You can only think what You can say.

Excellent post O.P.

You couldn't be any more correct.

Star for you.

For those of you that can't find words to explain how you feel or what you mean, trust me, it's out there! Search harder! Pick up a dictionary, make a search online, there's a synonym somewhere that will lead you to your experience, feeling, imagination or otherwise.

Originally posted by loam
Thought isn't limited by words....communication is.

Not entirely so, we use symbols. Though symbols are generally used to trigger meanings of defined words. But sometimes we simply understand without need for interpretation. For example, not many people need to be told what the "prohibition sign" means, they just know it because the symbol itself visually communicates its meaning very well. We can assign the word "no" if we want to, but it isn't needed.

Originally posted by Areal51

Originally posted by loam
Thought isn't limited by words....communication is.

Not entirely so, we use symbols. Though symbols are generally used to trigger meanings of defined words. But sometimes we simply understand without need for interpretation. For example, not many people need to be told what the "prohibition sign" means, they just know it because the symbol itself visually communicates its meaning very well. We can assign the word "no" if we want to, but it isn't needed.

Just to add to that. The brain still has to think the words "prohibition sign" first and then process the meaning.

His book is entirely spot on.

The reason our languages are like this is because communication and thought are universal.

The language that we speak is eternal regardless of how many tongues and dialects it comes in.

We don't "create" the language, the language has always existed, we moreso "remember" it.

I always use this analogy. It's like the flat Earth vs. round Earth. The Earth was always round, we didn't create the Earth to be round once we discovered that it was, we just became aware of the true reality.

The same goes for words. We're not creating their concepts, the concepts are universal and eternal, we're simply putting the concepts that we become aware of into symbols.

It's subjective vs. objective. I've been touching on it a lot lately. The illusion of the mind while it's in ignorance contrast to the reality of the objective universe. If the words and concepts have no relation to the actual facts and mechanisms of objective reality then that reality becomes misunderstood. In an attempt to hold onto this misunderstood reality, for whatever reason, we create tools called faith and belief. But eternal universal objective knowledge is where truth is beheld.

reply to post by schrodingers dog
The term "prohibition sign" is just that, a term. It does not represent a thought. It represents the expression of the thought of whomever came up with the term.

I've read all of your comments, and for some reason you do not differentiate a verbally expressed thought from the originating thought itself. No one can do that for you. It can't be explained in a book. You simply have to be familiar enough with the ever changing landscape of your own mind in order to know that thoughts and verbal expressions of thoughts are not the same thing. I'm telling you that there is a difference, but it doesn't mean much if you do not know what I and others are talking about.

I was about 12 years old I was hanging out with some Mexican American friends when another came up and told a joke in Spanish. They all were cracking up and laughing and I wanted to hear the joke. They all spoke English as well as I did, and they all took turns trying to explain the joke to me but it just wasn't funny. They all had to admit that the joke wasn't funny when translated, and we sat there trying to figure out why but couldn't. I am not sure what I learned from this experience except that I was limited in my ability communicate with people that I liked a lot.

reply to post by Areal51


I think some wires are getting crossed.
I have come to the realization in the OP coming from a different pov.
Your self awareness is achieved by using the same tool to analyze what you are trying to analyze. That is to say the mind.
I have come to know what I have shared in the OP though countless hours of meditation and self-awareness through the eyes of no mind.
Any great artist, indeed every great mathematician will tell you that their greatest breakthroughs or in the case of artists their greatest creations, have come when their mind is still and devoid of the verbal noise that is their usual state.
Still the fact remains, as you and I sit here and type back and forth, there's no getting away from the fact that both of our brains are working within the confines of our linguistic limitations.

reply to post by schrodingers dog
Also, the only thing that the brain has to do is understand the meaning. It doesn't need to know any terms at all.

I only just found out that the prohibition sign is called the "prohibition sign". Previous to my post, I didn't know what term was assigned to the symbol -- I just knew what the symbol meant. I took the time to find out the term in order to make the point of my post.

The other thing is that folks who are sexually attracted to each other do not need any verbal clues, vocal or otherwise, in order to know that they are sexually attracted to one another.

Ever meet someone from a foreign country and neither of you speak the other's language? The attraction speaks for itself. No words needed.

Of course, when it comes to attraction you don't need words even if you do speak the same language. You simply know that you are attracted. Now, if you want to tell yourself that you are attracted, that's another thing altogether which does require words. But telling yourself that you are attracted when you already know that you are attracted is redundant.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
...the fact remains, as you and I sit here and type back and forth, there's no getting away from the fact that both of our brains are working within the confines of our linguistic limitations.

Yes, in order to express ideas. Ideas which may or may not have bearing in verbal understanding.

Originally posted by Areal51
reply to post by schrodingers dog

 

Of course, when it comes to attraction you don't need words even if you do speak the same language. You simply know that you are attracted. Now, if you want to tell yourself that you are attracted, that's another thing altogether which does require words. But telling yourself that you are attracted when you already know that you are attracted is redundant.

I actually agree with everything you said, except this last part.
What you are failing to realize is that what you are describing as two steps and redundant are actually one. The very split second you observe that movement within yourself of attraction it is interpreted by the brain in verbal terms. That's it, that's all I'm saying. There's no other step, unless as you say you need to repeat it to yourself.

I Hugley disagree,

We do not think in words the majority of the time, we think in Images/fellings/ sometimes we play out scenarios i our minds without any words at all.

How do you think animals think, if they have no real language, just a few brips and whatever to suggest how they are felling? They play out what they are going to do in their minds, and go through what happend in the day, not in words at all.

[edit on 21-9-2008 by monkeybus]

Alse remember there was a time when we had almost no language, that didnt make them stupid> They would still hunt for food, gather berries, light fires and build shelters. Maybe they even philosified in their minds. All with a very limited language

[edit on 21-9-2008 by monkeybus]

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
The very split second you observe that movement within yourself of attraction it is interpreted by the brain in verbal terms.

Perhaps for you that is true. For me, it's just pure understanding with nothing lost in the translation to verbal terms.

reply to post by monkeybus


I agree. However, the intricate and sophisticated concepts that some of the words bring can not always be thought of in images.

The big issue here is the definition of thought. As has been philosophized by many great minds of the past: why are we not merely considered another action and reaction of environment? Why are we holding ourselves on such a pedestal to believe that we are in control of our thoughts and not only a conduit and receptor for them? Are you not merely a reaction of your environment's actions and your environment a reaction of your actions? Are you not only the environment happening, acting and reacting to itself?

[edit on 21-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


It is Not understood why the mind works how it does, how do we gather all those random thoughts to achieve a conciencness? We have no idea.

Originally posted by Areal51

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
The very split second you observe that movement within yourself of attraction it is interpreted by the brain in verbal terms.

Perhaps for you that is true. For me, it's just pure understanding with nothing lost in the translation to verbal terms.

That's fine. I didn't actually mean to turn this into an existential conversation. I think as the thread developed the topic became too big for what I was actually trying to say. Which was just to point to the mechanism through which the brain interprets observations and the mind's limitation in this regard. I guess the point of noting that was to make the case for less mind interpretation, and to trust more in the way that life moves you, rather than the way one thinks it does. If that makes sense.

reply to post by monkeybus


It is an accumulation of our senses AND, not to forget, the words and concepts that go with those experienced senses.

Edit: Oh, and the thoughts aren't COMPLETELY random, they are what you receive, or have received through the senses while alive.

[edit on 21-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Which was just to point to the mechanism through which the brain interprets observations and the mind's limitation in this regard. I guess the point of noting that was to make the case for less mind interpretation, and to trust more in the way that life moves you, rather than the way one thinks it does. If that makes sense.

I think it makes sense. But then you really are pushing towards an existential conversation!

[edit on 21-9-2008 by Areal51]

reply to post by schrodingers dog


You put into words in this post something along the lines of how I wanted to reply to your OP.
I'm still stumbling over the explanation though.
What I mean is there are some things in Italian I can't translate correctly into English, and, some things in Sicilian that don't translate to either (well at all)...
But I KNOW what these *things* are.
I can feel them. That's the best way to put it I guess, I can feel them. Some are beautiful, some horrid, some run of the mill. Some devoid of emotion, just a *thing* to explain a task or outlook.
Just as the language is as diverse to describe every diversity out there - these non translatable things I can only feel, but still know, *are*.



... . ...

There are definitely feelings, and ideas I have that there are no known words "to my knowledge that describe. I've had to create my own words for these feelings. Most have to do with feelings.

Now perhaps there are words out there for these feelings, and I just don't know them. But if I don't know the word, how exactly am i thinking it? It goes against the whole premise of the OP.

I think more correctly and simply and obviously you can only say what you can think. But you can think a good deal more.

To me you can only think what you can say, I'd have to disagree with.

Take for instance my daughter (she's 10 and she knows what the word vicarious means). But lets pretend she didn't for this experiment.

She goes to say Europe or some other place I've never been, and then comes back and tells me, in alot of jumbled words, , but manages to get the point across that she wants me to experience what it was like in Europe through her experience.

Now she has just thought vicariously, but hasn't the proper words to explain what she is trying to tell me.

Or is she just not useing the most efficient words to explain her feelings? I suppose that could be it. She is basically describing the definition of vicarious without knowing the word.

Perhaps that is what I am doing with my "made up" words. I just am not familiar with the simpliest words that DO exist to convey these feelings. Obviously I don't know every word in the English language and thier meanings.

So in hindsight now....., I believe the OP could very well be onto something. I'd just hate to be it to be true.

Interesting discussion btw.

reply to post by Nola213


Hi Nola,
I have another thread that is a side conversation to this one that also touches on this subject but especially relative to children.

What something Is vs. What it Is called