Relatively thought-provoking questions?

[Luigi Ka-master]

Uhh, yeah, so I wanna know the answer to a question that's been slightly bothersome...so I figured I could ask it here, in hopes of at least a decent answer. Annd...I guess if anyone else has questions that are similair in the way that they're not really easy to answer, they can also be asked...here.


My most reasonable theory is that the person would just have to have a really, really good imagination and picture everything in their mind, since they couldn't just use words.

Or the answer could just be really obvious, and I just have no common sense.


...so yeah. answers plzkthx

So yeah, I was wondering how a person who has never been taught any kind of language, would go into any kind of depth of thought?

 

[thebluedeath1000]

Ka-master, you have too much free thinking time.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

They wouldn't. It has already been shown by many sociologists that language is required for abstract thinking. We think in words and when we lack them we lack the idea. There can be no concept of something with out a frame of reference.

 

[dr.neo]

Okay Okay, I have thought so much about this question and I dont have any kind of answer.

Think about it.

We all think we know what color we see. Red, blue, green ect... Whose to say other people see the same color? I am see black here which is a certain color to me but... In theory the other person might be seeing a different color. They would also call it black because that is all they have ever know it as.

I hope I am getting this out right. We could be seeing different colors but because we have always been told what color it was we could not think of it differently. If I was asked to describe black I would say dark. But if you are seeing what I would consider blue you would still think it was black because you have always known it to be.

Anyone understand?

 

[Rapid_Assassin]

Not all people think in words. However, all people will go insane and die without language. I've heard they did experiments where a baby was exposed to everything required to grow up healthy and happy (food, love, etc.) except for language. The baby ends up dying.

 

[psicicle]

Okay Okay, I have thought so much about this question and I dont have any kind of answer.

Think about it.

We all think we know what color we see. Red, blue, green ect... Whose to say other people see the same color? I am see black here which is a certain color to me but... In theory the other person might be seeing a different color. They would also call it black because that is all they have ever know it as.

I hope I am getting this out right. We could be seeing different colors but because we have always been told what color it was we could not think of it differently. If I was asked to describe black I would say dark. But if you are seeing what I would consider blue you would still think it was black because you have always known it to be.

Anyone understand?

I know excactly what you're trying to say, I thought of the very same thing when I was 10, but it's really difficult to say in words.

 

[Mediocre]

Not all people think in words. However, all people will go insane and die without language. I've heard they did experiments where a baby was exposed to everything required to grow up healthy and happy (food, love, etc.) except for language. The baby ends up dying.

Unless you cite your source, I'm going to assume that's total bull****. It sure sounds like bull****.

You give no reason or explanation about why the baby dies. Moreover, why did the mysterious "they" who did the experiment not step in and teach the baby language when it was obvious that it was causing him to decline? How did they even manage to attribute the baby's death to lack of language, rather than other causes? The baby surely didn't die just because it "went insane". There are plenty of insane people who are alive today. And finally, what country has scientists and a government who would feel free to experiment on a newborn and cause it to die.

Even if everything you said is true, and they somehow did manage to link lack of language with insanity/death, did they ever repeat the experiment?

And what, then, of the rare cases of feral children - children who grow up in the wild, with absolutely no contact with humans. Information on them is sparse on not the most reliable, but it suggests that some have lived for years without contact with humans and therefore without language.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Are you stupid? Since organic chemistry works the same way and our eyes are all designed and built the same and the nerve bundles are all connected the same we all see about the same thing. The only differences would be those with color blindness. Which is a chemical deficiency.

 

[dr.neo]

Are you stupid or do you just like to be a **** on the internet? Theres a thought-provoking question. I guess you just have to always make people look stupid on here because thats the cool thing to do. I don't know any other explanation to it.

 

[thebluedeath1000]

Everyone flipped out so quickly lol...just calm down and let them respond.

 

[thebluedeath1000]

I'm sorry for the double posting but the edit button isn't working for me...

I said to hold on so they can defend themselves..but scientists doing that to a baby is utterly inhuman so I highly doubt they would do such a thing...very unlikely...

and also the fact it would die with no physical problems?..

It does sound like bull but perhaps you have proof, we'll have to see

 

[Frozenserpent]

Okay Okay, I have thought so much about this question and I dont have any kind of answer.

Think about it.

We all think we know what color we see. Red, blue, green ect... Whose to say other people see the same color? I am see black here which is a certain color to me but... In theory the other person might be seeing a different color. They would also call it black because that is all they have ever know it as.

I hope I am getting this out right. We could be seeing different colors but because we have always been told what color it was we could not think of it differently. If I was asked to describe black I would say dark. But if you are seeing what I would consider blue you would still think it was black because you have always known it to be.

Anyone understand?

I have thought about this before, as well, and I know EXACTLY what you mean (or, at least, i'm sure i do). And I've thought about the OP's question before as a child, too. It's surprising how many similar things we've wondered/speculated about as children...

And haven't you guys thought of the "brain in the vat" scenario before, too? I used to ponder about the possibility that i was hooked up to a virtual reality machine since birth, that the real world is radically different from the world i perceive, that stimulus is fed through me from that machine, so i think i'm normal, and people are just watching my decisions in life with amusement.

 

[Pustulio]

I'm sorry but, I just have to laugh at that last comment, I never really thought about that before.

Anyways, back on topic. Well without language how is it other species survive? How do they do any thinking at all? I mean they have to associate things right? Maybe I'm just crazy but, I think that if never introduced to language it is possible.

 

[Vali]

Dr. Neo you seem to forget that someone couldn't see black as anything less than black since black is actually the lack of any light being reflected back. As Gamer4Fire said, unless due to some chemical deficiency there'd be no way to mistake the different colours since it's all just our brain processing the different fractions of the spectrum. A more interesting question would go along the lines of "How would you explain yellow to a blind person?", I'd like to see if anyone could muster a coherent answer to that one ^^.

To the OP's original question, I don't think it'd be possible. A baby for example reacts on impulse, there's no thought there. Body says food, baby cries. Body says sleep, baby cries . A baby is in a constant envrionment of learning how to speak, where it's able to link people's names for things with the objects until the point where it grows up and learns to speak for itself. Then kids start asking the really important questions and thinking things through, such as the ever awkward "Where do babies come from?". I don't think there's any sort of "deep thought" until that point, since babies never ask questions (which are the product of a chain of though).

I think that's enough thinking for this time of night .

 

[Gamer4Fire]

dr. neo - You are an angry, angry person.

 

[dr.neo]

Actually I never get angry on here. I dont think I ever have. Just for someone to try and make me look like a fool for no reason. Well that pretty much pisses me off.

 

[SuperBowser]

actually there's been a couple of instances where i've had arguments with people over the colour of an object.

one time i had this shirt that (as far as i'm concerned) is grey with a SLIGHT tinge of blue. around half the people i know call it blue, while the others say it is grey.

another time while playing 2v2 pool, we get to the brown ball and two of the people decide to call it red. no amount of explanation would make them admit it was brown (despite there already being a red ball, so it has to be brown!).

i think the eye works on the different cones (called R,G,B) and the colour you see depends on how strong the signal is from each cone, so maybe some people's cones are slightly different?? or i've just met a large amount of colour-blind freaks in denial.

 

[Cyphus]

dr.neo is using an example. an example, I myself have thought of, as well.
it doesn't matter whether its true or not, about color perception.

If a baby only acts on impulse, it is soley influenced by the environment and its genetics. If those are the only 2 factors, it has no "free will", which in turn does not later "develop" out of thin air, or any possible combination of 3rd party factors...inevitably, free will does not exist.
Any attempts to understand and define the logic of conciousness, thus, is only a conditioned process shaped from the experiences before; so there has to be some level of self-actualization that your desire to be openminded...is still an illusion that only draws us further and further from the pure truth of reality.

"depth of thought" is a very bad thing to divide from "lack of depth of thought", its not such a clear cut line between innate intelligence and concious awareness. Its more a gradual inclination from the id, or primal urges...
Let me put it this way....people would say a basic, simple organism can only act selfishly.

I argue there is no such thing as escaping selfishness. People's are "nice" and "polite" because they feel 'good' about doing it or subconciously know it will further benefit them.

A mother bird feeds her young because it is designed in her brain to do so.
When Bob kills himself, and people say he was selfish to do it, Bob could care less. You know why? Because he's DEAD. And Bob knew he wouldn't feel guilty for hurting other people if he's dead...so it doesn't matter in the end. Bob is indeffinately only responsible for himself. Thats the most logical thing anyone should understand.
(well actually thats not true, but at this level of discussion i'll say it is. I'd argue our entire world is understood in terms of individual objects and ideas(including people as invididuals/existance from void/etc)..when that designation is totally artificial to begin with)
But people aren't logical...they are emotianal, easily-controlled, and most of the time illogical beings.

I personally ingage in these kinds of conversations alot with friends, and would love to share how far the rabbit hole really goes...but its kinna a one on one sorta thing, that just cant be done over the internet.

 

[psicicle]

For the colors thing...

The brain recieves different impulses based on what the R,G and B cones send right? What if in some people, the impulse for G is the same as my impulse for R? Has anybody tested this? Even a difference in frequency or whatever serves to differentiate these signals would tint the colors, I would think. In addition to this, the brain gets trained as to what the signals mean, so who's to say that a difference in the brain may not affect sight?
I believe that some people have tried "upside down" glasses and over time, their brains readjusted the picture to right-side-up. Don't have a citation, but what significance does this have?

"Are you stupid? Since organic chemistry works the same way and our eyes are all designed and built the same and the nerve bundles are all connected the same we all see about the same thing"
Citation?

 

[GoldShadow]

Alright, about this whole color thing...
First off I think neo was just bringing up an interesting idea, not saying that it could actually happen in people. People seem to misinterpret that.

Vali, it can be possible for black to be something other than black. The eyes receive what is the absence of light; this is black. The brain may then interpret it such that when you actually "see" the image, it appears different. This is no different than manipulating the colors in an image editing program. Again, I'm not saying that this happens or that it's possible in humans, but simply explaining it as a concept.

Finally, psicicle, G4F is right about that comment and because it's pretty much common scientific knowledge, there's no need for a source or citation.

That specific study mentioned earlier though (about the children/language/dying) does need a source though, if it is true at all.

 

[Skywalker]

Actually I never get angry on here. I dont think I ever have. Just for someone to try and make me look like a fool for no reason. Well that pretty much pisses me off.

Bleh, calm down. Everyone gets flamed at one point on the internet.

 

[Frozenserpent]

Agree with Cyphus about people always being selfish in one aspect or another.

As for the color thing... think of a hypothetical situation, where Person A's perception part of the brain is altered from birth, and he perceives red the same as we perceive green. he perceives green the same as we perceive blue, and he perceives blue the same as we perceive red.
When he grows up, he is taught that a red object is red. However, if he were to switch minds with someone with differently working perception, he would see a blue object, or, at least, he would call it blue.

 

[Vicious Delicious]

Couldn't have said it better, Frozen.

Okay, you guys need to follow me here, it gives me a headache

If you come to expect the unexpected, you would thus not be expecting what you would normally be expecting, correct? So if you're not expecting what you'd normally be expecting, which is now the unexpected which you're saying to expect normally, what do you expect to expect?

 

[commonyoshi]

You would expect a lot of situations that most people wouldn't consider including those people normally would. You wouldn't lose common sense, or at least you shouldn't.

 

[Mrs. Bahamut]

Are you stupid?

G4F! That's really harsh!

I thought the same thing Dr. Neo. But alas, Baha shut me down just as hard as G4F shut you down. LOL

 

[dr.neo]

Yea, I'm just saying. You know I dont know if other people think about these kinds of things but I do. Its crazy some of the things that I think of. Things that wouldn't be true or couldn't happen but I think any way. Like if you were in a plane and it was crashing. I would open the door and right before the plane hit the ground I would jump off the ground to land softly on the ground. I know its ******** but thats just some of the things I think of.

 

[Xsyven]

There are orphanages in South America with a lot of babies and very few workers. The babies get the food they need, and the warmth-- but since they're in no contact with other humans very often, and feel no love or any sort of emotion, they supposedly have no reason to live and die.

That's what the post on the first page was refering to, I think. Look it up on google. I don't want to, but I've heard it multiple times at different places.





As for the first post-- it's simple Anthropology. Without language, there couldn't be society, there couldn't be oganization, there wouldn't be anything but pure anarchy.

 

[m3gav01t]

Like if you were in a plane and it was crashing. I would open the door and right before the plane hit the ground I would jump off the ground to land softly on the ground. I know its ******** but thats just some of the things I think of.

you'd still die. you wouldn't land softly, unless you pushed harder than is humanly possible on the floor of the plane when you jumped. you'd still have most of your momentum from flying down with the plane and you'd hit the ground with lethal force. possibly enough force to make some sort of hilarious, "squish!" or, "plop!" noise.

 

[psicicle]

Yea, I'm just saying. You know I dont know if other people think about these kinds of things but I do. Its crazy some of the things that I think of. Things that wouldn't be true or couldn't happen but I think any way. Like if you were in a plane and it was crashing. I would open the door and right before the plane hit the ground I would jump off the ground to land softly on the ground. I know its ******** but thats just some of the things I think of.

Wouldn't work because you will be going down for a while... maybe a minute? Every second you will be going faster by 9.8 meters per second roughly. Your jump velocity is 7 meters a second I think. So you subtract that from your crash velocity to get your new velocity after the jump. Or just do it the easier way and imagine an observer on the outside of the plane.

 

[Skywalker]

I would rep you if I could for that inspirational picture. (seriously)

Oh wait... the adorable Debate Hall mascot:

Just kidding.

 

[ecstatic]

I have thought about this before, as well, and I know EXACTLY what you mean (or, at least, i'm sure i do). And I've thought about the OP's question before as a child, too. It's surprising how many similar things we've wondered/speculated about as children...

And haven't you guys thought of the "brain in the vat" scenario before, too? I used to ponder about the possibility that i was hooked up to a virtual reality machine since birth, that the real world is radically different from the world i perceive, that stimulus is fed through me from that machine, so i think i'm normal, and people are just watching my decisions in life with amusement.

I've thought about both the color and the "brain in the vat" since I was very young. I'm still like that... I believe I think similarly to the way Einstien (sp?) did, always keeping the same wonder and awe of the world around him past childhood.


I've got a good one, but it'd take a mathematical lecture to explain.

 

[Virgilijus]

There have been a couple of questions that I have thought up in my life that are a bit intriguing. None of them keep me asleep at night as some of them are more joke related. Nevertheless:

1) Say people vote on an award to give three candidates. The award is "Most likely to win runner up". The votes are tallied; A has more votes than B, who in turn has more than C. Now, who would be the most deserving of the prize; the man who most people agreed would place second in a competition or the man who actually did place second? Not a serious philosophical problem, but interesting in my mind.

2) Do sky divers enjoy dreams where they are falling? Never met one in real life to be able to ask him/her.

I know I have a couple of others, but I can't think of them now XD

 

[m3gav01t]

I've got a good one, but it'd take a mathematical lecture to explain.

let's hear it. i'm curious to hear what someone who claims to think like einstein has to say. also, einstein wasn't exactly the most open-minded in his view of the universe. it wasn't until he was on his death bed that he accepted quantum mechanics because of conflicts with relativity. feynmann was a better physicist than einstein, at least in that regard.

virgilijus: your first question reminded me of one that i heard a few years ago that went a little something like this:

a ferry makes a trip across a channel or some body of water everyday for some inordinate amount of time. overtime, parts of the ferry break and have to be replaced. eventually, all the parts on the ferry have been replaced. then, a new ferry is constructed out of the pieces (which i assume were all repaired) of the other one. so the question is, which is the original ferry, the one that has been making the journey since the beginning but has had all its parts replaced, or the ferry constructed out of the original parts that just started making the trip everyday?

 

[o.Odyssey.o]

I like that question, m3gav01t. It would be the first Ferry. The ferry may not have all of its old parts and what not. It's what's inside the ferry, not what's on the outside. You can't judge a book by it's cover. Silly Goose.

 

[Peeze]

Okay Okay, I have thought so much about this question and I dont have any kind of answer.

Think about it.

We all think we know what color we see. Red, blue, green ect... Whose to say other people see the same color? I am see black here which is a certain color to me but... In theory the other person might be seeing a different color. They would also call it black because that is all they have ever know it as.

I hope I am getting this out right. We could be seeing different colors but because we have always been told what color it was we could not think of it differently. If I was asked to describe black I would say dark. But if you are seeing what I would consider blue you would still think it was black because you have always known it to be.

Anyone understand?

Nope. Everyone is taught colors by their parents and/or teacher. That means that everyone has to be seeing/naming the same colors that their parents see. Otherwise their parents would tell them blue is black and and their teachers-seeing somethin different-would tell them that blue is green.
Looking at it scientifically, the human eye has 3 cones that detect the three colors red, blue, green. All humans see the same light, and our eyes see the same wavelengths, meaning whatever color light is all eyes pick it up the same.

Anyone Understand?

 

[dr.neo]

Well in your theory your wrong. Whether they are seeing the same color as they are calling is not the point. The point is they are seeing something different they what others are. I know all these things are not true like the plane theory. I know there is no possibility at all. I just think that that would be kool.

 

[tmw_redcell]

virgilijus: your first question reminded me of one that i heard a few years ago that went a little something like this:

a ferry makes a trip across a channel or some body of water everyday for some inordinate amount of time. overtime, parts of the ferry break and have to be replaced. eventually, all the parts on the ferry have been replaced. then, a new ferry is constructed out of the pieces (which i assume were all repaired) of the other one. so the question is, which is the original ferry, the one that has been making the journey since the beginning but has had all its parts replaced, or the ferry constructed out of the original parts that just started making the trip everyday?

Yeah, this is a tricky question It reminds me of another dilemma, teleportation.

Say there's a teleportation device which operates with two machines in different locations. One machine, at the starting point, takes a perfect image of the person's body, down to the atomic level, all the electrical charges and whatever. It sends that data to the second machine which then reconstructs the person copying the data exactly. Then the body in the first machine is destroyed, because the Bible says human cloning is wrong and everyone still kind of a luddite even in the age of teleporters. Plus that's the only way they can make the telporter work for now!

Would you still use this device? I'm not sure I would. What basically happens is, you die when you use the machine, and another person (who is exactly like you, but is not 'you' in terms of continuity of existence) lives on instead and benefits from all your hard work earning money for a teleportation to Mars. But I think I'd probably use it eventually after lots of stalling. I'm pretty sure even brain cells only last so long, so I'm not the "original" me in the same way the ferry might not be the 'original.'

 

[psicicle]

I did the ferry thing in class, here's what I wrote:

The discussion of the identity of the schooner in class prompted an analysis on the meaning of identity. The puzzle of whether S2 or S1 was the original schooner showed that something as fundamental as identity, which most take for granted, has no clear meaning.

My stance is that either both S1 and S2 are potentially the original schooner, and both S1 and S2 are potentially not the original schooner, as the owner would not be able to tell the difference between the two. An object’s identity is by no means tangible. It is something that humans arbitrarily give to the object, and because of this human factor, identity is subjective. One example given in the class discussion was about a valuable vase that I happened to own. If this vase were to be replaced with some replica, would it be the same vase? Barring any knowledge of the replacement, my stance is: yes, it is the same vase. Only when something is observed, and hence known does it become a part of reality. In any case, whether it is actually the same vase or not isn’t relevant, what is relevant to the argument is that the identity of the vase remains the same. As long as I don’t know the vase was replaced, its identity will still remain the same. What reason would I have to change its identity? This thought experiment illustrates that an individual object does not have a tangible, measurable “identity”. Identity is given to objects by people. This means that assuming the owner of S1 and S2 cannot tell the difference between the two, they both either become the schooner or they both are not the schooner. Of course, these two schooners are unique in that they are present in different areas of space. If the owner had foreknowledge of which was which, could one retain the original schooner’s identity while the other did not? No, their identities are still interchangeable because they could simply be switched without the owner’s knowledge and then all of a sudden the other schooner assumes the identity of the original. In a way determined by the owner of the schooners, both S1 and S2 are the original schooner and both S1 and S2 are not the original schooner.

If I had absolute knowledge of which was S1 and which was S2, then I would say that S1, the schooner that had its parts replaced, would retain the identity of the original schooner, simply because its identity came from my memories that I associated with it. As long as S1 was periodically used by me, over the period of two years I would transfer the identity of the original schooner’s parts to the parts of S1. This is opinionated though, because identity is subjective as shown in the vase example. Also it isn’t really relevant because the owner is not supposed to be able to be able to tell the difference.

 

[Varuna]

They wouldn't. It has already been shown by many sociologists that language is required for abstract thinking. We think in words and when we lack them we lack the idea. There can be no concept of something with out a frame of reference.

The question was deep thinking, not abstract thinking, an incredibly obvious and geeky example to the contrary would be Ken. Ken does not, or to this point has not, shown any capability of verbalizing the depth of his skill in the game. Many people who are good at things cannot explain why they are good at it and most of these things (such as video game) are widely considered to require deep thought to be good at. Deep thought is not restricted to the verbal realm and one without a language is perfectly capable of it. For his time the caveman might have even required deep thought to start forming sounds into some system for ease of communication.

EDIT: Wow I didnt even read the second part, but I also think thats wrong. An idea is not restricted to words; ask any mechanic most of them will say that their understanding of machines goes beyond words. Your last sentence I would agree with, but you act like there is no other frame of reference than words. If you were present I would be eager to point to your nose ear eyes and mouth.


EDIT AGAIN: I don't even know if I would trust a sociologist on this, Maybe on language but not its relationship to the brain or cognition. Maybe a psychologist or neurologist. But thats just me your probably completely right there

 

[Mr.GAW]

How much can anyone resist Fate's will?

Also, time is VERY VERY difficult for me to understand.

Is time a circle, or a string, or billions and billions of different strings?