Hi Craig
Apologies for the strangeness! I was just attempting to find out whether
what you thought was different from the Wittgenstein quote.
I can see that in certain contexts that pictures would have to be
rendered into language but I think there are other contexts where we
think in just pictures or sound. As you've provided me with an example
I'll try a couple on you.
A couple of weeks ago I met up with some old friends that I haven't seen
for around 35 years. We all used to play in a band and the death of
another friend from around then was what prompted the reunion. As it was
around 35 years ago and I was a touch wayward at the time I have no
memory of any conversations that took place then - I'd even forgotten
several gigs that we played until the others reminded me of them! On the
way to London on the train I thought about some of the times and places
that we'd played. A couple of events were, and still are, crystal clear
and I experienced them visually and sonically. No language, no
interpretations, just pictorial and sonic memories of being on stage and
stumbling about etc. along with memories of the music we were playing -
and as a lot of it was our own and never recorded, it would have to be
related to what remains between my ears.
Another example - although not to do with pictures but thinking in sound
- would be when I'm working on a new tune (or even an old tune) or
trying to figure out how to play something someone else wrote and
recorded. Whilst listening or playing I'll be thinking musically, not
linguistically, of how something sounds, how the next bit should sound,
how various bits fit together etc. But all the time this is done with me
thinking musically or pictorially - where my fingers should be on the
fretboard - not linguistically.
I'm not entirely sure if this is what you mean but it seems to be
contrary to the Wittgenstein quote. It would seem reasonable that if my
thoughts are pictorial and musical then I'm thinking in pictures and
sound and not language.
Horse
On 28/04/2010 03:23, [email protected] wrote:
[Horse, quoting Craig]
"No one thinks in pictures, because the picture would have to be
interpretted& that could not be done by another picture.
(see Wittgenstein)"
[Horse]
I'm not sure why you think that no-one thinks in pictures.
Strange. You quote my (& Wittgenstein's) argument, then ask for an argument.
Perhaps an example will help:
(I'll assume we're talking about "mental" pictures here.)
Suppose you hear scratching on the other side of a door& a picture of a cat
comes to mind. Could this picture be what's meant by "thinking there is a cat
on the other side of the door"?
No, because this same picture could come to mind when thinking "I wish a cat
would chase away t he squirrel scratching on the other side of the door".
The pict ure cannot play the needed role of thinking, " because the picture
would have to be interpretted& that could not be done by another picture".
You could think " there is a cat on the other side of the door" even if a
picture
of a car came to mind.
Craig
--
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an
attractive and well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, wine
in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what
a ride!"... Hunter S Thompson
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
