Is it possible to have non-linguistic thoughts?

[Sorn]

Unfortunately I do not understand English very well. Can you explain to me what you're trying to say with this video?

 

[dragulagu]

Unfortunately I do not understand English very well. Can you explain to me what you're trying to say with this video?

Just a playful nudge to what language is able to do, which is creating (fictive) worlds.
In the song the artist is essentially singing about a world which the artist has created through Scat (as a form of language / communication).

"Welcome to Scatman's World."
https://lyrics.fandom.com/wiki/Scatman_John:Scatman's_World

Scat being: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scat_singing

In vocal jazz, scat singing is vocal improvisation with wordless vocables, nonsense syllables or without words at all.[2][3] In scat singing, the singer improvises melodies and rhythms using the voice as an instrument rather than a speaking medium.

A true sorcerer does not need a spell or a magic wand but only his imagination and will.

Language apparently has something to do with creative power.
It has the ability to manifest things.

 

[Sorn]

Okay, I get it. So it's kind of like Dada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada

 

[dragulagu]

Okay, I get it. So it's kind of like Dada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada

Lol, well not that deep. I don't think Scatman or Scat is that serious, but rather playful.
Cool trivia though, I did not know about Dada as a movement or rather as an expression.

 

[noisebloom]

I apologize if this was already covered, but I'm pretty sure I've had non-linguistic thoughts while on psychedelics, esp when on dimethyltryptamine. Concepts like language and "self" can easily be lost, so the way you think changes dramatically.

 

[Ren]

I apologize if this was already covered, but I'm pretty sure I've had non-linguistic thoughts while on psychedelics, esp when on dimethyltryptamine. Concepts like language and "self" can easily be lost, so the way you think changes dramatically.

Main takeaway from this thread: noisebloom is a junkie!

 

[noisebloom]

Main takeaway from this thread: noisebloom is a junkie!

 

[Matty]

This sounds to me more like you have an intuitive notion of 'what it's like' to be you, and the concomitant notion of what it's not like.

But I'm not sure this is equivalent to having knowledge of who you are, if you know what I mean. It's more akin to an impression or a feeling.

I relate very much to what you are saying here, by the way. I experience something similar.

Very late reply.

I want to claim something related to the difference between knowledge and wisdom.

When I'm reading something new to me, my mind is going a million miles an hour, piecing things together, and sorting out what is essential to retain... I call that gaining knowledge.

Once I've absorbed and understood something, my mind slows down to a serene and confident understanding of the material. There's no more recalling and piecing together the bits and pieces of evidence and argument. There's just a wordless imageless intimate understanding, and ease with recalling and presenting the evidence and making my own less convoluted arguments, when needed.

The analogy of muscle memory seems fitting. I've thought about something to the point I don't need to think about it. I can just swing and hit the ball, mentally, without effort.

 

[Ren]

Very late reply.

I want to claim something related to the difference between knowledge and wisdom.

When I'm reading something new to me, my mind is going a million miles an hour, piecing things together, and sorting out what is essential to retain... I call that gaining knowledge.

Once I've absorbed and understood something, my mind slows down to a serene and confident understanding of the material. There's no more recalling and piecing together the bits and pieces of evidence and argument. There's just a wordless imageless intimate understanding, and ease with recalling and presenting the evidence and making my own less convoluted arguments, when needed.

The analogy of muscle memory seems fitting. I've thought about something to the point I don't need to think about it. I can just swing and hit the ball, mentally, without effort.

Very nice way of putting it. Here's a thought, though: why would this represent the difference between knowledge and wisdom?

It seems to me more akin to the difference between acquiring knowledge and having knowledge.

I prefer to think of wisdom as what you do with the knowledge you have.

 

[Matty]

Very nice way of putting it. Here's a thought, though: why would this represent the difference between knowledge and wisdom?

It seems to me more akin to the difference between acquiring knowledge and having knowledge.

I prefer to think of wisdom as what you do with the knowledge you have.

I like to keep the real distinction between wisdom and prudence.

Knowledge is the material one has absorbed.
Wisdom is the understanding gained from that material.
Prudence is the virtuous or fitting application of knowledge and wisdom in good actions at the right times.

 

[Ren]

I like to keep the real distinction between wisdom and prudence.

This suggests that it’s possible to be wise but not prudent. I’m hesitant to go that far, but I see where you are coming from.

I‘m also reluctant to consider that knowledge without understanding is knowledge. Because if so, anybody can claim to have knowledge, and thus knowledge loses its meaning.

 

[b7$sl1JC0]

I haven't read the whole thread but i wanted also to share my thoughts.
i guess its a fact that we are born as thinking creatures. A baby thinks the whole time, thinks much more than we think it thinks, but cannot even talk,it has not discovered the concept of language yet but shares thoughts with many orher different ways.
We created language to understand our thoughts, i find that thoughts are feelings

 

[Matty]

This suggests that it’s possible to be wise but not prudent. I’m hesitant to go that far, but I see where you are coming from.

I‘m also reluctant to consider that knowledge without understanding is knowledge. Because if so, anybody can claim to have knowledge, and thus knowledge loses its meaning.

The old addage, those who can't do, teach refers to the wise who cannot apply their wisdom; the hapless professor.

And knowledge without wisdom is trivia, an aggregation of facts without any insights. Basically, the person who can recite history, but cannot recognise the motivations or causes of events, nor prognosticate the future from historical knowledge.

 

[Ren]

And knowledge without wisdom is trivia, an aggregation of facts without any insights. Basically, the person who can recite history, but cannot recognise the motivations or causes of events, nor prognosticate the future from historical knowledge.

Sounds like pleb knowledge to me

Do you not think there are issues with prognosticating the future even on the basing of good historical knowledge/wisdom?

See the arguments by Popper in particular.

 

[Lady Jolanda]

I‘m also reluctant to consider that knowledge without understanding is knowledge.

It can be though. Think of all the facts you had to learn and regurgitate in primary school. You know the capital cities of Sweden and Norway - but do you understand it?
No, cause what's there to understand? The very question is absurd lol.


Pleb knowledge? Fair enough lol. But still a subtype of knowledge.

 

[Ren]

It can be though. Think of all the facts you had to learn and regurgitate in primary school. You know the capital cities of Sweden and Norway - but do you understand it?
No, cause what's there to understand? The very question is absurd lol.

That's a very good point.

You're right, in this sense there can be knowledge without understanding.

What would be a good example of knowing something that could be known with understanding? i.e. merely knowing something without understanding it?

EDIT: oh, now I'm realising that there are plenty of examples lol. I know (roughly) what Relativity entails, but it's not a given that I properly understand Relativity as such.

 

[Matty]

Sounds like pleb knowledge to me

Do you not think there are issues with prognosticating the future even on the basing of good historical knowledge/wisdom?

See the arguments by Popper in particular.

Pleb knowledge? It's basic English definitions reworded for someone who conflates knowledge, wisdom, and prudence.

I'm familiar with popper's influence on the scientific method. Besides name dropping, maybe you should say why you think his work is relevant to what we were discussing. (His work is important and possibly relevant. I don't know if you have even read any of his work, or if you had any point to make by name dropping him).

Finally, of you feel like resorting to personal slurs again, I'll not bother reading your posts, or replying to you any more. I dislike pettiness, and will not waste my time with people who celebrate it.

 

[Ren]

Pleb knowledge? It's basic English definitions reworded for someone who conflates knowledge, wisdom, and prudence.

I'm familiar with popper's influence on the scientific method. Besides name dropping, maybe you should say why you think his work is relevant to what we were discussing. (His work is important and possibly relevant. I don't know if you have even read any of his work, or if you had any point to make by name dropping him).

Finally, of you feel like resorting to personal slurs again, I'll not bother reading your posts, or replying to you any more. I dislike pettiness, and will not waste my time with people who celebrate it.

Hmm. I think you might have taken a joke a little too seriously, but I admit that what I said could have been misinterpreted.

When I said 'sounds like pleb knowledge to me', I only meant that knowledge without understanding would be a very limited kind of knowledge, but I was not making any statement about you. Just to illustrate, my knowledge about a very large number of fields would qualify as 'pleb knowledge' under that definition. So I was only making the point that I wasn't sure whether that would even qualify as knowledge. Again, nothing directed at you.

I hope this clarifies things. Also, note that in a different thread I actually said I liked your perspectives and way of presenting your ideas, so I would be utterly insane if at the very same time I was denigrating you on a different thread!

It's basic English definitions reworded for someone who conflates knowledge, wisdom, and prudence.

Just for context about my approach generally, I'm very open and non-dogmatic and I'm most of the time not sure what point of view I want to commit to. I just like to play with ideas and concepts and see if they have weaknesses/if potential objections can be brought forward. If it turns out that there is no objection that works, then so much the better for the discussion. I suggest objections not because I think I'm right or because I think the other person is wrong, I do so because that's just my approach to discussing philosophical topics.

In view of the above, there is no a priori reason why we should insist on keeping knowledge/wisdom/prudence separate in the way Aristotle did. I'm not saying they shouldn't be, only that it might be philosophically fruitful to imagine other configurations. So for instance, you could give me an example of a wise but imprudent person, as I asked in a prior message.

I'm familiar with popper's influence on the scientific method. Besides name dropping, maybe you should say why you think his work is relevant to what we were discussing. (His work is important and possibly relevant. I don't know if you have even read any of his work, or if you had any point to make by name dropping him).

Well, in an earlier post you said the following:

Basically, the person who can recite history, but cannot recognise the motivations or causes of events, nor prognosticate the future from historical knowledge.

On this point I think, along with Popper, that it is illusory and even dangerous to imagine that the future can be prognosticated on the basis of historical knowledge—except in a restricted number of isolated, short-term instances. Popper's argument is pretty simple, and two-pronged.

1) Historical knowledge is determinate while the future is indeterminate.
2) Given that the future is indeterminate, the very knowledge we have of history is itself going to be different in the future.

Given premises 1) and 2), the future cannot be predicted on the basis of our current knowledge of the past, except in a highly cautious and piecemeal fashion. From this conclusion Popper works out a political theory predicated upon what he calls 'piecemeal social engineering' as opposed to 'Utopian planning', which he argues has usually led to disaster (Communism, etc.)

What do you think of Popper’s argument?

 

[Matty]

Hmm. I think you might have taken a joke a little too seriously, but I admit that what I said could have been misinterpreted.

When I said 'sounds like pleb knowledge to me', I only meant that knowledge without understanding would be a very limited kind of knowledge, but I was not making any statement about you. Just to illustrate, my knowledge about a very large number of fields would qualify as 'pleb knowledge' under that definition. So I was only making the point that I wasn't sure whether that would even qualify as knowledge. Again, nothing directed at you.

I hope this clarifies things. Also, note that in a different thread I actually said I liked your perspectives and way of presenting your ideas, so I would be utterly insane if at the very same time I was denigrating you on a different thread!



Just for context about my approach generally, I'm very open and non-dogmatic and I'm most of the time not sure what point of view I want to commit to. I just like to play with ideas and concepts and see if they have weaknesses/if potential objections can be brought forward. If it turns out that there is no objection that works, then so much the better for the discussion. I suggest objections not because I think I'm right or because I think the other person is wrong, I do so because that's just my approach to discussing philosophical topics.

In view of the above, there is no a priori reason why we should insist on keeping knowledge/wisdom/prudence separate in the way Aristotle did. I'm not saying they shouldn't be, only that it might be philosophically fruitful to imagine other configurations. So for instance, you could give me an example of a wise but imprudent person, as I asked in a prior message.



Well, in an earlier post you said the following:



On this point I think, along with Popper, that it is illusory and even dangerous to imagine that the future can be prognosticated on the basis of historical knowledge—except in a restricted number of isolated, short-term instances. Popper's argument is pretty simple, and two-pronged.

1) Historical knowledge is determinate while the future is indeterminate.
2) Given that the future is indeterminate, the very knowledge we have of history is itself going to be different in the future.

Given premises 1) and 2), the future cannot be predicted on the basis of our current knowledge of the past, except in a highly cautious and piecemeal fashion. From this conclusion Popper works out a political theory predicated upon what he calls 'piecemeal social engineering' as opposed to 'Utopian planning', which he argues has usually led to disaster (Communism, etc.)

What do you think of Popper’s argument?

Replying to popper bit.

His two premises, as you present them just seem like vague social theory assertions, which in no way envisage the b theory of time, determinism, or causality.

Leaving aside the strongly arguable position that even thoughts are determined by physical causality which the brain is subject to, he overlooks the more "human" reality that people and events are predictable, and even their occasional departure from character can be anticipated.

What is the actual point of adopting a future sceptical philosophy, which idealises a reactive stance to events and situations, instead of an active stance, which involves planning and consideration of contingencies?

If we had perfect knowledge of causality and historical reality (from even just a minute in the past), we could have a perfect foresight into the future. THAT sort of foresight would eliminate the NEED for planning, even though one would foresee many instances where causality leads to planning activities, which in turn lead to other events. But our imperfect knowledge of the past and of causality doesn't render forward looking null, it just subjects that forward looking to a degree of uncertainty.

I think this is where intuition really stands out. I'm not talking about intuition as some numinous airy fairy vague magical inxj Jedi mysticism, but rather the ability to grasp patterns and probabilities, elevating empirical knowledge to a wiser insight of how things and people can and will probably behave. It's the kind of insight which complex analytical algorithms are able to process and deliver real advantages in targeted marketing.

To simply wave away the future as indeterminate is as lazy, as claiming certain knowledge of the future is crazy. The reality is tempered by a middle/moderate position of familiarity with the past and causality, and a prognostic view of the future tempered by a sense of contingency and probabilities.

 

[Ren]

Replying to popper bit.

His two premises, as you present them just seem like vague social theory assertions, which in no way envisage the b theory of time, determinism, or causality.

Leaving aside the strongly arguable position that even thoughts are determined by physical causality which the brain is subject to, he overlooks the more "human" reality that people and events are predictable, and even their occasional departure from character can be anticipated.

What is the actual point of adopting a future sceptical philosophy, which idealises a reactive stance to events and situations, instead of an active stance, which involves planning and consideration of contingencies?

If we had perfect knowledge of causality and historical reality (from even just a minute in the past), we could have a perfect foresight into the future. THAT sort of foresight would eliminate the NEED for planning, even though one would foresee many instances where causality leads to planning activities, which in turn lead to other events. But our imperfect knowledge of the past and of causality doesn't render forward looking null, it just subjects that forward looking to a degree of uncertainty.

I think this is where intuition really stands out. I'm not talking about intuition as some numinous airy fairy vague magical inxj Jedi mysticism, but rather the ability to grasp patterns and probabilities, elevating empirical knowledge to a wiser insight of how things and people can and will probably behave. It's the kind of insight which complex analytical algorithms are able to process and deliver real advantages in targeted marketing.

To simply wave away the future as indeterminate is as lazy, as claiming certain knowledge of the future is crazy. The reality is tempered by a middle/moderate position of familiarity with the past and causality, and a prognostic view of the future tempered by a sense of contingency and probabilities.

As usual, there are lot of good points here, but I think you argue past Popper rather than answer his challenge.