Ambrosia Software Web Board: Language corrupts the mind - Ambrosia Software Web Board

This is an idea I've had for a rather long time, and it's really quite alarming, so I wanted to post it on the boards. Hopefully, whatever feedback I get will either confirm my worst fears or confirm my (false?) hopes.

My reasoning is pretty straightforward:

1) The human mind integrates language to an extent in which it 'thinks' using that language.
2) Such thoughts proceed as slowly as ordinary use of language between other people would allow.
3) The human mind has the ability to think faster than you can talk.

Conclusion: Language slows down the human mind to the rate at which you use language in ordinary conversation.

I happen to know for sure that 1 and 2 are correct, as I myself cannot think faster than I speak (and I'm pretty intelligent y'know). Once can only assume number 3 is correct, I myself have a strong belief in the capacity of the human mind. So, is the conclusion I draw only logical or what?

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people, those who can count, and those who can't.

Ouch...that's a nasty thought...

I really don't know about that...I wonder if people brought up without language develope telepathic abilities...would be a kind of interesting thing to test. I wonder if anyone would be wierd enough to think that that would be an ethical test, and try to prove it...


------------------
'Is that what I think it is?'
'What?'
'A big orange swirly thing in space!'
-Red Dwarf

Yes yes yes! I have been thinking the same thing myself. Every now and then I'll try not to "say" things in my mind, just to see if I can think faster... I know that I could, and yet I'm so used to thinking slowly.

I think I first started thinking slowly when I read comic strips in the newspaper when I was around 6, and I saw that the people had little thought bubbles with words. I thought to myself (not in words), "Maybe I should try that, if that's the normal way." Since then, I have generally been thinking more slowly, although possibly more clearly.

Or something like that. However the point is that I agree completely with what you're saying.

------------------
-Joolzman
hector: Joolzman is only 14, so the truth is that he is nowhere near impotence.
xmattWerk: I would agree that Joolzman is a lamer...
[url="http://"http://www.angelfire.com/mac/joolzman/index.html"]EV Nova: Thin Ice[/url] | [url="http://"http://www.toolband.com"]Tool[/url] | [url="http://"http://www.nbci.com/conan"]America's Favorite Irishman![/url]

On second thought...

After I wrote that post I realized that I hadn't really been thinking to myself in words. Or had I? Oh man. But maybe if I was thinking about the post and what I would say...

I think I need some sleep.

------------------
-Joolzman
hector: Joolzman is only 14, so the truth is that he is nowhere near impotence.
xmattWerk: I would agree that Joolzman is a lamer...
[url="http://"http://www.angelfire.com/mac/joolzman/index.html"]EV Nova: Thin Ice[/url] | [url="http://"http://www.toolband.com"]Tool[/url] | [url="http://"http://www.nbci.com/conan"]America's Favorite Irishman![/url]

Quote

I couldn't agree less. Though phonetic relation is an important thought function, it is one of many unique thought patterns. I think the human brain deserves a little more credit.


------------------
The Oracular Net would like to know your favorite color
[url="http://"http://www.axisnet.f2s.com"]=Axis Software Integrated=[/url]

Even if the part of the mind which uses language is only a very small part, it is obviously very important. Hence the fact that our actual 'consciousness' is intimately linked with words. Whether the continued use of words actually degrades the mind, is of course yet to be seen.

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.

I don't think it actually "corrupts" or "degrades" the mind, only slows it down.

------------------
-Joolzman
hector: Joolzman is only 14, so the truth is that he is nowhere near impotence.
xmattWerk: I would agree that Joolzman is a lamer...
[url="http://"http://www.angelfire.com/mac/joolzman/index.html"]EV Nova: Thin Ice[/url] | [url="http://"http://www.toolband.com"]Tool[/url] | [url="http://"http://www.nbci.com/conan"]America's Favorite Irishman![/url]

What if you speak three languages?

------------------
"Now what I contend is that my body is my own, at least I have always so regarded it. If I do harm through my experimenting with it, it is I who suffers, not the state."

More languages the better. It would help cultivate the neural pathways in your brain and synapses. As to any permanent damage caused, I would find it easy to believe there was.

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.

Personally, I disagree. While under some circumstances you only think as fast as you talk, in a lot more cases you think far faster- such as processes you've learnt so well they're instinctive.

Language is how we understand things, but once they are understood, the brain deals with them at a far deeper level than the level of linguistics.

------------------
Sundered Angel,
The One and Only
Ares Webboard Moderator, and all-around Nice Guy

But the fact remains that we are handicapped. Still, I wonder if there is any other way?

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.

Actually, just give this a test. Read a post as fast as you can. Now, for me, I can read silently a lot faster than I can speak the words out loud, but thinking the words is an essential part of reading. Therefore, I must be absorbing the information directly without using words as an interface. Admittedly, to relate the information to other information, words are necessary, but words are not fully necessary.

However, you have to imagine if this is even relevant. According to you, without language, we would be able to think faster but we could hardly communicate at all. The most efficient solution would be to base language around thought, but I don't think we're at a technological level where we could create a truly accurate Thoughtspeak.

------------------
"Once, just once, I'd like to be able to land somewhere and say, 'Behold, I am the Archangel Gabriel.'"
"I fail to see the humor in that situation, Doctor."
"Naturally. You could hardly claim to be an angel with those pointed ears, Mister Spock. But say you landed someplace with a pitchforkŅ"

How does one read words, and absorb them into the brain, without using words as an interface?

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.

I suppose they are being used as an interface, but I don't believe you could read any faster _without_ the use of an interface (Assuming a language designed for this).

------------------
"Once, just once, I'd like to be able to land somewhere and say, 'Behold, I am the Archangel Gabriel.'"
"I fail to see the humor in that situation, Doctor."
"Naturally. You could hardly claim to be an angel with those pointed ears, Mister Spock. But say you landed someplace with a pitchforkŅ"

Hehe, I think I'll start speaking in binary, (assuming it's possible)

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.

Technically as a modifier of any other language - but then, to get a single letter out right you'd have to rattle off 32 1s and 0s. What a way to improve mental efficiency...

------------------
"Once, just once, I'd like to be able to land somewhere and say, 'Behold, I am the Archangel Gabriel.'"
"I fail to see the humor in that situation, Doctor."
"Naturally. You could hardly claim to be an angel with those pointed ears, Mister Spock. But say you landed someplace with a pitchforkŅ"

I have to agree with Sundered Angel.If you trip and fall you put your hands out so your head doesn't hit the ground, it takes longer to think the words "put your hands out" that it really takes for your mind to do it

Quote

Don't forget, 1 and 0's are easier to handle than a library of hundreds of thousands of words...

Quote

Consciosness, as Sarg pointed out, takes up a fraction of the mind. Alot of tasks, like breathing and such things as you described, are handled autonomously. This neither disproves my theory nor gives credence to it.

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.

Unless you were to invent a fully binaric language, then it wouldn't matter; you'd be using a string of 1s and 0s to represent one of those words from the dictionary. And a different system of "letters" doesn't reduce the number of words.

What would be most efficient would be a fully phonetic language with around 60 different sounds. Assuming that a third are vowels, you get 1600 two-letter words.
Assuming that all of the consonants can be placed in succession (nd, pl), then you can create a total of 110400 unique 3 letter words (85.5% are monosyllabic)

err - 20*40*39 (identical to er if 20-40-40)
...31200
rer - 40*20*40
...32000
rre - 40*39*20 (identical to er if 40-40-20)
...31200
ere - 20*40*20
__+16000___
..110400

The main problem with such a language is that it removes the redundancies of current language - that is that "y cn ndrstnd wht s wrttn hr." In the language detailed above, this would be entirely impossible.

------------------
"Once, just once, I'd like to be able to land somewhere and say, 'Behold, I am the Archangel Gabriel.'"
"I fail to see the humor in that situation, Doctor."
"Naturally. You could hardly claim to be an angel with those pointed ears, Mister Spock. But say you landed someplace with a pitchforkŅ"

The complex processes within which our mind operates are neither fully lingual nor conscious. Language is a means we use to communicate with one another, to communicated thoughts to one another, and thought is what we use to communicate with ourselves. Very obvious, neh? However, we rarely think using "words." More often it is a combination of concrete images, sounds, abstract ideas, and motor skills. If you limit the language, like George Orwell explored in "1984," then you limit the ability of people to communicate complex ideas with one another. This does not mean that the complex thoughts and abstract thoughts don't happen, there's just no way to express them. Language does not slow us down in the least. When actors memorize lines they are able to recite them faster and faster and faster. When musicians practice they are eventually able to move at a rather rapid clip, though this may be due to the fact that music is a non-discursive form of language. We are in no way capable of communicating our thoughts at the speed of those thoughts. This does not equal a slowing down of brain function. Dreams, which include processing power from all parts of the brain, happen in a matter of seconds and no more. Dream studies have indicated that when a human dreams he or she dreams for five to six seconds at a time. This cycles and the cycles happen over an extended period of time, but what a person remembers as one dream didn't last more than several seconds. I can type faster than I can read, but slower than I can think. If it was the reverse I would have to slow down my typing, the action, rather than the thought or speed up the thought. There is no conclusive link that language slows down thought, rather language is generally slowly expressed.

------------------
Captaintripps, proudly dispensing bad advice since before you were born.
[url="http://"http://voxhumanasketch.tripod.com/voxhumana/"]VoxHumana[/url] -- Comedy of the Future

Ah.
To paraphrase, thought is just as fast as it always has been. EXPRESSING those thoughts in language is slow. Music is slightly faster, though on an emotional level, and not informational. Depending upon the style of music.

Reading is a strange thing, since one should be able to absorb the words on the page almost as fast as you can think about the ideas on the page. However, the words themselves must be translated in the mind from the words of language to actual thought. One thing I have noticed is that some people get a picture in their minds painted by the words. When I read a book once, I go fairly slowly assimilating the words. When I read it the second and third times, I read it much faster. Probably because I know what is coming, and my mind will think past that point.

I blather.

I very much like that explanation of dreams. The perfect example of the mind thinking at the speed of thought, and experienceing and communicating at the speed of thought. A pity we humans cannot express ourselves in a purely emotional way, or possess some sort of empathy to radiate raw thought to another's mind. Sharing dreams would be a really cool thing. Except for nightmares.

I'm done now. Don't flame me. *whimper*

------------------
Madness takes it's toll; Please have exact change.

The human mind creates itself through complex learning experiences when we are very young. It is proven, that baby children who interact more closely with words etc... have a high chance of coherency and intelligence in later years. This is because their mind has formed around words. And this is good, because linguistics retains a large amount of coherency. It is conceivable, human minds could be 'grown' around other methods of thought, and that is the answer if we're to leave off this obtuse ineffecient method of thinking! Other methods of thought that come to mind are: telepathy, binary, machine/mind.

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.

Quote

The problem with those being that no matter how hard anyone believes in it telepathy is not a proven phenomenon, nor is it a "method" of thinking, it's a method of communication. Binary systems, as proven by someone earlier in this thread, don't replace a linguistic basis for thought at all, it's just changing the alphabet to a written language based on logograms made up of ones and zeros. A machine/mind interface is just that, an interface. It's a way to enhance, or in my opinion to detract, the ability of the brain by adding hardware. This again doesn't make us think any differently, it just changes the expression of said thoughts. Someone brought up wholly interacting with a machine would most likely find it impossible to communicate with anyone else on the planet. Someone brought up writing in binary would be understood verbally if the binary system was related to current languages, but I don't see any method for translating human thought into binary without the machine/mind interface which we already have in these handy computers we're working on. It's already been done, but the computer does all the translating. If someone were brought up with the idea that they could only use telepathy then they would be mute, destitue, and very depressed.



------------------
Captaintripps, proudly dispensing bad advice since before you were born.
[url="http://"http://voxhumanasketch.tripod.com/voxhumana/"]VoxHumana[/url] -- Comedy of the Future

I used to play piano, and sometimes when I played, my fingers would almost move of their own accord: I was playing the music and interpereting my emotions through the motions of my fingers. I wasn't really thinking about what notes I was playing at all, it was just flowing naturally. This however, isn't communication of specific thought, be rather a communication of emotions. Playing music expresses your emotions much more than words, and therefore it flows faster and more fluidly. Dreaming is the apex of free emotional release, but unfortunately it can only be enjoyed by the dreamer alone, not expressed. Words are the problem here. This structure, this process by which we communicate isn't compatible with our, shall I say, animalistic pattern of thought. When we speak, we're condensing what we feel into the basic structure of language, and in doing so our emotions lose the speed and impact that we feel when we speak them.

Oh well, not much we can do about it.

------------------
"As far as I'm conceived this correction of short writty is the most wonderfoul larf I've ever ready." - John Lennon
[url="http://"http://www.boardgame.f2s.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi"]Board Game[/url], Where the real webboard fun happens......

[This message has been edited by Pikeman (edited 09-09-2001).]

Sufficiently advanced technology could probably imitate telepathy, it does not need to be organic in nature. Children grown in a 'collective consciousness', as it were, would probably evolve minds very very different from others, and we might even see people chosen at birth for different tasks according to the needs of the collective. Thinks, memory-storers etc... and I'm pretty sure a person in a telepathic collective would be a lot, lot more intelligent than any one of us. Binary is probably a bad idea ya, if it's communication in mind. But a brain evolved using binary would probably be different in one respect: extremely small bits of information would be stored at a time. At the moment, we store information by comparatively large lumps, as is necessitated by a more complex language. I can see the advantage of that, and I'm sure a brain using binary could utilise english. Mind/machine is really a mix of our current thought, and a machine. Maybe this would be nothing more than a calculator stuck in our minds, maybe not.

------------------
There are only 3 kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't.