/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10535817
bump

>>10535817
No, it's not.
Either you're aphantasic, or you think with sounds/images like some worthless cattle.
Any method to produce the conceptual cloud will be at best a crude approximation corrupted by your imagination.

>>10535817
I'm autistic and that's how my head processes basically all information. Makes it difficult to convert thoughts into words, until I was older and developed a vocabulary to compensate. Thou there is still many things I wish I could share with others that I haven't been able to, to my satisfaction at least

>>10536182
Most people can use both kinds of thinking because they aren't brainlets.

>>10536235
No.

>>10535817
>ideasthesia
Is literally memetic relationships. Depending on what info you have taken in, you will process any meme in conjunction with that info and either come to a new conclusion or find some type of relationship between one idea and the meme you just processed.
It's not actually that mysterious once you detail what actually happens.

>>10536239
Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_thinking
>Research by child development theorist Linda Kreger Silverman suggests that less than 30% of the population strongly uses visual/spatial thinking, another 45% uses both visual/spatial thinking and thinking in the form of words, and 25% thinks exclusively in words. According to Kreger Silverman, of the 30% of the general population who use visual/spatial thinking, only a small percentage would use this style over and above all other forms of thinking, and can be said to be true "picture thinkers".[2]

>>10536182
>aphantasic
negative, mental visualization is weak but present.

My thinking methods are basically a mix of these three-
>Conceptual
>Verbal (inner dialogue)
>Visual (weak and vague, fleeting imagery)

>Any method to produce the conceptual cloud will be at best a crude approximation corrupted by your imagination.
I was thinking this conceptual thinking might just be visual thinking but with such weak visualization that sometimes no imagery shows up but the concept behind the imagery still does as a subtle sensation but that doesn't seem right and is probably off the mark

>>10536183
>Makes it difficult to convert thoughts into words
Yeah I do sometimes find it difficult to convey more abstract and such ideas into words because I didn't use language to come up with them in the first place, but my vocabulary skills in general have always been stellar. Even before I learned to think with an inner monologue, the precision of words was always there but the explanation could drag on as it felt like I was converting concepts and abstract thoughts to spoken/typed/written word on the fly just as now without rehearsing or refining it in my head first but yet there was always the sense of what I wanted to get across, I never just speak without thinking, I just don't think with words.

>>10536244
>I just don't think with words.
Or rather I do just not primarily

>>10536251
Who the fuck does?

>>10536254
In my research into different method of thinking I read about people who describe a constantly running inner monologue, their inner voice will not shut up and they may have multiple separate voices even its the strangest thing I read but does happen apparently.

Just like you also have people with superb visualization skill, who can see vivid mental movies in their minds eye, the primary visual thinkers

>>10536241
That small percentage tend to like drawing a map of concepts too. It can get weird for those that have that sort of mind.
I find it odd how people don't memorise maps.
I map concepts in my brain and then once I have found the concept, I usually visualise the concept and think of the concept with just the word. It's like one part of my brain needs to visualise the concept, while the other simply relies on the word alone. Then some "detailing debate" between the tow parts of my mind occurs an I scope out the boundary of the term.
People tend to think of concepts as fixed and final, but to me it is more like mapping out the concept's jurisdiction.

It's a massive pain in the ass because I'm always double checking myself because I'm wary of changes in information relayed to me that would modify the concept that I have in my head.

>>10536262
I have a constantly inner running monologue, but I developed it after anxiety, paranoia and depression.

>>10535817
everyone has ideasthesia

>>10536240
And how would this relate to this sort of conceptual thinking, if it does relate in any way? More and more I feel like the two are separate things and I'm looking for a link that does not exist, but I'm not sure

>>10536271
I did notice in moments of anxiety my inner monologue would be running non-stop, endless ruminating, multiple trains of thought very distracting.

Whereas when I'm calm and placid and engaged in that non-verbal conceptual thinking, I can run with multiple trains of thought, holding off one thought/concept to explore a different one and how it relates then returning to the main, while thought feels really speedy because you aren't limited by words or images it feels like every thought happens at the "speed of thought"

Its a very interesting difference

>>10536241
No.

>>10536244
No, the conceptual cloud tolerate no contamination of sensory input.
You simply do not understand the concept, and you probably expect me to elaborate with a lot of metaphors and approximations and to explain from different angles.
Cattle need a lot of help to understand concept i gathered, while i only need an instant.
If you need to use words that are tied to perception and the senses to explain what you think the conceptual cloud is, you are wrong.

>>10536278
It's blurry really because memes inherently are made up of conceptual information and an "idea" is information formulated in the mind. The two concepts tend to be entwined as memetic transfer between people tends to involve formulating the meme in the mind. Memes mutate due to the way people process them in the mind and then communicate them to the next person. Similarly, an idea can emerge from the processing of information that the person receives with information they already have in their mind. A meme mutation is in some way an idea built from the processing of the meme in that person's mind.

>>10536295
>conceptual cloud
That is actually a good way to describe it now that I think about it, since it feels like you are juggling multiple wordless/imageless thoughts in this mental "cloud", as I explained here >>10536291

I often struggle to find the words to explain certain concepts/ideas in my head especially something like this mode of thinking because it can feel so subtle and difficult to explain (like trying to explain how someone can just intuitively "know" something) but "conceptual cloud" is a good approach, I'll remember that.

ITT: 100 IQ retard with no imagination thinks he automatically must be superior in abstract thinking since he's bad at visualizing "pointless" things.

>>10536319
>no new IP
Which post of mine made you so butthurt lol

>>10536329
Most of them

>>10536331
Well you're wrong, I'm actually mad I can't visualize well as I wish to. While at the same time want to know more about this conceptual method of thinking and how it arises, why it happens, what are the neurological underpinnings, etc..

It has nothing to do with imagination either.

This link between this method of thinking and ideasthesia is only tentative and just an idea I'm throwing around trying to understand this wordless/imageless thinking method better.

>>10536319
>bad at visualizing "pointless" things
t. blind man

>>10536319
Concepts are the distillat of all patterns to their simplest elements, enabling you to extrapolate all the implied complexity following from them.
Anything that is not a concept is the very definition of pointless fat needed to be trimmed, cattle.

>>10536351
>trying so hard
Let me guess, you actually were a concrete sensory thinker some time ago.

>>10536351
I struggle to even call this "conceptual thinking" fully cause its possible even for the most simple concrete thoughts and actions and intents.

You just "get" the idea and know what to do, and can delay it too, but return back to it. No words/images neceassary but it isn't all necessarily conceptual

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pristine-inner-experience/201111/thinking-without-words
This article calls it "unsymbolized" thinking, maybe that would be a better explanation

>To qualify as an unsymbolized thought, the thought must be directly experienced, just as directly experienced as would be an inner speaking or the seeing of an image. That is, you don't merely infer the existence of an unsymbolized thought (I must have been wondering what Feature 5 is). If this is an unsymbolized thought, you directly apprehend the thought as an experience before the footlights of consciousness at the moment it is occurring.

>at the footlights of consciousness
That was the best way to put it into words that I've encountered yet too. So anything concrete, or anything abstract and multi-layered, conceptual and subtle its all just perceived at the "footlights of consciousness"

The word/image aspect of thought lagging behind this instantly experienced thought is not to be overlooked either, that kinda clues things in a bit better I think. In that this form of thinking is just pure "thought" without the word/image associated with it, what I'm curious about is how this arises, I was born with it, but can it be trained, what are the neural correlates for this specific thinking method fuck

Anyone else who thinks this way all the time or partially, gimme your fucking thoughts

>>10536380
>An unsymbolized thought is not "hinty" or "general" or merely a part of some other phenomenon. An unsymbolized thought is just as complete and directly apprehendable as an inner speaking or an inner seeing.

>>10536380
>>10536385
now that I think about it, unsymbolized thinking is definitely a better description - conceptual might lead to the assumption that it only applies to concepts or you somehow reduce everything to wordless/imageless concepts but thats not necessarily the case, and this type of thinking is experienced in relation to concrete, everyday matters just as well

The article even mentions people who aren't aware they were thinking this way, so it might be a case like mine where you have verbal, visual and unsymbolized thinking to varying degrees. Maybe this unsymbolized thinking if trained or more utilized can then make it easier to deal with abstract thinking because you can comprehend ideas without requiring a word or image for them in your mind in order to think about them, so the abstract becomes more familiar, allowing you to better understand ideas and concepts which cannot be easily visually/verbally depicted?

>>10536380
I doubt it can be trained.
It's a qualitative difference, like between conventional and quantum computing.
There is no delay in learning a given concept, no need to dwell on it, no need to digest it, only instant assimilation.

>>10536361
No.

>>10536431
Intuitive "thinking" isn't thinking

>>10536442
Cattle cannot think, only feel and "see".

>>10536501
Intuitive conclusions aren't based on logic, they are below even conclusions that came from concrete thinking. You're a stupid schizo and not even talking about the same style of thinking as everyone else in this thread.

>>10536525
I know, cattle cannot think, only "imagine".

>>10536551
And cockroaches like you can't even do that.

>>10536182
Verbal is just a derivative of baser elements. Spatial and associative is really the best for humans because that's how our brains work, that's what verbal is based on too.

>>10536551
>implying you've achieved anything distinctive with your super-special thinking powers

Look at me I'm not an NPC oh I mean cattle

>>10535817
Some interesting bits that resonate with me from comments from that article btw-
...

>"thinking" and "communicating" thoughts to others are two different processes.
Communication requires the use of symbols. You're still fighting this.

>Both Napoleon and Von Clausewitz made the observation that some people can go to a battlefield and analyze the whole situation instantly, with no thought involved. They can tell where the strengths are, the weaknesses, and provide a whole strategy bypassing thought altogether.

>Malcolm Gladwell in "Blink" and Nobel prize Daniel Kahnneman in "Thinking Fast and Slow" address the topic of thoughtless, intuitive thinking in detail.

>You're using non symbolic thinking all the time. That's when you intuitively assess and evaluate a situation.Then you translate your conclusions into symbols to communicate the results with others. You are also engaged in symbolic thinking all the time. Perhaps the problem is that you are aware of one process and not of the other process.

...

>Computers have machine language and higher level language. The words you experience consciously are a high level language. The real thinking that you do takes place at the synapse level and the language that is used is like "machine language" that computers use. The words you think are for input and output of information but not for real thinking. People like Einstein deny they thought in words. They would think for hours only writing down numbers and equations and only use words when writing papers or talking to others.

...

>I only convert my thoughts to words when I have to speak or write, which makes me also a fast writer.

...

>There is no one right way to think. Each medium has its advantages and disadvantages. One can move very quickly through a series of ideas by thinking in pure thought. Sometimes thinking in words just takes too long to ever come to a conclusion but the medium has almost no error correction

>>10536556
>>10536597
>>10536608
And a moo to you too, cattle.

>>10536566
The best for cattle.

>>10536615
another good one

>Verbalization is not needed for thinking.
Deaf people can think without words.
Blind people can think without images.
Words and Images represent thoughts but are not thoughts.

>>10536616

>>10536619
Interesting phenomenon I've experienced myself as well-

>I've never met someone else who did this. It's nice to know that I'm not alone.
I've always thought in unsymbolized thinking, but I started focusing on it back in 2010 when I started studying consciousness trying to find the language origin in the mind. When I finally learned about other people thinking in words and not images or unsymbolized, things started to make sense.
However, at this point I made a stupid decision. I decided to think as much in unsymbolized as I could, only translating to words or pictures if there was a need for it (talking to someone or writing something etc.).

>After about a month of this, I was asked to write an essay in school which I had plenty of ideas for, all of which were in unsymbolized. This is where I realized my mistake. In practicing understanding without language, I had started to think in "words" that did not exist, I couldn't translate my thoughts into language in order to write the essay,

This too, the tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon, perfect way to prove unsymbolized thinking exists, when you have a thought/concept in mind but forgot the associated word and so can't communicate it with others.

>Think of a time you were trying to say something, but couldn't think of a word. It's on the tip of your tongue, you know the word, and you know you know it, but you can't say it. There is no sense to go with it, you can't remember what it sounds like, or what it looks like, tastes like, or smells like. It simply is understood inside your mind. That is unsymbolized thinking."

>>10536615
Yes, the conceptual cloud is mainly a speed advantage.
It is not a higher level of understanding, you simply skip from start to finish.
Incidentally, this also means that you can also instantly doublecheck and attack the issue from another angle or all angles instantly, so i dispute the "no error correction" point, but you still need to have a good grasp on logic and a good knowledge base to recognize said potential error.

You can conceptualise how it amplifies any higher IQ, while being relatively useless for subhumans.

>>10536636
Yeah the one aspect everyone agrees with this method of thinking is how fast it is, I always thought of it as thinking at the speed of thought, no "symbols" to slow you down, just pure thought, allowing for rapid convergent and divergent thinking, and exploring multiple thought "branches" I'd call them, at once, and going back and forth between them.

>>10536630
Found another, really really good comment demonstrating this thinking method, and even how it develops, best I've seen yet-

>The first time I became aware of this was a few years ago. I had been driving for at least one hour on a highway. To my left there was a patch of trees separating highway traffic going east and west. It was constantly there but at one point there was a "breach" in the forest about 100 meters wide which allowed me to see the traffic on the other side.

>I clearly remember having the following question "why aren't there any trees there?" but without saying any words in my head, I simply felt the question. On that moment, I became aware of my underlying thoughts.

>We all do it yet we do not see it as proper "thinking". Take a very very simple example: let's say you are walking on the street and you see a red car. Do you really tell yourself "this car is red"? No, you simply acknowledge the car is red, you sort of know it, well this is what I mean by becoming aware of your "underlying thoughts" or "emotion concept" (hard to put words on a wordless thinking process) which I think are the product of "Unsymbolized thinking".

>It is very hard to describe something as simple, but I think you get that the color "red" has a certain "concept" or "emotion" attached to it so you recognize it without having to acknowledge in full language, each time, that "this is red".

>>10536681

>In time, you get to a point where you can "think instantly" about much more complex situations like: "I've wasted to much time on Facebook this morning, I should go back to my study because my exam is tomorrow morning". In a fraction of a second, you know it, you feel it, you are aware of it.

>Our brain is a wonderful machine and the speed at which you can think is almost unlimited. For instance, your brain analyses around 2 000 000 images a second to provide you your sight and this is just sight... remember we ear, taste, smell and touch all at the same time.

>Focus your attention on your thoughts and you will see that you can achieve much faster thinking with "unsymbolised thinking" than what you can do with words. Remember, we invented words and language, it is learned and not innate and thus not the "default" thinking mode of our brain.

>>10536684
>In time, you get to a point where you can "think instantly" about much more complex situations like: "I've wasted to much time on Facebook this morning, I should go back to my study because my exam is tomorrow morning". In a fraction of a second, you know it, you feel it, you are aware of it.

Especially this, this is the perfect example. Such a complex thought all wrapped up in a complete package you comprehend in a milisecond, you don't internally verbalize all those words, you just comprehend and are made aware of that thought in an instant and can act on it, reflect, ignore, or think something else immediately after.

Do you guys that think fast without internally verbilize make use of porn?
I wanted to see if abstinence from it is related or not

>>10536695
Yeah, sometimes heavy use, sometimes less, I don't think theres any correlation there.

I noticed increased use of verbal inner dialogue thinking when heavily stressed/anxious though and ruminating due to nervous thinking/anxiety, but I've also experienced these as unsymbolized anxious/nervous thoughts so probably no correlation there either.

>>10535817
>wordless/imageless
Are there studies on how life-long dumb/blind people think? Can they have an inner "voice" without ever having heard one / inner "vision" without ever having seen anything?

>>10535817
That's just unsymbolic thinking. Everyone can do it. It's the most creative, yet least translatable form of thought.
It takes a high verbal IQ to convert unsymbolic concepts into verbal ones.

>>10536852
>It takes a high verbal IQ to convert unsymbolic concepts into verbal ones.

That makes sense. I think this is why I had developed a really solid vocabulary beyond my grade level in school because at that time I wasn't aware verbal thinking was a thing but my vocabulary was always my strong point, even when my math skills were shit, I had no problem with reading/writing above my grade level. Always tried to have the most succinct and precise word to communicate my thoughts most effectively. But was never able to communicate anything with as few words as possible, it was always more long and drawn out as the process of consolidating the jumble of ideas and concepts into a presentable manner to be shared with others was always done as I was writing/speaking.

Two page essays turned to 4 pages; I would raise my hand to speak without knowing the exact words I'm gonna say but say them anyways cause they seemed to be converted on the fly from thought to words, its really interesting when you think about it. If I practiced in reciting verbally in my head what I was going to say before being called on, I couldn't do it, it would mess me up and feel awkward trying to repeat out loud what I recited in my head, so I had to trust I would say what I needed to without having to know every exact word I would say, and that still applies to today.

I don't know if this unsymbolized thinking can be linked to ideaasthesia anymore, it seems unrelated now that I have more insight into it, but I'm not sure.

>>10536239
>No.
well you're surely a savage cunt m8

bump