[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 37 KB, 380x319, officezen.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5862525 No.5862525 [Reply] [Original]

Why can we only think about one thing at a time instead of two or three?
Why do we "think" with voices in our heads when there's no point to doing it?
On an unrelated note, some tripfag in my area named Pedro got his IP banned for ban evasion, how big of a faggot is he?

>> No.5862534

>>5862525
>Why can we only think about one thing at a time instead of two or three?
>Why do we "think" with voices in our heads when there's no point to doing it?

But neither of those things are true.

>> No.5862541

what is thinking? what is the observable effects? take this spiritual mumbo jumbo to >>/x/

>> No.5862876

>>5862525
Everyone does this differently OP. I think about lots of things at a time, and I don't use a voice to do it.

>> No.5863165

>>5862525
Speed readers teach themselves to read without "speaking" the words in their minds.

I can't master it despite how hard I try. Thinking faster than everyone else would certainly give you an edge in an argument.

Once again, I wish there was a sticky on how to think on /sci/.

>> No.5863172

>>5863165
you can't do it because it's bullshit.

>> No.5863186

>>5863172
speed reading is bullshit?

>> No.5863193

>>5863186
No, he was talking about thinking because it is not a subject he is familiar with.

>> No.5863194

>>5862525
>Why can we only think about one thing at a time instead of two or three?

I think of lots of things simultaneously and I live in a constant state of confusion and inefficiency.

>> No.5863196

Wait, when you guys think you don't use words?

>> No.5863200

>>5863196
A great deal of the time I don't

>> No.5863204

>>5862541

You have no introspection:
Confirmed for severe autist.

>> No.5863206

>>5863196
Not always sometimes I think in pictures, scenes, or relative locations and you can tell a lot of other do the same because they often tell stories with their hands and try to point at directions of things or air draw things they are thinking.

>> No.5863214

>>5863200
Yes you do

>> No.5863227

>>5863196
Most of the time, thinking with words is just rehearsing your excuses.

>> No.5863232

>Why do we "think" with voices in our heads when there's no point to doing it?
More than half of it is raw impulses though

>> No.5863266

>>5863165
>Speed readers teach themselves to read without "speaking" the words in their minds.

That's not being a "speed reader," it's just not having a learning disability.

>> No.5863268

>>5863196
>Wait, when you guys think you don't use words?

Not usually, no. An neither do you. When you posted this, did you say to yourself "I'm going to reply to this post now. Now I'm going to enter the captcha." etc.? Of course not.

>> No.5863589

There is a neuroanatomist who described her experience when she had a stroke to the language center of her brain.

She began the scene in her morning routine. She said as she was brushing her teeth, she was going through her usual thoughts of planning the day, etc. Then suddenly, it was pure silence. Her thoughts turned off and her conscious experience became utterly drowned in her sensory world. The birds chirping, the ambient morning breeze, she was in zen with her environment.

Furthermore, there is another experiment that demonstrates the importance of language in our perception in something that is so basic as being able to associate an object with a color, you would completely not expect it to rely on language.
They spin a person around and randomly place them in a room with one side painted blue, and then place and object next to the blue wall. Their objective is to look in the fewest amount of directions before finding the object. If there was no blue wall, it'd take two turns on average to find the object. With the blue wall, you'd only need to make one turn on average.

But here's the insanely weird part, kids before 5 years old, before they've really developed their language can't make the association, nor can any other animal.
And they have a way of blocking out language in a standard adult, by repeating what a person says immediately after they say it. When language is blocked in an adult, they can't make the association of the blue wall with the object either! It's said that the association is largely semantic, "LEFT OF THE BLUE WALL,"
and without it, these seemingly very simple perceptions cease to exist.

http://www.radiolab.org/2010/aug/09/

>> No.5863599

>>5862525
>hue

well sometimes, you read info without needing to hear it, and you can comprehend easily.

Other times you really needs into virtually spokens words to understands (if the grammar in the text seems fucktarded)

>> No.5863936

>>5863589
>by repeating what a person says immediately after they say it

Is this why words lose meaning if you keep repeating them?

>> No.5864776

>>5863936
It's unrelated.
The technique used is to temporarily block language. Imagine if you were trying to talk but someone kept copying what you said right after you said it, kind of like microphone feedback. It's disorienting.

Heh the guy won an ignoble prize for coming up with the technique.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/scicurious-brain/2012/09/21/ignobel-prize-winner-in-acoustics-the-speechjammer-the-shut-up-machine-for-the-passive-aggressive/