Before you learned to talk, how did you think?

Abookamongstthemany

angelica wrote:

Wow. That's awesome to hear that Abook!

Ahnimus

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Great clip form my favorite movie 'Waking Life' about language and it's inadequacies. This has bugged my so much throughout my life...that I'm communicating an emotion or thought and it's just assumed that someone understands because they say so. But how can they really understand? What if the same words hold a completely different experience or memory for them altogether?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6Ee9mW9IG8

Also, I have a memory of when I was a baby and I was screaming my head off as my grandmother was rocking me in her den. I remember so vividly screaming because I couldn't express to my grandmother that I wanted to be out in the sunlight and it was kinda dark in the den. I remember how extremely frustrated I felt not being able to communicate this with her. It was such a helpless feeling!! And after a few minutes my uncle walks in the door, picks me up and carries me to the front porch. I remember distinctly the light flooding in the room around his silhouette as the door opened and he came in. I stopped crying immediately and that's all I can recall. Almost everytime I tell this story to people they act like it's impossible to remember something form so far back but my grandmother remembered exactly when I was talking about and could retell the exact same chain of events.

I want to see that movie, and A Scanner Darkly by linklater, have you seen that one?

Abookamongstthemany

Ahnimus wrote:

I want to see that movie, and A Scanner Darkly by linklater, have you seen that one?

Yes, I liked it it, too but not nearly as much as Waking Life. Both were done using the same type of animation. Woody Harleson kind of annoyed me in Scanner, though but it's still a good film. And please watch Waking Life soon so we can discuss it. It covers so many view points, including free will and determinism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VxQuPBX1_U

soulsinging

Ahnimus wrote:

I want to see that movie, and A Scanner Darkly by linklater, have you seen that one?

that's on my list too. drugs and philosophy, does it get any better?

Ahnimus

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Yes, I liked it it, too but not nearly as much as Waking Life. Both were done using the same type of animation. Woody Harleson kind of annoyed me in Scanner, though but it's still a good film. And please watch Waking Life soon so we can discuss it. It covers so many view points, including free will and determinism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VxQuPBX1_U

I will see it asap.

Well, I watched that bit on telescopic evolution and one point I believe is wrong. He says digital comes from computers and analog from something else. It doesn't really describe what they are. Digital simply implies a binary state, on/off, 1/0. The average light switch may be considered a digital light switch because it only has two stable states, on or off. While analog is a variable, it can be in any state between on and off, or -5 volts and +5 volts. Dimmer switches are a type of light-switch using a variable transistor that allows for variable states between on and off, that would be analagous to analog.

That's semantics really, but that's the reference when talking about the difference between analogue and digital. Digital can be either -5 volts or +5 volts, while analogue could be -2.5 volts or any range between -5 and +5 volts. So, they aren't really contradictory concepts. They always profess in ads that digital is better, but in the case of the light switch, it's not. What makes digital better for coding is that currents suffer signal loss. So if using a digital encoding, if the signal received is +4.3 volts, it will be decoded as +5 volts, where as with analog, the signal would be decoded as +4.3 volts and thus be wrong. So, what he says doesn't really make any sense, that digital and analogue can exist together. Makes me a bit skeptical about the other information that is alien to me. I'd be concerned that taking it as fact may be wrong.

Ahnimus

soulsinging wrote:

that's on my list too. drugs and philosophy, does it get any better?

I heard about it on Alex Jones radio show when I used to listen to it. He mostly covered the secret government, Orwellian mood of the movie.

Spunkie

I thought in music: rhythmic flow patterns with my feet bopping on the wall by my crib.

Ahnimus

tish wrote:

I thought in music: rhythmic flow patterns with my feet bopping on the wall by my crib.

Is this a serious statement? (that big smiley face with the teeth, if someone knows the shortcut, tell me, it seems to be favored over the other one)

Abookamongstthemany

Has anyone else felt some frustration when looking up words in the dictionary and the defintions seem lacking or to be leaving some important things out? Like it's not saying exactly quite what you think of when you hear that certain word? I think dictionaries are so vague because language is so inept at really describing things as we experience them individually.

Ahnimus

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Has anyone else felt some frustration when looking up words in the dictionary and the defintions seem lacking or to be leaving some important things out? Like it's not saying exactly quite what you think of when you hear that certain word? I think dictionaries are so vague because language is so inept at really describing things as we experience them individually.

Actually, quite the contrary, word definitions tend to mean exactly what I think they mean. That may sound ridiculous, but I also studied the dictionary at age 12. Unfortunately I don't think I retained a lot of it, but I mostly learn words from the dictionary. I think the distinction of words is very important to communication. The general social atmosphere tends to reduce the number of words, limiting the descriptive quality of our language. It will use words to describe a multitude of things like "Fuck" to simplify life. But it leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

An example I can think of, of poor communication in a social context is this.

"That man is queer"
"That man is strange"
"That man is odd"

It doesn't matter which word I use, they all have a negative connotation. How can I describe a person that appears differently, has unusual behavioral patterns, without negatively stigmatizing him? I can't. I also believe that some may not take those meanings negatively, while others will take it extremely negative. I've always had communication problems because I tend to take words literally. I seriously offended my friend when I made a suggestion about the nature of homosexuality, it was a miscommunication, because I didn't intend it to be negative, I was merely basing it on what I knew and what made sense to me, but she lent me her book on Developmental Psychology and I learned information that changed my perspective. She must have realized that my opinion was the result of my knowledge and we are still very good friends. That whole situation would have been avoidable if she had granted me the doubt of my intentions or taken my words literally without the subjective social connotations.

That's what I think about it currently, in my current mental state with my current knowledge.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

soulsinging wrote:

that's on my list too. drugs and philosophy, does it get any better?

I replied to the wrong post lol

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Ahnimus wrote:

I want to see that movie, and A Scanner Darkly by linklater, have you seen that one?

I've seen it twice, it's pretty trippy... keep the bong handy..

Abookamongstthemany

Ahnimus wrote:

Actually, quite the contrary, word definitions tend to mean exactly what I think they mean. That may sound ridiculous, but I also studied the dictionary at age 12. Unfortunately I don't think I retained a lot of it, but I mostly learn words from the dictionary. I think the distinction of words is very important to communication. The general social atmosphere tends to reduce the number of words, limiting the descriptive quality of our language. It will use words to describe a multitude of things like "Fuck" to simplify life. But it leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

An example I can think of, of poor communication in a social context is this.

"That man is queer"
"That man is strange"
"That man is odd"

It doesn't matter which word I use, they all have a negative connotation. How can I describe a person that appears differently, has unusual behavioral patterns, without negatively stigmatizing him? I can't. I also believe that some may not take those meanings negatively, while others will take it extremely negative. I've always had communication problems because I tend to take words literally. I seriously offended my friend when I made a suggestion about the nature of homosexuality, it was a miscommunication, because I didn't intend it to be negative, I was merely basing it on what I knew and what made sense to me, but she lent me her book on Developmental Psychology and I learned information that changed my perspective. She must have realized that my opinion was the result of my knowledge and we are still very good friends. That whole situation would have been avoidable if she had granted me the doubt of my intentions or taken my words literally without the subjective social connotations.

That's what I think about it currently, in my current mental state with my current knowledge.

I agree that the more words we have to describe the more we can come close to actually understanding one another. But I still feel definitions will have to always be vague because it's impossible to describe words without adding in personal experience and interpretation. Saying something is one thing but living it is much more than can often expressed.

edgarcamp

Ahnimus wrote:

A question for everyone.

Does anyone remember life before language?

What did your thoughts consist of?

When you think now, what language is it?

Feed me, burb me, change my fuckin' diaper! Oh, and quit talking in that silly voice, it's annoying!
The language, help me survive 'cause I can't do it on my own. It will come up again in 40 or 50 years.

decides2dream

hmmmmmm...i do not believe i have any preverbal memories. however, i do have many memories, vague....from when quite young and although i could speak...they are more emotional/physical feeling sort of memories. so yea, actiosn that occured and how i felt, or what i saw, etc. so i would think...any memory w/o language would be at that base level of feeling, senses........visual and tactile being the most prevelant. even now i ADORE visual/tactile memories....so raw.


on a sidenote, semi-related tangent: i remember my friend from college in london...she is finnish, so obviously english not her first language. anyway, i remember after being there a year, and she was living there even longer, she mentioned how she had her first dream in english and how amazing it was that it had occured. as i do not speak any other languages, i had never thought of such a scenario before...but i thought, man...that IS fascinating/cool....

gue_barium

I remember ....

lots of things.

Commy

Ahnimus wrote:

A question for everyone.

Does anyone remember life before language?

What did your thoughts consist of?

When you think now, what language is it?

I don't think there is life before language, it being innate among human beings.

even flow?

If I don't see that breast, I may go hungry. Was indeed my second thought after, what the hell just happened.

Heatherj43

Imagry.Even today when I have to remember something, I do it thru imagry. Its almost like a photograhic memory. I usually recall the place, the people around, the clothes we all were wearing...and the exact words said. I have friends who warn others when they try to tell me the conversation went different than what I recall, to not argue with me cuz I am usually correct.
I GUESS this is the rersult of my preverbal days.
Its like I get am image of the incident more than just what was said. That alone makes the words said memorized too.

Rats of Multa

Ahnimus wrote:

It seems like it makes sense. I gotta admit though, Baraka PMd me a link to some in-depth study material on quantum mechanics and my brain is like mush right now. I didn't even get past the math part of it, I had a problem with trigonomitry the last time I attempted it, when my bro lent me his "Physics: For Scientists and Engineers" I couldn't read, because of the math.

Anyway, by tomorrow I should be able to interpret what you said

quantum mechanics is interesting. i hate math though. i dont think there will be a unified theory that truly works in our lifetime--how does one quantify psychology? or the fact of psychologies? that variable alone is infinite! let alone infinity! but i suppose im probably just thinking too far outside of the norm. i can see quantum mechanics and relativity easily being combined, via math, at some point in this new century, i just doubt that such an event is going to solve all of the problems in life. should make colonizing Io alot more fun though!