Newsgroups: alt.consciousness,comp.ai,comp.ai.alife,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!uunet!ncrgw2.ncr.com!ncrhub6!daynews!intruder.daytonoh.ncr.com!news
From: David E. Weldon, Ph.D. <David.E.Weldon@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM>
Subject: Re: Computers--Next stage in evolution? Hmmmmmm.....
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: 149.25.61.42
Message-ID: <D6844s.Lry@intruder.daytonoh.attgis.com>
Sender: news@intruder.daytonoh.attgis.com (News administrative Login)
Reply-To: David.E.Weldon@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM (WELDOD)
Organization: AT&T Global Info Solutions
X-Newsreader: DiscussIT 2.0.1.2 for MS Windows [AT&T Software Products Division]
References: <3l72jv$3ft@scorpio.develop.bsis.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 22:36:28 GMT
Lines: 71
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:28628 comp.ai.alife:2894 comp.ai.philosophy:26388


@==========Kimbal Welch, 3/27/95==========
@
@In article <XsXSlmJEWTq5073yn@iaccess.za>, 
@spike@iaccess.za (Mark Stockton) says:
@>
@>In article <D5t31C.86A@topazio.dcc.ufmg.br>,
@>omni@topazio.dcc.ufmg.br (Lucio de Souza Coelho) wrote:
@>
@>> |> Using language *is* thought.  When I speak, I think.  
@Certainly,
@>                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
@>                                   Unfortunately, not true for everyone :)
@>
@>Only thought as you currently define it through language. The 
@brain is
@>able to process information in parallel - yet we "think" 
@sequentially
@>through our use of language. I agree that language is a tool to 
@focus 
@>thought, but it could also be considered a way of restricting 
@thought too.
@
@
@Whoa! Not so! We do think in parallel, but language does not 
@stop us from
@doing so. This is the whole basis for metaphor. Metaphors are 
@thoughts operating
@on multiple levels -- in parallel, and contrary to popular belief we 
@talk 
@and think in metaphor continuously. It is inextricably interlaced 
@into our 
@languages -- all human languages. The only restrictive element is 
@syntax
@which varies from language to language.
@
@Example:
@
@(English - slightly egocentric -- not egotistical)
@
@I see the dog
@
@(raw chinese -- feel free to correct me if this is wrong -- not 
@egocentric)
@
@I dog seeing
@
@*** with apologies to Natalie Goldberg, 
@	_Writing Down the Bones_, 
@	Shambhala Boston 1986, p. 62 ***
@
@Sorry for walking in on at middle, but my head was on fire.
@
Studies of patients with aphasia imply that we do not think in language.  Some
types of aphasia sever the link between conceptual representation in the brain
and the corresponding label for the concept in speech generation only. 
Patients in this category may understand everything you say and and construct
grammatical sentences in reply, but are stopped cold when they come to a
concept they want to express (and have known all their lives) because they've
forgotten the "word" (symbol) that represents it.

On the other hand, we can conciously force ourselves to use regular seentence
structures when thinking.  The thoughts, however, seem ponderous and pedantic
simply because another process has been invoked that slows the thoughts down
while the gramatical expression of the though is constructed.  Of course,
there might be some right/left brain individual differences here.  So you
might want to test this out yourself.

Regards,
Dave W.

