Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site digi-g.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!digi-g!mark From: mark@digi-g.UUCP (Mark Mendel) Newsgroups: net.ai,net.nlang Subject: Re: The Soapy-Woof theory of talk. Message-ID: <378@digi-g.UUCP> Date: Sun, 11-Nov-84 15:14:00 EST Article-I.D.: digi-g.378 Posted: Sun Nov 11 15:14:00 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 18-Nov-84 04:00:19 EST References: <> Reply-To: mark@digi-g.UUCP (mark) Organization: DigiGraphic Systems Corp., Mpls. MN Lines: 33 Summary: arndt@lymph.DEC writes: > > ... does language really have THAT much control over how we think? > That depends on what you mean by `think'. This is one of my pet theories. At the very least, there are functional areas of the mind that perform verbal reasoning. This area maintains the continuous internal dialogue that we all experience. Most people identify this area as `I'. There are certainly non-verbal areas, too. But this is not identified as the self. Consider, as an example, reflex actions: `I jumped out of the way before I was even aware of it...'. Other non-verbal areas influence the `verbal-consciousness' with messages called `intuition'. I believe that the reason we assign such importance the the verbal consciousness is that we are social animals. The importance of our interactions with others of our ilk is so great that we tend to define ourselves as that which others can experience. Because language is the primary means of communication with others, we percieve verbal conscioussness as being terribly important. Self-awareness would not exist without the built-in social hooks. Language, however, has little effect on the non-verbal areas of the mind. A human in total isolation with no language experience could probably function quite well with no internal dialogue. Many complex tasks, which we would like to have computers emulate, are performed without language. Comments? -- Mark Mendel -- ...ihnp4!umn-cs!digi-g!mark