Jerry, John, List,
It would be interesting to ask somebody who has been born blind. A word is a string of letters, and a melody a string of sounds. But the perceived thing of a word is a term, and that is not a string. A melody perceived neither is.
Maybe to call that, what it is, a picture or a diagram is too narrowly told, and it would be better to call it an icon? Maybe "icon" is not necessarily bound to a two-dimensional screen- or canvas-like visual substrate.
Like, when a composer has a piece for a whole orchestra in his or her head, before writing it down, or a mathematician or a philosopher is pondering about very complex interdependencies, trying to have the whole anticipated situation in the consciousness in order to regard it, all aspects and all relations between them are in the consciousness at one time, and form an icon. This icon, I guess, may have more than two or three dimensions, or it may even be the elements and interactions that make their own dimensions, perhaps of a non-integer number, like a fractal.
So I think, that this icon is different from a picture or a diagram, at least in the common (two-dimensional) understanding of picture or diagram. What is characteristical for it being an icon, I think, is, that it is a composition of aspects and their relations, present in the consciousness all at the same time.
Best,
Helmut
22. Februar 2017 um 21:40 Uhr
"Jerry LR Chandler" <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>
"Jerry LR Chandler" <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>
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 .
