I just realized that true understanding is completely comprehended visually and is in no need for language...

>understanding
>perception
>how are concepts formed in the understanding by perception
>what is the structure of those concepts
>what is the structure of the purely 'perceptual' understanding
>what does perception tell us about the world
>how is that given non-propositionally
>what is the myth of the given

READ HUME
READ KANT
READ HUSSERL
READ MERLEAU-PONTY
READ MCDOWELL

Very true.

so why do some people think visually and some people think linguistically? in reality comprehension presupposes both. The unconscious wants to relay information to your consciousness, translates it into a visual image or into language and there you go, you have a thought

language doesnt make anything a thought you dumbass, language is purely communication, colonies and objectives can be formed without uttering a single word

>humemongous goof
>kant say shit
>husserl on the streets
>merleau ponty cok
>mcdowell bills yall

all memes, i see i know, i wait for more period, the world is simple, language is speed and entertainment but not at its finest form, period, just relax, not my fault you realized this at 55

it's impossible not to think visually or linguistically you retard, language or images arise in the process of translating a 'thought' from the unconscious to the consciousness

>unconcious
idiot. language is contingent on images not the other way around you fuck nut. we could run the world by never speaking again faggot, we only hear words in our heads today because of extensive amount of time being conditioned dumbass, fuck right off

where did i say that one was contingent on the other, that would be incorrect. it's really easy to understand desu, thinking in language and images are seperate beasts where neither is contingent on the other. you're just angry because something you thought of in the shower is wrong
>neural patterns form thought
>translates into images or language for ease of communication to the exterior world
your brainwaves aren't images lel

LANGUAGE IS CONTINGENT ON IMAGES YOU STUPID FUCK. LANGUAGE HAS KNOW MEANING OR FUNCTION IF IT IS NOT ATTACHED TO AN IMAGE. IMAGE PRECEDES EVERY IMPORTANT STIMULI IN THE BRAIN. IMAGE IS THE SOUL TRAIN OF POWER AND FUNCTION PURPOSE. VISION. MOTHERFUCKER. VISION.

*NO MEANING

And...blind people?

Also:

u mad hehe

What a stupid thread.

nope, language is much more complex than that. you can actually prove that visual stimuli aren't inherent to the construction of language with braille

considering humanity was illiterate until 3000 years ago thats not what he was talking about shitlord, he means every word is a signifier for a signified which is an imagined thing based from sense experience

motherfucker that stills the visual world the phsical world, the feeling with hands the aesthetics HAS MEANING< THEY SEE WITH THEIR HANDS JUST AT A SLOWER PACE OF COURSE YOU DUMBMOTHERFUCKER
case closed chump
What a stupid fuck

The idea that language is primarily for communication doesn't match up with the empirical evidence

>I just realized that true understanding is completely comprehended visually and is in no need for language.
>every word is a signifier for a signified which is an imagined thing based from sense experience
these are two separate points, one of them is right and one of them is wrong

go back to mars stupid fuckin martian, what possible function would it also have, use simple terminology, nothing pretentious or ambigious, no artifice please charlatan, fuck u make me sick

no you have substance in your claims and fabricate every theory you put forth in practicality you fail, you are full of shit just like this board u shampoo fucker

>language as a tool to organize thoughts
>side effect we can communicate

interesting theory, can u recommend a serious academic (not redpill youtube fags n shit) who wrote about this? i'm intrigued

it's pretty unhealthy to get that upset about things when unprovoked. anyway research into language suggests that signifying systems are more for cognitive benefit than communicational, at least in terms of the evolutionary history of language, the current neurological/psychological data about language processing, and so on. The fact that language is a medium of communication is pretty significant but strictly speaking is probably "accidental".

my almonds are activated af rn link me to some shit on this

>THEY SEE WITH THEIR HANDS
user you have five senses
you can't even put together a proper sentence, it doesn't surprise me that your understanding of something so simple is so lacking

ok but suppose ur imagining a way to get some eggs up in a tree and ur in the woods by urself with no language, why would u need language? u can just imagine a tree and then imagine climbing up it and hitting the birds next with a stick; you would only need signifiers to share these imaginings with others

didn't see your comment before I posted the reply below. The one that I've seen commonly cited are "Language as a Cognitive Tool", by Mirolli and Parisi, but the work of Lakoff and other cognitive linguists is generally helpful for this theory as well. Lakoff is just great overall imo.

If you really wanna go wild I'd suggest reading the chapter on language in Andy Clark's Supersizing the Mind, but you should note that he obviously has wider motivations for speaking of language in the way he does there, considering it's in the context of that book.

Complete and utter brainlet here, is this what Wittgenstein was talking about?

OMG this would explain why anyone lacking eyes can't truly understand anything

No.

holy shit you hit the edge brother,you are completely fucked. ALL LANGUAGE DOES IS SPEED UP THE COMMUNICATION PROCESS. ITS EFFICEINT. WE COULD REPLACE ALL LANGUAGE WITH IMAGES AND BE FINE. THE PROBLEM WITH THE WORLD NOW IS RELIANCE ON THIS REALM SIMPLICITY IS IGNORED THEY LUNGE ONTO TECH FOR THE LIFE OF THEM WHEN WE DIE ITS PEACE FOREVER WE WILL ALL SEE AND NEVER TALK WE WILL ALL KNOW EVERYTHING BECAUSE WE WILL SEE EVERYTHING FUCK

WHO THE FUCK IS WITINGSTEN

WHO TURNED OFF THE LIGHTS? IT'S NOT FUNNY

...

jesus this fucking thread

This needs to be said more.

You belong to God.

We must first and foremost understand how language (as commonly understood) affects the mind. Mind, here, understood as an entity separate from its linguistic operation. It, in its broadest sense, existed before the linguistical operation. In the same manner, visuality, as a sensible or feeling mechanism, existed before linguistic developments. The question is then to gauge how much our linguisticism affects our visual sensibility, the former, evolutionarily, following the second or, at the very least, following it in its sharpened, cunned form of today.

In my perhaps naive view, there seems to be a couple of standpoints one could adopt,
>(1)The development of language has NO incidence on our visual sensibility
>(2)The development of language has MINOR incidence on our visual sensibility
>(3)The development of language has a MAJOR incidence on our visual sensibility

In all three viewpoints, the main problematic is that of conceptuality, or of our 'reflective' apperception. We SENSE inasmuch as there is stimuli from the outside world inputted to a sensitive apparatus. We PERCEIVE insomuch as that stimuli is interpreted, to say it vaguely, by that same or by a differing body of sense or sensible apparatus. APperception, from french apercevoir, meaning, in some sense, to take notice of, is a process through which what is perceived is assimilated, comparatively, to an existing body of 'knowledge'. It might be evident what the hurdle is following this schematization... How far can apperception go without the aid of language? Is there a basic, self-evident conceptualization at a pre-linguistic level which suffices for what we would deem to be 'understanding'? What would 'understanding' mean within such a pre-linguistic experience?

In (1), we could affirm that our visual sensibility is already 'composed' and that understanding is merely a conceptual delimitation of an ever-present phenomenon within experience. I see this computer and, without the need to formerly conceptualize the aforementioned computer, I 'know' that it is a computer. Objects are defined and we can differentiate them and categorize them without any need to self-reflect upon them linguistically. To me, this is hard to think about considering I'm so hardwired to think linguistically. How could I possibly know that this 'computer' is part of what I could generally call 'computers' without first coining it conceptually? And even if I could think about it at all, imagine it, could I say that 'I' know, in that case, or merely that I'm a sort of life living itself; the phenomenon of a life non-individualized on a self-reflective basis. In other words, would I just be pure instinct, unconscious, machinal?

In (2), one could affirm that language merely expanded our conceptual field. Through language, we've been able to abstract what we've been seeing and knowing to extract from it ever differing and newly englobing ideas. Individual apples existed, we knew them to be so and so particulars, but through language we can categorize them in wider schemas (apples in general, fruits, edible things, etc.) through a sort of newly adoptded and now conceivable logic-game of sorts.

In (3), action is merely instinctual and knowledge, in its formal sense, is non-present.

These three outcomes, which I've just formulated out of boredom and are not in the least manner thorough in their investigation of the question, only touch upon the visual faculty, abstracting it as it were from the whole of the sensible body pre-existing language. With language comes a sort of permanence, but also a maleability. Not only may we 'know' with language, but we can also better learn. Oral and graphic language are some of the biggest stepping stones of human achievements, enabling us to understand past experiences of our fellow human beings so as not to live through them ourselves (in a perfect world) and learn from them.

As for individual experience of language, Wittgenstein has something interesting to say about what he calls "psychological languages". When wanting to speak about our own personal sentiments or our lived reality, it's irrelevant to actually know if the terms employed are lived the same way for me as they are for the interlocutors. What matters is the public way in which the words are used, independent of the actual matter they aim at (exemple: experience of colors). A step further from that though is that if there were no need for a public or communal language or for a shared body of linguistic knowledge, a language would be irrelevant to me personally. In other words, if I were alone and had no need to communicate with others, there would be no need for any self-reference to an experience, hence no need for a symbol at all. If I see a tree and the tree is right in front of me, do I need to tell myself that I'm seeing a tree? To I need 'knowledge' of the tree? Afterall, the tree is right there, why would I need to conceptualize it any further than that?

I dunno, some thoughts.

I'll just add a few things to this already long-winded shit storm of a reply...
It seems to me that understanding in a non-linguistic sense is more of a 'voluptuousness', to take Schreber's words. It's the sentiment of understanding not any particular thing but the situation as a whole, defunct from any conceptual or ontical knowledge to leave way for an ontological perception of being as it is. This can be compared to hallucinogenic or psychotic felt-experiences of global knowledge.
Another point of interest here is the difficulty of pre-linguistic mnemonic recall in people who are born deaf-mute who tardively learn a language.

But the board belongs to me.

My biggest fear is someone like you would show up.

You did.

Too long, distill ffs.

BIGLE
RICCCCC!!!!!!!!!!!!!KCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>user you have five senses
30+ actually.

why are you high

I tend to recall and use actively in my life information I've taken from watching / listening conferences - people talking in front of people, the way they are forced to structure their discourse + the act of listening make it like a living word that sticks with you also you could just pause on if it's recorded, replay parts and meditate on ideas - then go on after you've done it at your peace.

Documentaries usually, I forget - even if I take notes from them they're way tooooo sensationalist. Only types of documentaries that stuck with me were unironically older ones made by PBS and if I recall correctly their motto was somewhere between what I describe, to make them more informal and at a peace meant for learning not flashing information.

A book, I would prefer audio book of it If I wanted to go trough one read, but If I knew the nature of book is such that I would have to re-read it or carefully re-read parts of it.
I would just then read it on my computer screen split in two, a digital notebook and the book on the right with occasional alt tabbing to dictionary / google to clarify some concepts.

The problem is that I don't know...
I was simply trying to place OPs shit in other shit.

Personally, I think that his visual fixation is a purely linguistic and literary consequence. His abstraction of the visual faculty from his overall sense-body is conceptual in and of itself and OP is a giant faggot. Like said, we're not merely visual... OP is senseless. I have no idea what he means by "true understanding" and why it would be visual. I'd rape him in the ass so's he could FEEL knowledge.

^ distillation

tl;dr

i didn't came to lit to read buddy

you see............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................you learn.

Then what was it that Wittgenstein was talking about?

>Eraserhead with the baby recast as a minority

This is a problem I've discovered transitioning from movies to books.
Movies are superior, at least inherently.

When I "get" an idea there are no words in my head, like the lightbulb cartoon meme. I comprehend ideas much faster than I can read or think; the "aha!" sensation doesn't constitute any words.
I only ever talk in my head when "fake debating" with myself, or when writing/talking.

Actually, painting is far superior to film in that regard.

So you have "the five" of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touch.

Touch is really a combination of epicritic and deep touch. Then there's the vibration sense. Also pain, temperature.

Then the vestibular sensations of position and acceleration. You have proprioception.

Then you have "the mind sense".

You could argue that you have a sense for sympathetic tone and for time of day.

That's roughly a dozen. What are the others?

How did he use it incorrectly? You clearly insulted him instead of making a point.

No film is much more superior becuase it involves that element and more, music (which could possibly be the best for the enlightened), costume design, color and picture composition, architecture, ideology, etc whatever

Whenever I want to write, for me it's all visual, thats how my imagination works and I'm sure for most, but I am an efficient thinker I don't like exaggerating and dragging out characters thoughts becuase it just becomes superficial rather than succinct. That's when I realized I would rather write a screenplay than a book

Doubles

Same.

Wrong.
5% of the population can't visualize at all (if they try to do so they see darkness, no shadow, no light, no shape whatsoever), yet they still can reason coherently. If I remember correctly 15% of the early 19th century European scientists could not visualize anything, yet they could understand any abstract concept.
Also blind people are subject to no mental impairment whatsoever, and their reasoning is not stunted.

hey fuckhead, something has to happen in actual reality for it to be validated. We dont write reality, we interprete it. We SEE in different methods. Someone who recites a theory or instruction word for word has no fucking idea what hes saying till he SEES it take place through one of his senses, tthrough the eyes or hands. Blind people are the least likely to create, but they arent devoid of understanding. They probably even have an higher sense of imagination through touch and filling the blanks. Oh how i wish i could see what they SEE. Fuck ouuta here you shtewpid charlatan.

this, tarkovsky made some beautiful movies -- really worth it to watch

But that's wrong

lol lifes not goin well for eh bud, God Bless

life is ALWAYS stranger than fiction

youtube.com/watch?v=1H3pA4X-mhA

...

lmao

First of all, do you really think that you don't understand anything that you haven't seen result in something observable?

Second, are you going to argue that any bullshit complicated system that you can see you can somehow understand because you see it? That any understanding you had prior to observing what might be a more or less random and indecipherable tangle of occurrences somehow through the sheer act of hitting your eyeballs grants you a deep understanding that no amount of puzzling and reasoning in your mind could provide?

Third, are you going to tell me that the theories which describe objects never under any circumstances able to be seen mean nothing to nobody? What even is your definition of meaning, of having a "fucking idea" of an object, if your very computer or phone itself was built by people who have no idea of their own theories, and yet it operates?

1.yes, you are just mimicking you cant recreate anything youve never seen, you need the images your brain is signifying with those words
2. visual understanding is everything, it is both accuracy and understanding through actuality, its validation of whats real, i can talk about beauty all fucking day and have no reaction, but real beauty makes my fucking JAW DROP
3. THEY USE THEIR IMAGINATION BEFORE HANDS TO MANIFEST IT IN REALITY THEY ARE SEEING WHAT IS NOT IN REALITY YET, THEY SEE THE FUTURE THEY SEE YOU SEE?

fuck ur a phony

why does that coconut have a human head growing out of it
is that GMO

My problem with Lakoff is the same as it is with Gerald Edelman-- neither can write. After reading Metaphors We Live By (co-written with Mark Johnson) I became rather intrigued with his theories so picked up a copy of Philosophy in the Flesh and a series of his essays (both written or rather published at the turn of the millenium) and just wasn't impressed. The guy's obsessed with metaphor, okay. But the apparatus he constructed around this obsession seemed bogus to me, and never really moved beyond his assertion that It's All Metaphor blah blah blah. And the writing itself? Embarrassingly poor for an academic of his stature. Maybe he gets better, however. What should I read?

>thinking linguistically
What do you mean by this? I have just conducted a little intuitive test - namely, thinking of a few different things (a distant memory, an object i am familiar with and an abstract concept) and in every single case I have *not* been thinking in terms of words and sentences; rather, I've addressed these concepts as mental entities. The only role of language was to express them in a different manner - in the manner of language instead of thought.

Isn't this the way we all think? I cannot imagine what it would be like to think in terms of sentences, it seems impossible because I always think in terms of entities that the sentences are referring to.

>thinks he invented a prejudice that's centuries old
>calls more informed posters charlatans and phonies
you best be trolling m8

>prejudice
>doubles
asshead listen to me please, no one invents shit, they discover, period, i have discovered what someone else may have already big whoop, its a race to understand, and its all VISUAL

pics or it didn't happen: the post

>They are seeing what's not in reality yet
This can be but it is not what I am talking about.

Picture a cube in four dimensions. Take a minute. Do you see it? Make sure you do.

Picture a cube in infinite dimensions. Replace all the dimensions with just some terms you made up -> instead of length, width, height, it now has zlrg, f, α, and also infinitely many other things (visualize zlrg, while you're at it). Use it to solve an equation some Austrian just pulled out of the air, which doesn't mean anything. Take the square of your answer, and use it to build modern electronics.

You cannot and never will visualize a 4-dimensional hypercube. If you think you did, you visualized a cube. Using the image of a cube as shorthand for the image of a hypercube is not any more direct somehow than using just the word hypercube as the shorthand for a hypercube. Visualization of things that are not what I mean can be a great asset if you also remind yourself that what you are visualizing is not what you are thinking, but that is all that it is.

If, somehow, again, you are going to say that really everything I've said falls under what you mean by "seeing," then your definition is so shit that you are not actually saying anything to begin with.

Not the user you were talking to but Descartes refutes your point. There are 2 kinds of visualisation: 1. literal visualisation (e.g. i can think of a small red cube) and 2. derived visualisation - it is based on concepts that you can visualise (in the case of the already mentioned cube- the notions of "side", "small", "color", etc.) - these, so to speak elementary concepts (that you indeed can visualize) are the foundation upon which you build more complex concepts (e.g. a figure with a million sides of a very complex color...)

motherfucker? How the fuck are you going to authenticate that a 4d hyper cube exits and is licit in nature? WHEN YOU FUCKING SEE IT. THERE IS NOTHING YOU TRULY UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVENT SEEN. THE REST IS PROJECTION WHICH YOU HAVE TO VISUALIZE YOU DUMB FUCK. WE CAN THEROIZE ABSURDITIES ALL WE WANT NONE SHALL COME TO FRUITION IF IT CANNOT BE SENSED (SEEN)

EXACTLY, THIS DUMMBASS DOESNT UNDERSTAND THAT EVERYTHING HE HAS ALREADY SEEN IS THE FOUNDATION FOR WHAT HE DOES AND DOESNT UNDERSTAND AND WHAT HE WILL UNDERSTAND

Cool, I'm ok with that. But it still seems to me that the elementary concept that lets you go from 3 to 4 edges is not some theory of cubes but of orthogonality. I don't see that being based in anything visual, although obviously there are visual examples which demonstrate orthogonality.

I already said, a few times, that this object makes accurate predictions.
>authenticate
That's kind of a narrow point of view. Why prefer things that exist?

you can only authenticate a theory by practice or visuals or else you have no grounds to call it correct you stoopid fuckin mutt

>Practice or visuals
Thank you very much

compare sign language to written or spoken language.

They're just means to a greater end and sign language is obviously slower and less efficient when it comes to abstract and conversational thought.

Sure, vision is useful for when you see something that demands immediate attention but that's not pure understanding, but rather just instict. Language depends on the interaction between vision, sound and the integration between the two which is faster than both on their own imo.

Wtf r u saying?

>visual = understanding
>language = communication speed (efficiency)