Do Words Hurt?

LesMisanthrope
reply to post by BDBinc

 

The word callipygous was not separate from my sense and thought.

This word was out of your senses and mind entirely before I wrote it down for you. Hence words were out of your mind and separate from your mind. You said "As I keep telling you the words are not separate from sense and though in a person". You're a person and the word was out of your sense and thought.

you cannot separate the words from the meaning

I just did. You read a word and you had to run and find meaning for it. The word was without meaning until you did so. Is that the word's fault? or yours?

edit on 6-12-2013 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)

The word callipygous was not outside your senses and thought before you wrote it , how could it be separate from your senses and thought when you thought of it and wrote it.
In your mind there was no meaning?
The word when sensed by me was in my thought (mind) .

reply to post by BO XIAN

What an absurd great flying leap of irrational nonsense.

That's akin to saying that . . . The levee in Fuzhou was out of your mind before I mentioned it--so it must not exist. Sheesh, what nonsense.

You're getting to far ahead of yourself.

I was arguing that things don't have to be in one's mind or perception for them to exist. When we stop looking at the moon, it doesn't disappear. You're agreeing with me in an hilarious manner. Don't worry, it's humorous.

Merely noting that some folks have not learned certain words, yet . . . offers NO HELP WHATSOEVER to your OP silliness.

Yes it shows that words aren't the cause of their meaning. They are words, but they cannot hurt you. And why not? If words hurt, as you promise and insist that they do, then as words they should hurt.

If it is only known words that hurt, then it is not the words that hurt, but how you know them.

Run and go do some more google. It's really helping you out. I can tell you have done all this thinking by yourself.

reply to post by BDBinc

The word callipygous was not outside your senses and thought before you wrote it , how could it be separate from your senses and thought when you thought of it and wrote it.
In your mind there was no meaning?
The word when sensed by me was in my thought (mind) .

Now it's my senses and thought? You said "a persons mind", not all persons. Yes, humans speak and think about words. Is that your argument?

reply to post by BO XIAN

Where do the children PUT the WORDS THEY HAVE LEARNED?

Do you mean where do children put their brains that they have learned? I have trouble following what you're talking about when you say words. I seem to recall you saying words were biochemical processes and mental lexicons. Am I to believe children are remembering biochemical processes and synapses now?

Or is this an admittance that you now know what a word is?

LesMisanthrope
reply to post by BDBinc

 

The word callipygous was not outside your senses and thought before you wrote it , how could it be separate from your senses and thought when you thought of it and wrote it.
In your mind there was no meaning?
The word when sensed by me was in my thought (mind) .

Now it's my senses and thought? You said "a persons mind", not all persons. Yes, humans speak and think about words. Is that your argument?

My argument is the same, that words( in the case of verbal abuse ) hurt the person, words are the tools of mind.

The word callipygous was not outside (your) senses and thought before you wrote it , how could it be separate from your senses and thought when you thought of it and wrote it. In your mind there was no meaning?

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


I do like your OP. It well was written and does come off solid and sound of mind. Who would think words are anything but words. They do not have edges or sharp pointy tips to them as you explain. I just wanted to add, and explain you are looking at vocal evocations in a very worldly sense, in the realm you live in, and you see with your own eyes, the 3rd dimension. (Outside the visual range of humans are frequency ranges and vibrations of all sorts! These frequency can and DO have effect on other human beings.)

Words are an expression of our energy we are putting out into this matrix. Maybe some really low end negative expressions do have sharp points and edges to them when using that as a metaphor to how the frequency wave hits a person.
Words are frequency waves. We are Frequency based creatures, we just do not see the world as waves, and frequency. We see it in the matrix like place that it is. Consider that into your line of thinking, and step outside the range of what you see with your eyes, and the everyday.

Granted you make some very good points, valid to your stance, and how you see it. You just left out the outside look into words outside the human frequency observable ranges.

Obviously NO amount of scientific studies and documents even scratches the surface of the OP's understanding of the REAL FACTS

about WORDS hard-wired, resident IN the brain.

It appears that there's NO genuine desire for informed dialogue on the subject.

I will likely continue to post some scientific documents here and there.

I don't see much point in bothering with the OP blather any more, much at all. What an absurd pile of irrational assertions and meaningless blather pretending to be erudite and accurate. Incredible.

More documentation that the OP's assertions that the brain does not store words in any form etc. . . . more documentation that such assertions are utterly false.

projectlearnet.org...

WHAT IS WORD RETRIEVAL?
.

The terms “word retrieval” and “word finding” refer to the processes involved in mentally identifying and then producing the word or words needed to express a thought or name an object. Word retrieval is one among many types of information retrieval. [See Tutorial on Retrieval] Because words have two very different storage systems in the brain, word retrieval relies on the development of both systems.
.

Meaning (or Semantic) Storage System: The meanings of words are stored in the brain as a large number of connections and systems of connections among nerve cells. These connections correspond to what we call word associations. For example, when a person is asked “What’s a sparrow?” she might reply, “A sparrow is a bird (category). Like all birds, they fly and sing and ...(actions); they’re not used for food or much of anything except to look at and listen to (use/function); they have a beak and wings and skinny little legs and feet (parts); they are small and grayish and round, with a shrill call (attributes); they make their nests in trees and are found in the following locations in summer ... (location); and when I think about sparrows, I think about my uncle the bird man...(idiosyncratic associations)” The specific details are not so important here; however, the important concept is that word meaning is a set of more or less organized associations that correspond to large numbers of neural connections in the brain. These neural connections can encompass large and distant areas of the brain. Each meaning connection represents one “route” to that word in the brain.
.

Sound (or Phonologic) Storage System: In order to say a word, we also need to know what sounds go together to make the word. These sounds and their organization are stored in the phonologic storage system of the brain – again, a set of nerve cell connections, but this time not so wide spread in the brain.

. . .

Generally, the article talks a lot about WORD RETRIEVAL problems.

OF COURSE, there could be NO WORD RETRIEVAL IF

the WORDS were NOT stored in the brain.

So, yet again, it is clearly absurd that the OP insists that words are NOT stored in the brain.

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ARTICLE ON THE BRAIN'S STORAGE CAPACITIES ETC.

www.scientificamerican.com...

. . .
.
The human brain consists of about one billion neurons. Each neuron forms about 1,000 connections to other neurons, amounting to more than a trillion connections. If each neuron could only help store a single memory, running out of space would be a problem. You might have only a few gigabytes of storage space, similar to the space in an iPod or a USB flash drive. Yet neurons combine so that each one helps with many memories at a time, exponentially increasing the brain’s memory storage capacity to something closer to around 2.5 petabytes (or a million gigabytes). For comparison, if your brain worked like a digital video recorder in a television, 2.5 petabytes would be enough to hold three million hours of TV shows. You would have to leave the TV running continuously for more than 300 years to use up all that storage.
.
. . .

Obviously there's PLENTY of storage capacity to store the 10,000 to 50,000 or even 100,000 words that anyone might learn and use.

Of course, if the OP, in order to be consistent with his absurd assertions, is trying to store HIS WORDS in his big toenail, that could be a problem.

RESEARCHER GRAPH'S BRAIN'S STORAGE OF WORDS.

www.oread.ku.edu...

One of the OP's MOST DOGMATIC and MOST OFF THE WALL assertions--flying in the face of common sense as well as SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH has been the mystifyingly obtuse and "uninformed" assertion that the brain does NOT STORE WORDS in the brain.

I still find it mind boggling that any sentient being in our era could come up with such an off the wall assertion but the OP has made it repeatedly in this thread.

This article alone should shred that assertion to dust for anyone with a hint of logical reasoning and understanding of the research.

[as usual, BoX emphases added]

A KU researcher is applying tools from the branch of mathematics known as graph theory to human memory to understand how words are stored. This approach may explain why many patients recover language skills after brain trauma such as stroke.
. . .
.
A cognitive psychologist, Vitevitch has long studied the mental lexicon -- how words are stored and retrieved in the human brain. Though a dictionary approaches words alphabetically, research suggests that the brain organizes words differently -- by sound, by word meaning or by a combination of sound and meaning.
.
. . .

Nodes in the network represented individual words. A link connected two nodes if the words were "phonological neighbors" (they sounded alike). For example, the nodes hat, cut, cap and scat were connected to the node cat. He found some nodes had many connections but most had only a handful.
.

"This disparity is a good thing," Vitevitch said. "Short cuts are available from one end of this huge system to another."
. . .
.

The OP repeatedly taunted to show him where a word was stored in the brain. This is an excellent WHERE article from very solid scientific research on WORD STORAGE IN THE BRAIN.

The previous poster, in a fit of blind rage, loses understanding of a few key words in order to fudge his reasoning. Although he has belittled me and others for not taking PhD level classes in linguistics and psycholinguistics he does not know what "word" means, he does not understand "representation", he does not understand "semantics", he does not understand anything about lexicology or semiotics. He believes actual words are in the brain, and these brain words, not the letters and sounds we commonly call words, are the cause of our pain. And we are to believe this is PhD level thinking, scientific thinking, when all it amounts to is someone running to Google to try and prove his case without understanding what he's posting.

He has tried to prove that I am wrong by proving that I'm right. It is our own thinking that causes the pain (what he calls words), and not the words (what he refuses to call words).

He has said I have an obsession, am psychologically defunct, and am sure to have a mental disorder. This is a diagnosis based on nothing but the words I have put on the screen. Remember, PhD level stuff here.

And like all PhD level linguists he has cited scripture.

word |wərd|
noun
a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.
• a single distinct conceptual unit of language, comprising inflected and variant forms.
• (usu. words) something that someone says or writes; a remark or piece of information : his grandfather's words had been meant kindly | a word of warning.
• speech as distinct from action : he conforms in word and deed to the values of a society that he rejects.
• [with negative ] ( a word) even the smallest amount of something spoken or written : don't believe a word of it.
• ( one's word) a person's account of the truth, esp. when it differs from that of another person : in court it would have been his word against mine.
• ( one's word) a promise or assurance : everything will be taken care of—you have my word.
• ( words) the text or spoken part of a play, opera, or other performed piece; a script : he had to learn his words.
• ( words) angry talk : her father would have had words with her about that.
• a message; news : I was afraid to leave Washington in case there was word from the office.
• a command, password, or motto : someone gave me the word to start playing.
• a basic unit of data in a computer, typically 16 or 32 bits long.
verb [ trans. ]
choose and use particular words in order to say or write (something) : he words his request in a particularly ironic way | [as adj., with submodifier ] ( worded) a strongly worded letter of protest.
exclamation informal
used to express agreement : “That Jay is one dangerous character.” “Word.”
PHRASES
at a word as soon as requested : ready to leave again at a word.
be as good as one's word do what one has promised to do.
break one's word fail to do what one has promised.
have a word speak briefly to someone : I'll just have a word with him.
in other words expressed in a different way; that is to say.
in so many words [often with negative ] in the way mentioned : I haven't told him in so many words, but he'd understand.
in a word briefly.
keep one's word do what one has promised.
a man/woman of his/her word a person who keeps their promises.
( on/upon) my word an exclamation of surprise or emphasis : my word, you were here quickly!
of few words taciturn : he's a man of few words.
put something into words express something in speech or writing : he felt a vague disappointment which he couldn't put into words.
put words into someone's mouth falsely or inaccurately report what someone has said. • prompt or encourage someone to say something that they may not otherwise have said.
take someone at their word interpret a person's words literally or exactly, esp. by believing them or doing as they suggest.
take the words out of someone's mouth say what someone else was about to say.
take someone's word ( for it) believe what someone says or writes without checking for oneself.
too —— for words informal extremely —— : going around by the road was too tedious for words.
waste words 1 talk in vain. 2 talk at length.
the Word ( of God) 1 the Bible, or a part of it. 2 Jesus Christ (see Logos ).
word for word in exactly the same or, when translated, exactly equivalent words.
word of honor a solemn promise : I'll be good to you always, I give you my word of honor.
word of mouth spoken language; informal or unofficial discourse.
the word on the street informal a rumor or piece of information currently being circulated.
words fail me used to express one's disbelief or dismay.
a word to the wise a hint or brief explanation given, that being all that is required.
PHRASAL VERBS
word up [as imperative ] informal listen : word up, my brother, you got me high as a kite.
DERIVATIVES
wordage |ˈwərdij| noun
wordless adjective
wordlessly adverb
wordlessness noun
ORIGIN Old English , of Germanic origin; related to Dutch woord and German Wort, from an Indo-European root shared by Latin verbum ‘word.’
-word
combining form
denoting a word that may be offensive or have a negative connotation, specified by the word's first letter : the F-word.

Wikipedia - Word

reply to post by BDBinc

The word callipygous was not outside (your) senses and thought before you wrote it , how could it be separate from your senses and thought when you thought of it and wrote it. In your mind there was no meaning?

In my mind? Yes there was meaning. In yours? No there wasn't. There are plenty of words I have never heard or seen or thought about before. Therefor there are words outside my senses and mind. Do you disagree?

The OP challenged me to SHOW him where words were stored as words in the brain.

I did that with solid scientific reference papers.

Now he's dragging out lots of weasel worded rationalizations trying to insist his absurd assertions are true.

LOLOLOLOL

None are as blind as those who WILL NOT see.

reply to post by BO XIAN

The OP challenged me to SHOW him where words were stored as words in the brain.

Define "word".

Evidently he's still trying to redefine himself out of having to admit that the science of word storage in the brain is accurate and his nonsensical assertions are far from accurate.

Perhaps that, too, is evidence that words hurt him at an early age.

Vainly slightly fancy footwork with words does not qualify as factual assertions vs inaccurate, meaningless blather.

reply to post by BO XIAN


You don't have to talk to me if you don't want to. But for the sake of your imaginary audience, maybe you can convince them that words exist in the brain if you defined what a word is.

LesMisanthrope
reply to post by BDBinc

 

The word callipygous was not outside (your) senses and thought before you wrote it , how could it be separate from your senses and thought when you thought of it and wrote it. In your mind there was no meaning?

In my mind? Yes there was meaning. In yours? No there wasn't. There are plenty of words I have never heard or seen or thought about before. Therefor there are words outside my senses and mind. Do you disagree?

edit on 7-12-2013 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)

Write down all the words that are outside your sense and thought.
Do you think that another person may sense and think about the words you don't yet know?
How else could you claim they are words if they have not been sensed or thought of?

I said words are not separate from mind, that is why words can hurt [the person], their meaning is known in the mind.
Words are the tool of mind. In your argument you have tried to say the meaning is not in the word when one senses and thinks of it. If this were true you would be unable to read or to understand spoken language.

If a word first sensed is not yet known then the meaning is "unknown" , "unknown" is still a meaning.
This is why bully's don't use jibberish to hurt other persons as they would not be understood.
That is why when you communicate you assume those that read can understand your words.

reply to post by BO XIAN


Sir, I would like to engage the first part of your standard form argument once again. I have attempted to simplify your argument for my personal use so I could better understand it. Here is what I got:


Premise 1) Words are how we construe reality and consider and ponder reality with our thoughts and our mind.

Premise 2) Words are composed of bits of sound or letter or hand signs or other symbols.

Premise 3) Words are real tangible codings in our brains.

Premise 4) Brains that don't learn words are not fully functional.

Premise 5) Language defines the meaning of each word.

Conclusion) Therefore OP's assertions are absurd.



I am left very confused with this argument for several reasons. First, you seem to define "words" with three separate definitions so I can never know what exactly you mean by "words." Also, you have not established how your premises necessarily lead to the conclusion of the OP's assertions being absurd. It seems to be an inferred conclusion on your part but I still don't see how you made the logical connection. Now it is very possible that in the interest of simplifying your argument I left something very important out; if that is the case I would ask you to add this important aspect back into the argument. As I've said before, you understand your argument better than I do, so it would be natural for me to leave an important aspect of your argument out of my subjective understanding.

Thank you for your time in spelling your argument out, I hope it leads to some understanding.

reply to post by BDBinc

Write down all the words that are outside your sense and thought.
Do you think that another person may sense and think about the words you don't yet know?
How else could you claim they are words if they have not been sensed or thought of?

There are languages I do not understand. Therefor I can confirm that they have words I have not seen nor thought of. I don't see what the problem with this is.

I said words are not separate from mind, that is why words can hurt [the person], their meaning is known in the mind.

Yes. Their meaning is known in the mind. There is no actual word in there.

Words are the tool of mind. In your argument you have tried to say the meaning is not in the word when one senses and thinks of it. If this were true you would be unable to read or to understand spoken language.

If the meaning was in the word, you'd know what it meant just by looking at it. But no, you must learn what the word means first, thereby showing that the meaning is not in the word.

If a word first sensed is not yet known then the meaning is "unknown" , "unknown" is still a meaning.
This is why bully's don't use jibberish to hurt other persons as they would not be understood.
That is why when you communicate you assume those that read can understand your words.

If I was to bully you with words that you didn't understand, how are the words and their meaning not hurting you if the meaning is in the word? They are words are they not? I am not the one saying they hurt.

Wang Tang
reply to post by BO XIAN

 

Sir, I would like to engage the first part of your standard form argument once again. I have attempted to simplify your argument for my personal use so I could better understand it. Here is what I got:

THANKS FOR YOUR KIND REPLY and well done summary. I don't think of anything at the moment of any significance that you left out.

Premise 1) Words are how we construe reality and consider and ponder reality with our thoughts and our mind.

Premise 2) Words are composed of bits of sound or letter or hand signs or other symbols.

THOSE are 3 different TYPES of WORDS.

You can call words the smallest unit of meaning of human communication. Each of those methods encodes small units of meaning in human communication. And the neural encoding in the brain is merely the tangible representation/ coding/form/tangible reality of the words in the brain as letters on a page are the tangible representation/ coding/form/tangible reality of the words on the page that they eye registers, sees, sends awareness of in neural signals to the brain.

Premise 3) Words are real tangible codings in our brains.

Premise 4) Brains that don't learn words are not fully functional.

Premise 5) Language defines the meaning of each word.

Essentially that's correct. I might say that Usage defines the meaning. But usage is language. And common usage usually outpaces formal acknowledgement of where the language is at a given moment in time.

Twins can have a special language unique to themselves. They define the meaning in their use of their own unique sound codings of their own unique words.

There seems to be some blathering effort to define words as some sort of ephemeral non-existent imaginary fantasy flying about in the imaginary ethers--having no real impact on the "real" world and particularly not on humans or even children. That's nonsense.

It's nonsense in terms of common sense.
It's nonsense in terms of scientific observations.
It's nonsense in terms of scientific experiments.
It's nonsense in terms of brain technology imaging.

Conclusion) Therefore OP's assertions are absurd.



I am left very confused with this argument for several reasons. First, you seem to define "words" with three separate definitions so I can never know what exactly you mean by "words."

See above . . . and just understand that for my purposes here and a very practical definition in most respects . . . words = the smallest units of meaningful communication between humans.

And . . . words are such discrete small units of meaning regardless of whether they are ink on a page, sounds in the air, neural connections in a brain imaging scan, hand signals between sighing humans, gestures etc.

SHARED UNDERSTANDING OF SHARED MEANING OF ANY GIVEN WORD constitutes communication. Such communications are overwhelmingly positive or negative. Many would posit that some are neutral and technically that's true. However, in normal relationships, there's, imho, not that much absolutely NEUTRAL communication of much emotional significance.

In my experience, when the emotional overlays get to be very significant, then there's almost always a significant positive or negative meaning embedded in the words and their present use.

I could say "Your jerked hand knocked the glass off the counter."

or

I could say You're a jerk."

In that sense, "jerk" is two different words.

Also, you have not established how your premises necessarily lead to the conclusion of the OP's assertions being absurd. It seems to be an inferred conclusion on your part but I still don't see how you made the logical connection. Now it is very possible that in the interest of simplifying your argument I left something very important out; if that is the case I would ask you to add this important aspect back into the argument. As I've said before, you understand your argument better than I do, so it would be natural for me to leave an important aspect of your argument out of my subjective understanding.

Thank you for your time in spelling your argument out, I hope it leads to some understanding.

I guess I don't get the "inferred" part. LOL.

It seems foundationally self-obvious, to me.

If an evil person takes the "BRIDGE WASHED OUT" sign and hides it . . . and a family of 6 speeds into the river and dies . . . I wouldn't call that an inferred accident.

The OP has persistently insisted that WORDS are NOT resident in the brain in any tangible form.

I've documented that such assertions are off the wall wrong.

They are logically wrong, false, untrue, inaccurate, absurd.
They are common sense wrong, false, untrue, inaccurate, absurd.
They are scientifically wrong, false, untrue, inaccurate, absurd.

If the light switch is off, the darkness is NOT INFERRED--it is REAL.

DESTRUCTIVE MEANING delivered AS WORDS--SMALL UNITS OF DELIBERATE MEANING AND rather ACCURATELY UNDERSTOOD AS SUCH--to the ears and brains of children dozens of times daily for 6-8 years devastate that child's relationships, self concept, self-worth, identity, emotional expressions, marriage(s), romances, work relationships for the rest of that individual's life--often even with massive long term therapy. THAT'S NOT INFERRED--THAT'S REAL.

If folks refuse to see the light switch off and/or REFUSE to realize that the off switch is responsible for the darkness in the room, I don't know what else I can do.

If I'm not being clear, I can try again.

However, I don't have a magic cure for obtuseness. And I don't consider you obtuse at all.

WHEN the OP makes a major hook, premise of his whole argument that WORDS ARE NOT TANGIBLY RESIDENT IN THE BRAIN

And I prove that assertion exceedingly WRONG . . .

A major foundation of his argument goes out the window into the trash bin.

He can deny that. Folks can fail to understand that. It doesn't change the reality or truth of the scientific evidence.