We can directly associate visual imagery with motor responses.

For example, if we see something repugnant like filth on the pavement, we squirm.

However, if we are reading a book and encounter the word "Squalor", we experience a similar response. (assuming of course that we know the meaning of the word).

In my opinion, phonetics translate into visual imagery which translates into motor response.

Visual imagery is an essential component in the neurological pathway in my opinion, even if it requires that we "interpret" the source and the input is not discrete. (like reading).

 

Is this true? Please express your ideas.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

 

The existence of blind people without significant accompanying handicaps seem to show a basic flaw in your reasoning here.

The existence of blind people without significant accompanying handicaps seem to show a basic flaw in your reasoning here.

 

I think I am on the right track...For blind people reading involves use of braille and using sense of touch as the primary input, which, i guess translates correctly into a "visual" pattern in the brain that can be interpreted (and which triggers a response).

 

For the blind replace reading with the above scenario.

Whilst I agree certain visual stimuli can garner a physical response, seeing lemons does make me salivate or somebody vomiting will often make me gag; however the same response, for me, is not true via phonetics or the written word.

Visual imagery is an essential component in the neurological pathway

Incorrect.

 

Visual imagery can be a component in the neurological pathway

True, but trivial.

¿? I always thought 'fonetics' was related to auditory perception, not visual imagery ! ---Where do you get that from?---

 

And that would hardly work in English, not a fonetic language. What language are you using ?

Edited February 17, 201411 yr by Externet

 

I think I am on the right track...For blind people reading involves use of braille and using sense of touch as the primary input, which, i guess translates correctly into a "visual" pattern in the brain that can be interpreted (and which triggers a response).

 

For the blind replace reading with the above scenario.

 

Doesn't matter if they use braille or not, visual input is not necessary. Not to mention the ridiculous number of abstractions that can trigger responses. Really all you are saying is when we encounter a word that is associated with a sense it may cause a response in that sensory area. As Ophiolite said it's true, but trivial.

 

¿? I always thought 'fonetics' was related to auditory perception, not visual imagery ! ---Where do you get that from?---

 

And that would hardly work in English, not a fonetic language. What language are you using ?

 

All languages are phonetic (except sign languages), what you're referring to is English's orthography being a fuster cluck of irregular multigraphs.

Just an additional query...consider Pavlov's experiment with dogs...a metronome could cause the dogs to salivate...a proxy for food.

 

Applying that here...if instead of reading the word, how about hearing it spoken (uses phonetics). Would the analogy then hold?

 

Also reading could be considered to be a subtle form of auditory input as we read each syllable mentally (inaudibly) and then interpret it.

 

This should (ideally) produce the conditioned response illustrated earlier.

Just an additional query...consider Pavlov's experiment with dogs...a metronome could cause the dogs to salivate......

And the smell of bacon can do the same for me.

This whole thread seems strange to me.

 

Deaf people have little idea what a phoneme is, yet they seem not to have any problems understanding things.