[aaron-xp]

Can we as humans ever think without language?

I can already think of some problems when dealing with this question (like the definition of language and thinking), but I'd really like to find your opinions on this.

 

[xnothingpoetic]

This question had always come to my mind once every few years in my life for as long as I can remember.

When ever I look at my dog or a baby, I wonder what their thinking procsess is like.

I would love to find out!

 

[SonicArmada]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xnothingpoetic /img/forum/go_quote.gif This question had always come to my mind once every few years in my life for as long as I can remember. When ever I look at my dog or a baby, I wonder what their thinking procsess is like. I would love to find out!

I've thought about that several times as well.

 

[wnewport]

yes

 

[LawnGnome]

Another field I am very interested, epistemology.

We use words to define things, our thoughts, ideas, the things around us, concepts.

I do not believe a conscious human could live without a type of language. As humans instinctively define things we encounter. And how we would individually define them would be our own personal language.

Really all languages are is a collection of definitions, and then how to put the individual definitions together to create larger more complex definitions.


But if you want to read about people who have no "regular" language, read up on feral children.

 

[Seaside]

I think a little baby that does not able to speak yet can think without language. But as for older than that... I think they mostly think with language. They may able to think without language in certain situation in very short moment. But I am not sure that's thinking or just feeling.

Something obvious is that american think with english, chinese think with chinese, others think with their own language. For example, when you see a dog, you think that "dog" is "cute", but a japanese guy will think that "inu" is "kawai". Its the same thing, but you and japanese guy think the same thing with different words in the same way. Kinda interesting.

 

[aaron-xp]

What do you think about this argument?

Thesis Statement:
Thinking is possible without language

Reason:
Language is merely a man-made method to communicate ideas, which is the result of thought.

Argument:

Premise 1: Thinking is the primary activity of the human mind.
Premise 2: Language is a series of audible sounds or written forms of these sounds used to express ideas, which are the result of thoughts.
Premise 3: The first language was created by humans
Premise 4: No language could have existed before the first language
Premise 5: It requires thinking or thought to create an organized form of language
Conclusion: Thinking is possible without language, as thought existed before language.



Counter-Argument:

Premise 1:Pictorial art may convey many ideas
Premise 2:Language may exist in a written form
Premise 3:Pictorial art is “written” or drawn
Premise 4:People may think in pictures
Conclusion:Language is simply the communication of ideas or information. Hence, even thinking in pictures is considered thinking with a language.


Defence:

Premise 1:Language requires that a proper definition is ascribed to a particular word or sound.
Premise 2:Pictorial art does not have a fixed definition most of the time.
Conclusion:Pictorial art is not a language.

Conclusion:
Thinking is possible without language, as pictures are not a form of language.

 

[FooTemps]

Well, it is pretty easy to think without language in a way... but only for material items. It is possible to just visualize any physical form you think about. But I feel that once abstract ideas are introduced, language is needed.

Aaron-xp pretty much hit it on the head for literal thoughts. It's just that once we have defined that we are capable of metacognition, we need to suddenly define the abstract which can't be visualized easily. Things such as theory and philosophy dive into a realm which is not easily pictured but more easily defined in words.

 

[unclejr]

Ah ha, so the degree of abstraction may serve as a bound for thought.

Just to paraphrase.

And one avenue for extrapolation: so, if true this would argue for lower animals than humans do not exhibit the capacity for abstract thought. Those who feel language is not necessary for this thought, then, may argue that lower animals do have such capacity.

And I also think that our current understanding of encoding in brains (wholly incomplete) allows for a necessary definition of thought as to only include conscious processes. Otherwise any neural activity suggesting, say, fear might be construed as an animal being scared, which I'm operationally separating here in the following way: fear is a testable, induceable state that includes, among other things, amygdalic stimulation. Being scared is the state of recognizing and acknowledging fear.

Do animals exhibit consciousness? Can they be scared or are their reactions of fear simply that -- reactions?

The beautiful implications of this is that particular neural encoding might be sufficient to define "thought." Which would make it a viable candidate to search for in neural activity of lower animals.

 

[blessingx]

Could language evolve without prior thinking?

 

[unclejr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx /img/forum/go_quote.gif Could language evolve without prior thinking?

Could they have co-evolved?

 

[aaron-xp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FooTemps It's just that once we have defined that we are capable of metacognition, we need to suddenly define the abstract which can't be visualized easily. Things such as theory and philosophy dive into a realm which is not easily pictured but more easily defined in words.

However, based on the above argument, only 1 exception is needed to prove that language is not always required in thinking (in general).

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx /img/forum/go_quote.gif Could language evolve without prior thinking?

Quote:

Originally Posted by unclejr Quote: Originally Posted by blessingx /img/forum/go_quote.gif Could language evolve without prior thinking? Could they have co-evolved?

Interesting.

 

[Computerpro3]

It's absolutely fascinating to think about. I watch my German Shepherd and clearly she thinks. When she wants to play, she brings the frisbee. When she wants to go out, she brings the leash. At the most basic level, she at least can associate certain feelings and urges with objects. The mere fact that classical conditioning has been proven to work on animals proves a thought-recognition process.

Yet how can all this be without a language? And if there is a language, wouldn't we have figured it out by now? And in a way, isn't interacting with humans in the manner of performing certain actions to communicate wishes/needs (bringing the food bowl/frisbee) a form of physical language?

 

[Flasken]

I think without language all the time... Especially when performing routine tasks, there is no voice inside my head argumenting back and forth, that is simply too time consuming.

 

[Computerpro3]

I have a another question:

Can anyone else think in two voices at the same time? Not switch back and forth rapidly, but actually have two equal but different trains of thought simultaneously?