IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Thinking without language?

kenneth Collins kpaulc at earthlink.net
Fri Nov 19 11:45:18 EST 1999

Harlan Messinger wrote:

> ADR <a.dalla_rosa at virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:811s5g$c7h$1 at nclient11-gui.server.virgin.net...
> >
> > >I don't know about you, but I'm perfectly able to think verbally while
> > >sticking my tongue out and keeping it still.  The fact that I'm typing
> > >this with my tongue stuck out proves it.
> >
> >
> > No muscular movement at all? Not even in the throat or with the lips? That
> > would be a miracle.
> >
> >
> Are you really serious?
> How, when people are talking, are they able to think simultaneously about
> things other than what they are saying, in your view?

FWIW, i pray pretty-much continuously. yet, i do other stuff, too.

"language", although an extremely-useful efficiency, is 'just' a
relatively-small evolutionary add-on. there's a whole 'universe' of 'thought'
underpinning it, and going-on, regardless of whether of not any of it is in the
form of verbal-symbolic-representation. typically, verbal-symbolic stuff is
'just' an 'in-the-ball-park' representation of the far-larger internal-universe,
in which 'thought' resides.

our nervous systems are parallel-information-processors, able to do a g'zillion
things at once.

the thing about 'language' that 'necessitates' it's being narrowly-focussed
sequentially-unfolding stuff is that it's engineered to be evocative within
other nervous systems. in order to do this, 'language' must arise within the
great parallel stuff of one nervous system, be whittled-down (AoK, Ap5) to a TD
E/I-minimized 'state' that contains the pertinent 'context', along with as much
of the specifics of a particular 'thought' that can be 'crammed-into' a
verbal-symbolic representation, so that this 'package' can be 'broadcast' to
other nervous systems, in a relatively-stand-alone way that 'bridges' the
'barriers' that result from experience being individually-unique.

can't verbal-symbolically represent the larger, parallel, internal-universe of
'thought' because each person has such going-on within them, and, if it were to
be verbal-symbolically represented, others would experience it as just a bunch
of 'noise'... because it's all with respect to the first person's
individually-unique experience, which is embedded within that person's
experientially-determined neural architecture.

think of it in terms of two, or more computers. one of these has a program
running on it that produces data. broadcast only the data to the other
computers. because they lack the program, they'll not be able to do anything
with the data.

the 'data' is analogous to 'verbal symbolism'. in an extremely-limited way, the
program is analogous to the stuff of thought. it's much-bigger than the 'data'
because it can produce 'data' ad infinitum.

[my system's under attack as i write this. heart's too-broken to 'care'... good
gosh! Jackasses are such Jackasses. Get it straight. i keep =nothing= on this
machine except my comm software. it's nothing more than a 'telephone'. your
Jackasses-ness is offensive as Hell. "go away".]

as i've explained in the past, here in bionet.neuroscience and other online
'places', the 'condutor' within the great internal
parallel-information-processing universe of our nervous systems is TD
E/I-minimization. TD E/I(down) occurs, in-parallel, simultaneously, with respect
to g'zillions of 'individual' information-processing dynamics, each of which
may, or may not, reflect a 'sequential' nature.

'language' is 'just' one of these g'zillions of information-processing dynamics.

if it were anything more, folks wouldn't ravage one another, destroying the
far-greater whole, 'for the sake of' this or that miniscule subset of the
internal universe that's partially-invoked in mere-words.

ken (K. P. Collins)

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net