thinking in language

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

thinking in language

Post by Advocate »

People who say that they think in pictures, if they are correct, inherently cannot understand certain concepts, which require thinking in words just like certain spacial puzzles require thinking in pictures. The kind of topic they cannot understand is a higher-order kind. Simpler ideas can be adequately expressed in pictures; complex ideas can usually ONLY be expressed in words. Given the evolutionary track record of using higher/expanding brain functions, people who think in pictures are literally less cognitively evolved.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: thinking in language

Post by Skepdick »

Your argument amounts to nothing more than "Algebra is the best! Geometry sucks!" when in practice the two are closely related.

If you want to have any sort of "applicable" knowledge Geometric (picturesque) understanding of algebraic truths is a useful intuition pump.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: thinking in language

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Skepdick post_id=483553 time=1607270228 user_id=17350]
Your argument amounts to nothing more than "Algebra is the best! Geometry sucks!" when in practice the two are closely related.

If you want to have any sort of "applicable" knowledge Geometric (picturesque) understanding of algebraic truths is a useful intuition pump.
[/quote]

They are not different types of understanding, as you're saying i'm saying, they're different Levels of understanding; is the point. The analogy is more like drawing with crayons v. using AutoCad. You simply cannot manage complex ideas in pictures.
Impenitent
Posts: 4330
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: thinking in language

Post by Impenitent »

I picture that any architect worth his salt can draw most any complex

-Imp
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: thinking in language

Post by Skepdick »

Advocate wrote: Sun Dec 06, 2020 5:11 pm They are not different types of understanding, as you're saying i'm saying, they're different Levels of understanding; is the point. The analogy is more like drawing with crayons v. using AutoCad. You simply cannot manage complex ideas in pictures.
I don't think they are different "levels" - I think they are isomorphic representations of the same understanding.

The medium you are using to represent those ideas makes certain operations easier than others.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: thinking in language

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Skepdick post_id=483598 time=1607284327 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=483556 time=1607271091 user_id=15238]
They are not different types of understanding, as you're saying i'm saying, they're different Levels of understanding; is the point. The analogy is more like drawing with crayons v. using AutoCad. You simply cannot manage complex ideas in pictures.
[/quote]
I don't think they are different "levels" - I think they are isomorphic representations of the same understanding.

The medium you are using to represent those ideas makes certain operations easier than others.
[/quote]

Another version might clarify: Ideas expressed in images are as a whole less complex and in particular less specific than ideas expressed in words.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: thinking in language

Post by Belinda »

I gather that when Advocate says "complex ideas" he means logical relations such as if=then , if-then, despite, and also explicit and singular measurements. These are linear causations. Pictures and maps depict all-at-once causations.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: thinking in language

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 1:08 pm I gather that when Advocate says "complex ideas" he means logical relations such as if=then , if-then, despite, and also explicit and singular measurements. These are linear causations. Pictures and maps depict all-at-once causations.
The trouble with all geometric representations is the number of dimensions at play.

Linearity is a dimension. In Mathematics it's a vector, or we can simply call it "time"

Linear relations of pictures are simply movies/animations.

I think what he means by "complex" is "beyond the intuition of 4 spacetime dimensions" that we are all accustomed to.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: thinking in language

Post by Belinda »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 1:17 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 1:08 pm I gather that when Advocate says "complex ideas" he means logical relations such as if=then , if-then, despite, and also explicit and singular measurements. These are linear causations. Pictures and maps depict all-at-once causations.
The trouble with all geometric representations is the number of dimensions at play.

Linearity is a dimension. In Mathematics it's a vector, or we can simply call it "time"

Linear relations of pictures are simply movies/animations.

I think what he means by "complex" is "beyond the intuition of 4 spacetime dimensions" that we are all accustomed to.
I believe you, and I follow most of what you say here. But my maths education is sketchy unfortunately for me. So I do not know what vectors are and if I google, the explanation I fear will be beyond my understanding.Are vectors represented by lines on multidimensional graphs? Is vector another word for dimension?
Would a multi-dimensional graph be a 3-dimensional object that changes over time?

Is there a simple enough explanation in pictorial form of "beyond the intuition of 4 spacetime dimensions" ? If so, I can see no reason such dimensions exist for the perception of mind-brains that are embodied in multi-dimensional habitats.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: thinking in language

Post by Walker »

Advocate wrote: Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:44 pm People who say that they think in pictures, if they are correct, inherently cannot understand certain concepts, which require thinking in words just like certain spacial puzzles require thinking in pictures. The kind of topic they cannot understand is a higher-order kind. Simpler ideas can be adequately expressed in pictures; complex ideas can usually ONLY be expressed in words. Given the evolutionary track record of using higher/expanding brain functions, people who think in pictures are literally less cognitively evolved.
I once saw a profile on the TV about a mathematical savant.

He could perform prodigious mathematical feats in an instant.

With the help of machines the scientists determined that he did all his mathematical processing with his visual cortex, so that he saw mathematics in a holistic way, as one instantly grasps the totality of a tree in a glance.

So, aren’t mathematical calculations considered to be higher-order thinking? Or, is it something far grander.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: thinking in language

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Walker post_id=483667 time=1607353994 user_id=11599]
[quote=Advocate post_id=483549 time=1607269494 user_id=15238]
People who say that they think in pictures, if they are correct, inherently cannot understand certain concepts, which require thinking in words just like certain spacial puzzles require thinking in pictures. The kind of topic they cannot understand is a higher-order kind. Simpler ideas can be adequately expressed in pictures; complex ideas can usually ONLY be expressed in words. Given the evolutionary track record of using higher/expanding brain functions, people who think in pictures are literally less cognitively evolved.
[/quote]
I once saw a profile on the TV about a mathematical savant.

He could perform prodigious mathematical feats in an instant.

With the help of machines the scientists determined that he did all his mathematical processing with his visual cortex, so that he saw mathematics in a holistic way, as one instantly grasps the totality of a tree in a glance.

So, aren’t mathematical calculations considered to be higher-order thinking? Or, is it something far grander.
[/quote]

Sure, but i also want to draw a line between math as practical and math as pure abstraction. A set containing itself, for example, is low-order thinking because nothing in reality ever works that way. String theory is pure abstraction in that way but it has at least a practical purpose in helping us speculate about alternatives. However, ideas like consciousness cannot be expressed in pictures at all. Even a photograph pales in comparison to a verbal description at anything other than surface-level purposes.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: thinking in language

Post by Skepdick »

Belinda wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:55 pm Are vectors represented by lines on multidimensional graphs?
Not lines, but arrows. Vectors have magnitude/directionality. Lines don't.
Belinda wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:55 pm Would a multi-dimensional graph be a 3-dimensional object that changes over time?
Sure. You could think of it that way.

A 3D object in 3 dimensions is a still/unmoving thing.
A 3D object with a 4th dimension (time) is the 3D object rotating.
Belinda wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:55 pm Is there a simple enough explanation in pictorial form of "beyond the intuition of 4 spacetime dimensions" ?
Not in pictorial form because a picture has only 2 Dimensions, a series of pictures makes 3 dimensions (a movie).

A trivial intuition would be a movie hologram ( 4 dimensions). If you hit the "pause" button and freeze it in time it becomes 3 dimensional.
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: thinking in language

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Skepdick post_id=483680 time=1607357909 user_id=17350]
[quote=Belinda post_id=483663 time=1607352944 user_id=12709]
Are vectors represented by lines on multidimensional graphs?
[/quote]
Not lines, but arrows. Vectors have magnitude/directionality. Lines don't.

[quote=Belinda post_id=483663 time=1607352944 user_id=12709]
Would a multi-dimensional graph be a 3-dimensional object that changes over time?
[/quote]
Sure. You could think of it that way.

A 3D object in 3 dimensions is a still/unmoving thing.
A 3D object with a 4th dimension (time) is the 3D object rotating.

[quote=Belinda post_id=483663 time=1607352944 user_id=12709]
Is there a simple enough explanation in pictorial form of "beyond the intuition of 4 spacetime dimensions" ?
[/quote]
Not in pictorial form because a picture has only 2 Dimensions, a series of pictures makes 3 dimensions (a movie).

A trivial intuition would be a movie hologram ( 4 dimensions). If you hit the "pause" button and freeze it in time it becomes 3 dimensional.
[/quote]

There is nothing special about dimensions in space. Any attribute that can be measured on a relative scale is a dimension. Leftness/rightness is not distinct from amount of yellowness as far as how we work with them. Spacial dimensions are merely relative to our senses in a particular way. Also, the reason we use 3 dimensions is that it's the simplest way (smallest number) to represent those senses, left-right for vision/hearing, up/down for proprioception/skin pressure on our feet, forward/back for movement, accessibility, bounding purposes.
Last edited by Advocate on Mon Dec 07, 2020 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: thinking in language

Post by Skepdick »

Advocate wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:22 pm A set containing itself, for example, is low-order thinking because nothing in reality ever works that way.
You have that backwards.

The set of ALL sets is the highest order set, because the ALL Complexity class is the highest complexity class.

Formal languages are engineered to avoid contradictions. To this purpose unrestricted comprehension leads directly to Russel's paradox.

Russel's paradox and its Type-theoretic equivalent - Girard's paradox only occur at the highest levels of abstraction.
Advocate wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 4:22 pm However, ideas like consciousness cannot be expressed in pictures at all.
That depends on what you mean by "expression". For the purposes of communicating the concept of "consciousness" to another human - sure.

For the purpose of teaching a machine how to be conscious - the only way of expression is formal.
Skepdick
Posts: 14364
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: thinking in language

Post by Skepdick »

Advocate wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 5:26 pm There is nothing special about dimensions in space. Any attribute that can be measured on a relative scale is a dimension. Leftness/rightness is not distinct from amount of yellowness as far as the variety of pattern it is.
Then you have infinite attributes, and therefore - infinite dimensions.

Relative to "left" and "right" you can also measure a "centre".
Relative to [ left, centre, right] you can measure centre-left and centre-right.
Relative to [ left, centre-left, centre, centre-right, right ]

etc etc. you can always synthesize more and more relative coordinates.

And you can always invent operators like < which take two arguments, and then x < y can be interpreted as "x is to the left of y".

And so centre-left < right -> True
but
centre-right < centre-left -> False

And you can have operator > where x > y can be interpreted as "x is to the right of y" So on and so forth...

In computer science we call this process reification
Last edited by Skepdick on Mon Dec 07, 2020 5:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply