Thinking to yourself.... how? - Page 2

Urban Ranger · February 23, 2002, 11:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
You'd have to calculate things though. When someone throws something towards you, your brain automatically calculates a parabolic curve trajectory to estimate where to catch it. You in effect think where to catch it - consciously or subconciously. Whether you can or not is down to motor skills.

It seems that we don't actually calcuate as much as we guess

People have been doing a lot of throwing and catching for aeons afterall. Even primitive tribes use spears and such to hunt beasts.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
So a person who never learns any languages can not imagine a blue sky, green field, etc.. in their mind? Or even express their though of a blue sky and green field by taking a blue and green crayon and drawing them.

I agree that humans do not need a language to describe concrete things.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
IMHO language is not a prerequisite to thought and expression.

Humans and languages are intimately linked. Even the most primitive tribes have their languages, and I do think that language to some degree do colour our thoughts, and some concepts are difficult if not impossible to think in another language Abstract ideas are probably not possible without a language, at least not possible to communicate these ideas to others.

Bugs ****ing Bunny · February 23, 2002, 11:29

I think in words. In fact, I think in entire paragraphs, unless I'm thinking poetry- in which case it's stanzas.

Juggernaut · February 23, 2002, 11:31

I've heard that the reason you don't remember anything from being a baby is that whilst you still think, you haven't developed a language yet and thus it's harder to sort the thoughts into memories.

Urban Ranger · February 23, 2002, 11:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Juggernaut
On the same note, there are no such things as "luck", or "chance", those are just substitutes for non-sufficent information.

Lets say you bought a lottery ticket. Clearly you had no idea what numbers would be drawn. So if it's not luck or chance, how do you explain it's not you who won?

Juggernaut · February 23, 2002, 12:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Lets say you bought a lottery ticket. Clearly you had no idea what numbers would be drawn. So if it's not luck or chance, how do you explain it's not you who won?

I had no information on in what order the numbers would lie in the bowl, how many times it would be shuffled, the ticket's weight and size, the person who draws the winning numbers's mental state and thus in what way he would grab the winning number, etc. etc.

Provided enough information and know-how, it would be possible to calculate the infinite future.

General Ludd · February 23, 2002, 12:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Juggernaut

Exactly, a living being always acts according to one's preferences, preferences are gained through genes and environment, thus, no free will.

Speak for yourself.

Juggernaut · February 23, 2002, 12:09

Yet another frightened soul shutting his eyes for the merciless, inevitable truth.

Immortal Wombat · February 23, 2002, 15:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Juggernaut
Provided enough information and know-how, it would be possible to calculate the infinite future.

And a super-computer at least as large as the universe...

Oooh

maybe this universe is actually a vast simulation of another one, running at double speed so some other humans in another universe can predict their future

Hi fellow Me!

Az · February 23, 2002, 15:19

actually preferences are behavior , and behavior is gained through education, that is the evolution of neuron connections. Connections that recieve many electrical pulses are widened , while the ones that don't get any , die out . ( the last sentence can also be applied to animal evolution

)

if you don't start thinkg in new directions ,or absorb alternative information , the amount of new neuron connections will decrease.

Zoid · February 23, 2002, 16:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Dalgetti
did you know that we , human beings, do not take conscious decisions? all decisions are made on an unconscious level , while the efect of 'free will' , and 'dicision making' is only a side effect , something we feel is happening while it's not . there was an experiment that proved that.

Do you understand the meaning of this ?!

The danish writer and science journalist Tor Nörretranders wrote a book on this, "Notice the world" (my translation) in 1991. "Free will" is, he claims, an afterconstruction by our mind, since the descision has already been made when we become aware of it. In the book he also writes that the "bandwith" of the senses is almost infinietly larger than the "bandwidth" of the mind 11Mbps compared to 1-16 bps. This means that almost everything we take in via our senses flies past the mind unnoticed.

"What is done by what is called myself is, I feel, done by something greater than myself in me"

-James Clerk Maxwell on his deathbed 1879

Dauphin · February 23, 2002, 17:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Juggernaut

Provided enough information and know-how, it would be possible to calculate the infinite future.

That would be true, but classical physics was debunked a century ago.

In the quantum world the future is not predetermined, and it is probable to certain that we have no free will.

Quote:

Do you understand the meaning of this ?!

The defence team of a criminal justice case would have a field day if it was proven.

Kassiopeia · February 23, 2002, 18:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Eli
I think in English, and I blame you all for that.

I think I'll join Eli here. Damn you!

Nowadays, say, I need to word out the phrase "Pandora's box" in Finnish. I say "Pandoran laatikko", even though it is "Pandoran lipas", because you buggers have made my mind think in English! I have to translate that into Finnish speech, so I get all these nyance errors in my talk. Like a foreigner that can pronounce and talk well, but doesn't know the usual "habit" of the using of words with several different meanings.

spartak · February 23, 2002, 19:12

I would say that I tend to think in symbols and a lot of time I don't think at all. In my job I have been trained to reach decisions quickly based on the information available. A lot is interview based and questions just pop up in my head without prompting. So much of what I do is subconcious it frightens me sometimes. Its almost as if I have been turned into a human computer - feed information in get answer out with little concious analysis of what I do. (Alright for the rest of you garbage in - garbage out). On one occasion I was training anew colleague and after a 8-9 question interview he asked me to explain my thought processes. It turned out that 15-16 different elements had gone into my decision but at no time was I concious of any thought process - just questions and an answer appearing in my mind.

As far as the symbols goes I remember reading the begariad when I was much younger and not catching the name change from garion to belgarion for a year or so. Simply because, it seemed that my mind had allocated a symbol to garion and another unconnected on to belgarion. Very odd.

I am never concious of thinking in words when I do any serious thinking. Even typing this the words just trip out of my subconcious with little if any concious filter. Does anyone else "think" like this?

Kaak · February 23, 2002, 20:11

as far as the blue sky, like i said, descartes believed the senses were deceptive...and since i was basing the arguement on descartes...

MrFun · February 23, 2002, 23:08

We take for granted so many words that we have.

For instance, the color green. The word green was created as an English word to describe a specific color.

Az · February 24, 2002, 04:59

Thank you Kamrat X.

Sagacious : about the criminal court field day , I am not sure , because if proven, I think something fundamental about the laws of our society will change.

Ari Rahikkala · February 24, 2002, 05:33

When I really think I usually have the feeling that everything I figure out is already thought in and out when it comes to my mind - I only use words to sort and memorize.

On which language I think in, it really depends - if I've been posting a lot to 'net fora, I often think in English, but after a week or so of deprivation all my thinking is in Finnish. Which is much easier, since when my thoughts are in English I have to stop every so often because of a limited vocabulary

...

Bereta_Eder · February 24, 2002, 05:42

you know what happens?

when i listen to songs in english (since I LOVE ADORE WORSHIP Rock most of the songs are in english) I can INSTANTLY replace the lyrics in Greek. Just like that. It's very strange but very easy too. I just think of lyrics in Greek there and then and just make them to fit the rythme.

OTOH if I am going to write a song and since this song will be a rock - punk song I find it easier to write in english. If it is poetry definitely Greek.

Ari Rahikkala · February 24, 2002, 06:00

Interestingly enough, after I started reading books both in English and in Finnish (e.g. I read 'Startide Rising' in Finnish and other Uplift saga books in English) I have found out that when I remember quotes from the books, they might actually be in other languages than the one I read them in... That is, when I think of Startide Rising, I most certainly think in English. On the other hand, I remember some parts from the Uplift War better in Finnish than in English even though I never read that book in Finnish... Scary

...

Zoid · February 24, 2002, 06:16

Sometimes when I read english books I "forget" that it´s english, my brain automatically translates the words or something I guess. Is that similar to your experience, LightEning?

Ari Rahikkala · February 24, 2002, 06:25

Hmm... somewhat. I sometimes notice that, after reading a paragraph and pausing reading for a moment, I have the last sentence in my head in Finnish. Kind of a mental leftover... But no, I haven't actually experienced forgetting what language a book is in, since I generally change a book to picture-like (very rarely movie-like) scenes in my mind while I'm reading. Which means that I don't notice different languages at all.

Zoid · February 24, 2002, 06:29

Does that apply to english movies and TV-series without subtitles as well? I experience the same "sensation" there...

Ari Rahikkala · February 24, 2002, 06:33

Well... partly, but I'm horrible at understanding spoken English, so I have to concentrate to listening. If I spent a few years in some English-speaking country I would probably not think of the language...

Urban Ranger · February 24, 2002, 10:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Juggernaut
Provided enough information and know-how, it would be possible to calculate the infinite future.

Even with sufficient information there's still no way you can calculate it. As far as we know nature is fundamentally probabilistic.

The Chaos Theory alone will make you cry

Urban Ranger · February 24, 2002, 10:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Kamrat X
"Free will" is, he claims, an afterconstruction by our mind, since the descision has already been made when we become aware of it.

On what basis did he made this assertion?

Quote:

Originally posted by Kamrat X
In the book he also writes that the "bandwith" of the senses is almost infinietly larger than the "bandwidth" of the mind 11Mbps compared to 1-16 bps. This means that almost everything we take in via our senses flies past the mind unnoticed.

That appears to be something he pulled out of his, uh, appendix. The brain is such a massively parallel computer that you have no idea how many things are taking place at the same time. Just think of walking.

Zoid · February 24, 2002, 10:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

On what basis did he made this assertion?

That appears to be something he pulled out of his, uh, appendix. The brain is such a massively parallel computer that you have no idea how many things are taking place at the same time. Just think of walking.

I´ll answer this in the "Maybe after all..."- thread.

Dauphin · February 24, 2002, 11:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Even with sufficient information there's still no way you can calculate it. As far as we know nature is fundamentally probabilistic.

The Chaos Theory alone will make you cry

Chaos theory is based on classical theories and still makes the presupposition that nature is predictable given a high enough level of detail. It is the miniscule variations from "perfect" knowledge that leads to huge variation, and hence the appearance of randomness. In the classical world it would be assumed that nature has all the information available, perfect knowledge of all the variables, and so from that viewpoint nature can make a perfect prediction of the future. The fact that one reference point (i.e that of nature) can make a 100% accurate prediction procludes any randomness. Maybe that is a philosophical point but its what classical theory would suggest.

Juggernaut · February 24, 2002, 12:14

Quote:

That would be true, but classical physics was debunked a century ago.

Why does Quantum Physics exclude the Chaos Theory?

MORON · February 24, 2002, 13:15

I think (or not think) in ways that require the least mental effort for the task. Its usually in english, with images thrown around when I need to visualize space and math thrown in when it math (duh)

For some reason I can think in terms of music as well, though they are only good for emotion expression.

For some reason I'm not aware of thinking when I do easy tests....

Dauphin · February 24, 2002, 15:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Juggernaut

Why does Quantum Physics exclude the Chaos Theory?

Because chaos theory is based on (lack of) perfect knowledge, and there is no such thing as perfect knowledge in quantum theory.

Basically chaotic systems are derived from Newtonian style equations, which believes that all variables are "knowable" its just that we are physically constrained and can only measure them to a certain accuracy. It turns out that the equations produce wildly different results even for small errors. The theory is that if we eliminated the error, we would get the correct result.

In quantum systems there is no such thing as perfect knowledge to begin with. That is, we cannot eliminate errors and know with perfect precision all the variables; and more fundamentally the equations used are not applicable, in the same way the usual Newtonian equations are not applicable in the quantum world.

Quantum "chaos" still exists, but it is not quite the same thing, the unpredictability is introduced by quantum probabilities and not lack of knowledge.