Re: In what language do you think?

heliogabalus <forbidden@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Marc Olschok" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eqsv9d$i48$1@xxxxxxxxxxx

heliogabalus <forbidden@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It seems to me that we have to distinguish two ways for the external
objects to enter in contact with our bodies: directly, i.e. by
molecules belonging to these objects (somatosensory system) and
indirectly, i.e. by a representative medium (photons, sound waves,
magnetic waves, x-rays etcetera).

This is a distinction which I doubt to be relevant as such for
deducing differences in the ability to recall the respective
sensations:

(1) regarding e.g. a photon as less real than a molecule with respect
to their effect seems to be artificial.

In fact, photons are as real as molecules, and a distinction between
them as for material stimuli would be groundless. Maybe I can result
clearer by saying that when a photon hits our derma it establishes some
effects, like Vitamin D production, and when it hits our eyes it
determines others physiological responses too; for example, an excess of
photons can determine dazzlement. But when photons hit our eyes as
reflected light from objects, they are processed by our visual system as
media_of_some_other_thing; in that way no matter of their physical
qualities, as no matter if my scripts are presented by chalk or pen or
electron beams.

Well, every input has to be processed of course, and this processing
rarely just work on "a single photon" or "a single molecule".
So it seems, that you want to distinguish according to different mental
interpretations ("I see a book" versus "I smell smoke"). Of course this
would beg the question whether these different interpretations are
always consistent ("I smell a rose").



(2) for tactile stimuli, one has both ways: touching something
is "direct" but e.g. feeling the wind on my skin is "via medium"
according to the above terminology.

Wind, it seems to me, isn't an acoustic wave I was talking of, and when
it comes in contact with my skin isn't a medium, but the real thing. I
was referring to the acoustic waves affecting hearing system: mechanic
pressure wich is the medium of some other thing.

But acoustic waves are just those mechanic pressure change that comes
in contact with your eardrums, it is the real thing. That you are able
to intpret it as the sound of something in the sense of "I hear the train"
is something you have learned. This notion of "the real thing" would
force you to distinguish between the sensation caused by the wind and
someone blowing on your arm, even if the sensation is the same.


(3) The external stimuli are not involved (usually not present at all)
when a once made sensual experience is recalled via its mental
representation; hence I doubt whether our sensual organs are involved
in that process. The particular way in which these organs (need to)
work, should not influence the outcome. *None* of these organs is
capable of reproducing the stimuli it deciphers. In short, when I
recall some picture, music or odor, I neither see nor hear or smell.

I agree. Recalling isn't the real thing, it pertains to the mental
stuff.


While (1) and (2) may be repaired by a refinement of terminology, I
think that (3) is the main point against your _previous_ argument
("we cannot synthesize molecules in our nose") againsts _recalling_ a
particular type of sensual experience.

Sorry, I fear I didn't understand this.

I meant your original argument from <Y14yh.708$BP5.4979@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
where you refuted

| >[...] I, for one, can easily recall taste and smell without the
| > circumstances surrounding the experience

with

|
| So, when you recall the taste of an ice cream, do you really feel in
| your mouth his flavour? This seems to me physiologically impossible, as
| the body cannot create in the mouth molecules of any substance at will.
| How can you recall savours but with a representation?

which made me curious. My main point was, that such a representation
needs to be the abstract mental representation anyway, so that
"synthesizing molecules" is as irrelevant for recalling taste or smell
as "synthesizing photons" is for recalling visual experiences.

Marc
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: In what language do you think?
    ... In fact, photons are as real as molecules, and a distinction between ... it comes in contact with my skin isn't a medium, ... recall some picture, music or odor, I neither see nor hear or smell. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: In what language do you think?
    ... Because the primary stimuli are ... When the molecules arise again, ... thanks to the memory of our previous experiences. ... And we need a representation in our mind in order to be able to do ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Machine code for farmers who want their heads to spin.
    ... As I recall sometimes ... > if I wanted to be sure of the representation. ... completely unfit for any form of commercial programming. ... machine code. ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: In what language do you think?
    ... When the molecules arise again, ... thanks to the memory of our previous experiences. ... And we need a representation in our mind in order to be able to do ... but its presentation by a medium. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: In what language do you think?
    ... When the molecules arise again, ... And we need a representation in our mind in order to be able to do this. ... presentation by a medium. ... of the sensory perception in the brain. ...
    (sci.lang)