Humans are able to think in shapes, dimensions, symbols, images, scenes, and more.


Why do modern scientists retain an intellectual image when the science they conduct is word-based?


I'm sure a majority of modern scientists are unwise.


It's not the science that's incorrect, it's the promotion of a false intellectual image of a human being intelligent by words.


Your intelligence is a bunch of words?.. Let's see it!

The problem is words, not the fact "intelligence isn't words" which I'm arguing the case for more so than yourself.

You could have built this 'collider' without the use of words...

Children are able to create their own languages out of symbols, nonsensical to people like yourself, and think in these symbols, possibly and probably constructing a better understanding than people like yourself; and this is just symbols.

Children can be anything.

Perhaps you reduced what's possible without words...

You can attribute value to a symbol, for example; a human may choose a symbol to represent 'the child', and this symbol also expresses the value of 'the child' to the human.

Humans can create many symbols, and attribute different value to each; some symbols can mean 'a thousand words' - there is no limit to the symbols that can be created by humans.

Building the collider is not word-based, the scientists who built it were in support of intelligence that includes words.

Sort of like written language, without restrictions...

I'm sure I could build the collider at some point in my life if I had the need.

Words are symbols, but they are restricted to what we can communicate, as oppose to what we can think.

As for communication, what we can think, can be expressed in many ways. Not 'interpretative dance', feeling and expression, character and emotion; there are many aspects of nature we can make use of to make a point.

Thought would be more fluent with this 'more convoluted language', but communication wouldn't! However, if humans were in a good relationship with each other, I think communication also would become fluent.

The scientists speak in and think in words; they present themselves as this word-afflicted mammal.

I have not dedicated years to such a collider - and any human who does can make a significant contribution to the effort.

We have to first want what the Government has produced (which often means that we have to endure time in educational institutes); the conversion of our wants truly twists our frame of reference. We must accept the man-made reality that comes with the scientists who speak and think in words, and their discoveries and technology, because of the word-aspect.

Language doesn't evolve to the great degrees that a 'more convoluted language' could.

'Very rapidly', must be in your case, lacking knowledge of the speed that's possible in the universe!

I can't make sense of what you mean.

Do you mean, complete disregard for the meaning to my claim?

Without understanding the meaning of my claim, how can you make a sure argument against it?

By my own symbols, yes.

And before you make a crude statement against it, this type of language I have tried to argue for in this thread.

I haven't really won the case, however, I said I would research more ways in which wordless thought can be contrasted to word, and then reinstate my argument.

Let me address 'don't make up sh*t', quickly before I begin research.

Humans always have context of their own; they have their own memories, and can create symbols that apply to their own context.


Next time, I would prefer it if you allow people, who are interested, to talk for themselves, rather than coming in with your usual windmill and lazily reducing it all to "What?", "Drivel" and other stupidity.

What do you consider "benefit"? This question needs to be answered.

Producing something cool?

If you're going to say what's "helpful", then, to whom's ideology?

In all honesty, this language would benefit many things; thought being one of them; the way we act, another; our future on Earth...

Current technology is not beneficent for our future on Earth; it's cool, at most; beneficent is a more technical term than cool, which is why I would like to hear your explanation of what you mean by "beneficent".

You'll struggle to live life on Earth, seeking other planets for your ineptitude...

I'm not here to sprawl over peers 'my greater intelligence', I'm here to highlight what makes us more intelligent and what makes us unintelligent.

You don't need a psychologist, you need a hero!

No, not 'more complicated', more intelligent. It's complexity would not be a burden...

You can truly think over time rather in segments of one, so it's not 'drivel', again, for many reasons.

You are right, in your own way, but you suppress the potential of wordless thought and communication of wordless creatures...

It's not only about these moments where we 'express a point' to each other, and these moments aren't always passive, or friendly.

In other words, I think it's erroneous to reduce what's wordless, to how word-processes would appear wordlessly.

There is also thought - there is also relationship, there are many aspects of life, that truly are abstracted by words... It's not like the world is free of word and we can choose when to speak or think in them.