Horsebox. You are still not being true to yourself. How do you write on this board if you don't think the words out first. When you read my first reply I bet you didn't conjure up a picture of me. You actually thought "What an idiot, he doesn't know me at all". This may be true but it certainly isn't a picture it's a word thought.
When I word out things I'm thinking, if I'm angry they sound a whole lot worse than they look. I'm always surprised by how callous they sound. Actually I pictured you as your avatar lol. I thought of that little 3D man automatically assuming the way he thinks is the way everyone else thinks. Theres bad emotions attached to that mental picture but no words. The words come to me automatically, if I'm writing philosophical things I usually need to think about the best words to use. This is something I've had to work on my whole life because theres nothing more frustrating than not having to words to communicate my thoughts. Sometimes people would act like they've won an argument when in reality I can see how flawed their argument is but I don't have the words to explain why.
You are very lucky traveler; and you know why? Because you can make a statement and get away with it. On the other hand, my post was deleted under this very same thread. Gloucon, happened to be moderator of this "General Philosophy" section, did not admit that he applied double standard, instead he claimed that my post "was not a contribution, but it was a statement". Why do I emphasize this "General Philosophy" issue, because I still believe -and made my argument above- that this topic does not belong to philosophy, yet nobody either defended or rejected this argument yet. Simply ignored. I think one must either have some "friends" in this forum, or complete unclear numbers of posts; other than this, it's up to moderator to decide what is statement and what is contribution, or who is allowed to make statements and get away with it and who is not... My deleted post was saying that I am not thinking anymore thanks to internet. Because simply you can google any concept -a subject for thinking- on internet and results lead many other concepts -both linguistic and visual-. This is an issue, a tool, a method on the main topic "How do you think?". And guess what, I haven't received any proper explanation on why my post was deleted yet... Other than this arbitrary "contribution/statement" one liner...
I would say it's more that you are not aware of inner-voice/speech problems: http://callierlibrary.wordpress.com...ed-with-greater-nonverbal-than-verbal-skills/ http://callierlibrary.wordpress.com...oles-of-verbal-ability-and-cognitive-profile/ http://www.3dlearner.com/beat-dysle...isunderstandings-Does-Dyslexia-Mean-I-Am-Dumb http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1263307/Do-hear-voice-head-read-If--dyslexic.html
I didn't need to 'philosophize' it; this is the philosophy forum. If there's a thread in here... it's going to be discussed from a philosophical POV. That's your opinion... Obviously, you have no experience whatsoever with philosophy of mind (which historically provided all the bases for the cognitive approach...). Of course, I can admit that, as it's worded, the OP is terribly vague. In any case, until we get clarification form the OP, we'll just have to do our best... from a philosophical perspective.
Mod Note: baftan, this kind of meta-discussion is technically offtopic. I advise you to refrain from such in the future. The next one will merit you a Warning.
I can take this as an open challenge, as I am very curious about your experience with philosophy of mind and keen to hear these "historically provided" bases. Just for this reason, this issue requires a separate logical scrutiny. Here I started the thread and waiting for "contributions": "Thinking and Philosophy"/General Philosophy; Link: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2549542#post2549542
Problems with thinking in pictures come in when I'm learning stuff like chemistry because everythings in words I have to spend ages looking for visual tutorials. Pisses me off because I waste loads of time just looking for pictures. Same goes for physics and biology when I read the words I don't necessarily know what the hell they mean its only when I form mental pictures which I'm sure are correct do I gain the new knowledge.
It wasn't meant as any sort of challenge. I was merely pointing out that, as worded, you seemed to be unfamiliar with philosophy of mind, in general, given that you were wondering how philosophy could be applicable in that particular arena. It should go without saying that, since at least the time of Socrates (perhaps the PreSocratics...) philosophy of mind has been at the forefront of the discipline.. In any case, I've read your OP on the new thread and it's obvious now that you are familiar with the topic. I'll also add, the OP there is well worded and very nicely composed. I'll most likely refrain from posting in it for some time; I'd like to see how the discussion develops, as I'm sure there are quite a few here who would love to wade into it. For now though, I will say that this: is an astute observation and (once some concerns regarding the definition of "object" are cleared up..) of the utmost importance to the topic. Nicely done baftan.
I felt ashamed now for my behaviour. Although I already gave up to resuscitate my lost post, my initial aim was not to blunder this thread. Quite oppositely, I was trying to open a different perspective, a different ground for discussion. I was expecting someone was going to question/attack my post and I was going to reply in explanatory fashion. Probably it was my misunderstanding about the culture of this forum. Maybe I should have made some more explanatory remarks in terms of providing some clues about my intentions. Thank you anyway, no hard feelings...
i tend to think in terms of mathematics and logic. like everything's a puzzle i put together. lots of if's, then's, constraints, and potential results. i would never give you an answer to that right away because i would have a lot to think about.
Not at all. I probably jumped the gun too quickly. Though, it was hard to determine what the actual topic was, as I said, given the hyper-vague OP. Cheers.
Assuming it is a condition from birth, they would presumably never have had a voice that they needed to internalise... so might possibly think in pictures, or perhaps they might even have an inner voice that sounds like one or more people they've heard speaking... associated to whatever it is they're thinking about? People deaf from birth, on the other hand, must surely think exclusively in pictures (or printed words) - possibly sign language?
I agree. Yeah, I was merely trying to provide a counterfactual... Just because A thinks they think in manner P, it doesn't necessarily follow that all must then think in P....
do you mean a deaf person? a mute person would know how words and voices sound. even if they can't use their voice, they could imagine one in their mind.
