« Back to Table of Content || Next »

Chapter I: Uniqueness of the Human Mind >> Relationship between mental synthesis and synthesizing language

Relationship between mental synthesis and synthesizing language

Use of a complex language may not be associated with mental synthesis

We defined a synthesizing language as: “a complex language that is intended to synthesize new, never-before-seen images in the mind of the listener.” The intention is important in this definition. It is likely that among other things, the human language evolved to serve the purpose of coordinating an attack during hunting and coordinating protection from predators. To coordinate an attack or a defense, a leader creates a plan in his mind (in the process of mental synthesis) and then shares the plan with listeners. In this case, the leader selects mental frames representing his plan and explains the content of each frame to the listeners. In other words, the leader uses language to synthesize the frames in the mind of his listeners. The frames synthesized in the minds of the listeners are identical copies of the frames in the mind of the speaker. Thus the complex human language evolved to serve the purposes of synthesizing new images in the minds of the listeners.

However, we have to consider other uses of complex human language. Sometimes the speaker may not have any plan in his mind. The speaker may never have synthesized the new images that he is describing to the listeners. A speech or a song can be simply learned by heart and can synthesize a flood of new images in the mind of a listener. Indeed, the speaker may be no more intelligent than a tape recorder. Thus, in some cases, the complex speech may not be a consequence of mental synthesis. Rather it could be the result of training.

When animals’ speech is interpreted by their trainers, there is a danger of giving an animal more credit than the animal deserves. It is possible that the trainer could react to an animal’s words by synthesizing a never-before-seen image in his or her mind and therefore interpret the animal’s message as an indication of mental synthesis in the animal’s mind. This type of Clever Hans effect should be carefully avoided in experiments with animals [2].

Synthesizing language normally aids mental synthesis in one’s mind

Synthesizing language is closely related to mental synthesis. In a normal brain the flow of words is usually complemented by a string of associated images, and construction of new images in the mind is followed by a string of associated words (see the diagram below).

In fact, a synthesizing language can aid in planning of a solution. Consider the process of speech writing. You start with an idea. You synthesize a new mental image until it represents your idea. In that process you are aided by associations between images (visual memory). If you are describing apples, your associations could be “an apple tree”, “a meadow”, “an orchard”, “a sunny day”. However, when you write the words that represent your idea, you are aided by associations between words. For example, the word “great”, as in “great apples”, can be associated with words “great country”, “great people”, “great president”, etc. These words are, in turn, associated with more images, and so on. By generating more associations, the synthesizing language enriches the mental synthesis. You could start by thinking and speaking about “great apples” and then switch to thinking about “the great country”. However, it is wrong to think that a flow of words must always accompany the flow of images.

The use of a synthesizing language is not necessary for mental synthesis

Humans do not need to use a synthesizing language to aid mental synthesis. Pure mental synthesis in the absence of any language is possible. To try it on your own, continuously say “uuuuuuuuuuu”, while closing your eyes and visually planning an escape from your office in the case of fire.

Did you like the feeling? It probably felt unusual to not have the flow of words corresponding to the flow of images. However you were able to plan your escape without the use of language. Thus you were able to use mental synthesis without concurrently using synthesizing language.

Sometimes pure mental images arise spontaneously when the linguistic part of the brain is busy talking about something else. When I am reading books to my sons, I sometimes notice that my thoughts are elsewhere. In other words, I am able to read a book aloud and think of something else. Notice that, in this case, the flow of thoughts and the flow of words are completely dissociated. My thoughts are driven by my mind and the words I am saying are driven by the text of the book. Also notice that while I was thinking of something else, I was not aware of the book content. I was only aware of the visual images I synthesized in my mind. The words I was saying did not reach my consciousness and I was not be able to recall them.

These examples indicate that mental synthesis is possible without the use of synthesizing language. They are also suggesting that mental synthesis and language processing occur in different parts of the brain. The linguistic part of the brain can even be turned off by passing a small electrical current, while the subject’s responses are tested. One such experiment is described in Appendix 2, in the Stimulation of linguistic cortex section. We will discuss the neurological aspects of mental synthesis and synthesizing language in more detail in Chapter III. At this point I’d like to emphasize that while mental synthesis and language normally complement each other, they are completely independent processes. They can be conducted independently: one can talk without understanding one’s own words and one can mentally synthesize images that are completely void of words - spoken and mental. Mental synthesis and language are executed by different parts of the brain and they probably have a related but independent evolutionary origin. In Chapter II, we will discuss which process was likely the first to be acquired by humans during evolution.

Emotions in humans and animals

It is interesting to compare emotions in humans and animals. Animals have somewhat blunted emotions compared to humans. After losing a mother, a dog can be sad for a few days; a human can be depressed for life. Where does this difference come from? What is the evolutionary benefit of depression in humans?

I think the difference is that while emotions in animals can only evoke a memory of previous events, emotions in humans can be amplified by the process of mental synthesis. Upon a mother’s death, a son may imagine all the meetings with his mother that could have happened and all the things that he could have said. These fantasies make the son sad. In his sadness, his emotions may go into an overdrive mode. The emotions in the overdrive mode influence the synthesis of new images that, in turn, lead to more stress and sadness. On every turn of the spiral, the emotions are magnified and new sad memories are created.

Remember the last time your spouse was very late from work? You were afraid that something happened to your spouse and what terrible pictures your mind drew! Your mind constructed all these terrible pictures by using mental synthesis to imagine the spouse in the contexts of the worst possible situations: a car crash, robbery, rape, etc. After the new, never-before-seen images were synthesized, your mind examined them as though they were real, multiplying your feeling of danger many times over.

A similar process can often be involved in developing depression. The disease starts as a psychological disorder: one gets stressed about a problem; one has bad emotions, one’s mind imagines how the problem can get even worse. Those images (synthesized by one’s mind) make one miserable and generate even worse emotions, and so on. The “spiral of depression” can result in physiological changes in the body and one can become clinically depressed - all because one’s mind synthesized increasingly bad outcomes in the process of mental synthesis. Depression has no evolutionary advantages. It is an unfortunate byproduct of mental synthesis.