On 17 Aug 2002, David Dyer-Bennet wrote: #Mark A Mandel <mam at theworld.com> writes: #> I think this is where we came in: whether or not "thinking" can be done #> without words. If you define it away, then (ISTM) you're opting out of #> the discussion. #> #> When I visualize what would happen to the space in the car trunk if I #> put THIS suitcase THERE, turned on its side, and then slid THAT box in #> next to it in SUCH-AND-SUCH orientation and laid THAT bag on top of the #> box, slipping it in under the overhang JUST SO... I'm *thinking*, by any #> definition I care to use, but the content of my thinking is largely #> visual, partly kinesthetic, and only slightly verbal, if at all. Would #> you call that "non-verbal reasoning"? Why would you not call it #> "thinking"? # #The color matching thing, I simply don't *know*. Too little of it #takes place anywhere I can see it to have any idea how it's done, so I #have no opinion if it's thought or what. By one definition everything #taking place in the human head is thought, but I suspect that of being #too broad to be useful. # #And I think if you can't justify your conclusion, that you haven't #achieved "thought", or at least you can't *show* that you've achieved #thought. A guess that happens to be right isn't "thought" as I #understand it. AFAIR, you haven't defined thought, except to say that as you use the word it requires (internal) verbalization. What do you demand as proof that I've "achieved thought"? The process of mental manipulation of shapes that I describe above is generally successful, at a rate well above chance. Do you demand that verbal "thought" be generally successful? Please, give me a definition I can work with to answer your challenge, or else give off. -- Mark A. Mandel