5 Insane Ways Words Can Control Your Mind

Oh, well, now you’re controlling words with two minds. What will they think of next? #-o

All I can see here is “An interesting article on Cracked with linguistic implications.Discuss”

Yep.
Like I said in the other thread; now think back on Plato a bit differently.
The guy was trying force his mind to see something that wasn’t part of the cultural observation previously in mass.

This is also why I think it’s premature to assume what any 3rd century BCE to 3rd century CE text was intending without doing quite a bit of homework and study regarding the cultural maturity and customs of the area circulating the texts and examining their use of language outside of the text (preferably in law and art where records are left, as with these, physical consequences of the interpretations are evident which helps in understanding the meanings) and understanding what is known about the logical construct of their thought and values.

To just pick something up, however, from that far back and say, “Well it means ‘forever’ because they used the word in their language that means ‘a very, very long distance’; but instead used here it is within time that they are discussing”, is about as erroneous as it gets.
Simply because “their” idea (whomever you are looking at from that far back) of “a very, very long distance in regards to time” has no inherent relation to the concept of the modern western cultural understanding of the idea surrounding “forever”, “infinite”, or “eternity”.

It may…but you can’t just assume that; and many people do.

I agree to a certain extent. You could color a past.

The word ignorance was meant to say “ignore what is known” but now reads as “just plain dumb”.

But no matter what was intended, you can still see how a different path of assumptions can start even when keeping the study within one culture root.

I agree the past is not a good indicator when humans measure it.

I don’t know what you mean by this.

Although I agree with TheStumps words I want to say that I think this article is drawing a wrongful, even impossible conclusion. It is not that it is impossible to grasp something, we just judge something not important. When confronted with different shades of blue we see the difference, we just don’t give a hoot. Sky blue, navy blue…let the wife decide!

In fact: if indeed we could not grasp it we could never learn and therefore never broaden our horizon. This again disproves empiricism.

Well, we see the difference between the shades we see a difference between anyway. :-"

It’s not that people didn’t simply grasp it.
It’s that it wasn’t made aware in the mind.
The mind made a thing invisible to the cognitive; like a magic trick.

There’s a similar difference to the Russian blues in the way English speakers see red and pink, though. We just don’t have it for blue or green. And for me, red and pink certainly ‘feel’ more different to each other than sky blue and ultramarine.

Some languages have a similar elision of blue and green:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinguis … n_language

The difference is more than personal judgement, it affects cognitive processing. But insofar as the language developed, it highlights a cultural indifference, I agree.

The article doesn’t say that we cannot grasp it (and nor does most empiricism) - in fact, it clearly says it can be grasped:

It’s just that language and perception are linked. The headline’s sloppy, though - of course Russians don’t see more colours, they do have more names for them though.

The way someone would say it took x technology this long to develop so it will take the following y technology just as much time to be invented.

You can explain to that person the rate of progress, like moore’s law and the law accelerating returns, but the tendency of human mind is to guess along a linear time line about a future that grows in exponential ways.

The impossible is not just made possible, it’s made sooner.

@OH:
I do declare that the entire point of the article is that people do not separate if they have not learned the difference. The fact is that they do. Although overstating my case I felt I needed to. It was an emotional response, prompted by the examples of the article and the responses here. Perhaps It was not so called for, but I’m glad I said so anyway!!!

–edit–
There!
:gay-imgay:

They do, but not as well and they are more prone to confusion. Hence the colour tests.

See? That’s pink, it’s clearly different from red. Excellent example :stuck_out_tongue:

Have you always known it if at times you don’t know that you know it?

@OH:
Where there not 5 chapters at first?

There still are, over 2 pages.

That was a very interesting read. Does anyone have any suggestions for possible further reading into how language underpins our cognitive processing? (Ideally drawing philosophical conclusions from it and being newer than the essay that appears at the end of Orwell’s 1984).

edge.org/3rd_culture/borodit … index.html

Thank you

I read Cracked.com quite often - It’s surprisingly good for cog-sci links.

An animal such as a dog, cat, horse bird all have language, they also can develop new sounds or reactions for new things they encounter repeatedly. This is language it develops just as ours does. when we encounter something or think something we reference our past experience and language to describe it then we give it a common label to be able to communicate and teach. Animals do this also. That they don’t use words as we do does not mean they don’t have a set of sounds and body actions that is language. when we speak face to face our body is used to communicate as much as words are used. Our experience with words/concepts does control our minds, it controls how much and how we learn. the less interaction we have with new the less tools we have. languge can inhibit our personslity and growth. Animals rarely ever step out of the box combine that with a diet that inhibits brain function they have not developed a complexity of language. they simply have no need to , there is no variety ,very little curiosity and their territory rarely changes.
It may seem insane that something like language can control us but when you look at animals then us it does not seem so insane it seems right.