=nothing= 'requires words' except communication.
when there are 'verbal symbols', they do impact upon the nervous system's on-going
information-processing dynamics, but that doesn't 'require' that verbal-symbolic stuff be
in-there if 'thought' is to occur.
=nothing= 'requires' verbal symbolism except communication.
'language' is 'just' an evolutionary add-on, albeit, an extremely-useful one that
multiplies the information-processing power inherent in individual nervous systems by
enabling individual nervous systems to be 'chained' together.
in this thread, you 'AI' and 'language' folks are addressing such 'chaining',
=exclusively=. nervous systems are extremely-very-much more that that which you're
addressing.
there's immense worth in addressing the stuff of 'communication', but it must be, first,
recognized that that is what's being exclusively discussed (communicated with respect
to).
ken (K. P. Collins)
Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~} wrote:
> >>>>> "John" == John Turnbull <john at turnbull.org> writes:
>> John> The second one I would agree with, if you are not conscious,
> John> you are not thinking. To me thinking is the answering of
> .......................................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> John> questions, which requires explicit communication between
> ..........^^^^^^^^^
> John> different parts of the brain, and some language is needed
> John> for that. For me words are the language. Pictures and
> John> diagrams are occasionally useful to help clarify things or
> John> gain a different insight, but the question and answer are
> John> still in words.
>> So, thinking MUST be verbal, you YOUR definition. Period.
>> John> Have you ever hummed a tune without realizing it?
>> I can hum a tune in my mind.
>> John> Just
> John> knowing what you are doing and feeling maybe consciousness,
> John> but I don't think that it is thinking. Asking the question
> John> "what am I doing?" tends to get a verbal answer.
>> I can "ask" that "question" without thinking in words. I often think
> in a language-less manner. I can easily form the question in any
> language I'm fluent at. So, when I think, I use language-independent
> concepts. Only when I have to speak them out do I transform these
> ideas into words, and order them by the grammar rules of the language
> desired. So, in a Cantonese context, I would say [NO13 tsou22 k at n35> mE53 a33]? In a Mandarin context, I would say <wo3 zai4 gan4
> shen4me>? In an English context, I would say "what am I doing"? In a
> French context, I would say "qu'est-ce que je faire maintenant?", etc.
> When I don't need to speak it out, the idea can stay language-less in
> my mind.
>> John> what am I doing? why am I doing it? is there a better way?
> John> all without words? Maybe so, but it seems to me a lot
> John> better to use words.
>> Yes, except for the "why" question. Answering a "why" question
> requires reasoning, and reasoning often needs verbal thinking. But
> answering "what" and existence questions, I can do it without words.
> Even when answering "why" questions, I can sometimes do it
> language-lessly. So, that's again without words. (When I don't need
> to speak out the answers, why do I have to render the ideas in a
> language?)
>> John> OK, so you draw pictures with no words.
>> I often avoid words in the pictures. When I need to represent some
> ideas (esp. abstract ones) with words, I usually use the first letter
> (in case of English) to represent the whole idea. So, that serves
> only as a symbol (somehow arbitrary) or mark to remind me that that
> particular letter stands for that particular idea.
>> John> My diagrams tend to
> John> be more of arrangements of words on the page. Words are so
> John> much more efficient than wasting all that time with images.
>> When I do geometry or solve geometric problems, I would draw the
> figures wordlessly. Yes, I would *label* some features (points,
> edges, angles) with letters, but they are only labels. If I have
> enough pens of different colours, I could do the labeling by means of
> colours instead of letters. That doesn't prevent me from thinking
> about the geometric problems.
>> --
> Lee Sau Dan $(0,X)wAV(B(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
> .----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> | http://www.cs.hku.hk/~sdlee e-mail: sdlee at csis.hku.hk |
> `----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
