate the logic of thought itself. That is, language is inherently rhetoric. By definition, it is intended to transfer ideas, not necessarily to understand or produce them. By continuously converting thought into language, I found that I'm persuading myself or an imaginary opponent. If this is so, then the ideas no longer are judged (internally) by how correct or logical they are, but rather by how persuasive they are. Hence the bias.
This of course may not be true, which brings up the question of where thought originates. Is thought inherently biased from the moment it is created or do we apply our filters after the ideas are produced? If the latter is correct, then we could create ideas contrary to what we believe in, but discard them (perhaps without even thinking) in processing the thought. Through some observation, I came to the conclusion that thought is produced subconsciously and that we interpret and process what comes up. Interestingly, it seems to me that this super-consciousness is almost like a separate entity that has little communication with the self. Of course, I cannot distinguish whether it's completely separate or merely a deeper part of my own self.
Another point may be when thought is developed. Are humans born with the ability for unsymbolic / logical thought? Does language develop in conjunction to thought, or after it? Do children have some sort of thought before being able to speak, or do they operate solely on instinct? This is why I hesitated to use the word 'sub-concsiousness' to describe the origin of thought, because instinct or biological programming can emulate thoughtful behaviour without needing the ability to think. We generally know, for example, insects don't have thoughts and any observed intelligent behaviour is merely a result of instinct and evolution - if this is the case, then at what point does 'instinct' and 'sub-consciousness' become 'thought' and 'super-consciousness'? These are much more complex questions.
Thoughts?
n.b., please forgive me if sub-conscious is not the correct word to describe unthoughtful instinctual behaviour. It was the only word I could think of. Or for that matter please excuse any other misused terms.
1) https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190819-what-your-inner-voice-says-about-you
chaotic neutral observer:
You have some interesting ideas here.
--- Quote from: Légu on July 25, 2020, 01:14:42 pm ---To preface, I'm mostly talking about this from my point of view. For me, thought manifests itself as a 'voice' inside my head, or at the very least it manifests as language, made up of sentences.
--- End quote ---
The thoughts which I am directly aware of, I typically perceive as an inner voice.
--- Quote ---With some practice, I'm able to completely bypass language when thinking and am able to observe pure logic. I'll call this type of thinking 'unsymbolic thought',
--- End quote ---
"Pure logic" and "unsymbolic thought" seem to me to be contradictory. Logic is the manipulation of abstract symbols, using some defined set of rules. A language defines a particular set of symbols. Thought need not be performed with a symbol set defined by a spoken language, but I cannot conceive of a thinking process that is not based on the manipulation of symbols at some level (be it auditory, visual, temporal, or kinetic). Although the existence of nonsymbolic thought can be posited, it could never be demonstrated or proven. In order to communicate it to another person, you'd need to convert it to symbols.
(In my brain-space, language isn't necessarily something that can be spoken. It could be any set of symbols combined with a grammar; but, in this context, I'll assume you mean a human spoken/written language).
Okay, enough nitpicking on terminology.
--- Quote ---I've discovered that without the need for forming sentences and articulating them, thoughts form much quicker. Whereas before the act of thinking was like a stream, without language it becomes more like waves of ideas with pauses between each thought.
--- End quote ---
I do not think I can do this; or, if I can, I am not directly aware of it. However, sometimes I will concentrate on a difficult problem for hours on end, finally give up at the end of the day, and have an idea pop suddenly into my head while traversing the parking lot. I am not conscious of all my mental processes; I can't be.
--- Quote ---Through some observation, I came to the conclusion that thought is produced subconsciously and that we interpret and process what comes up. Interestingly, it seems to me that this super-consciousness is almost like a separate entity that has little communication with the self. Of course, I cannot distinguish whether it's completely separate or merely a deeper part of my own self.
--- End quote ---
What you call the "super-consciousness", I call "the one that watches". It feels like it's a separate entity, observing and analyzing what the rest of me is doing, but it's just another function being performed by my brain-meat.
--- Quote ---Does language develop in conjunction to thought, or after it? Do children have some sort of thought before being able to speak, or do they operate solely on instinct?
--- End quote ---
Babies develop object persistence before they develop the ability to speak. That is, they can hold the concept of an object in their head, before they know the appropriate noises to identify it. Being able to store a concept (especially, being able to store it at a level where a third-party can detect that you have done so) would qualify as a rudimentary type of thought.
--- Quote ---We generally know, for example, insects don't have thoughts and any observed intelligent behaviour is merely a result of instinct and evolution
--- End quote ---
I don't know that, though. Bees are known to communicate the location of pollen-rich environments to other bees. This behaviour is genetically programmed, to be sure, but the bee is identifying an object (a field of flowers), deciding it has value, remembering its location, and conveying the location to other bees. Does this type of communication not imply thought of some sort?
Légu:
--- Quote ---However, sometimes I will concentrate on a difficult problem for hours on end, finally give up at the end of the day, and have an idea pop suddenly into my head while traversing the parking lot.
--- End quote ---
This is an excellent example of thoughts forming in the subconscious. If thinking was a conscious effort requiring constant attention, then this wouldn't be easily explained.
--- Quote ---This behaviour is genetically programmed, to be sure, but the bee is identifying an object (a field of flowers), deciding it has value, remembering its location, and conveying the location to other bees. Does this type of communication not imply thought of some sort?
--- End quote ---
This question arises from a lack of a definition for thought, which is my fault. Ants can do the same sort of thing with food - using hormones to create trails for other ants. I'm not an entomologist, nor a biologist, but I think this behaviour is too mechanical to be considered thought. Thought is creative, whereas this is just programming. In effect, the decision making process here would be akin to putting a gold coin on a scale to tip the balance - just involving a lot more complex systems.
--- Quote ---"Pure logic" and "unsymbolic thought" seem to me to be contradictory. Logic is the manipulation of abstract symbols, using some defined set of rules. A language defines a particular set of symbols. Thought need not be performed with a symbol set defined by a spoken language, but I cannot conceive of a thinking process that is not based on the manipulation of symbols at some level (be it auditory, visual, temporal, or kinetic). Although the existence of nonsymbolic thought can be posited, it could never be demonstrated or proven. In order to communicate it to another person, you'd need to convert it to symbols.
--- End quote ---
I think this would make more sense if you were to experience it yourself. It is impossible to explain as thought is a very subjective and personal experience, so 'pure logic' and 'unsymbolic thought' may seem contradictory when said out loud, but are good descriptions when you experience it. I intended this post to also be a practical exercise, but noticed I did not include any steps to actually do it, so I suggest trying for 10 minutes or so, to see if it's possible:
I noted that this was very much like meditation, so begin by meditating (concentrate on the breath). However, instead of dismissing thoughts as you would in normal meditation, try to notice the idea arising first and then the sentences being formed. Language is not necessary for thought, so there will always be a moment between creating an idea and describing it. After you've mastered that, try to 'catch' the thought before you can form it into sentences. If you can't stop a sentence from forming, discard the thought and wait for the next one to arise. Eventually you'll be left with just the idea and no language - logical and unsymbolic.
I do agree that it feels unnatural and difficult to conceive, especially if this is your primary mode of thought since first learning a language. But nonetheless I think it's a good idea to explore it, especially if it can provide a benefit to thinking (which is important, given we do it a lot).
minuspace:
I suppose the language 'binds' that unsymbolic thought with an armature of interlocking signs. These are slowly woven into an intentional POV narrative, covering its host as both source and protagonist of said story. By the time I can construct that symbolic armature, I'm already fitted as its rightful owner.
[edit: I think it takes about 80ms for that conversion to happen]
Cramulus:
Hi Légu, welcome to the forum and thank you for the very interesting post!
I like the types of thought experiments you're doing. We've arrived at similar confusions about a few things.
Right now I'm in a school / meditation group where we practice self observation in a variety of ways... we see this as "collecting material" which is required for a higher form of processing. There are some concepts which, early in my practice, I was asked to consider. My self-observation exercises tended to confirm these -- which I take with a grain of salt ("what the thinker thinks, the prover proves" -Robert Anton Wilson, "The Law of 5s is never wrong" -Mal&Omar), but perhaps sharing my own experiences may be useful.
--- Quote ---This makes me wonder - what are the implications of differences in thought production? Can one type be better, more efficient?
--- End quote ---
I think the different kinds of processing have different specialties & different blind spots.
In a horse & carriage, which is most important: the wheels, the horse, or the driver?
none of them, really
The fastest horse in the world is useless, actually problematic, if the other factors are not in line.
--- Quote ---I've discovered that without the need for forming sentences and articulating them, thoughts form much quicker. Whereas before the act of thinking was like a stream, without language it becomes more like waves of ideas with pauses between each thought. I do not yet know if this pause can eradicated with more practice. If it can, this could mean thinking can be incredibly quick. For now, unsymbolic thinking is more akin to meditation. Without the extra attention being paid to producing sentences, my focus goes elsewhere - usually my breath.
--- End quote ---
similar observations here -- language is SLOW, other types of thoughts are much quicker.
Do you feel like you have control over this stream?
What I call meditation is not DOING this kind of thinking, but OBSERVING it, recognizing that it's always happening, it's just coming from me on autopilot. Usually these experiences underpin the verbal/linguistic thoughts I have.
Like for example, somebody says "do you want to go to the beach?", or "Do you think schools will reopen?"
there is a little cascade of mental activity that preceeds my answer. I am not usually aware of this, I'm generally just conscious of my verbal response, and a sort of vague feeling which informs it. If I'm asked to elaborate, I will be concocting explanations of this process -- which might not really capture it, sometimes they are arbitrary.
--- Quote ---Another possible implication I considered was whether unsymbolic thought is possibly less biased than dialogue. I use bias fairly loosely, meaning the filters we apply to our thoughts and our judgement of them. It occurs to me that the medium of thought might dictate the logic of thought itself. That is, language is inherently rhetoric. By definition, it is intended to transfer ideas, not necessarily to understand or produce them. By continuously converting thought into language, I found that I'm persuading myself or an imaginary opponent. If this is so, then the ideas no longer are judged (internally) by how correct or logical they are, but rather by how persuasive they are. Hence the bias.
--- End quote ---
I think that language is made of associations. Therefore, linguistic-logic is biased by them.
Language is necessary, I think, for certain kinds of complex thought. How does a microprocessor work? I can't conceive of a way to understand this in a non-verbal way. Once you have sufficient verbal-mastery, you can develop abstractions, which may operate differently than the thoughts -- for example, there are operations I do at work which are very complicated, but I can do without really thinking about - partly because of familiarity. It's interesting, sometimes I'll notice that I'm doing something very complex on autopilot, and my linguistic-brain isn't really connected to it... if you were to ask me what I was doing at that moment, it would take me a second to index it before I could respond verbally.
But I couldn't have arrived at that level of abstraction without the verbal understanding of the system.
--- Quote ---Through some observation, I came to the conclusion that thought is produced subconsciously and that we interpret and process what comes up. Interestingly, it seems to me that this super-consciousness is almost like a separate entity that has little communication with the self. Of course, I cannot distinguish whether it's completely separate or merely a deeper part of my own self.
--- End quote ---
Can you talk a little bit more about the super-consciousness?
and finally, from the beginning of your post....
--- Quote ---I'll be mostly ignoring the other types of thought, only because I use them far less often.
--- End quote ---
I will share this:
the people who are teaching me these self-observation techniques have warned against putting that mind on a throne.
The verbal-logical [prefrontal cortex] mind is strong, for many of us it's also very loud.
In some ways, this is not a strength, but a weakness.
I view the self as having three "brains", three different types of processing
The Intellectual Brain
The Emotional Brain
The Moving Brain (this incorporates both physical sensations in the body such as hunger or tiredness as well as spacial logic-- ie how do I get from A to B)
These three processors work independently. SOMETIMES, they share data. OFTEN, they do not.
My verbal-logical-brain is often badly disconnected from my emotional processing.
Frequently, I have an emotion about something, I'm not even really aware of it, but my linguistic-brain becomes slave to that emotion, concoction rationales and explanations which serve it.
Or sometimes I'm just HUNGRY, and that creates a kind of stress in my nervous system that affects my emotions and logic. But I don't know that I'm hungry, because that intellect-brain is not getting data from the body-brain, but my intellect-brain is driving.
I think that being a better thinker is NOT about honing the intellect to its finest, most precise edge, and using it all the time.
I think it's about connecting these systems that we generally exclude.
sorry for the run-on post! you got me thinking!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version