Freethinker Posted December 22, 2004 Report Share Posted December 22, 2004 Theoretically thought is not possible without language. (The Sapir/Wharf hypothesis)So Helen Keller did not think until she was taught sign? What of other species? There is no doubt that other animals are able to think. Is "bark" a dog's singular thought? (Got to compete with Linda's boldness!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINNY Posted December 22, 2004 Report Share Posted December 22, 2004 You put in a lot of effort in your post, Freethinker. is thinking sinonymous with reasoning? i don't think animals 'think' (depending on what think means) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lou Posted December 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2004 seems to me that language is like a coding system in our brains.......hmm, thought process and language.... you cant think without language after you've learnt it, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lou Posted December 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2004 but if thinking is impossible without language, how did humans develop languages? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted December 23, 2004 Report Share Posted December 23, 2004 It is possible to think without a language, but we call it emotion. One can even reason without language, however, it is much easier to think when we have language, and once we have it, we cannot go back to not having it. It is similar to the uncertainty principle, in order to know what it is like, we have to be able to communicate with someone who has no language, but once we communicate with them, we have altered them in such a way that we cannot fully understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted December 23, 2004 Report Share Posted December 23, 2004 Linda, it would really help if you avoid those one-liners you always give. I referenced the source to provide scientific evidence to support my statement. If it is not clear, then ask a specific question. It's not useful to start blabbing on about a point that may require no eplanation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINNY Posted December 23, 2004 Report Share Posted December 23, 2004 Linda, the thing is, I mentioned your point already. So I wondered why you would repeat it, and with all that big text size. Anyway, no need to quarrel. :D It is possible to think without a language, but we call it emotion. One can even reason without language, however, it is much easier to think when we have language, and once we have it, we cannot go back to not having it. It is similar to the uncertainty principle, in order to know what it is like, we have to be able to communicate with someone who has no language, but once we communicate with them, we have altered them in such a way that we cannot fully understand.I don't think emotion is thinking. When we don't reason out something, that's what we call an emotional response. It cancels out each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted December 23, 2004 Report Share Posted December 23, 2004 Do you consider thinking and reasoning to be the same thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted December 23, 2004 Report Share Posted December 23, 2004 but if thinking is impossible without language, how did humans develop languages?Yes, sounds like the old chicken/ egg thing. Development of language obviously required thinking. But if we could not think first, how could we develop language so that we could think? Sounds internally self contradictory to me. I find perhaps we need to differentiate between thinking and conscious awareness. Perhaps thinking does not require language, but to be aware of our thoughts we have to "tell" ourselves about them and that is where language comes in. So perhaps it is more accurate to say "Consciousness requires language", but thought does not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted December 23, 2004 Report Share Posted December 23, 2004 I don't think emotion is thinking. When we don't reason out something, that's what we call an emotional response. It cancels out each other.Again it seems to be a distinction between thinking and other aspects, such as in this case "reasoning". Can we think irrationally (not reasoned)? Thus emotions would be thinking, just not correctly reasoned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted December 23, 2004 Report Share Posted December 23, 2004 Do you consider thinking and reasoning to be the same thing?I would suggest that "reasoning" is a form of thinking. As sprinting is a form of running. We can run wothoout sprinting, but if we sprint we are running. We can think without using "reason", but if we apply reason, we are thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lou Posted December 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2004 can human think logically without language?to think logically, one will need a concept of things that happen before, and things that happen after. if there is nothing to describe the things..... how can one think logically?if there is something to decribe a thing... wouldnt we call it a form of language? if the description is a random picture...... how is it a description?if the description is a form of irrational sound... thats not a description either. if the pictures and sound are not random but follow a certain pattern.... wouldnt it be language? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted December 24, 2004 Report Share Posted December 24, 2004 So perhaps it is more accurate to say "Consciousness requires language", but thought does not. You cannot think about anything if you don't have a "word" for it. If an equivalent of the word for ten (10) is not in your language, you cannot count to ten. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINNY Posted December 24, 2004 Report Share Posted December 24, 2004 Do you consider thinking and reasoning to be the same thing?Again it seems to be a distinction between thinking and other aspects, such as in this case "reasoning". Can we think irrationally (not reasoned)? Thus emotions would be thinking, just not correctly reasoned.It seems to imply that thinking is an 'action of the mind'.can human think logically without language?to think logically, one will need a concept of things that happen before, and things that happen after.and also understand spatial concepts. like what is above and what is below.if there is nothing to describe the things..... how can one think logically?if there is something to decribe a thing... wouldnt we call it a form of language? if the description is a random picture...... how is it a description?if the description is a form of irrational sound... thats not a description either. if the pictures and sound are not random but follow a certain pattern.... wouldnt it be language?so language is some sort of organized thought?it gets difficult to differentiate language, logic, reasoning, thinking. language is thinking, thinking is reasoning, reasoning is logical. You cannot think about anything if you don't have a "word" for it. If an equivalent of the word for ten (10) is not in your language, you cannot count to ten.inability to count does not mean one cannot think. might be useful to have this from wikipedia:most would agree that language is a system of communication or reasoning using representation along with metaphor and some manner of logical grammar all of which presuppose a historical and at least temporarily transcendent standard or truth from which it is derived. Many languages use gestures, sounds, symbols, or words, and aim at communicating concepts, ideas, meanings, and thoughts, though the problem of linguistic vagueness often rears its head when we try to distinguish between these aspects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted December 24, 2004 Report Share Posted December 24, 2004 Language is any symbol that is used to represent a real world counterpart. Thus, in order to think beyond here and now, one needs to symbolize something internally, but to think in the here and now, no mind representation is necessary. When moving through the jungle, if you are attacked by a tiger, you don't think "Tiger! Run!" you just do it, there is no need to symbolize. But later on, when reflecting on the attack which you successfully escaped, you need to symbolize the tiger, hence language. For most living things, there is no problem living entirely in the here and now, but for humans, we plan for the future and learn from the past, as soon as we've done that, we have an internal language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINNY Posted December 24, 2004 Report Share Posted December 24, 2004 Language is any symbol that is used to represent a real world counterpart. Thus, in order to think beyond here and now, one needs to symbolize something internally, but to think in the here and now, no mind representation is necessary. When moving through the jungle, if you are attacked by a tiger, you don't think "Tiger! Run!" you just do it, there is no need to symbolize.maybe you are just not aware of it. say for instance a toddler was in front of a tiger. he doesn't run from it. unless he has learned that tigers can be harmful. so your example would not be accurate because that person has already learned and applied symbolic representative to act based on past experience. But later on, when reflecting on the attack which you successfully escaped, you need to symbolize the tiger, hence language. For most living things, there is no problem living entirely in the here and now, but for humans, we plan for the future and learn from the past, as soon as we've done that, we have an internal language. you are implying humans are special. animals also plan ahead. they conserve food, some hibernate, and actually, animals learn from the past. Ever heard of Pavlov's dogs? or the pigeons of Skinner? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted December 24, 2004 Report Share Posted December 24, 2004 By most living things, I meant mostly plants, single celled organisms, and similar things, which don't appear to learn or plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.