Trying to imagine thinking without language

[Marcy Sheiner]

This is a hugely interesting thread.

 

[bobcat]

I often wonder about people who are born deaf. They never hear words. They can read and write them, but sound has no meaning. How do they think about things? Do the visualize words? It's hard for me to imagine what that must be like.

That's a great question. I would imagine they think in a sign language, or more visual representations of dialogue. I've never thought about that, but it would be an intriguing question to ask them. I wonder what comes into the mind of someone who is blind and deaf, but can read Braille.

 

[bobcat]

This movie comes to mind.

 

[JBR]

If we can agree that thinking isn't limited to verbalization, then thoughts without language are fairly common.

Artists & designers are often "thinking" in visual terms, and in 3-dimensional terms sometimes. Musicians can think in terms of sound (rhythm, melody, harmonies, etc). I play guitar a little, and I've had melodies or fretboard-related things come to me in dreams. More than with me, my daughter (who studied classical piano, and likes all sorts of music) has had music come to her in sleep.

Could be that some human thinking developed fairly early along these lines.

 

[MarkD]

I had read somewhere once that language is processed in a different area of the brain than thought, but I'm having a hard time trying to imagine thought without language. It must be possible because early humans had thought before language evolved, and even animals do it, but maybe with us, language is so interwoven with thought that it almost seems impossible.

I know we have awareness, but it just seems different than thought. My whole inner world is just a stream of words. Maybe animals don't think like we do. Perhaps it's more like association and response. IDK

I believe it is a little like peripheral vision which, if you've ever walked at night you know is superior for seeing in low light. So at night it is better not to look intently where you are going but rather just to the side a bit so that the path you are walking falls outside the focal point where the rods allow for black and white vision.

There is a focal center for our thinking too. If we stick to language it is like that focal point. It is where we have the most direct control but our brains are processing input all the time even outside of where we have placed our attention. Like our eyes our brains handle a lot more than what we are focused on. Intuition is a bit like peripheral vision. It is when we realize something without really trying.

 

[bobcat]

I believe it is a little like peripheral vision which, if you've ever walked at night you know is superior for seeing in low light. So at night it is better not to look intently where you are going but rather just to the side a bit so that the path you are walking falls outside the focal point where the rods allow for black and white vision.

There is a focal center for our thinking too. If we stick to language it is like that focal point. It is where we have the most direct control but our brains are processing input all the time even outside of where we have placed our attention. Like our eyes our brains handle a lot more than what we are focused on. Intuition is a bit like peripheral vision. It is when we realize something without really trying.

I believe you are correct. I was under the impression that thinking only went on in the conscious mind because it just feels that way. However, the subconscious just goes about it in a different, more intuitive and instinctual way. As to whether the subconscious thinks verbally or not, I'm not sure. It may be more of a silent processor.

 

[JustDave]

Yes, to ponder, evaluate, ruminate serious things I'm in trouble. For that I need words, maybe pencil and paper to clarify. But the mental calculations/thought needed to catch a ball are very complex too, and there's no time for words.
But thinking about our mental flow in normal, lighter fare is different, like, "What do I need to do/gather in order to go out and do my chores?" I don't say those words to myself, or any words, I don't think.
My brain is pretty smart, smarter than I am.

Logical thinking is based on words exclusively. It requires statements that can be drawn from previous statements that lead to a conclusion, or to the state where no conclusion is warranted. Can't be done visually as far as I can tell.

 

[David777]

There are only so many elements we humans can juggle logically mentally alone for understanding without relying on other tools and that tends to be about 7 items. But let's say there is a list of 30 single digit numbers on a whiteboard. Even if one has a simple task of adding the 30 numbers one is allowed to only look at for just 5 seconds, they will first need to store the actual numbers first to have any chance of adding up more than a few from mere visual memory.

But for just 7 numbers, if one quickly vocalizes out loud that short list, so one exercises their vocal muscles and hears the sounds with their ears, they are much more likely to be able to recall the 7 number list versus just visually looking at the numbers for 5 seconds. Given brain short term memory chemical connection pathway persistence, it takes several seconds of time for such momentary memories to fade away below working conscious awareness of. If one is using vocal muscles, sound, and vision, that persistence is more likely to be recalled than just any one sense. So yeah, something is becoming difficult to understand? Don't be afraid to vocalize whatever out loud, even if a few others may think such is negative, "talking to oneself".

Say someone just gave you a 7 digit phone number? If you quickly repeat the number vocally several times, 867 5309...867 5309...867 5309, even if barely audibly, one is much more likely to be able to recall ( Jenny's phone number ) later versus just trying to recall what one's ear sound memory stored. That is because the action has been cross connected within multiple brain pathways instead of just one sense memory.

Over my adult lifetime, I've had to read a ridiculous amount of science and technology. That is a task where "speed reading" has no value. Instead, I may need to read a paragraph, over and over and over a dozen times to have any chance of understanding whatever before moving on to the next section. And I'm very very good at doing that. Other times, I might have been troubleshooting a complex electronic hardware problem and had to scribble out on paper a simplified block diagram of processes I would look at back and forth over and over using my language brain, trying to develop a better understanding of.

Other times I would build a complex Excel page of data and information to look at to better come to grips with complexities. Complexities that almost always involve language, structures, terms, data. In fact, coding software languages is totally within such language term realms. A bit of HTML code I wrote last month. All highly connected about my language brain with interconnections to my thinking cerebral cortex.

------------------

<div style="text-align: center;"><img src="UZ03735-03754-3x1vw.jpg" width="1000" height="628" alt="UZ03735-03754-3x1v" title="UZ03735-03754-3x1v above upper Hoover Lake, whitestem goldenbush."></div>
<p class="grnr">UZ03735-03754-3x1v&nbsp;&nbsp;7000x6100 pixels&nbsp;&nbsp;4 column 1 row 4 frame 20 shot focus stack stitch blend&nbsp;&nbsp;a6700 30mm<br><a href="UZ03735-03754-3x1ve.jpg">enlarged vertical slice view</a></p>

<p>By time I reached this next subject above at 8:32am, the up canyon continuous breeze had already begun but was still allowing brief periods of semi-calm within upper Hoover Lake. At frame lower right are the yellow blooms of <b>whitestem goldenbush</b>, <i>ericameria discoidea</i>, with an adjacent sagebrush species. Note the trail at frame right. Pyramidal peak 11240+ frame right with out of view Summit Lake off to its right.</p>

----------------------

 

[bobcat]

Logical thinking is based on words exclusively. It requires statements that can be drawn from previous statements that lead to a conclusion, or to the state where no conclusion is warranted. Can't be done visually as far as I can tell.

I was giving that some thought, and then I wondered about math problems such as 36 + X = 93. It seems to require logical thinking, but no words. However, I am verbalizing numbers in my head, so perhaps those qualify as words too. IDK

 

[WheatenLover]

I don't think I think in words.
I don't know how I think, but it's not in words.
Isn't "thinking in words" like talking to oneself silently? Wouldn't that take much MUCH longer to do? Don't we think pretty much instantaneously?

Edit: When I think "FIRE!!" I see the picture of the fire, not the stupid word.
Words are about communication.

What do you see when you think LOVE?

 

[bobcat]

There are only so many elements we humans can juggle logically mentally alone for understanding without relying on other tools and that tends to be about 7 items. But let's say there is a list of 30 single digit numbers on a whiteboard. Even if one has a simple task of adding the 30 numbers one is allowed to only look at for just 5 seconds, they will first need to store the actual numbers first to have any chance of adding up more than a few from mere visual memory.

But for just 7 numbers, if one quickly vocalizes out loud that short list, so one exercises their vocal muscles and hears the sounds with their ears, they are much more likely to be able to recall the 7 number list versus just visually looking at the numbers for 5 seconds. Given brain short term memory chemical connection pathway persistence, it takes several seconds of time for such momentary memories to fade away below working conscious awareness of. If one is using vocal muscles, sound, and vision, that persistence is more likely to be recalled than just any one sense. So yeah, something is becoming difficult to understand? Don't be afraid to vocalize whatever out loud, even if a few others may think such is negative, "talking to oneself".

Say someone just gave you a 7 digit phone number? If you quickly repeat the number vocally several times, 867 5309...867 5309...867 5309, even if barely audibly, one is much more likely to be able to recall ( Jenny's phone number ) later versus just trying to recall what one's ear sound memory stored. That is because the action has been cross connected within multiple brain pathways instead of just one sense memory.

Over my adult lifetime, I've had to read a ridiculous amount of science and technology. That is a task where "speed reading" has no value. Instead, I may need to read a paragraph, over and over and over a dozen times to have any chance of understanding whatever before moving on to the next section. And I'm very very good at doing that. Other times, I might have been troubleshooting a complex electronic hardware problem and had to scribble out on paper a simplified block diagram of processes I would look at back and forth over and over using my language brain, trying to develop a better understanding of.

Other times I would build a complex Excel page of data and information to look at to better come to grips with complexities. Complexities that almost always involve language, structures, terms, data. In fact, coding software languages is totally within such language term realms. A bit of HTML code I wrote last month. All highly connected about my language brain with interconnections to my thinking cerebral cortex.

------------------

<div style="text-align: center;"><img src="UZ03735-03754-3x1vw.jpg" width="1000" height="628" alt="UZ03735-03754-3x1v" title="UZ03735-03754-3x1v above upper Hoover Lake, whitestem goldenbush."></div>
<p class="grnr">UZ03735-03754-3x1v&nbsp;&nbsp;7000x6100 pixels&nbsp;&nbsp;4 column 1 row 4 frame 20 shot focus stack stitch blend&nbsp;&nbsp;a6700 30mm<br><a href="UZ03735-03754-3x1ve.jpg">enlarged vertical slice view</a></p>

<p>By time I reached this next subject above at 8:32am, the up canyon continuous breeze had already begun but was still allowing brief periods of semi-calm within upper Hoover Lake. At frame lower right are the yellow blooms of <b>whitestem goldenbush</b>, <i>ericameria discoidea</i>, with an adjacent sagebrush species. Note the trail at frame right. Pyramidal peak 11240+ frame right with out of view Summit Lake off to its right.</p>

----------------------

Thanks David. I would give that some thought, but I wouldn't know where to start. Programming isn't my thing.

 

[WheatenLover]

I often wonder about people who are born deaf. They never hear words. They can read and write them, but sound has no meaning. How do they think about things? Do the visualize words? It's hard for me to imagine what that must be like.

My cousin is deaf. She lip reads and speaks aloud in normal, natural English. You would never know it. My kids didn't believe me when they were children. So we walked up behind my cousin when she was loading things into the back of her van. I told the kids to scream at her at the top of their lungs. She didn't even flinch because she didn't hear anything.

She wasn't born deaf. When she was just little, like 2, she contracted a disease which left her deaf. I figure that her brief experience with hearing helped a great deal with her being able to speak so well.

 

[WheatenLover]

I often wonder about people who are born deaf. They never hear words. They can read and write them, but sound has no meaning. How do they think about things? Do the visualize words? It's hard for me to imagine what that must be like.

I've heard of people who think in pictures. I think one of them is Temple Grandin, but not sure. She is not deaf or blind.

What about Helen Keller? She was deaf and blind. If she thinks in pictures, how does that work when she has never seen anything? I remember reading about how Anne Sullivan taught her the meaning of water. That's how a taught my dog the meaning of water. He grokked it right away; it was pretty cool and useful.

Anyway, maybe reading about Helen Keller and things she's written would solve the mystery.

 

[MarkD]

I read a quote attributed to a great mathematician which touched on the role of intuition. Of course I couldn't remember who or how it was phrased exactly but thankfully we have Google"

The mathematician who said, "I have had my results for a long time: but I do not yet know how I am to arrive at them," was
Carl Friedrich Gauss.
This quote highlights a phenomenon in mathematics where intuition or insight provides the correct solution to a problem long before a rigorous proof can be formally constructed.

Sometimes I think we do better to get out of our own way and let our total being pitch in to solve problems.