It is interesting and clear that there is a spectrum of thinking that goes from images through words.
Someone with brain chops will figure that out and create a theory no doubt, But it seems obvious to me that regardless of how anyone thinks words are the basis of the entire crucial area of existence Wittgenstein called nonsense. Exclude mystery and supposition and theorizing when no theory can be proven. What I see is just what I saw when I was trying to deal with freedom and will. A language of images and a language of words, verbal and nonverbal communication, are, with several other things, UTILITIES within consciousness, enablers and can best be understood in that way. Thus it makes no difference how we communicate and we can give no ontological status to one or another mode. Do they work? Clearly, they do. It matters not that I am at the other end of the spectrum from John. If there were tests for verbal or nonverbal I would get 100 for the former and nada for the latter. That said, theologically there is no substitute for words. At least in the sense of how we understand them, as written communication. Words in themselves are like anything written. They radically diminish the full sign that existed before the word. I cannot stress how important this issue is. There is no either-or in communication that says words are superior to images or the opposite. But there is the role of the word in creation itself. Without words, we would be literally insensible. As it is we are borderline sensible. That is progress of a sort. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Jerry LR Chandler < jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote: > > John, List: > > On Feb 16, 2017, at 7:17 AM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote: > > From talking with colleagues, some say they think only in words and > others, like me, say they think mostly in diagrams or in physical feelings > that I attach no words to (and probably couldn’t in many cases). Although I > am surprised when I find someone who believes they think in words only, I > have little reason to doubt them, as it seems these people also think quite > differently from me. One of the hardest things for me in learning analytic > philosophy (after original training and work in physics) was to think in > words. Dick Cartwright helped me immensely with this. > > Surely it is a psychological issue, if people differ so much in this > respect > > > In my opinion, this topic of how different individuals “think”, that is, > relate their experiences to their symbolic representations is a critical > issue, a highly critical issue. > > Do readers of this list serve have favorite modes of thinking? > And how closely connected are modes of thinking with modes of > explanation? > > If one reads much in the philosophy of science, one finds a wide range of > claims about how we experience the molecular dynamics of brain function. > Usually biased toward one method or another. > > It is a topic that cuts across disciplines. > It cuts across logical forms. > It cuts across visualizations of abstractions. > > I have run an inquiry into this topic with numerous friends and > colleagues, simply asking if they think in words, or pictures or equations, > or “emotions”. > > One of my hypotheses is that philosophers tend to think in words and > struggle with pictures or geometry. Particular in drawing diagrams among > arguments. This severely constrains communications between scientists and > philosophers of science. > > Another hypothesis is that chemists almost always think in terms of > pictures (images) or diagrams. It appears that this skill is essential to > represent relations. > > Mathematicians vary widely in answering my query - it appears to be > correlated to the domain of study. Often, first class mathematicians are > extremely skilled with diagrams but stumble on the simplicity of chemical > diagrams because the logical pre-suppositions do not correspond with the > mathematical notions of relations. > > In any case, I find it useful to try to understand the mode of thinking of > colleagues because it is often useful in facilitating communication and > selecting the mode of explanation. > > Cheers > > Jerry > > > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
