Limitations of thought?

Mods please move this if i have created it in the wrong forum. Thanks

I would like to start off by saying that I don't consider myself to be an intelligent person, nor unintelligent either, most likely an average person. Through that idea is where my current thought originated from. I also hope my title didn't imply something biological.

I began to wonder how people think/ponder about things when they are working it out in their heads. Whether it be pondering the origins of creation/consciousness, or merely preparing for an unpleasant conversation. Do you have instantaneous thoughts or do you view images, or work things out through progressive steps using a language, or something completely different? I, myself, use the English language for at least 90% of my thoughts. I also seem to remember hearing ( upon deciding to attempt to learn the German language ) that different languages were better at explaining certain areas of thought. Though all languages have limitations in different
aspects/areas of thought/descriptions while others perhaps excel more in those areas.

Is it possible that somehow, on some level, "intelligence" is loosely based on the method used to express that particular thought/idea? Would a more "sophisticated" language offer deeper insight or easier work-through of the idea in mind? For example, if we were able to communicate using telepathy, there would be no more misunderstanding as everything is only perspective anyhow. Oops, I seem to be getting away from my original idea.

They (being whoever you would like them to be ) say that the brain is a muscle and should be exercised, same as all muscles.

I just thought I'd ask what the good people here on ATS thought. May there be some truth to this idea or do the thoughts come from else completely and we simply use language to attempt to describe them?

a reply to: Rhodin

If I'm understanding your question as you intended it...

For myself, the best way I can describe it is that I have an interior monologue. At times, a dialog (sort of imagining what another party may say).

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: Rhodin

If I'm understanding your question as you intended it...

For myself, the best way I can describe it is that I have an interior monologue. At times, a dialog (sort of imagining what another party may say).

Yes, you understood as I intended. I have difficulty at times expressing myself, likely due to my lack of a broad vocabulary. I guess that kinda goes back to the 'thinking in language' question.

I also use monologue/dialog very frequently while thinking about things

Thanks for the reply.

a reply to: Rhodin

Do you have instantaneous thoughts or do you view images, or work things out through progressive steps using a language, or something completely different?

I am visually oriented so I see it in my minds eye, in progression, if, then, next.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Rhodin

Do you have instantaneous thoughts or do you view images, or work things out through progressive steps using a language, or something completely different?

I am visually oriented so I see it in my minds eye, in progression, if, then, next.

This sounds a like very logical way of thinking. Did you just automatically start thinking this way as a child or were you taught?

originally posted by: Rhodin

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Rhodin

Do you have instantaneous thoughts or do you view images, or work things out through progressive steps using a language, or something completely different?

I am visually oriented so I see it in my minds eye, in progression, if, then, next.

This sounds a like very logical way of thinking. Did you just automatically start thinking this way as a child or were you taught?

As far as I remember, I have always been visually oriented. I want to see things, not just be told whats what.

I started to say I learned it from reading a lot of books. Authors beg us to follow along with their descriptives. When I was young we didn't have as much TV or any internet, so I read a lot of books.

Did that develop imagination? Maybe it provided foundation to work from. Theres another element, empathy.

Now I'm confusing myself. I can't explain how I see things. I had a friend who was an artist, he could draw anything he saw, even having glimpsed. He told me he saw the object in his mind as clear as 3D CAD , could turn it around, viewing it from all angles. I don't have that skill.

Its not like a painting in my head, its more vague than that, plagued by the blurriness inherent in memory and bias.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Rhodin

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Rhodin

Do you have instantaneous thoughts or do you view images, or work things out through progressive steps using a language, or something completely different?

I am visually oriented so I see it in my minds eye, in progression, if, then, next.

This sounds a like very logical way of thinking. Did you just automatically start thinking this way as a child or were you taught?

As far as I remember, I have always been visually oriented. I want to see things, not just be told whats what.

I started to say I learned it from reading a lot of books. Authors beg us to follow along with their descriptives. When I was young we didn't have as much TV or any internet, so I read a lot of books.

Did that develop imagination? Maybe it provided foundation to work from. Theres another element, empathy.

Now I'm confusing myself. I can't explain how I see things. I had a friend who was an artist, he could draw anything he saw, even having glimpsed. He told me he saw the object in his mind as clear as 3D CAD , could turn it around, viewing it from all angles. I don't have that skill.

Its not like a painting in my head, its more vague than that, plagued by the blurriness inherent in memory and bias.

I find that very interesting, specifically the part about your artist friend. I am definitely no able to do that ( also I am certainly no artist ). I too grew up in a time before computers and cell phones and such, but never read many books, as most of my time was spent hunting and fishing ( to keep freezer stocks up ), or being outside with friends. Any books I did read were fantasy based ( and there were only a handful ). Plus, I'm a slow reader.

I never really had any desire to understand this "place" we exist in until i was in my late twenties.

I do suppose experiences play a huge role in our development.

Thanks for the reply.

a reply to: intrptr

I can't explain how I see things. I had a friend who was an artist, he could draw anything he saw, even having glimpsed. He told me he saw the object in his mind as clear as 3D CAD , could turn it around, viewing it from all angles.

I've often wondered how common that was?
I can do the 3-D Imaging, I use it when I design my toys but I can't draw to save my life, though I can build what I imagine.
I can also play movies in my mind do you do that?


For the OP I will say that he is correct in expressing thought is just as important as having thought.
If you feel that your vocabulary limits you read the dictionary, don't make a chore out of it but just crack it open arbitrarily somewhere & read.

Do you have instantaneous thoughts or do you view images, or work things out through progressive steps using a language,

Yes.
Inner dialogue, constant & unbidden, even now as I write this I carry on a mock conversation with my thoughts, your expected reaction & responses & may modify what I say by the direction of that inner dialogue.
Images & full length HD movies to the point where I find it hard to sleep, my mind seems to have a mind of its own.
Progressive steps? No, more like a few threads running all the time simultaneously.

That imagined conversation leads me to say that while coherent articulation is normally associated with intelligence I have had very articulate people express the stupidest of ideas.
That or some may be wizards in a particular field of study & complete imbeciles with ordinary actions that most complete with ease.
The point being that "intelligence" is a sliding scale.

I believe that curiosity, imagination & memory play a bigger role in overall intelligence than merely vocabulary.

K~

a reply to: Rhodin

This is an interesting OP.

I usually think logically and try to avoid emotion whenever possible. I don't have a strong empathy for others and don't experience vast emotionally extremes (in general). This can be good and bad, but for the most part I do an internal cost-benefit analysis using logical structures.

Often times I fail to take into account the emotions of others which will get me into difficult situations...especially in social situations and with the wife, but for the most part I think emotions should be eliminated from our thought processes as much as possible.

a reply to: Rhodin

Have you heard of a Universal Turing Machine? From Godel and Turing we know there are mathematical and computational languages that have the power to produce a translation from any other language (as long as we're communicating with finite data). It is definitely easier to express some things with certain languages though. The translations won't necessarily be anywhere close to elegant.

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: Rhodin

Have you heard of a Universal Turing Machine? From Godel and Turing we know there are mathematical and computational languages that have the power to produce a translation from any other language (as long as we're communicating with finite data). It is definitely easier to express some things with certain languages though. The translations won't necessarily be anywhere close to elegant.

No, I have never heard of the Universal Turing Machine. I will have to read up on that. Thank you for making me aware of it!

So while reading this I have the dialogue in my head, and I can add another deeper layer when I have thoughts or try to think of images/play a movie... It literally feels ferther back

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Rhodin

This is an interesting OP.

I usually think logically and try to avoid emotion whenever possible. I don't have a strong empathy for others and don't experience vast emotionally extremes (in general). This can be good and bad, but for the most part I do an internal cost-benefit analysis using logical structures.

Often times I fail to take into account the emotions of others which will get me into difficult situations...especially in social situations and with the wife, ...but for the most part I think emotions should be eliminated from our thought processes as much as possible.

I find that most my decisions tend to lean toward emotional results other than logical ( within reason of course ). The most important thing in my mind is the well being and happiness of those around me. I would rather take 5 mins longer to do something if it saves someone else a little time, as an example. Much as I would rather hurt than see someone else hurting.

LoL, I can understand how logical thinking may sometimes get you into trouble with the missus, though mine does as well.

I'm off to work. thank you everyone for the responses. I'll check back once I'm back at home.

I have the inner monologue aswell but accompanied by a large amount of visualization of what I am talking/thinking about. Once well talking to my wife I completely blanked out while driving and my inner video/image just seemed to overtake reality resulting in a minor car crash, no one was hurt except my ego.

Happened twice in my life actually the second time I realized what was happening and stopped in good time.

Also when preparing to undertake a job or activity I visualize how I expect it to turn out.


a reply to: Rhodin

I am often devoid of emotion towards most people aswell and don't really consider how my words translate to their reality.

Animals in the other hand receive enormous respect and love from me. Tragic animal story's get me every time, and if one of my little doggies gets hurt I am often overwhelmed with sympathy for them.

Humans just have so much power and control I feel they are capable of fending for themselves and they don't need my sympathies.


a reply to: Metallicus

I too am very visually oriented. Along with being a very logical thinker. (This plays a role into my agnostic views) In my head everything must have an answer. If I can visually predict how something works (or looks) I can replicate it, or draw it / better understand it.

Think of playing pool. Its all angles. Its the easiest to predict. You can imagine in your mind where the ball is going to go after it deflects off a wall at a certain angle. Then continue that path off the next wall, ect.. depending on the amount of momentum. You should have a decent idea where the ball will be depending on what angle, wall, or other balls it hits.

Carry this over into how light travels and is affected by gravity (gravitational lensing). Think of machinery.. the inner workings of a clock (all moving gears, how each interacts)

Everything can be imagined / visualized. You need only a basic understanding to get going. Then everything you acquire after the fact only adds to the accuracy of your visualization.

If I lost anyone with my rambling, I apologize.

Before I take a wack at a golf ball, shoot a rifle, or shoot pool. I imagine the entirety of the act in my head. I add in wind or other variances that could affect a trajectory and predict where I need to aim. That and being slightly OCD probably helps a bit lol

cheerz

a reply to: aethertek

I can also play movies in my mind do you do that?

Not as good as your claim. I have good recall, but not photographic, or movie like.

I can remember events pretty good… what was said, who did what.

Lotsa of people would sooner we forget, I think our minds have perfect records, just our access to it isn't as perfect. But its in there. The way a CCD camera on the wall records everything it sees to Disk, our brains have lots of space to record a lifetime of experience.

originally posted by: Rhodin
Is it possible that somehow, on some level, "intelligence" is loosely based on the method used to express that particular thought/idea? Would a more "sophisticated" language offer deeper insight or easier work-through of the idea in mind? For example, if we were able to communicate using telepathy, there would be no more misunderstanding as everything is only perspective anyhow.

Entire schools of philosophy have been created over the centuries to explore these ideas. My thought is that reality, our ability to perceive it, our thoughts about it, and our ability to interact with it, are all very limited. We try to use words and numbers to create a representation of reality that we hope to define by consensus, but with our limited perceptions and intelligence even those are many multiple layers of meaning and understanding away from "real" reality.

One of the basic problems is that we can only be as smart as a human being can be, and we don't know any other way to think. Perhaps someday our superintelligent machines will see reality past our limitations, and perhaps be smart enough to "dumb it down" enough for us to get a better grasp of it.

Otherwise, our existence is as we each individually perceive it, and no more. And when we die, the universe vanishes for us, making it all moot.

a reply to: Rhodin

I do suppose experiences play a huge role in our development.

When I was young I discovered that people went out and did stuff and then wrote about it. It was on after that. I have always had a deep desire to read what others do. I can gain their experience without actually experiencing it.

I don't mean how to tie a fishhook, obviously. I mean what it was like where they were, what they saw and what they went through.

After about 50 years of lifetime experience it begins to gel somehow into a knowledge base you can pull from. You begin to draw conclusions from different events and others reported events. You begin to see patterns what works, what doesn't and what is deceptive, especially.

As much as possible also read about history of the World, too.

It repeats, rhymes, whatever.