[MD] indefensible yet enlightening

[Horse]

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, craigerb at comcast.net 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