 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > What is it like to think? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 3/28/2009 5:44 AM (GMT -6) |   | OK, a blog post that I wrote this morning which I'd like some thoughts on....
M
_______________________
I suspect this is one of those hard questions which are hard because they are basic i.e. they cannot be analysed further.
Let me give a couple of examples to show what I mean by the question.
Let me briefly ask you to think about “water”. Now let me ask you what exactly it was that went through your head whilst you were thinking. I suspect there were two main things - some kind of inner audio of the word, and perhaps a couple of images of taps or lakes, or something similar. That doesn’t really, exhaust the idea of water, however - there is a level of abstraction which goes deeper than simply the word and specific examples, one that it is possible to think about but hard to pin down what the thinking is like.
Let me try another one - “Jazz”. Perhaps this time, the thoughts include some pieces you’ve heard, some musicians, some features of the music, perhaps some words that describe it “Syncopation” “Saxophones” “Improvisation”. Perhaps this last word might be one to ponder on a little more - “Improvisation” is a concept that is perhaps slightly trickier to pin down - if I ask you to tell me what you think about when you think of the word, you can probably come up with more words, and herein lies the problem.
We seem to think in words - if I ask you to think about any idea - a triangle, the number 4, a bus, you can probably come up with more words, and maybe a couple of mental pictures. Thinking is fairly self-evidently, something more than this, however - words have no content, they are merely symbols. If they don’t drag along some kind of mental content with them, then they end up being fairly meaningless. When we read a sentence, however, it’s hard to work out what this mental content could possibly be beyond the mere words that make it up. Give it a try - read the previous sentence again and try to think about what went through your mind when you read it. Anything other than some kind of inner monologue of sound? Obviously that can’t be all that went through your mind, otherwise the sentence would be wasted, but I can’t for the life of me work out what else there is that goes through my mind along with the words. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/28/2009 10:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Mark: What is it like to think?
Tom: Some people never find out. Bbbwwaahahaha!
Seriously, I like language. A lot. Fun subject.
My favorite analogy to use in working through these questions is the map/territory relationship. Maps are ‘language’. Territories are ‘experienced realities’.
Mark: …if I ask you to tell me what you think about when you think of the word, you can probably come up with more words…
Tom: We can come up with more words, but also like you said, we come up with experiences we’ve had, encounters with the realities themselves (of, say, water). Mention a feature of a ‘map’ (like the word “water,” and we’ll inevitably reference our experience of the reality).
Mark: We seem to think in words - if I ask you to think about any idea - a triangle, the number 4, a bus, you can probably come up with more words, and maybe a couple of mental pictures.
Tom: I come up with pictures or actual experiences. Only after satisfying myself with those do I run to other words. Right.
Mark: Thinking is fairly self-evidently, something more than this, however - words have no content, they are merely symbols. If they don’t drag along some kind of mental content with them, then they end up being fairly meaningless.
Tom: Right on. Maps are meaningless apart from the territory they’re supposed to depict.
Mark: When we read a sentence, however, it’s hard to work out what this mental content could possibly be beyond the mere words that make it up. Give it a try - read the previous sentence again and try to think about what went through your mind when you read it. Anything other than some kind of inner monologue of sound? Obviously that can’t be all that went through your mind, otherwise the sentence would be wasted, but I can’t for the life of me work out what else there is that goes through my mind along with the words.
Tom: The other things that go through your mind when you hear a sentence are all the experiences (experienced realities) you associate with the words (we’re learned to associate each word with a particular slice of experience; each word opens that filed experience), and the combined meaning of those words when arranged in that particular order. Experienced realities are behind all of it. That’s the only way we find meaning in language, including the first sentence of your previous paragraph there: “It’s hard to work out what this mental content could possibly be beyond the mere words that make up the sentence.” The meaning each of those words has for us is the experienced history we associate with hearing those words. A particular word may unlock or call to mind several possible experiences, but when combined with other words, the possible meaning of any one word narrows.
What d’ya think?
T | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 3/28/2009 11:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: We can come up with more words, but also like you said, we come up with experiences we’ve had, encounters with the realities themselves (of, say, water). Mention a feature of a ‘map’ (like the word “water,” and we’ll inevitably reference our experience of the reality).
Mark: Yup, although, again, even these are rather hard to pin down. If I interrogate the nature of a mental image, it very quickly dissolves into nothingness
Tom: The other things that go through your mind when you hear a sentence are all the experiences (experienced realities) you associate with the words (we’re learned to associate each word with a particular slice of experience; each word opens that filed experience), and the combined meaning of those words when arranged in that particular order. Experienced realities are behind all of it. That’s the only way we find meaning in language, including the first sentence of your previous paragraph there: “It’s hard to work out what this mental content could possibly be beyond the mere words that make up the sentence.” The meaning each of those words has for us is the experienced history we associate with hearing those words. A particular word may unlock or call to mind several possible experiences, but when combined with other words, the possible meaning of any one word narrows.
Mark: I suppose my BIG issue here, is that introspectively I simply can't find these things, all I can find is the words. There is no sense data, or even quasi-sense data, there is nothing it *feels* like... When I read a sentence I imagine that I understand it, but I can't seem to pin this down into anything experiential or meaningful. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 3/28/2009 11:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Mark: When I read a sentence I imagine that I understand it, but I can't seem to pin this down into anything experiential or meaningful.
Jeff: What is it, then, that you are responding to in Tom's sentences? Seemingly you are inferring meaning from his sentences. We ABSTRACT common attributes from several SPECIFIC experiences and define words with them such that we can INFUSE those abstracted, common attributes into the words in other sentences. It is not important that our specifically imagined images are the same as someone else's or the author's. What is important is that the generic attributes are sufficient to give the required specificity of meaning for the author to create an intended effect in the recipient.
You and I can read the same book and create significantly different images. The events in the plot might affect us differently because of our inherent differences in sensibilities. And YET, with all that variety, we may still experience a shared effect that the author intended us to have. Because of some commonness, due to our shared humanity, abstractions can have this kind of effect/value on/for us. Thus, we can communicate effectively so long as our teleological ends of those communications are attained to some satisfactory degree. In most cases, it's a degree thang, not an either/or thang, that we're after. With math, on the other hand, we might want great specificity. And fortunately, mathematical propositions and terms ARE less ambiguous and equivocal than those that are used to generate feelings and images.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/28/2009 11:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Mark: If I interrogate the nature of a mental image, it very quickly dissolves into nothingness,
Tom: Hmmm. By "the nature of a mental image" do you mean HOW consciousness works sentiently? I don't think anybody's really unpacked that. I thought you were talking about how specific words communicate/express meaning. When I inquire into this, it kind lays out nicely. When I inquire into the former, I notice how mysterious it becomes, but it doesn't dissolve into nothingness. I must be missing your point.
Mark: I suppose my BIG issue here, is that introspectively I simply can't find these things, all I can find is the words. There is no sense data, or even quasi-sense data, there is nothing it *feels* like... When I read a sentence I imagine that I understand it, but I can't seem to pin this down into anything experiential or meaningful.
Tom: I think it functions prevolitionally and subconsciously. If we had to consciously/intentionally chase down the whole history of our experience linked to the sound of the word "water," we'd never finish even the simplest of conversations. But our brains operate so quickly beneath the surface to make the link between our hearing "water" and the history of experience linked to this word which gives "water" its meaning. That's why when I hear "water" my mind immediately opens I file all the experienced realities (with water) that have etched themselves in my memory. The imagines flutter through so fast. The more words I add to the word "water" to narrow the meaning, like "a drink of water," the more each word's specific meaning narrows.
I might not be following ya, because when I read a sentence, all I get is vast bulletin board of my life's history of experiences called to mind by the mention of the words in that sentence. Ultimately a well-constructed sentence will narrow all the possible meanings to one.
The thing that makes language work SOCIALLY (how it's able to communicate between different persons) is the shared history of experience. Apart from a shared context of experience, linguistic communication would be impossible.
TPost Edited (Tom) : 3/28/2009 11:42:52 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/28/2009 11:44 AM (GMT -6) | | When I hear the word "water" I recall sense data. I don't ACTUALLY experience those data again (i.e., I don't get wet when I hear the word "water" , but the experience of water comes to mind. I remember it.
T | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 3/28/2009 11:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: What is it, then, that you are responding to in Tom's sentences? Seemingly you are inferring meaning from his sentences. We ABSTRACT common attributes from several SPECIFIC experiences and define words with them such that we can INFUSE those abstracted, common attributes into the words in other sentences. It is not important that our specifically imagined images are the same as someone else's or the author's. What is important is that the generic attributes are sufficient to give the required specificity of meaning for the author to create an intended effect in the recipient.
Mark: OK, sure, that makes sense in theory - I'm just trying to pin it down in my own experience, and work out, for example, what it *feels* like, to think about that abstraction (over/above something concrete?), because generally, it seems to be hiding somewhere in the back of my mind, not willing to come to the front where I can grab at it.Post Edited (markporter) : 3/28/2009 11:59:34 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 3/28/2009 11:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: Hmmm. By "the nature of a mental image" do you mean HOW consciousness works sentiently? I don't think anybody's really unpacked that. I thought you were talking about how specific words communicate/express meaning. When I inquire into this, it kind lays out nicely. When I inquire into the former, I notice how mysterious it becomes, but it doesn't dissolve into nothingness. I must be missing your point.
Mark: OK, perhaps myseriousness it is, then, rather than nothingness.
Tom: I think it functions prevolitionally and subconsciously. If we had to consciously/intentionally chase down the whole history of our experience linked to the sound of the word "water," we'd never finish even the simplest of conversations. But our brains operate so quickly beneath the surface to make the link between our hearing "water" and the history of experience linked to this word which gives "water" its meaning. That's why when I hear "water" my mind immediately opens I file all the experienced realities (with water) that have etched themselves in my memory. The imagines flutter through so fast. The more words I add to the word "water" to narrow the meaning, like "a drink of water," the more each word's specific meaning narrows.
Mark: Agreed that most of it happens somewhere subconsciously, but it's the conscious aspect that I'm trying to pin down - to try and pin down what is introspectively *there* somehow when I go about reading or thinking in fairly abstract or general ways.
Tom: When I hear the word "water" I recall sense data. I don't ACTUALLY experience those data again (i.e., I don't get wet when I hear the word "water", but the experience of water comes to mind. I remember it.
Mark: Perhaps this is another part of my problem - the only thing that I do find easy to somehow get a grip on seems to be some kind of actual sense data. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that when reading the word "water" fairly quickly in a sentence (rather than spending time meditating/pondering on it) I tend to even recall any sense data. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 3/28/2009 12:08 PM (GMT -6) | | | Mark: I'm just trying to pin it down in my own experience, and work out, for example, what it *feels* like, to think about that abstraction (over/above something concrete?), because generally, it seems to be hiding somewhere in the back of my mind, not willing to come to the front where I can grab at it.
Jeff: Yeah, I'm with you on that. But we can remember if certain kinds of sensory experiences are pleasurable or not. IOW, we have SOME information even when we can't get a handle on the actual sensory data itself. Moreover, I know hearing is different than smelling even if I can't generate, via my imagination, a sensory equivalent of the smell of coffee. These kinds of distinctions are known by abstraction even though they can't be replicated by imagination. And for much of the intent of communication, this is sufficient information. An author might even be more interested in creating an EMOTION in the recipient. And sometimes, describing sense-information can contribute to that end simply because of the nature of complex experiences. I.e., some emotions are aroused in part by a contribution of sensory experience to the WHOLE experience. And emotions, unlike sensations, CAN be generated by communications in a manner similar to non-verbally aroused emotion.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 3/28/2009 12:13:02 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 3/28/2009 12:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: creating an EMOTION in the recipient
Mark: another one that seems kinda hard to latch onto - maybe because I've been prioritising sense data, but emotions have this same quality of semi-abstraction, not being physically felt or seen, or whatever - they are hard to pin down. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/28/2009 3:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Maybe a good question for us is: What is it like NOT to think while retaining presence/awareness?
In other words, what happens when we "witness" our thoughts and emotions without directly identifying ourselves with those thoughts and emotions. What happens when we turn our overused minds off for a while?
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."
"God in Christ by His Spirit empowers, enables, energizes and enacts all Christian behavior and ministry as the dynamic expression of the life of Jesus Christ. Christianity is Christ. Christian living is the life and character of Jesus Christ lived out through the Christian." -James Fowler | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 3/29/2009 4:10 AM (GMT -6) | | jeff: Do you ever get butterflies in your stomach and what not? Don't know about you, but I can get that from TV or reading. SO if the author of the words is trying to affect that feeling in me, the meaning of those words was effectual.
Mark: Sure, sometimes - but physical feelings don't seem to exhaust emotions | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/29/2009 5:41 AM (GMT -6) | | I can't seem to pinpoint what your question or issue is anymore, Mark.
T | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/29/2009 5:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Another Map/Territory example. Take the difference between a sheet of music and the actual performance of that piece of music. The notes on the page (like sentences, linked together) meant to describe the reality of particular sounds and chords--map and territory.
For those who have experienced hearing and enjoying music and also speak the language of sheet music, the sheet music is meaningful in the sense that it calls to mind a fresh experience (via memory) of the sounds. But suppose someone has never even heard music and has no idea what music even is, what it sounds like, or the effects it has upon the hearers. To that person sheet music cannot possibly be meaningful. It's just blots of ink of paper. But to those who have heard music and know what it is, those blots of ink reinvigorate memories of one's experience of that particular son or concerto. That's my point. Words function in the same way. Apart from a history of experience of the reality which the tokens (words, notes, syllables spoken or blots of ink on paper) are meant to represent, those token are meaningless.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 3/29/2009 7:27 AM (GMT -6) | | OK, Tom, let me have another go.
The way that you're explaining things to me seems to go something like this; A sentence is meaningful because it calls to mind certain experiences (perceptual/sense experiences?) which it relates together in certain ways, and this is why and how I understand what it means.
Having just typed the last sentence, however, I was utterly unaware of any such experiences going through my head and giving it meaning - no sense data, no quasi-sense/imagined data, just some kind of inner audio relaying the words of the sentence. There evidently was *something* other than the inner audio, otherwise the sentence would be utterly meaningless, but it doesn't seem to be something I can particularly easily become aware of. I remain fairly unconvinced that finding meaning in propositional sentences equates with imagining anything. | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 3/29/2009 7:49 AM (GMT -6) | | | Maybe, to put it another way. What I find it fairly easy to believe are consciously real are feelings - hot, cold, redness etc. I can't quite grasp what it means to be conscious of something intellectually. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/29/2009 8:29 AM (GMT -6) | | In my view to 'conceive' intellectually (i.e., abstractly) is to "map" (i.e., to build off of) the same concrete experience. What we call 'love' (the abstraction) is just that way of relating (viz., a particular kind of experience) that aims to bring about a certain satisfaction, pleasure, or contentment. We're thinking 'abstractly' in the sense that we're naming (mapping) an overarching reality or "way the world is" which accounts for our experiencing it a certain way. So the abstraction "love" (or any abstraction--beauty, justice, goodness, evil, etc.) is just another way we inscribe on the map of our language a way we experience the world, so we can bring our experience to bare (with just a word) upon our conversations with ourselves and others without having to retell the whole story of our lives.
TPost Edited (Tom) : 3/29/2009 8:35:06 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/29/2009 8:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Flash thought, Tom.
Is it possible for a human to experience the "territory" directly without using a "map"? If so, what does that look like?
I'm starting to think that this leads to the differentiation between the psychological (dealing with thoughts, feelings, and emotions) and the spiritual. I mean, doesn't our spiritual nature allow us to experience God directly without thoughts and/or emotions, or is is the case that all experience of God must be mediated by the psychological?
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."
"God in Christ by His Spirit empowers, enables, energizes and enacts all Christian behavior and ministry as the dynamic expression of the life of Jesus Christ. Christianity is Christ. Christian living is the life and character of Jesus Christ lived out through the Christian." -James Fowler Post Edited (One Love) : 3/29/2009 8:36:35 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/29/2009 8:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Frankly, I think a lot of the meaning-making that our brains do is pretty unconscious and subconscious. Our conscious self-reflection only catches bits of what's really going on. Growing human mind/brains just make meaning, even before any real experience of self-reflection is evident to the human. Think about a baby learning human culture and language. Not a conscious process at all.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am. God is my life."
"God in Christ by His Spirit empowers, enables, energizes and enacts all Christian behavior and ministry as the dynamic expression of the life of Jesus Christ. Christianity is Christ. Christian living is the life and character of Jesus Christ lived out through the Christian." -James Fowler | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/29/2009 8:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Oh yeah, D. For sure. Pre-linguistic experiences of fear, safety, taste (sweetness, saltiness, etc.) are all experiences of reality. You don't need the map to HAVE the experience.
T | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 3/29/2009 8:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Ok, I think this is beginning to make a bit of sense now. Perhaps, Tom, you could do one more thing for me. Could you read the sentence posted above
"Frankly, I think a lot of the meaning-making that our brains do is pretty unconscious and subconscious. Our conscious self-reflection only catches bits of what's really going on."
and describe to me what you are conscious of going through your mind as you read it. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 3/29/2009 9:11 AM (GMT -6) | | | Mark: I remain fairly unconvinced that finding meaning in propositional sentences equates with imagining anything.
Jeff: Consider this analogy. Infants have to learn how to judge distance by trial and error experience. Sight is basically a 2-D sense. We watch movies on a 2-D screen and yet we know how to interpret distance. Adults who are native to dense jungles and forests have to learn by trial and error experience when they are abruptly brought to wide open spaces. Same with folks who aren't used to judging how far away a mountain is. Yet, once those lessons are learned, we make distance judgments almost instantaneously. When driving, if you see a dog crossing the road in front of you, you almost instantly know how and whether to adjust your speed for the dog based on your distance estimation.
Likewise, certain kinds of thought may occur so quickly, there is no way we can both DO it and ANALYZE/OBSERVE it at the same time. But what seems quite reasonable is that we have to experience FIRST before we can use any of these apriori or abstracted relations LATER. Association, itself, works very rapidly. I'm assuming it is association that brings to mind the proper WORD for my CONCEPTS when communicating. It happens almost instantaneously. All kinds of thought events happen almost instantaneously from our perspective.
Moreover, things like association DO occur non-volitionally. And in that sense, they ARE subconscious. The process, IOW, is subconscious, but the results are not. The results are what is "given" to conscious thought. If I try to remember something, e.g., I'm basically stimulating associations (though I have no control over the laws of association) until the one occurs that corresponds to the past event I'm trying to remember. Once it occurs, I RECOGNIZE it as an experience that actually occurred in the past.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 3/29/2009 10:36:04 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/29/2009 12:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: Likewise, certain kinds of thought may occur so quickly, there is no way we can both DO it and ANALYZE/OBSERVE it at the same time. But what seems quite reasonable is that we have to experience FIRST before we can use any of these apriori or abstracted relations LATER….and…Moreover, things like association DO occur non-volitionally. And in that sense, they ARE subconscious. The process, IOW, is subconscious, but the results are not.
Tom: Right, that’s how I’m seeing it too.
Mark: Ok, I think this is beginning to make a bit of sense now. Perhaps, Tom, you could do one more thing for me. Could you read the sentence posted above: "Frankly, I think a lot of the meaning-making that our brains do is pretty unconscious and subconscious. Our conscious self-reflection only catches bits of what's really going on" and describe to me what you are conscious of going through your mind as you read it.
Tom: Well, the only thing I’m actually ‘conscious’ of is the resultant meaning, i.e., the final product that comes about as a result of what I’ve tried to describe. Like Jeff said, the process occurs subconsciously and pretty much immediately. Nobody needs to take the time to consciously connect each word to a history of experience that gives that word it’s precisely meaning before they’re able to find meaning in language. But if we wanted to, I think we can approximate what’s going on. Each word’s (“frankly,” “I,” “lot,” “brain,” etc.) meaning is grounded in the experiences I’ve had which I’ve learned to connect to that word (the experiences of “being honest,” of “myself as a perceiving/thinking thing,” of learning to quantify over amounts [your “a lot”], and of the thing inside our heads that medical science has taught us is where all this thinking happens), etc.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
| 32 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:58 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|